The Art and Science of Critical Thinking
A Comprehensive Guide for Higher Education Faculty and Students featuring Professor Bear and the WKU Study Group
by Dr. Ron A. Rhoades, JD, CFP®
The autumn sun streamed through the tall windows of the student union as four freshmen settled into their usual study spot on the second floor. James, the shy education major from Louisville, was already fidgeting with his phone, probably checking his latest gaming scores. Maria, the outgoing marketing major from Indiana who had just joined a sorority, was – predictably – scrolling through her social media feeds. Malik, the balanced finance major from Nashville who served as the group’s natural mediator, was watching highlights from last night’s intramural basketball game. And Isara, the thoughtful accounting major from Thailand who had somehow managed to save an impressive $3,000 in her savings account, was carefully organizing her notes.
They were preparing for Dr. Bear’s Personal Finance exam when a familiar, warm voice interrupted their scattered attention.
“Well, well, well,” Dr. Bear said, approaching their table with his characteristic twinkle in his eye and what appeared to be a honey-flavored latte in his paw. “My favorite study group! Tell me – what’s the difference between thinking and critical thinking?”
The four students exchanged uncertain glances.
“Um… critical thinking is, like, thinking harder?” Maria ventured, putting down her phone for the first time in what might have been recorded history.
“That’s not a bad start, Maria. But let me share something that might surprise you. The ability to think critically may be the single most valuable skill you’ll develop in college – and one that employers value the most and consistently say graduates lack.”
James’s ears perked up. As someone who wanted to become a high school teacher, this suddenly seemed very relevant.
“Are you saying,” Isara asked in her careful, curious way, “that critical thinking is a skill that can be taught and learned? Not just something you have or don’t have?”
“Exactly!” Dr. Bear beamed. “And today, I’m going to teach you what it is, why it matters for your careers, what employers actually want to see, and how you can develop it. Consider this a master class in the art and science of thinking well.”
Malik leaned back in his chair. “Professor Bear, no offense, but this sounds like it could take a while. Should I order us some coffee?”
“Just a Diet Coke for me,” Dr. Bear said with a grin. “And yes, this will take some time. Great thinking always does – that’s rather the point.”
Part I: What Is Critical Thinking?
The Ancient Roots: Socrates and the Power of Questions
Dr. Bear took a sip of his Diet Coke and began. “Let’s start at the beginning – about 2,500 years ago in ancient Athens. There was a philosopher named Socrates who annoyed everyone by asking questions.”
“Sounds like my little brother,” Maria muttered.
“Perhaps,” Dr. Bear smiled, “but Socrates had a method to his madness. He believed that the disciplined practice of thoughtful questioning enables people to examine ideas and determine their validity. He famously said, ‘The unexamined life is not worth living.’“
The Socratic Method, as it came to be known, involves asking a series of probing questions designed to challenge assumptions, expose contradictions, and lead people toward deeper understanding (Britannica, 2023). Rather than simply telling people what was true, Socrates helped them discover truth for themselves through rigorous questioning.
“The Socratic Method is not about winning arguments or proving someone wrong. It is about jointly pursuing truth through honest inquiry and intellectual humility” (Philosophy Break, 2023).
James raised his hand hesitantly. “Are you saying that Socrates basically invented teaching by asking questions instead of just lecturing?”
“In many ways, yes,” Dr. Bear nodded. “And here’s the revolutionary part: Socrates believed that wisdom begins with acknowledging what you don’t know. The Oracle at Delphi proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece, and Socrates concluded it was because he, unlike others, recognized the limits of his own knowledge.”
“Wait,” Malik interjected, “so being wise means admitting you’re not that smart?”
“It means being smart enough to know what you don’t know,” Dr. Bear replied. “That distinction is at the heart of critical thinking.”
John Dewey and the Importance of Doubt
Fast forward to 1910, when American philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey published How We Think, a groundbreaking work that introduced “critical thinking” as an educational goal. Dewey, widely regarded as the father of modern educational philosophy, argued that thinking begins with doubt.
“Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.” (Dewey, 1910, p. 6).
“Professor Bear,” Isara said thoughtfully, “this sounds like what I do when I check my budget each month. I don’t just accept that the numbers are right – I verify each expense and question whether it was necessary.”
