What is Critical Thinking? Actually, that is a good question. The word thinking can describe any number of cognitive activities, and there is certainly more than one way to think. However, critical thinking has become a highly debated topic in educational circles in recent years. Elementary school teachers to graduate school professors are advocating that critical thinking be integrated into all curricula. But what is critical thinking, anyway? Who defines it? Critical thinking often refers to think-ing that typically originates in the brain’s left hemisphere. Indeed, people with good logical reasoning skills are often said to be critical thinkers. But is critical thinking more than being logical? It is true that critical thinking requires analytical and logical reasoning and demonstrates higher level thinking skills. But it is more than that. Understanding logic appears to be a necessary condition to become a critical thinker; however, it is not a sufficient condition. My belief is that, while critical thinking requires logical reasoning skills, the two are not synonymous. Logic itself is not critical thinking.

This article will examine some of the current definitions and debates around critical thinking and how critical thinking can be viewed in the construct of cognitive development theory. It will also explore the relationship between thinking logically and thinking critically and the effect of emotion on critical thinking.

Ask ten people who believe themselves knowledgeable about critical thinking for a definition, and you will most likely receive ten differing responses. It seems that, although we have agreed upon the importance of critical thinking skills, we are struggling with the conceptual details.

Part of the problem may be that a dominant theoretical model of critical thinking does not yet exist. Definitions seem to vary by context (Tucker, 1996). As an instructor of Critical Thinking at an adult-centered university, I have endured many faculty debates on what we should actually teach in a Critical Thinking course.

Many definitions are cognitively correlated to Bloom’s taxo-nomy, the assumption being that critical thinking is inherent in the higher-level thinking skills of analysis and synthesis. But Bloom’s taxonomy has not held up well in empirical testing and is being discarded by many educators (Tucker, 1996).

Browne and Keeley (1986) refer to critical thinking as filtering, separating the relevant from the irrelevant. Chaffee (1985) says that critical thinking is "making sense of our world by carefully examining our thinking and the thinking of others in order to clarify and improve our understanding" (p. 49). Others (Missimer, 1990; Kahane, 1992; Beardsley, 1975; Freeman, 1993) define critical thinking much more technically: understanding argument, recognizing fallacies, distinguishing premises from conclusions, and isolating salient issues from non-relevant information.

Brookfield (1987), long considered an "expert" on critical thinking, contends that critical thinking is a process. Although his definition includes emotional as well as rational components, and clearly acknowledges the importance of culture and context, it contains the following common characteristics:

1. Identifying and challenging assumptions.

2. Challenging the importance of context.

3. Trying to imagine and explore alternatives.

4. Reflective Skepticism. (p. 7-9)

Brookfield (1987) defines reflective skepticism as the act of constantly questioning the status quo. Just because something has been believed for years does not necessarily mean that it is true. Just because something has been done a certain way for years does not mean it is the only or best way to do it. Furthermore, just because someone of perceived importance says something is right, that does not prove that it is right. I like to call this the "maybe--maybe not" life stance.

To all the above definitions, I say¾ yes. They all describe, to one extent or another, critical thinking. It reminds me of the story of the blind men describing the elephant. Actually, the above defini-tions have many things in common, although the terminology might differ. The common threads throughout most writers’ beliefs are (a) the importance of a good foundation in formal and informal logic, (b) the willingness to ask questions, and (c) the ability to see the relevant answers, even if they don’t coincide with our pre-existing beliefs.

Possibly one of the reasons that it is hard to really capture an exclusive definition of critical thinking is that so much of it is non-measurable. Two people may come to the same conclusion about, say, the war in the Persian Gulf. In order to determine who is the critical thinker, we need to explore their reasoning. One might oppose the war because he or she has a child in the National Guard and is fearful of that child being hurt or killed. Another might oppose the war because of personal beliefs about the sovereignty of nations and the morality (or immorality) of world domination while acknowledging the opposing immorality of a ruthless dictatorship. Has either of these people demonstrated critical thinking? Is there a connection between critical thinking and the development of moral reasoning?

It is helpful to examine critical thinking through the construct of cognitive development theory. Many cognitive theorists believe that concrete logic is not possible until at least age 6 or 7, and that only in the highest levels of cognitive development can critical thinking take place. Piaget, a noted psychologist and developmental theorist, postulates the following stages of development:

1. SENSORIMOTOR STAGE: Birth to age 2 (approximately). Children begin with no thinking structures (called schema) and develop them through exploration of their senses and experimentation on the environment. Significant cognitive development occurs, but children in the sensorimotor stage are incapable of logical thought.

