skip to main content columnskip to left navigation

Center for Teaching Excellence

East Tennessee State University

Critical Thinking

 

What is Critical Thinking?

A Set of Values

  • Thinking for yourself, as compared to accepting unquestioningly what others want you to believe.
  • Welcoming the opportunity to explore new ideas, points of view and possibilities.
  • Using reason to investigate questions, evaluate ideas, advocate positions, and resolve conflicts.
  • Including the voices and perspectives of diverse parties in the discussion of issues.
  • Weighing ideas based on their merits, not who advocates them.
  • Achieving the best possible resolution of questions, as compared to winning arguments for the sake of winning them.

A Set of Skills                 

  • Inquiry Skills: the ability to frame questions and gather information.
  • Understanding and Evaluation Skills: the ability to understand others ideas and evaluate arguments offered in support of them.
  • Advocacy Skills: the ability to formulate positions and support them in a manner that promotes reasoned discussion.

 

Critical thinking means more than evaluating others ideas and advancing ones own. It is first and foremost a process of exploration. Two key elements of inquiry are asking good questions and seeking needed information.

Framing Questions

Framing Questions

When one wants to explore a topic or solve a problem, framing key questions is an important first step.

Activities and Assignments
Please note: (L) Can be done in large section courses

Five Good Questions

After students read material or hear a presentation about a course topic, ask each student to write five questions to clarify specific ideas in the material or presentation. Have students share their lists with partners or with the class. (L)

Guiding Questions

Identify a broadly defined topic relevant to the course (e.g., the ethics of human cloning; trends in prescribing anti-depressant medications). Ask each student to write a single question to guide research on the topic. Have some or all students read their questions, then discuss how the kinds of questions asked and the way they are phrased would influence exploration of the topic. (L)

Pre-Research Questions

When giving a research assignment for a speech or paper, ask students to submit a list of questions that will guide their research. Give feedback on the kinds of questions and their phrasing before students begin their research. After students have been seeking information for a week or more, ask them to submit a revised list of questions based on what their research has uncovered thus far.

Goals as Understood

State a goal for social or organizational change related to the subject of the course (e.g., motivate investment in environmentally friendly technologies; improve employment opportunities for citizens in our region). Ask each student to write a question that expresses her or his understanding of the real problem underlying the goal. Each question must complete the following: How can [a specified party] [accomplish what]? Compare students questions; note how each would influence the search for solutions. (L)

Whose Questions?

For any of the activities listed above, assign each student a hypothetical identity relative to the topic. Make sure the identities of all parties related to the topic are represented. Then ask students to perform an activity from the perspective of their assigned identity. (e.g., What questions about human cloning might a prospective parent, a person with diabetes, a legislator, a member of the clergy, and an attorney specializing in children's rights ask?)

Gathering Information

Gathering Information

Gathering information to answer questions, evaluate others ideas or support ones own is another important inquiry skill.

Activities and Assignments

Facts & Inferences

Briefly explain the difference between facts and inferences drawn from facts. (Facts can be directly observed or verified, usually by multiple observers; inferences are interpretations of facts or conclusions drawn from facts.) Then have students read a brief article relevant to the course. Ask them to underline every fact presented in the piece and swiggly underline every inference. If wished, compare students responses to a key provided by the instructor.

Facts & Inferences in Personal Experience

Pair off students. Ask each student to tell a partner (or write) about a recent personal experience relevant to the course. The listener should raise her or his hand every time the teller states an inference. For written stories, the reader should underline every inference.

Whose Facts?

Select an event relevant to the coursee.g., a scene in a novel, play or film; a historical event; a legal case; an interaction between a health care provider and a patient, a teacher and students, or a sales rep and a customer. Have the class identify the parties in the event (including those affected by it), then assign each student (or groups of students) one of these identities. Ask students to tell the story of the event from the perspective of the party whose identity they are assuming. Telling the story from this perspective may require research, or students may be able to do so impromptu during class. After students make their presentations, discuss how different parties identify and interpret the facts.

Building Blocks of Arguments

In a model developed by Stephen Toulmin, arguments have three basic building blocks: claims, evidence and warrants.

Claims are statements writers or speakers would like audiences (one or more people) to accept as true. Claims may be limited by qualifying statements (e.g., Honesty is the best policy, most of the time.) or by explanations of exceptions (e.g., Honesty is the best policy, except when others feelings will be needlessly hurt.). Often an argument will advance a main claim, which in turn may be supported by subclaims.