“Perfect example, Isara!” Dr. Bear exclaimed. “That’s exactly what Dewey meant. He argued that the essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment – the willingness to pause before accepting something as true, to seek evidence, and to remain open to changing your mind.”
Dewey distinguished between what he called “reflective thinking” and mere “thought” or random mental activity. Reflective thinking, he argued, arises from a state of “perplexity, hesitation, or doubt” that leads to “an act of search or investigation directed toward bringing to light further facts which serve to corroborate or to nullify the suggested belief” (Dewey, 1910, p. 9). In other words, encountering uncertainty should trigger investigation, not immediate acceptance or rejection.
Maria looked up from her phone, where she had been taking notes. “Is doubt actually a good thing? Because I have a lot of doubt about this statistics homework.”
The group laughed, but Dr. Bear nodded seriously. “Actually, yes! Dewey wrote that ‘to maintain the state of doubt and to carry on systematic and protracted inquiry – these are the essentials of thinking.’ The problem is that most people find doubt uncomfortable. They want quick answers, immediate certainty.”
“The easiest way is to accept any suggestion that seems plausible and thereby bring to an end the condition of mental uneasiness. Reflective thinking is always more or less troublesome because it involves overcoming the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at their face value” (Dewey, 1933, p. 16).
A Brief Interruption for Stimulus
At this point, Dr. Bear’s Diet Coke was running dangerously low, which James had learned was never a good sign for productivity.
“Professor Bear,” James asked, mustering his courage despite his social anxiety, “can I ask you something? Why do you drink so much Diet Coke?”
Dr. Bear looked at him with mock seriousness. “James, that’s an excellent example of critical thinking! You’ve observed a pattern, formed a question, and are now seeking an explanation. Most people would just accept that a bear likes honey without investigating further.”
“What’s the explanation?” Maria pressed.
“The explanation is that Diet Coke is delicious and I’m a bear,” Dr. Bear said. “Not every mystery requires a complex answer. That’s also part of critical thinking – knowing when the simple explanation is sufficient. Occam’s Razor, they call it.”
Malik snorted. “Did you just use philosophy to justify your caffeine addiction?”
“I used philosophy to justify my Diet Coke consumption,” Dr. Bear corrected. “The caffeine is merely incidental. Now, where were we?”
Modern Definitions: The Delphi Report and Beyond
In 1990, the American Philosophical Association convened a panel of 46 experts to develop a consensus definition of critical thinking. This landmark study, known as the Delphi Report and led by Dr. Peter Facione, produced what remains one of the most influential and comprehensive definitions in the field:
“We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 3).
“That’s… a lot of words,” Maria said carefully.
“Let me translate,” Dr. Bear offered. “Critical thinking means thinking on purpose – not just letting thoughts happen to you, but rather actively directing your thinking toward a goal. It involves interpreting information, analyzing arguments, evaluating evidence, and drawing reasonable conclusions. And perhaps most importantly, it involves explaining your reasoning – being able to articulate why you believe what you believe.”
Another widely cited definition comes from Robert Ennis (1987), who defined critical thinking as “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.” This definition emphasizes that critical thinking is not merely an academic exercise – it has practical consequences. Every day, we make decisions about what to believe (Is this news article accurate? Is this investment sound?) and what to do (Should I take this job? Should I trust this person?).
The Delphi Report also identified six core cognitive skills that comprise critical thinking (Facione, 1990):
- Interpretation: Comprehending and expressing the meaning of data, experiences, and situations.
- Analysis: Identifying the intended and actual relationships among statements, questions, and concepts.
- Evaluation: Assessing the credibility of statements and the logical strength of arguments.
- Inference: Drawing reasonable conclusions based on evidence and reasoning.
- Explanation: Stating results and justifying reasoning and procedures.
- Self-regulation: Monitoring one’s own thinking and correcting errors.
Isara was writing furiously. “Professor Bear, this is very systematic. I like systems.”
“I knew you would,” Dr. Bear smiled. “And that brings us to something equally important: the dispositions of a critical thinker.”