2. PRE-OPERATIONAL STAGE: Ages 2 to 7 (approxi-mately). Children rapidly develop language skills and more sophisticated cognitive structures but are still pre-logical. They are not capable of conservation (the ability to understand that substance does not change although it changes shape or form). When water is poured from a tall, narrow glass to a short, wide bowl, the preoperational child will think that there is now less water. They are also incapable of de-centering (the ability to see things from another's perspective). When pre-operational children are asked to sit at a table but draw the view from the other end of the table from the perspective of someone looking at them, they cannot do it. Conservation and de-centering are prerequisite to logical thinking.

3. CONCRETE OPERATIONAL STAGE: Ages 7 to adole-scence. Children begin to grasp conservation and de-centering. They begin to question: How does Santa really get to all those houses in one night? They can now reason logically but only on a concrete level, not hypothetically or abstractly. When a Concrete Operational child is shown a blue block and asked "Is the block green or not green?" he or she will probably answer "Neither, it's blue." That blue is not green is too abstract. They solve problems logically but haphazardly.

4. FORMAL OPERATIONS STAGE: Adolescence and above. The person is now capable of sophisticated logical thought. He or she can think in the abstract, can think hypothetically and can solve problems using the logic of combinations. It is interesting to note that research shows that only about 25% of the adult population uses formal operations on a regular basis. It requires significant cognitive discipline (Dworetzky & Davis, 1989).

Piaget's stages ended with Formal Operations, but Riegel (1973) has postulated a fifth stage called Dialectical Reasoning. This is a stage beyond logic where, I believe, real critical thinking lies. It is the ability to perceive the frequent paradoxes in life (to see the dialectic) and to question and analyze the assumptions that underlie the logic. Dialectical thinkers "readily recognize, accept, and even enjoy conflict and contradictions in values and possible courses of action because sorting out these conflicts forces them to grow intellectually" (Dworetzky & Davis, 1989, p.360). A logical thinker can recognize and analyze the relationships between pre-mises and conclusions. A critical thinker is able to extract and examine the assumptions that underlie the premises.

When we overlay Piaget’s theory with Brookfield’s theory, a number of correlations become apparent. Brookfield (1984) postu-lates that challenging assumptions and context is a necessary ele-ment of Critical Thinking. It can be argued that conservation and de-centering are prerequisite to this action. Imagining and exploring alternatives requires that the person have the cognitive ability to see the world from another’s perspective. Indeed, many adults never reach the point where they can see the world from another’s per-spective. There is little, if any, mutual exclusivity between the two models.

If we accept, even partially, that a certain level of cognitive development is required for critical thinking, it begs the question of whether or not we can really teach critical thinking to children in the lower grade levels. I would contend that we do not. Most of the critical thinking curricula for the primary grades that I have review-ed are aimed at teaching basic logical reasoning skills. Exercises consist of puzzles, simple syllogisms, and logical problem solving (Dale & Beardslee, 1990; Pofahl, 1996; Schaffer, 1995a; Schaffer, 1996, Schaffer, 1995b). However, if we accept the assertion that logic is a necessary condition to critical thinking, then it is indeed valuable preparation for the developing child.

As stated earlier, logical reasoning seems to be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the development of critical thinking skills. Indeed, many critical thinking texts devote most of their chapters to topics like argument structure, logical fallacy, misuse of language, and logical validity (Missimer, 1990; Kahane 1992; Seech, 1993; Freeman, 1993).

It appears that one must be able to think logically, recognize fallacious reasoning, and construct valid arguments in order to think things through critically. However, one can understand the format of valid syllogisms, yet have no ability to understand cultural context or challenge assumptions. This seems to be at the core of most definitions of critical thinking. Skills in logical analysis provide the tools necessary to become a critical thinker.

In my Critical Thinking classes, I use the story of Jack in the Beanstalk to demonstrate the concept of challenging assumptions (an exercise shared with me by Toni LaMotta, a faculty colleague at UOP). I ask students to relate the story and then ask them to name the hero of the story. Without hesitation, most of them name Jack. We then look at Jack’s behavior in the story: he disobeyed his mother, he trespassed on the Giant’s property, he stole the Giant’s possessions, and he ultimately murdered the Giant. The compelling question here is¾ Who decided that Jack is a hero? The answer is that we did, culturally speaking. A critical thinker can see the underlying cultural assumptions in every day happenings. A critical thinker can understand that, although terrorism is abhorrent, it can be understood when viewed from the cultural perspective of the terrorist. A purely logical thinker will accept the following syllo-gism:

Terrorism against the US is bad.

The Islamic Jihad are terrorists against the U.S.

Therefore the Islamic Jihad are bad.

A critical thinker will not condone that act of terrorism, but will understand that there is more to the story than this simple, logically valid syllogism presents. He or she will understand that the Islamic Jihad are very similar to the early American revolutionaries; that they believe passionately in their cause; that in their culture this cause is all important; that the United States has manipulated their country for years, and that, as a relatively small nation, they could not possibly fight the United States on our terms. Saddam Hussein showed the world what happens to anyone who tries to fight the most powerful nation in the world in a conventional war. The early revolutionaries understood this and committed acts (such as the Boston Tea Party) that the British population living comfortably in England surely viewed as terrorism. A critical thinker understands the cultural context of both examples and why Americans call the revolutionaries in our past heroes, yet call the Islamic revolution-aries terrorists. Understanding the reasons for actions does not mean that one condones the action.