Evidence consists of facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, and previously established claims (including premises already accepted by the audience).

Warrants provide reasoning that justifies the movement from evidence to claims. Sometimes warrants themselves require backing by evidence and reasoning.


Argument Structure

The simplest arguments present only a main claim, which is directly backed with evidence:

George must be a vegetarian. I've never seen him eat meat.

More complex arguments present a main claim supported by subclaims. For instance, a writer or speaker may simply list several reasons why a claim is true:

You should consider buying a Funkster guitar. They sound great, they're very playable, and they're a good buy for the money.

Still more complex arguments present a series of related subclaims leading to the main claim:

The United States government should do more to promote research and investment in technologies that use clean, renewable energy sources. Increased research and investment would bring down the cost of such technologies, then more individuals and companies would use them. This would reduce American dependence on foreign oil and protect the environment, and this in turn would dramatically improve Americas relations with other countries.

Parts of an argument may be missing, either because they are implied or because the argument is incomplete and therefore flawed. (Of course, arguments that are not incomplete can also be flawed, as the sections on argument structure and reasoning about evidence will discuss.)


Evaluating Arguments

Evaluating an argument requires several skills:

Analyzing the Purpose of an Argument

Analyzing the Purpose of an Argument

The purpose for advancing an argument often differs from simple acceptance of its main claim. Consider the following examples:

Situation: Mayoral candidate Green speaking to Southside PTA
Claim: I'm tough on crime.
Purpose: Motivate PTA members to vote for Green.

Situation: Parent talking to teenager
Claim: If you keep listening to your music that loud, you'll ruin your hearing.
Purpose: Get the teenager to turn down the volume.

As these examples suggest, an argument may successfully support a claim yet fail to achieve its purpose if those to whom the argument is directed don't believe the claim provides a good reason to act as the arguer hopes they will. Good reasons are logically sound, but also embody values the audience believes are relevant and compelling.

When trying to understand and evaluate an argument, its wise to consider the intended audience and purpose.

Activities and Assignments
(L) Can be done in large section courses

Bumper Stickers

Assign students to jot down the exact wording of two or three interesting or funny bumper stickers they notice. In class, ask some or all students to share one of their favorites. Select one or two examples and discuss the following questions:

  • Does the bumper sticker state or imply a claim?(e.g., You cant simultaneously prevent and prepare for war states a claim; Get off my tail does not.)
  • If it does, what purpose might be served by displaying the bumper sticker?
  • Who is the intended audience for the bumper sticker?
  • Would this audiences acceptance of the claim be sufficient to achieve the purpose?

Following this discussion, have students answer the same questions regarding their remaining examples, either in writing or through class discussion. (L)

Letters to the Editor

Assign students to bring to class letters to the editor that state one or more claims relevant to the course (i.e., not thank you letters). In class, ask students to discuss or write about (a) the intended audience for each letter, (b) the purpose(s) the letter is meant to serve, and (c) whether the audiences acceptance of claims made in the letter would be sufficient to achieve the purpose. Discuss students responses.

What Do the Critics Say?

Explain that reviews of works of art, products, restaurants, and so forth do more than state whether or not the critic liked whatever was reviewed. A reviewer may seek to promote the thing being reviewed, to influence the future direction of a field, or to comment on a larger issue. Then have the class read a review relevant to the course and discuss its purpose(s). If wished, assign students to read another review and write or discuss its purposes. (L)

Speech Analysis

Have students read or listen to a speech presented in a (now) well understood historical situation or, alternatively, in a novel, film or play. Have students research the situation or give them this information. Then ask them to write about or discuss the intended audience, the occasion or context, the speakers aims, and whether the claims he or she advances are appropriate in light of these factors. Discuss students responses.

Article Analysis

Have students read a scholarly article that presents an argument relevant to the course (e.g., theoretical pieces, criticism, articles reporting research findings).Ask them to underline the specific claims advanced in the article and swiggly underline the larger purpose the article is meant to serve. (In scholarly writing, both the claims and the larger purpose will usually be stated explicitly somewhere in the article.) If wished, compare students responses to a key provided by the instructor. (L)

Recognizing the main claim and evaluating how it is expressed

Main Claim

Recognizing & Evaluating the Main Claim

In some messages the main claim appears early in the argument. Often, however, the main claim appears elsewhere. Sometimes it is only implied. Scholars try to state their ideas as clearly and dispassionately as possible, but in popular communication claims may be stated in vague, emotionally charged, or confusing language. It's helpful to teach students to evaluate how a claim is expressed, how (if at all) key terms are defined, and whether these definitions are warranted.