Critical Thinking Dispositions: The Character of a Good Thinker
The Delphi Report emphasized that critical thinking involves not just skills but also dispositions – habitual attitudes that incline a person toward thinking critically. According to the expert consensus, the ideal critical thinker is:
“Habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit” (Facione, 1990, p. 3).
Malik said slowly, “This is stating, in essence, that it’s not enough to be able to think critically. You have to actually want to do it.”
“Precisely!” Dr. Bear exclaimed. “John Dewey made this same point over a century ago. He wrote that if he had to choose between someone with lots of intellectual ability but poor thinking habits, and someone with more modest ability but excellent habits of inquiry, he’d choose the latter every time.”
Research supports this insight. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), developed by Facione and Facione (1992), measures seven key dispositions: inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity, truth-seeking, critical thinking self-confidence, and cognitive maturity. Studies using this instrument have found that dispositions and skills develop together but are distinct – a person can have strong skills but weak dispositions, or vice versa (Facione, Sánchez, Facione, & Gainen, 1995).
Part II: Why Critical Thinking Matters for Your Career
Dr. Bear set down his now-empty cup and leaned forward. “Now let me tell you something that should get your attention: critical thinking is not just an academic buzzword. It’s what will separate you from the competition in the job market.”
The Skills Gap: What Employers Want vs. What Graduates Have
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report has consistently identified critical thinking and analytical reasoning as among the top skills required for success in the modern workplace. According to the Forum’s research, “Analytical thinking remains the most sought after core skill among employers, with 7 out of 10 companies considering it as essential in 2025. This is followed by resilience, flexibility and agility, along with leadership and social influence.” (World Economic Forum, 2025).
Employers continue to rank critical thinking among the most important skills they seek, but a substantial preparation gap remains. In a recent national survey of more than 1,000 executives and hiring managers, roughly two‑thirds of employers rated critical thinking as a very important competency, yet only about 40% said recent graduates are very well prepared in this area—a gap of more than 20 percentage points that mirrors persistent shortfalls across other core skills such as teamwork and communication (Association of American Colleges and Universities [AAC&U], 2025).
A systematic review of critical thinking development in higher education confirms that these employer concerns are not exaggerated: many programs still treat critical thinking as an assumed byproduct rather than an explicit learning outcome, and courses rarely provide sustained, structured practice in these skills (Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023). The reviewers emphasize that if institutions genuinely want graduates who can interpret evidence, weigh trade-offs, and justify decisions, then they must redesign curricula so that critical thinking is foregrounded, assessed, and scaffolded across multiple courses – not left to chance.
“Wait,” Maria said, sitting up straighter. “Only one-third of graduates are well-prepared. That’s … kind of alarming.”
“It should be,” Dr. Bear nodded gravely. “But it’s also an opportunity. If you develop strong critical thinking skills, you’ll stand out in a crowded job market.”
A December 2025 report from Western Governors University surveyed over 3,100 hiring professionals and found that the three most critical skills candidates need for job success are: (1) critical thinking and problem solving, (2) time management, and (3) adaptability and resilience (HR Dive, 2025). The report noted that as AI becomes more prevalent in the workplace, employers are placing “renewed emphasis” on soft skills during hiring – particularly the kinds of thinking skills that AI cannot replicate.
The AI Factor: Why Human Thinking Matters More Than Ever
“Professor Bear,” James asked quietly, “I’ve been worried about AI. If computers can do so much thinking, why would employers need us to think critically?”
Dr. Bear’s expression grew thoughtful. “That’s perhaps the most important question you could ask right now, James. Let me give you a direct answer: AI makes critical thinking more important, not less.”
Recent research supports this insight. The 2024 ISC2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study found that 51% of professionals agree that non-technical skills, including critical thinking, will become more important in an AI-driven world (Intelligent CISO, 2025). As AI tools become capable of handling routine technical functions, uniquely human skills like critical thinking, contextual judgment, and strategic prioritization become more valuable, not less.
“Automation excels at processing information, but not at contextual judgment. Employers increasingly prize talent that can ask the right questions, weigh competing data points, and make decisions under ambiguity.” (Partnership Employment, 2025).