From a purely logical perspective, any emotion is illogical. In fact, Appeal to Emotion is one of the most common logical fal-lacies. There are even subfallacies such as appeal to sympathy (ad misericordiam), appeal to fear, and appeal to pride. Seech (1993) writes extensively about logical vulnerability. He defines logical vul-nerability as the inability to be logical about a given issue because one is too emotionally invested in it. This, again, is a very common occurrence.

However, in the transition from logical thinking to critical think-ing, emotion and intuition must be re-introduced to the equation. The difference, I believe, lies in the thinker’s ability to recognize the impact of emotion on logical thinking, and to choose the best alternative that allows for the importance of both logic and intui-tion. A critical thinker can believe passionately in his or her own religious belief system, yet still maintain a big picture understanding that it is not the only acceptable religious belief system.

Brookfield (1987) asserts that the journey to critical thinking often begins with a highly emotional "trigger event" (p. 26). These events often have the effect of jolting us out of our comfort zones, forcing us to explore new territory. Trigger events can be positive or negative, although most anecdotal literature supports growth from negative events.

In the psychological literature concerning the factors promoting cognitive development, doubt has played a more prominent role than belief. People are said to be precipitated into states of cogni-tive conflict when, for example, some external event challenges their ideas and the effort to resolve the conflict lead to cognitive growth (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1986, p.227).

Brookfield (1986) refers to the study of discrepancy and dis-sonance as "disequilibrium studies" (p.31). Piaget’s theories about cognitive dissonance also support the contention that cognitive growth is often the result of one’s attempt to make sense of newly acquired, often disturbing understandings.

However, positive trigger events can also propel one down the road to critical thinking. Formal higher education often promotes critical thinking as does exposure to individuals whose critical thinking skills are more fully developed than our own (Brookfield, 1986). Typically, a trigger propels us into a period of appraisal. We internally explore the nature of the new learning. Many times, a person becomes uncomfortable with the dissonance (a natural response) and tends to minimize and deny the new learning. We think it through from many perspectives and tend to seek others who are in the same life situation (Brookfield, 1986).

According to Brookfield (1986) the period of appraisal is fol-lowed by a period of exploration. Having finally accepted that the discrepancy and dissonance are real, we set out to make sense of it. We explore new ways to think and view the world. Many people in this phase will try on various attitudes and identities, much like the adolescent in formal operations who is seeking to find him or her-self through exploration. This exploration leads to the awareness of alternative perspectives and, paradoxically, the understanding that the abundance of alternatives often signals the lack of any one right choice. This phase is, in my opinion, the most difficult for people to endure. Existentialists refer to this difficulty as existential angst. Many people choose not to endure the associated anxiety and retreat to their more comfortable pre-existing paradigms (Corey, 1991). Eventually, those who endure the anxiety come to Brook-field’s final phase of Integration. Integration can involve radical life changes or invisible internal cognitive life changes. But change occurs.

Perhaps the reason that we have struggled so with a single definition of critical thinking is that it cannot be narrowly contained. Perhaps the fact that it seems to vary by context does not indicate that we have been inconsistent in our definition process; perhaps a core element of critical thinking is that it does indeed vary by context. Maybe we should just accept that. Not everything can be neatly categorized in our comfortably distinct boxes. After all, an important characteristic of critical thinkers is the ability to tolerate ambiguity and to discern among several shades of gray.

Belenky, M.; Clinchy, B.; Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s way of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Browne M., & Keeley, S. (1986). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chaffee, J. (1985). Thinking critically. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Corey, G. (1991). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Dworetzky J., & Davis N. (1989). Human development: A lifespan approach. New York: West Publishing Co.

Freeman, J. (1993). Thinking logically. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Govier, T. (1988). Selected issues in logic and communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kahane, H. (1992). Logic and contemporary rhetoric. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Missimer, C. (1990). Good arguments: An introduction to critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pofahl, J., (1996). Creative and critical thinking. Grand Rapids, MI: TS Denison.

Riegel, K. (1973). Dialectical operations: The final period of cognitive development. Human Development, (16) 346-370.

Schaffer, F. (1995a). Critical thinking skills: Language arts. Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications.

Schaffer, F. (1995b). Critical thinking skills: Social studies. Torrance, CA: Frank Schaffer Publications.

Seech, Z. (1993) Open minds and everyday reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Seymour D., & Beardslee, E., (1990). Critical thinking activities. Palo Alto, CA: Seymour Publications.

Tucker, R. (1997). Less than critical thinking, Part I. Adult Assessment Forum VI(3), 3-6.