 Activities and Assignments 

(L) Can be done in large section courses.

Identifying & Paraphrasing Main Claims

Have students read a short essay or listen to a brief speech that presents an argument in support of a clearly stated claim. Then ask them to write the main claim, first exactly as worded in the argument, then a second time in their own words. If wished, compare students' responses to a key provided by the instructor. After students practice identifying and paraphrasing main claims that are clearly stated, analyze examples in which they are unclear or implied. (L)

Web-Based Arguments

Select an internet site that advocates a point of view or sells a product or service relevant to the course. Ask students to visit the site and identify and paraphrase the main claim(s) it advocates. (L)

Defining Terms

Have students read or listen to an argument that includes definitions of terms in the main claim. Ask students to locate the claim and definitions of key terms, then comment on whether the definitions are justified. If wished, compare student responses to a key provided by the instructor. After students practice straightforward examples, have them work on arguments in which definitions of some terms are questionable or missing. (L)

Qualifying Claims

Have students read or listen to an argument in which the main claim is stated more broadly than is appropriate (e.g., 'Fords are better than Chevies'). Discuss why the claim as presented is hard to support, then ask students to write a more qualified version of the claim. Discuss how qualifying the claim makes it easier to support. (L)

Emotionally Loaded Claims

Have students read a brief article, visit a web site or listen to a speech in which the main claim is stated in emotionally loaded language that makes reasoned discussion of the issue more difficult. For instance:

An advocate of legalizing the medical use of marijuana says those who do not support legalization 'take delight in torturing the sick and dying.'

Explore how the language in which a claim is expressed might influence a discussion about the subject. Then help students rephrase the claim in more balanced language that retains the intent of the original. If wished, assign students to find, critique and rewrite examples of emotionally loaded claims. (L)

Stories as Arguments

People often tell stories in support of arguments. Usually stories provide evidence (e.g. examples) or illustrate a concept. However, stories can also function as arguments. To help students explore this possibility, tell them a brief story meant to convey a moral or lesson.(Parables and fables work well.) Ask students to write the point they think the story is making and share their answers with the class or in smaller groups. Discuss whether the story unequivocally makes a particular point or is open to multiple interpretations. How do particular narrative details related to characters, plot and scene shape interpretations of the story? (L)

Understanding and evaluating the structure of the argument

Argument Structure

Argument structure refers to the way a main claim and sub-claims are related. Studying the structure of an argument allows one to understand how the argument is supposed to work, assuming that evidence is adequate. Sometimes parts of an argument are omitted because the writer or speaker assumes the audience will supply the missing parts. For instance, a speaker may present a piece of evidence without stating the sub-claim it is meant to support, in the belief that it is obvious and stating it would detract from the rhetorical force of the argument. However, analysis may reveal that the structure of an argument is flawed, because an essential sub-claim is absent or the inference from the sub-claims to the main claim is doubtful. In such cases no amount of evidence in support of the argument can establish the main claim.

Understanding and evaluating argument structure are sophisticated critical thinking skills. To help students develop these skills, its useful to lead them through a step-wise process.


Activities and Assignments 

(L) Can be done in large section courses

Scrambled Outlines

Select an article or web site that presents an argument relevant to the course; outline the argument. Prepare a handout for students that scrambles the order of items in the outline. Have students read the article, then ask them to place the statements in the correct order. Students may work individually or in pairs. If wished, compare students responses to a key. (L)

Partial Outlines

Select an article or web site that presents an argument relevant to the course; outline the argument. Prepare a handout for students that presents the outline, but with blanks where some items belong. Have students read the article, then ask them to fill in the missing items in the outline. Students may work individually or in pairs. If wished, compare students responses to a key. (L)

Mapping Arguments

Ask students to draw a diagram of the argument as they understand it, using simple shapes to indicate the role of statements presented in the argument and arrows to indicate how they are related. For instance, one might write the main claim in a circle, sub-claims in ovals, and evidence in rectangles. If wished, compare students responses to a key provided by the instructor. (L)

Building Blocks

Have students read an article or visit a web site that presents a brief argument in support of a clearly stated claim. Ask them to write each building block in the argument on one line of a worksheet (below). When identifying building blocks, students should follow these guidelines:

  • A building block may be the main claim, a definition, a sub-claim, a piece of evidence, or a statement linking evidence to a claim (i.e., a warrant). Other building blocks are compositional devices introductions, conclusions, illustrations, or transitions.
  • "Building blocks may be single sentences or sets of sentences; paraphrase sets of sentences.
  • If a "building block" is repeated in an argument, write it down only once.

