Angelo, T.A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6-7. Best point: In order to teach critical thinking most effectively, instructors need to monitor student learning throughout the term. This can be done very simply through classroom assessment techniques, or CATs. more

Bensley, D.A., & Haynes, C. (1995). The acquisition of general purpose strategic knowledge for argumentation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 41-46. Best point: Bensley and Haynes provide some specific and helpful suggestions for teaching and assessing critical thinking in a discipline-relevant context, emphasizing the value of writing assignments in particular. more

Bernstein, D.A. (1995). A negotiation model for teaching critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 22-24. Best point: Bernstein's negotiation model is a creative, well-considered adaptation of a business-oriented negotiation model for teaching critical thinking about controversial issues in psychology. Students learn to consider other perspectives seriously, and to evaluate arguments and claims. more

Borrowman, S. (1999). Critical surfing: Holocaust denial and credibility on the Web. College Teaching, 47(2), 44-47. Best point: Borrowman uses the content and style of Holocaust denier Websites as vivid examples of why "critical surfing" is so essential. more

Brem, S.K., & Boyes, A.J. (2000). Using critical thinking to conduct effective searches of online resources. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 7(7). Best point: Effective Internet searches should always be exercises in critical thinking; unfortunately, they often are not. Brem and Boyes attempt to remedy this, however, by focusing on three areas of critical thinking they deem especially relevant to Internet research and suggesting how to apply these skills. more

Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. R. (2007). Evaluating Internet and scholarly sources across the disciplines. College Teaching, 55(4), 151-156. Best point: The authors present concrete examples in two subject areas of teaching students to evaluate information on the Web critically. more

Carlson, E.R. (1995). Evaluating the credibility of sources: A missing link in the teaching of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 39-41. Best point: As the article's title implies, evaluating source credibility is overlooked surprisingly often in discussions of critical thinking skills, but it is crucial for success in any academic field as well as everyday life. Carlson gives some specific suggestions for teaching students to evaluate the credibility of sources. more

Cooper, J.L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7-9. Best point: Cooper highlights an explicit link between cooperative learning and critical thinking, claiming that the social context of well-structured cooperative learning tasks causes differences in students' perceptions of the problem at hand to emerge. Awareness of these discrepancies leads to a common desire among students to resolve them and find a mutually acceptable solution. more

Davies, W. M. (2006). An “infusion” approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 179-193. Best point: A very valuable perspective on the debate over whether critical thinking should be taught using a generalist or a discipline-specific approach. Davies argues persuasively that instructors should combine these. more

Derry, S., Levin, J.K., & Schauble, L. (1995). Stimulating statistical thinking through situated simulations. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1). Best point: Derry et al. propose a creative approach to teaching statistics, intended to promote critical thinking and cooperative learning in the context of solving simulated "real world" problems. more

de Sanchez, M.A. (1995). Using critical thinking principles as a guide to college-level instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 72-75. Best point: de Sanchez provides a powerful counterargument to the often-made claim of teachers that "we don't have time to teach critical thinking because there is too much content to cover in our courses," stating emphatically that college teachers cannot afford not to teach critical thinking. Along with this, she makes the point that basic understanding of cognitive development is needed in order to teach critical thinking effectively, and presents an introduction to the relevant principles of cognitive development in a jargon-free, easily understandable manner. more

Dunlap, J. C. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students changing perceptions. Tech Trends, 50(6), 20-26. Best point: Reflective journaling can be an excellent tool for fostering critical thinking in information technology courses. more

Educational Resources Information Center (1988). Critical thinking skills and teacher education. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. Best point: Highlights the controversy regarding whether critical thinking is best taught as a stand-alone course or integrated into regular content instruction, recommending a combination of these approaches in teacher education.

Facione, P., & Facione, N. (1996). Holistic critical thinking rubric. California Academic Press. http://www.calpress.com/rubric.html Best point: A very simple, well-explained, and easily available set of criteria for judging critical thinking quality. Does well at concretizing what good critical thinking "looks like." May be adapted for virtually any assignment or subject matter.

Farley, P. C., Magan, N., Charron, C. L., Broomfield, N. I., & Farley, A. F. (2007). You be the examiner! Model answers that require critical thinking. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(6), 392-396. Best point: A web-based activity in which biochemistry students evaluate “typical students’” problem solutions successfully fosters critical thinking and higher achievement. more

Galotti, K.M. (1995). Reasoning about reasoning: A course project. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 66-68. Best point: A very unique, well-planned exercise for promoting "meta-critical thinking." Galotti ensures that students observe and think about one another's reasoning skills in several contexts, that key reasoning skills are modeled for students before they begin work on the project, and that ethical issues around student evaluation of each other's performance are addressed. more

Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students' intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20(2), 68-74. Best point: An effective illustration of the immersion approach to teaching, in which the discipline is taught from a critical-thinking oriented perspective and different ways of promoting critical thinking are integrated into all aspects of the course, rather than taught discretely as separate skills. more