Recent reviews of generative AI in higher education echo this point, arguing that AI tools are best used not to bypass thinking but to trigger it – prompting students to question the model’s assumptions, evaluate the quality of its arguments, and revise outputs using disciplinary criteria (Ruiz-Rojas et al., 2024). When instructors deliberately design tasks where students must critique and improve AI-generated responses, students report greater confidence in asking probing questions, analyzing information, and understanding complex concepts (Guo & Lee, 2023, as summarized in Ruiz-Rojas et al., 2024).
Recent studies on generative AI in education are starting to show what this can look like in practice. In one systematic review, Li and colleagues (2025) found that when instructors embed AI chatbots in structured tasks – like debates, collaborative argumentation, or critique of AI-written drafts – students’ higher-order thinking and critical evaluation skills improve, especially when they are required to question, verify, and revise AI output rather than simply accept it.
“Think of AI as your slightly overconfident study buddy,” Dr. Bear continued. “Its job is to give you a first draft; your job is to interrogate it ruthlessly. AI can be a fantastic sparring partner for your mind – as long as you remember that its job is to generate, and your job is to evaluate” (Li et al., 2025).
A 2025 report from TestGorilla found that their Critical Thinking test was completed over 100,000 times in just the first quarter of the year – a 61% increase from the same period in 2024. This dramatic rise indicates that employers are increasingly using formal assessments to evaluate candidates’ critical thinking abilities (TestGorilla, 2025).
Isara nodded slowly. “In other words, AI is like a very powerful calculator. It can give you numbers, but you need wisdom to know what those numbers mean and what to do about them.”
“Beautifully put,” Dr. Bear smiled. “And wisdom, as the ancient Greeks understood, comes from critical examination – from questioning assumptions, considering alternatives, and thinking through consequences.”
Malik’s Moment of Revelation
Malik had been unusually quiet, staring at his phone with a furrowed brow.
“You know what?” he said suddenly. “I just realized I’ve been using critical thinking all along – I just didn’t know it had a fancy name.”
“Oh?” Dr. Bear raised an eyebrow. “Tell me more.”
“Well, in intramural basketball, I’m always analyzing the other team’s patterns, evaluating whether my assumptions about their strategy are correct, making inferences about what they’ll do next, and adjusting my approach based on new evidence. That’s like… four of those six skills you mentioned.”
“Excellent observation!” Dr. Bear was genuinely pleased. “Critical thinking isn’t some abstract academic concept. It’s what good athletes do, what good musicians do, what good cooks do. The question is whether you can transfer those thinking skills from one domain to another.”
“Are you saying that my basketball skills will help me in finance?” Malik asked hopefully.
“Your thinking habits in basketball can help you develop the same habits in finance,” Dr. Bear clarified. “Though I wouldn’t recommend trying a crossover dribble in your first job interview.”
“There goes my plan,” Malik sighed dramatically.
Career-Specific Applications of Critical Thinking
Dr. Bear turned to address each student individually. “Let me show you how critical thinking applies to each of your future careers.”
“James,” Dr. Bear began, “as a future high school teacher, you will need to evaluate curriculum materials for accuracy and bias. You’ll need to analyze which teaching strategies work for which students. You will need to make inferences about why a student is struggling and adjust your approach. And critically, you’ll also need to help your own students develop these same thinking skills.”
James looked both nervous and inspired. “I never thought about teaching critical thinking. I was just thinking about teaching history or English.”
“Every subject teaches critical thinking – or should,” Dr. Bear replied. “History is about evaluating sources, analyzing causation, and understanding multiple perspectives. English is about interpreting texts, constructing arguments, and expressing ideas clearly. The content is the vehicle; thinking is the destination.”
One recent self-study by a teacher educator offers a very practical tool here. Working with student teachers, Golden (2023) developed a simple planning framework for lessons aimed at critical thinking. It emphasizes four key elements: creating the right preconditions for learning (psychological safety, clear expectations), building in guided discussion, using authentic problems instead of contrived exercises, making the criteria for good thinking explicit, and ending with structured reflection. In other words, James, before you worry about crafting the perfect lecture, ask yourself: Have I given my students something real to think about, clear standards for good reasoning, and time to reflect on how they thought? If so, Socrates would probably give you at least a B+.