Alternatively, instructors can hand out the worksheet with the building blocks already completed for students.

Building Blocks (BB) Worksheet

Main Claim:

BB1:

What roll does this building block play in the argument?

  • definition or support for a definition
  • sub-claim: directly supports main claim
  • sub-claim: supports sub-claim BB#___
  • evidence: supports BB# ___
  • warrant: links evidence BB#___ to claim BB#___
  • compositional device

BB2:

What role does this building block play in the argument?

  • definition or support for a definition
  • sub-claim: directly supports main claim
  • sub-claim: supports sub-claim BB#___
  • evidence: supports BB# ___
  • warrant: links evidence BB#___ to claim BB#___
  • compositional device

BB3:

etc.

When students finish listing building blocks, ask them to identify which is the main claim; confirm that all students have selected the correct statement. Next, ask them to identify the function of each building block by checking the appropriate box and providing other information as needed on the worksheet. (Note: After students complete this step there may remain some evidence building blocks not linked to any sub-claim. This may indicate an implied sub-claim; have students write it on a separate BB line.) Discuss students responses; if wished, compare them to a key provided by the instructor. (L)

Evaluating the reliability of evidence

Understanding & Evaluating Evidence: Reliability

Evaluating evidence includes deciding whether it is reliable, relevant and of sufficient quantity. This section examines reliability: Is evidence trustworthy? Is it cited accurately?

Assignments and Activities
Note: (L) Can be done in large section courses

Identifying Evidence

Explain that evidence consists of reported facts and examples, statistics, the opinions of experts, and previously established sub-claims. Have students read an article, listen to a speech or visit a web page that makes a straightforward case in support of a clearly stated claim, then ask them to complete the following table:

Main Claim:
Sub-claim: (Stated or Implied) Evidence for Sub-claim



 
 
 



 
 
 
etc. etc.

If students are uncertain what sub-claim evidence is meant to support, they should list it in the evidence column without a corresponding sub-claim. Discuss students responses; if wished, compare them to a key provided by the instructor.(L)

Fact-Checking

Explain that fact-checking is a routine part of journalistic writing and book publishing. It means confirming that the facts cited in a forthcoming article or book are accurate. (For a fact-checking web site that working journalists use, see these fact checking resources.)Then assign students to fact-check a web site or article relevant to the course, preferably one with some plausible-looking facts that are inaccurate or fabricated. This assignment is also useful in demonstrating the importance of footnoting to students, who will discover that fact-checking is much easier when accurate citations are available. (L)

Evaluating Kinds of Evidence

Discuss how to judge the reliability of the kinds of evidence most often encountered in your course. Then divide the class into pairs or groups and assign each pair or group to evaluate one kind of evidence (e.g., facts, statistics, examples, opinion evidence) in a sample argument. Discuss students findings and/or compare them to a key provided by the instructor. If wished, create check lists for students to use, such as the one below for opinion evidence:

Main Claim:

Sub-claim Opinion Evidence (one piece per cell) Tests of Reliability
   
  • Authority is qualified with respect to issue
  • Authority has direct knowledge of issue
  • Authority is unbiased with respect to issue
  • Opinion is timely
  • Quoted accurately and in context
  • Complete citation provided
etc. etc. etc.