Grossman, R.W. (1994). Encouraging critical thinking using the case study method and cooperative learning techniques. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(1), 7-20. Best point: In addition to discussing the models of intellectual development proposed by Perry (1970) and Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986), Grossman provides definite guidelines for applying these to the teaching of critical thinking. more

Haas, P.F., & Keeley, S.M. (1998). Coping with faculty resistance to teaching critical thinking. College Teaching, 46(2), 63-68. Best point: This is the follow-up article to Keeley et al.?s (1995) piece on student resistance to critical thinking, and an excellent companion to it. Haas and Keeley (1998) explore factors that reinforce faculty resistance to teaching critical thinking, as well as strategies for overcoming it. more

Halonen, J.S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 75-82. Best point: Halonen brings some much-needed specificity to the topic of defining critical thinking, and in her recommendations for teaching it she focuses on issues that are essential but not often considered, such as how critical thinking instruction may affect students emotionally, or ways in which students' gender, race, culture, or class may influence their ideas about critical thinking. more

Hanley, G.L. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and problem solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68-72. Best point: Hanley emphasizes the value of critical thinking skills for helping students to solve everyday personal problems constructively, noting also that the metacognitive skill of understanding which skills are most appropriate for various types of problems is just as important as fluency in thinking critically. more

Henderson, B.B. (1995). Critical thinking exercises for the history of psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 60-64. Best point: Henderson emphasizes the role of cognitive disequilibrium (recognition of discrepancies between one's beliefs and actual events) as an impetus for critical thinking skill development, and stimulates this through writing exercises intended to invite students to compare and contrast their ideas about psychology with portrayals of the discipline throughout its history. more

Indiana University Campus Writing Program. (n.d.) Articles on critical thinking. http://www.iub.edu/~cwp/lib/thkgbib.shtml Best point: Easily accessible annotated bibliography of recent articles on critical thinking, particularly with regard to teaching it. A very fitting companion to this website, particularly as there is little or no overlap of recommendations!

Ishiyama, J.T., McClure, M., Hart, H., & Amico, J. (1999). Critical thinking disposition and locus of control as predictors of evaluations of teaching strategies. College Student Journal, 33(2), 269-277. Best point: While many researchers claim (with some justification) that group discussion promotes critical thinking to a greater degree than lecture methods, these authors? findings emphasize that this is not automatically so. more

Jakoubek, J. (1995). Developing critical thinking skills in psychology content courses. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 57-60. Best point: Jakoubek's work illustrates the value of considering and articulating specific critical thinking goals for a course, as well as designing teaching and learning strategies to address these. more

Keeley, S.M., Shemberg, K.M., Cowell, B.S., & Zinnbauer, B.J. (1995). Coping with student resistance to critical thinking: What the psychotherapy literature can tell us. College Teaching, 43(4), 140-145. Best point: Keeley et al. take a unique approach to discussing student resistance to critical thinking, an often overlooked factor which can be a powerful barrier to learning. more

King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13-17. Best point: The ability to ask good, thought-provoking questions is an essential critical thinking skill that can be taught easily in any subject. In addition to arguing this thesis effectively, King provides a guide for getting students started, with question stems that encourage higher-order thinking. more

Lee, K. (2007). Online collaborative case study learning. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 82-100. Best point: Case study analysis has significant potential for fostering student critical thinking. In this study, students in a developmental-education college readiness course showed significant improvement in critical thinking test scores, following their analysis of case studies individually and through online collaboration with classmates. more

Li, G., Long, S., & Simpson, M.E. (1999). Self-perceived gains in critical thinking and communication skills: Are there disciplinary differences? Research in Higher Education, 40(1), 43-60. Best point: The authors cite academic and social integration into the university environment as essential and complementary contributors to student perceptions of growth in critical thinking and communication, and thus emphasize collaboration among faculty and academic affairs staff to ensure "congruence between institutional goals and pedagogical practices." more

Levy, D.A. (1997). Tools of critical thinking: Metathoughts for psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Best point: Levy provides concrete, concise definitions of thirty types of fallacious thought, explaining the ways in which thinking critically is a vital weapon against each, without oversimplifying or "dumbing down" critical thinking in any way. more

McBurney, D.H. (1995). The problem method of teaching research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 36-39. Best point: The problem method is a potentially powerful way of teaching critical thinking in two major respects. First, it provides students with specific strategies for thinking through the ill-defined problem of designing a study. Secondly, the instructor models the thinking skills necessary for this task, so that students have specific examples from which to begin working. more

McCannon, B. C. (2007, Spring). Using game theory and the Bible to build critical thinking skills. Journal of Economic Education, 160-164. Best point: This article describes an original and creative approach to teaching economics concepts and critical thinking (without promotion of any particular faith tradition, in spite of the author/instructor’s use of Biblical passages). more

McDade, S.A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 9-11. Best point: McDade provides a persuasive and detailed argument for the potential of the case study method to teach critical thinking, emphasizing the importance of instructor modeling of self-regulated, reflective thought. more