(L) Can be done in large section courses

Understanding and evaluating reasoning about evidence

Reasoning from Evidence to Claims

In addition to evaluating the reliability of evidence, one must ask whether the movement from evidence to claims or sub-claims is warranted. Certain tests for reasoning are especially useful in particular fields (e.g., tests of statistical reasoning). However, some questions about reasoning from evidence are widely helpful. Such questions include the following:

  1. Is enough evidence provided to warrant generalization?
  2. Does the argument account for all available evidence on the subject?
  3. Is evidence cited relevant to the point being made? For instance:
    • If an example, does it represent an instance of the larger point?
    • If an expert opinion, is the quotation directly related to the point being made?
    • If a report of test results or other measurements, is what is measured relevant to the point being made?
    • If findings for a sample, is the sample representative of the larger population to which generalizations are made?
  4. Are causal inferences from evidence warranted?
    • If evidence of an effect is cited and the inference is that a cause is or was present, is the cause necessary to produce the effect?
      If evidence of a cause is cited and the inference is that an effect is or will be present, is the cause sufficient to produce the effect?
  5. In an analogy inferring what is true in one case from what is known about another case, are the two cases similar in all relevant respects?

Another approach to evaluating reasoning involves spotting logical fallacies, errors of reasoning which occur so frequently that they have been named. Fallacies often present reliable evidence, but make flawed inferences from it. Fallacies may or may not be intentional. Common fallacies include the following:

  • Attacks on character: Arguing that someones ideas should be rejected because he or she has a particular trait, even though the trait isn't relevant to the discussion.
  • Begging the question: Circular reasoning in which the assumption that a claim is true serves as support for the claim.
  • Hasty generalization: Arguing from too little evidence to a much broader conclusion.
  • Over-simplification: Arguing from an analysis that ignores or understates the complexities of a situation. Includes falsely arguing that a single factor causes an effect, when the actual cause involves several factors.
  • False dichotomy: Arguing that only two, incompatible choices are available, when in fact the choices are not incompatible or more choices exist.
  • Appeal to tradition: Arguing for something on the grounds that it has always been done or believed.
  • Irrelevant appeal to authority: Arguing that a statement must be true because a particular source made it, when the source isn't a legitimate authority on the subject.
  • Appeal to popular belief: Arguing that because a view is widely held, it must be true.
  • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Arguing that because X occurred before Y, X caused Y.
  • Straw man: Attacking a distorted or misrepresented version of another's position.

Activities and Assignments
(L) Can be done in large section courses

Whats the Point?

Have students read or listen to an argument and list each piece of evidence they encounter on the following worksheet. If the argument is lengthy, assign portions to individuals or groups of students. Then ask students to complete the remaining columns. Discuss students responses. If wished, compare them to a key provided by the instructor. (L) 

Evidence Used to support point that... Does evidence support this point? if not, why?
     
     
etc. etc. etc.


What's Enough?

After students complete activity 1, ask them to write about or discuss whether the total amount of evidence provided in support of each point in the argument is adequate. (L)

What's Missing?

Explain that an argument should account for all available evidence and should not ignore evidence contrary to the claim being made. Have students read or listen to an argument related to the course on a subject with which they are acquainted. Ask them to list evidence that the argument should have considered but did not, then discuss how this evidence might influence or change the outcome of the argument. (L)

Fallacy Scavenger Hunt

Give students a list of logical fallacies, then assign them to find an example of each fallacy on web sites related to the course. If this assignment is graded, consider awarding bonus points for examples not reported by other students. (L)

Advancing Arguments

Specific expectations for advancing arguments vary from discipline to discipline (compare a report of a biology experiment, a critique of a sculpture, and a market analysis). However, the following activities and assignments illustrate ways to help students in many fields learn how to formulate positions and support them.

ACTIVITIES & ASSIGNMENTS

Please note : (L) Can be done in large section courses

Formulating Claims

State a topic relevant to the course; ask each student to write a single sentence expressing his or her position on the topic. (e.g., Topic: genetically modified foods. Position: Genetically modified foods should be banned.) Have students read their claims to the class or in groups, then have one of the listeners ask a question to clarify the claim or define a term in it. (e.g., Banned where?) The next listener should ask a different question, and so on until all questions needed to clarify the claim have been raised. Emphasize that the purpose of questions is to aid formulation of claims, not to agree or disagree with them. This activity can be done in large sections by having students work in pairs. (L)

Outlining Cases

After students have taken positions on a controversial topic, ask them to outline cases in support of their positions. Have students present their outlines to the class or partners. Others should provide feedback designed to help students strengthen their arguments. (L)

Essay Exams

When giving essay exams, ask one or more questions that require students to present an original argument (as compared to recreating arguments already discussed in the course).

For instance, an essay question in a course for health professionals might be, Present an argument in support of one of the following claims: (a) The mind-body movement in health care reflects a blame-the-victim mentality. OR (b) The mind-body movement in health care empowers people. Support your argument with examples drawn from your experience working with patients.

Burden of Proof

When giving instructions for writing or speaking assignments, provide an outline of the burden of proof students must meet in order to create a complete argument. Grade assignments at least partially on how well students meet each element of the burden of proof. An example appears below:

Assignment:

Write an essay on One of the Most Influential Works of Art of the 20th century.

Burden of Proof:

Define the term work of art and support your definition.
Define criteria that a work of art must meet to be one of the most influential; support your criteria.
Select a particular work ("X"); describe it and, if necessary, establish that it is a work of art based on your definition.
Show how X meets each of your criteria for one of the most influential.

Both Sides Now

Explain that two-sided arguments advance a case for a position, but also present and respond to likely objections to the position. Knowledgeable audiences often expect to hear two-sided arguments. They may discount one-sided arguments as overly simple and a poor reflection on advocates, who apparently are ignorant of other points of view or are unwilling to acknowledge them. The following activities help prepare students to write two-sided arguments:

When assigning students to present one-sided arguments in papers or speeches, ask them to submit a list of likely objections to their arguments.

In combination with the above activity, have the class or groups of students read or listen to each others papers or speeches. Ask each reader or listener to write one objection to a part of the case or to identify one issue that should have been addressed in the case but was not. To see how well writers or speakers anticipated objections, compare their lists of anticipated objections to those of readers or listeners.

Issue Analysis

When the class studies a controversial topic, explain that issues refer to key points of disagreement regarding a topic; effective cases on any side of the topic must address these issues. Then ask students to write an issue analysis of the topic: What are the issues? What are the alternative points of view on each issue? If wished, ask students to complete a worksheet like the one below.

Topic:
Issue: Competing Positions
 

1.
2.
3.
etc.

  1.
2.
3.
etc.

Note: Its useful to state the topic as a question. Have students state issues as questions, too, then identify the competing answers to each (e.g., Topic: Would school vouchers improve the quality of education in the U.S.? Issue: Would vouchers improve access to good schools for poor children? Positions: Yes. Low-income parents could use the money to send their children to good schools. No. The amount of many proposed vouchers would not be enough to cover the costs of tuition at other schools.)

This exercise is well suited for work by groups of students. It can also be done in large section classes by using a projection system to display selected students issues. (L)

Debates that Deliver

Classroom debates are a popular way to teach critical thinking skills. However, such debates can amount to little more than a series of unrelated speeches in which each side barely acknowledges the others arguments. The following tips can improve the quality of classroom debates:

To require teams to examine both sides of a topic, tell them you will randomly select which side of the topic each team will represent just before the debate.

To improve the quality of affirmative cases (i.e., those arguing in favor of a resolution) and negative critiques, discuss the burden of proof (see "Burden of Proof" activity) that affirmative cases must meet.

Explain the concept of clash to students (in competitive debate it refers to the degree to which opposing teams address each others arguments, as compared to talking past each other). To increase clash in classroom debates, try any of the following:

To require teams to examine both sides of a topic, tell them you will randomly select which side of the topic each team will represent just before the debate.

To improve the quality of affirmative cases (i.e., those arguing in favor of a resolution) and negative critiques, discuss the burden of proof (see "Burden of Proof" activity) that affirmative cases must meet.

Explain the concept of clash to students (in competitive debate it refers to the degree to which opposing teams address each others arguments, as compared to talking past each other). To increase clash in classroom debates, try any of the following:Award some points to teams based on the overall level of clash in the debate.

Require each speaker after the first to begin his or her presentation by summarizing the arguments of the preceding speaker.

Inform teams that any claim that goes unchallenged will automatically be won by the side that presented it.

The Critical Thinking Community is an excellent resource for research and application of critical thinking in higher education.

Most ETSU undergraduates take the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) by Insight Assessment who also provide resources on teaching and learning critical thinking.

ETSU Tips on critical thinking

Critical Thinking on the CTE Resource Center

Scholarly books and articles on critical thinking:

These resources come from "Helping Students Learn Critical Thinking Skills: A Resource Manual" by ETSU's Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, Dr. William G. Kirkwood. The pdf full-text of his text is available on the CTE Resource Center. 

icon for left menu icon for right menu