Mills, J. (1998). Better teaching through provocation. College Teaching, 46(1), 21-25. Best point: Mills gives a thorough and clear explanation of "provocative teaching," the process by which he fosters critical thinking in his philosophy courses. more

Minderhout, V., & Loetscher, J. (2007). Lecture-free biochemistry: A process-oriented guided inquiry approach. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 172-180. Best point: Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) can help biochemistry students to think critically and work cooperatively, without the use of lectures. more

Nagda, B. A., & Gurin, P. (2007). Intergroup dialogue: A critical-dialogic approach to learning about difference, inequality, and social justice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 111, 35-45. Best point: Intergroup dialogues are presented as effective vehicles for promoting critical thinking-oriented, empathic thinking about identity and differences – issues which are often difficult to discuss. more

Pellegrino, J.W. (1995). Technology in support of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 11-13. Best point: Pellegrino emphasizes the great potential of information technologies to facilitate critical thinking. more

Penningroth, S. L., Despain, L. H., & Gray, M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 153-157. Best point: In contrast to Solon’s (2007) description of teaching critical thinking in undergraduate psychology by infusing it into courses, this article presents an approach to the separate critical thinking course model of fostering these skills. The authors report of significant growth in the critical thinking of students in the course, which could be tailored for use in other subject areas. more

Scheurman, G. (1996). Professors' assumptions about students' critical thinking dispositions and epistemological beliefs. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 43-69. Best point: Taking time at the beginning of a course to assess student critical thinking skills and knowledge of the subject is absolutely essential to good teaching. more

Shermis, S.S. (1994). Reflective thought, critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication. Best point: Teachers can most effectively stimulate reflective thought by (1) determining what their students view as relevant problems in need of genuine solutions; (2) asking questions that highlight points of confusion or conflict in these problems; and (3) guiding students to find the solution. more

Smith, P.C. (1995). Assessing writing and statistical competence in probability and statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 49-51. Best point: A creative way of teaching statistics, with more emphasis on both critical thinking and writing than in most traditional statistics courses in psychology. more

Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2), 95-109. Best point: If psychology instructors infuse a moderate amount of generic critical thinking content into an introductory course, it can lead to “significant improvement” in students’ reasoning skills, without sacrificing content coverage.more

Stahl, N.A., et al. (1991). How college learning specialists can help college students. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. Best point: Instruction in college learning and study skill courses is most effective when instructors teach students strategic approaches to academic work, using reading and writing as tools to promote critical thinking and comprehension. more

Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 185-200. Best point: Tsui emphasizes the interaction between type of subject and instructional variables as a key influence on students' self-reported growth in critical thinking and communication skills, and names specific types of courses and learning activities that show such an effect significantly. more

Underwood, M.K, & Wald, R.L. (1995). Conference-style learning: A method for fostering critical thinking with heart. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 17-22. Best point: Conference-style learning at its best meaningfully engages and challenges students and instructors. Students learn key critical thinking skills from instructors and one another, with particular emphasis on hearing differing viewpoints respectfully. more

Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24-28. Best point: Wade effectively makes the point that well-structured writing assignments are a powerful tool to promote critical thinking: they ensure participation of all students and can encourage more dialectical thinking and perspective-taking than discussions can, if students are asked to cover several sides of an issue. more

Wolfe, C.R. (1995). Homespun hypertext: Student-constructed hypertext as a tool for teaching critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 29-33. Best point: Wolfe's hypertext project hints at the many possible ways of using computer-assisted learning tools in teaching critical thinking, and highlights the construction of hypertext as a particularly appropriate critical thinking exercise due to its being an ill-defined problem. more

*************

Angelo, T.A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6-7.

Best point: In order to teach critical thinking most effectively, instructors need to monitor student learning throughout the term. This can be done very simply through classroom assessment techniques, or CATs. Angelo describes CATs as simple and quick assignments that provide a "snapshot" of student learning: for example, the Minute Paper, in which students might write about the clearest and most confusing points in a class session. As important as the CATs themselves, however, is the extent to which instructors think critically about the information students provide, and its implications for their teaching. By seriously considering this, and communicating with students about their input, instructors are not only making good use of the CAT, but are teaching critical thinking by example. back

Bassham, G., & Nardone, H. (1997). Using the film JFK to teach critical thinking. College Teaching, 45(1), 10-13.

Best point: An effective use of a popular film to teach critical thinking, and to underscore its importance for everyday life. In particular, the film is used to help students in distinguishing propaganda from objective, accurate representation of events. After viewing JFK, students research President Kennedy?s assassination using a variety of information sources, and present their findings in class. In so doing, students realize (invariably, the authors claim) that rather than being a serious historical record, JFK is fictionalized, biased propaganda. More generally, they recognize how easily one can be fooled into believing that the portrayal of events by slick, dramatic electronic media is accurate, and that films such as JFK tend to discourage critical thought exactly by using dramatic imagery and sound. back

Bensley, D.A., & Haynes, C. (1995). The acquisition of general purpose strategic knowledge for argumentation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 41-46.

Best point: Bensley and Haynes provide some specific and helpful suggestions for teaching and assessing critical thinking in a discipline-relevant context, emphasizing the value of writing assignments in particular. The authors note that the processes of writing scholarly papers and thinking critically involve similar thought patterns, actions, and goals, and describe their investigation of whether students trained in critical thinking skills particularly relevant to good writing in psychology would be more fluent in expressing critical thinking when writing persuasive papers. They found the trained group to show significantly more use of language indicating critical thinking than the group that was not trained in critical thinking, and recommend such training as a part of disciplinary writing instruction. back

Bernstein, D.A. (1995). A negotiation model for teaching critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 22-24.

Best point: Bernstein's negotiation model is a creative, well-considered adaptation of a business-oriented negotiation model for teaching critical thinking about controversial issues in psychology. Students learn to consider other perspectives seriously, and to evaluate arguments and claims. Controversy plays a key role in stimulating critical thinking, and controversies in psychology provide an excellent forum for this model, closely based on the principled negotiation model described in Fisher and Ury's (1991) book, Getting to "Yes." In principled negotiation, the parties identify their mutual interests and work collaboratively to find solutions that will benefit each of them. Bernstein's students learn to use the model by reading arguments for each side of a controversial issue (such as the use of animal subjects in psychological research), and taking roles opposite to their actual sympathies. They then identify mutual interests and reach a conclusion acceptable to all members of their group. Bernstein notes that students are generally very engaged in these exercises, and report success in learning to understand other viewpoints and to evaluate arguments. back

Borrowman, S. (1999). Critical surfing: Holocaust denial and credibility on the Web. College Teaching, 47(2), 44-47.

Best point: Borrowman uses the content and style of Holocaust denier Websites as vivid examples of why "critical surfing" is so essential. He notes that Holocaust deniers, and other types of revisionists, often cloak their message in formal academic language, taking full advantage of the na?ve reader or surfer?s tendency to believe what appears to be credentialed expertise. While revisionists often do the same thing in traditional print media, Borrowman claims that it is easier for readers to engage critically with books or articles, and begin to evaluate their credibility sooner. An Internet site with appealing graphics, however, can be far more seductive, particularly if it possesses "academic ethos" on top of its "techno-ethos." Helping students to read or surf "between the lines," and to discuss what they see enables them to uncover the subtler messages and protects them from being fooled by how the messages are presented. back

Brem, S.K., & Boyes, A.J. (2000). Using critical thinking to conduct effective searches of online resources. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 7(7).

Best point: Effective Internet searches should always be exercises in critical thinking; unfortunately, they often are not. Brem and Boyes attempt to remedy this, however, by focusing on three areas of critical thinking they deem especially relevant to Internet research and suggesting how to apply these skills. Metacognition, or thinking about one?s thinking, can help researchers clarify what is known about a topic and what gaps need filling in; it can be improved by developing expertise in the topic being researched, discussing search results, and attending to inconsistencies in material studied. Developing and pursuing alternate hypotheses, and actively evaluating material in favor of and against these in addition to original ones, improves skills in hypothesis testing. Considering Website credibility and reliability, keeping searches sufficiently broad at first, and analyzing all evidence for and against claims systematically refines argumentation skills. This article dovetails extremely well with Borrowman (1996) and Brancolini and Okada (1997). back

Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. R. (2007). Evaluating Internet and scholarly sources across the disciplines. College Teaching, 55(4),151-156.

Best point: The authors present concrete examples in two subject areas of teaching students to evaluate information on the Web critically. When faculty assign research projects, many assume their students will not only search the Web systematically for information, but will evaluate it critically and be able to distinguish high- from low-quality sites. However, recent studies demonstrate that this is not the case. All too often, students do not evaluate Web sites rigorously at all; nor do they understand that many sites have no “systematic editorial review process” (Davis, 2003; Metzger, Flanagin, & Zwarun, 2003). Within the context of this problem, Calkins and Kelly present two case studies from two departments and a small private Midwestern liberal arts college, involving assignments designed to help students think critically about Web sites and scholarly journal articles. A key point is that the “general principles and frameworks” of the assignments could apply to any discipline: faculty only need to incorporate material specific to their courses. The first study required 20 students in a psychology research methods and statistics course to evaluate Internet and scholarly sources on the so-called “Mozart effect.” The instructor trained students in using specific critical evaluation criteria for each type of material (which the authors describe in detail); subsequently, students read the sources and wrote brief reflection papers on their own, but discussed the readings as a group. The instructor reported significant improvement in students’ ability to evaluate information (especially from Web sites) critically). In the second case study, students in an introductory year-long world history course were required to write a research paper on a historical topic of their choice, and to conduct critical evaluations of one academic (university-based) website, and three scholarly journals and books. These students struggled with analyzing the theoretical perspectives in the latter sources, and with determining the credibility and validity of the Web sites. However, with guidance from the instructor, they improved their critical thinking skills about both types of sources. back

Carlson, E.R. (1995). Evaluating the credibility of sources: A missing link in the teaching of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 39-41.

Best point: As the article's title implies, evaluating source credibility is overlooked surprisingly often in discussions of critical thinking skills, but it is crucial for success in any academic field as well as everyday life. Carlson gives some specific suggestions for teaching students to evaluate the credibility of sources, such as defining the question clearly for which one seeks answers, determining the most rigorous methods of collecting data, judging the fit between knowledge and real-life problems, and determining the expertise and trustworthiness of sources, which Carlson claims to be the key indicators of source credibility. back

Cooper, J.L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7-9.

Best point: Cooper highlights an explicit link between cooperative learning and critical thinking, claiming that the social context of well-structured cooperative learning tasks causes differences in students' perceptions of the problem at hand to emerge. Awareness of these discrepancies leads to a common desire among students to resolve them and find a mutually acceptable solution. In so doing, Cooper states, students must explain and justify their views to one another, offer constructive criticism of one another's ideas, and consider critically how new evidence might alter their perceptions of the problem. They thus expand their critical thinking capabilities and model them for peers simultaneously; furthermore, all students in the group have an equal opportunity to speak and to teach others (ideally). For these reasons, Cooper argues that cooperative learning is a far more effective method than lectures for fostering critical thinking. back

Davies, W. M. (2006). An “infusion” approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 179-193.

Best point: A very valuable perspective on the debate over whether critical thinking should be taught using a generalist or a discipline-specific approach. Davies argues persuasively that instructors should combine these. In critiquing an earlier paper (Moore, 2004), Davies addresses the often-raised question of whether critical thinking is best taught in higher education settings in terms of general principles, apart from any particular subject matter, or from a discipline-specific perspective. Davies argues that to present the generalist-specifist debate on teaching critical thinking as strictly an either-or issue, as he claims Moore does, creates a false dichotomy, and as such, represents a lack of critical thought about this issue. He argues that the two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive, but rather are equally important for different reasons, and are complementary. For this reason, college instructors should pursue ways of combining the teaching of general and discipline-specific critical thinking. In support of this argument, Davies presents evidence from research (e.g., Solon, 2001, 2003) indicating that students who receive both instructional approaches demonstrate significant improvement in their critical thinking skills, when compared with students who learn critical thinking through only the general or only the specific approach. He also outlines the potential of software programs (e.g., Reason!Able) for teaching undergraduate students general critical thinking skills, in a manner that facilitates application of the skills to various content domains. back

Derry, S., Levin, J.K., & Schauble, L. (1995). Stimulating statistical thinking through situated simulations. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1),

Best point: Derry et al. propose a creative approach to teaching statistics, intended to promote critical thinking and cooperative learning in the context of solving simulated "real world" problems. Drawing on the common research finding that many adults lack the ability to reason well about statistics and probability, the authors claim that their course will be effective in addressing this problem, with its focus on culturally relevant "real world" problems as the backdrop for learning statistics. After attending interactive lecture-demonstration sessions on basic concepts and ethical use of statistics, students will be required to develop roles as members of a fictional community considering issues such as affirmative action or the pros and cons of nuclear power. Within their roles, students will be required to form working groups, conduct research, and make presentations. They will also be required to step out of their roles to reflect on and critique their individual and group critical thinking skills and process. Although untested at the time of this article's publication, the course seems quite promising in its potential for helping students to understand probability and statistics in some everyday contexts, and to think critically about them in that milieu. The course also seems to be adaptable to any discipline for which informed knowledge of statistics and probability is essential. back

de Sanchez, M.A. (1995). Using critical thinking principles as a guide to college-level instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 72-75.

Best point: de Sanchez provides a powerful counterargument to the often-made claim of teachers that "we don't have time to teach critical thinking because there is too much content to cover in our courses," stating emphatically that college teachers cannot afford not to teach critical thinking. Along with this, she makes the point that basic understanding of cognitive development is needed in order to teach critical thinking effectively, and presents an introduction to the relevant principles of cognitive development in a jargon-free, easily understandable manner. Many students lack critical thinking skills, de Sanchez claims, because they have never been encouraged to develop them, especially skills for dealing with ambiguous or ill-structured problems. She advocates the direct teaching of critical thinking skills by showing students each step of processes such as analysis or evaluation of claims or sources, followed by guided practice. This strategy, she claims, will ensure that students become fluent enough in critical thinking to transfer the skills spontaneously to different settings. To instructors who argue that critical thinking is a luxury for which they cannot afford class time, de Sanchez states that "not even a huge amount of information will be useful to individuals if they cannot use this to reason about complex and novel topics." back

Dunlap, J. C. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’ changing perceptions. Tech Trends,50(6),20-26.

Best point: Reflective journaling can be an excellent tool for fostering critical thinking in information technology courses. Dunlap documents the potential of reflective journaling to foster significant growth in students’ critical thinking. Specifically, she argues that this activity:

• “encourages students to reflect on and articulate their thinking and problem-solving strategies (Fogarty & McTighe, 1993), and to identify and analyze their difficulties, produce original solutions to problems, and generate original critical questions (Clarke, Waywood, & Stephens, 1993);
• Supports effective acquisition and transferability of cognitive and metacognitive skills (Perkins, Simmons, & Tishman, 1990);
• Allows students to assess changes in their own thinking, as they make their thinking visible through writing (Dunlap, 2005a, 2005b).”

Dunlap reports on her use of reflective journaling with three information technology classes, two at the undergraduate level and one at the doctoral level. In each case, she asked students to write critical reflections about changes in their perceptions of their professional skills and thinking about their work, as they solved authentic problems like those they might encounter in corporate and/or scholarly settings. In all three cases, Dunlap reports significant growth in her students’ (a) self-perceptions of lifelong learning skills; (b) professional self-efficacy; and (c) perceptions of their abilities to contribute to research and scholarly writing in their fields. Additionally, she describes the ways in which she structured journal assignments to capture students’ thinking about these particular aspects of their own development. She concludes with recommendations to other faculty for structuring reflective journal activities. back

Farley, P. C., Magan, N., Charron, C. L., Broomfield, N. I., & Farley, A. F. (2007). You be the examiner! Model answers that require critical thinking. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(6),392-396.

Best point: A web-based activity in which biochemistry students evaluate “typical students’” problem solutions successfully fosters critical thinking and higher achievement. Farley and colleagues argue that providing the “model” answers their biochemistry students request for assigned problems is counterproductive to authentic learning, as students simply attempt to memorize the answers rather than critically exploring and considering the material. Students who do this, therefore, cannot explain in their own terms what they have learned, or apply it to new concepts. To address this problem, the authors developed “You Be the Examiner,” a web-based activity intended to foster active critical thought by students about the course material, and their own understanding thereof. As part of a detailed description of “You Be the Examiner,” the authors report developing it particularly for lower-achieving students, noting that this group tends to be especially inaccurate in assessing their own performance and that of peers. In “You Be the Examiner,” students are given access to a database containing sample exam questions, and responses from “typical students,” ranging from very inadequate to nearly perfect. These responses are composites of actual responses from previous students in the course. Students participating in the activity are asked to play the role of “examiner” and indicate how they would grade the “typical student’s” response. A “Chief Examiner” provides participants with feedback immediately, telling the student “examiners” whether the grades they assign are too strict or too easy (reflecting flawed understanding of the material), or accurate (reflecting good understanding of the material). The “Chief Examiner’s” feedback also refers students to textbook readings that will help them improve their understanding of the material. Although the authors had only used “You Be the Examiner” for two years by the time of this publication, they report encouraging feedback. Students have reported that judging the “typical student” answers helped them to think more actively and critically about the material, rather than to just seek the single correct answer. Additionally, the authors report that students who participated in the activity multiple times, over multiple course topics, were likelier to earn A’s and B’s than those who did not participate, or did so only once. Notably, this was independent of whether students had high or low GPAs when they began the course. back

Lee, K. (2007). Online collaborative case study learning. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2),82-100.

Best point: Case study analysis has significant potential for fostering student critical thinking. In this study, students in a developmental-education college readiness course showed significant improvement in critical thinking test scores, following their analysis of case studies individually and through online collaboration with classmates. Lee opens with the argument that critical thinking ability is essential for college students to (a) manage the increasingly complex and growing amount of information to which they are exposed, and (b) make a successful transition from college/university life to the workplace. However, she notes that students do not automatically develop critical thinking skills simply by being in college, and that “few empirical studies investigating critical thinking development in undergraduate students exist (Pithers, 2000).” Lee notes, quite correctly, that part of the challenge of teaching – and studying – critical thinking lies in defining it. Her definition is from Vanderstoep and Pintrich (2003): “The ability to use acquired knowledge in flexible and meaningful ways, through understanding the problem or issue, evaluating evidence, considering multiple perspectives, and taking a position.” For an operational definition, she turns to Facione & Facione (1994), who highlight (a) accurate interpretation of evidence (including statistics and graphics), (b) identification of salient arguments and counterarguments, (c) thoughtful analysis and evaluation of major alternative viewpoints, (d) drawing of warranted, fair, and valid conclusions, (e) justification of key results and procedures, and (f) fair-minded following of the logical train of evidence and results. Additionally, she highlights a frequently overlooked – but essential – point about critical thinking: it is hard work, and people must practice it, with feedback, in order to improve their skills. Lee argues that case-based learning is an effective method for doing exactly this, citing McDade’s (1995) argument that “well-designed cases motivate and engage students as they critically analyze and synthesize course concepts,” thus providing a tool for students to practice using new knowledge. Lee highlights the particular potential of collaborative online case analysis to promote student critical thinking, through interaction managed by a structured (and usually instructor-moderated) discussion board. Because this helps students manage and keep track easily of topics discussed, they are free to focus on writing critical and reflective responses to cases and to classmates’ comments. The present study examined the growth in critical thinking of 83 undergraduates in four sections of a developmental education class on reflective learning in higher education, as they analyzed one case per week for five weeks. The cases were drawn from the course texts, and dealt with the same college success and study skill topics that the participants were expected to learn. Students’ pre- and post-tests consisted of a written case analysis, similar to those they would be working on in class. Lee (the instructor) provided in-class training in the analysis process to both the control and experimental groups, beginning with returning student pre-tests and asking them to identify how they had thought through the cases. Specifically, students learned Koop’s (1984) steps for problem analysis: (1) identify the problem; (2) determine its underlying causes and symptoms; (3) identify their tacit assumptions about the problem and whether they are justified; (4) brainstorm and list resolution strategies; (5) evaluate each of these and choose the three most likely to be effective; and (6) provide a rationale for these choices. Students in the experimental group analyzed cases using these steps on the online discussion board; those in the control group did so individually. All of the study materials are included in the appendix. Both groups demonstrated significant gains in critical thinking from pretest to post-test, with no significant difference between the groups. This means that collaborative case analysis did not foster more growth in critical thinking than did individual analysis. Lee’s study provides evidence that case study analysis, involving material that engages students, direct instruction in the process of analysis, and timely, meaningful feedback from instructors, can help even academically at-risk undergraduate students improve their critical thinking skills within a semester. back

McCannon, B. C. (2007, Spring). Using game theory and the Bible to build critical thinking skills. Journal of Economic Education, 160-164.

Best point: This article describes an original and creative approach to teaching economics concepts and critical thinking (without promotion of any particular faith tradition, in spite of the author/instructor’s use of Biblical passages). McCannon shows his students how to frame passages from the Old Testament in terms of specific game-theoretic concepts, and how to analyze the behavior of the actors critically from this perspective. In this manner, McCannon reports that students improve their critical thinking abilities regarding economically-related behaviors, and come to understand that economic concepts such as game theory have broad applications across disciplines. He emphasizes, in fact, that his use of Biblical passages is only one illustration of this approach to teaching critical thinking about economic concepts, and encourages educators to apply it to texts in literature, history, and other subject areas. To facilitate this, in fact, he describes his students’ use of other subject matter in preparing term papers for his course. back

Minderhout, V., & Loetscher, J. (2007). Lecture-free biochemistry: A process-oriented guided inquiry approach. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 172-180.

Best point: Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) can help biochemistry students to think critically and work cooperatively, without the use of lectures. The authors present an evaluation of their use of  Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) model in their year-long biochemistry course sequence at Seattle University. They describe this approach as promoting “learning of course content, while simultaneously developing in students important process skills including information processing, critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, and communication.” It was developed originally for use in chemistry courses, and more information is available at www.pogil.org. The authors designed 30 class activities intended to help promote students’ conceptual development and problem-solving, within single class periods. (This distinguishes their application of POGIL from problem-based or case-based instruction, which are similar, but require multiple class periods or even entire terms to produce significant gains in students’ higher-order thinking.) The authors report that their students, after completing these courses, not only perform better in terms of their knowledge of course content, critical thinking, and communication with classmates, but they also become more aware of their skill levels in these areas. The authors argue that POGIL is particularly well-suited to the challenges involved in learning biochemistry, particularly the highly dynamic and expanding knowledge base in that field. This means that (a) instructors cannot possibly teach everything about biochemistry, and (b) students must bring in a solid foundational knowledge of biology and chemistry, in preparation for applying this to new problems. For such application to foster critical thinking, timely and high-quality feedback from instructors is essential. A typical POGIL activity involves the introduction of a biochemical model, with faculty guiding students through understanding its underlying principles by asking a series of structured, Socratic-style questions. Students are required to prepare for these sessions in advance, by outlining relevant text chapters. In class, they work in groups to solve a problem requiring application of their knowledge to the new model and concepts. To facilitate this process, instructors coach students in principles of cooperative learning, and each individual student is responsible for turning in his or her own work as well as part of the group project. In addition to providing Socratic-style guidance to students in thinking critically about the course material, instructors also coach them in reflecting critically on the group problem-solving process. This stems from the instructor/authors’ expectation – and experience -- that many students are not used to science courses taught with an exclusively POGIL/cooperative learning orientation, and without lectures. Students report finding this coaching quite helpful, along with the instructors’ sharing of the “words of wisdom” from students who previously completed the courses successfully. Students in the POGIL sections of this course have also reported greater confidence in their knowledge of biochemistry and in their abilities to think critically in the field, compared to students in traditional lecture-based sections at the same institution. The authors’ examination of several years’ worth of data reveals that students in POGIL biochemistry sections tend to earn higher test scores and grades. back

Nagda, B. A., & Gurin, P. (2007). Intergroup dialogue: A critical-dialogic approach to learning about difference, inequality, and social justice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 111,35-45.

Best point: Intergroup dialogues are presented as effective vehicles for promoting critical thinking-oriented, empathic thinking about identity and differences – issues which are often difficult to discuss. Intergroup dialogue, or IGD, brings together groups of 12-16 students of various ethnicities, genders, SES groups, and other identities, for the purpose of honest but respectful discussion of the relationship between identity and experience. The IGDs are designed, and expected, to foster critical and empathic thinking about issues of discrimination, diversity, and social justice. The following aspects of IGDs are particularly crucial to this: suspense of judgment, deep listening, identifying assumptions, and reflective inquiry, or asking thoughtful questions (Weiler, 1994; cited in Nagda & Gurin, 2007). The authors note that the activity requires skilled facilitators to guide students in these processes, and in navigating conflicts constructively, seeing them as opportunities to build greater understanding. In discussing their research on IGDs over the past 10 years, the authors note that students who have participated report: a greater and more personal understanding of inequality, and the dynamics of privilege and oppression, along with greater comfort in discussing these issues even when conflicts arise; more interest in campus and national politics; a greater appreciation for critical thought and discussion; and more confidence in their abilities to “challenge oppressive remarks and actions, and build alliances for social justice.” The authors conclude with a description of a multi-university study of IGDs. back

Penningroth, S. L., Despain, L. H., & Gray, M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3),153-157.

Best point: In contrast to Solon’s (2007) description of teaching critical thinking in undergraduate psychology by infusing it into courses, this article presents an approach to the separate critical thinking course model of fostering these skills. The authors report of significant growth in the critical thinking of students in the course, which could be tailored for use in other subject areas. The authors report success with a one-credit course specifically designed to highlight key critical thinking skills for psychology. They highlight a key set of critical thinking skills identified as especially important for psychology students: the ability to evaluate claims about psychological issues by applying scientific concepts, including falsifiability of theories and hypotheses, and discerning correlation from causation (Lawson, 1999; cited in Penningroth et al., 2007). The authors wanted to determine the effectiveness of their university’s one-credit course in psychological science in improving student critical thinking, above and beyond the general psychology course. To that end, they compared the scores on Lawson et al.’s (1999) Psychological Critical Thinking Exam of 47 undergraduates enrolled in this course, either concurrently with or after general psychology, with those of 119 undergraduates taking only general psychology. Despite the unequal sizes, the groups were similar in terms of gender proportion and class standing: i.e., most were first- and second-year students. The group taking the psychological science course, however, had a much higher proportion of psychology majors. The psychological science course met for one 50-minute class session per week, with each class devoted to a specific principle of critical thinking applications to psychology. Students engaged regularly in small-group discussions in class, and wrote a brief final paper involving critical comparison and evaluation of several studies. The general psychology course was a traditional lecture-based course, meeting three hours per week, in which students were assessed with multiple-choice exams. This course included some instruction in critical thinking for psychology, but this was not the primary focus. Comparisons of the two groups’ pre- and post-course scores on the Psychological Critical Thinking Exam indicated significant improvement in critical thinking skills for both groups, but greater in the psychological science course group. Although the authors acknowledge that their data did not allow them to pinpoint specific features of that course that may have been especially effective in fostering critical thinking, they offer the following recommendations for other instructors looking to integrate “key techniques” of the psychological science course: (1) Ensure that students build the required subject matter knowledge about which they are expected to think critically; (2) Use active learning techniques such as small group discussions, along with timely and meaningful feedback from instructors; (3) Incorporate ample opportunities for students to apply critical thinking skills to the subject matter. back

Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2),95-109.

Best point: If psychology instructors infuse a moderate amount of generic critical thinking content into an introductory course, it can lead to “significant improvement” in students’ reasoning skills, without sacrificing content coverage. “Generic” critical thinking skills are those that are essential for sound reasoning across domains of knowledge, rather than being tied to a specific content area. In particular, Solon highlights the identification and distinction of the following: inferences and non-inferences, assumptions (tacit and overt), conclusions, precise versus vague language, valid versus invalid arguments, credible versus questionable sources, and scientific versus pseudo-scientific reasoning. Solon cites evidence from a growing body of research that student critical thinking can improve with even a moderate amount of instruction. The intention of the present study was to determine the amount of class time necessary for this improvement. Participants were 51 community college students, split into a control and an experimental group (although students were not randomly assigned to groups, they turned out to be roughly equal in terms of educational background and critical thinking pretest scores). The experimental group got “a moderate infusion” of critical thinking-enriched instruction: ten reading and writing assignments, designed to take about two hours each outside of class, from certain chapters in the course text. The assignments centered around building the generic critical thinking skills highlighted above. This group also participated in 10 hours of class activities that entailed review and discussion of the homework assignments. The instructor/author introduced this group of students to generic critical thinking skills, by using Socratic-style questioning to foster critical thinking and discussion. The control group experienced only the incidental coverage of critical thinking about psychology contained in the text, without extra assignments or discussion. The pre- and post-test for both groups was the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Form Z. Confirming Solon’s hypothesis, the experimental group showed a significant pre- to post-test gain in their test scores over the control group. Solon acknowledges that generalizability of his results is somewhat limited due to the relatively small sample size. All the same, however, he recommends a similar approach to “moderate infusion” of critical thinking into psychology courses. back