“Maria,” he continued, “in marketing, you’ll be swimming in data. Campaign analytics, consumer behavior metrics, A/B test results. Anyone can run the numbers. The value you bring is knowing which questions to ask, recognizing when the data might be misleading, understanding what the numbers don’t tell you, and making strategic recommendations that account for factors beyond the data.”
Maria nodded thoughtfully. “In other words, it’s not just about being creative – it’s about being analytically creative?”
“Exactly. Creativity without critical evaluation is just throwing ideas at the wall. Critical thinking helps you figure out which creative ideas are worth pursuing.”
“Malik,” Dr. Bear turned to the finance major, “your field is perhaps the most obvious application. Financial analysis is essentially applied critical thinking. You’ll evaluate the credibility of financial reports, analyze the logic of investment theses, make inferences about market trends based on incomplete information, and explain your reasoning to clients and colleagues.”
“And not be fooled by confirmation bias,” Malik added. “My dad’s always talking about how investors convince themselves they’re right even when all the evidence says otherwise.”
“Your father is a wise man,” Dr. Bear said approvingly.
“And Isara,” he concluded, “in accounting, critical thinking is what separates a number-cruncher from a trusted advisor. Anyone can follow procedures and plug numbers into formulas. But identifying irregularities, understanding when technically correct accounting might still be misleading, advising clients on complex decisions – that requires the kind of judgment that only comes from disciplined critical thinking.”
Isara smiled slightly. “In Thailand, we have a saying: ‘Don’t believe everything even if I tell you.’ I think this is same idea – always verify, always question.”
“What a wonderful proverb,” Dr. Bear said warmly. “The Buddha himself supposedly said something similar. Critical thinking transcends cultures because questioning is fundamental to human flourishing.”
Part III: How to Develop Critical Thinking
“Now,” Dr. Bear said, checking his watch and signaling for another honey latte, “let’s get practical. How do we develop critical thinking skills? This is relevant both for James, who will be teaching, and for all of you, who are still developing as thinkers.”
Principle 1: Embrace Productive Discomfort
Remember what Dewey said about doubt? Research consistently shows that critical thinking develops when we encounter problems that challenge our existing understanding. The educational research calls this “cognitive disequilibrium” – a state of mental discomfort that motivates inquiry (Dewey, 1910).
“Reflective thinking is always more or less troublesome because it involves overcoming the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at their face value; it involves willingness to endure a condition of mental unrest and disturbance.” (Dewey, 1933, p. 16).
For faculty: Design learning experiences that create productive confusion. Present students with ill-structured problems – problems that don’t have clear right answers or obvious solution paths. Use case studies where reasonable people might disagree. Ask questions that expose the limitations of students’ current understanding.
For students: Embrace confusion as a sign that you’re learning. When something doesn’t make sense, resist the urge to immediately look up the answer. Sit with the discomfort. As Dewey noted, that “mental unrest” is precisely what drives genuine thinking.
James raised his hand. “But Professor Bear, I hate being confused. It makes me anxious.”
“I understand,” Dr. Bear said gently. “And that is actually quite common. Research with Peruvian university students found that disposition toward critical thinking and anxiety together predict academic self-efficacy, with higher critical thinking disposition and lower anxiety associated with stronger self-efficacy (Abanto-Ramírez et al., 2024, as summarized in Wang, 2025). But here’s the thing: there’s a difference between productive discomfort and overwhelming anxiety. The goal is to find challenges that stretch you without paralyzing you. Start small. Practice tolerating small amounts of uncertainty, and gradually build your capacity.”
A 2025 synthesis of studies on critical thinking in higher education concludes that emotional factors like anxiety and self-efficacy are not side issues but core conditions for developing deep, reflective thinking: excessive anxiety narrows attention and discourages risk-taking, while moderate challenge coupled with support promotes more sustained inquiry (Wang, 2025).
Principle 2: Ask Better Questions
The Socratic method endures because questioning is perhaps the most powerful tool for developing critical thinking. Richard Paul (1993), a prominent critical thinking scholar, identified six types of Socratic questions that teachers and learners can use:
- Questions that probe assumptions: What are you assuming? Why do you assume that? What would happen if you assumed differently?
- Questions that probe reasons and evidence: What evidence supports this? How do you know? What would change your mind?
- Questions about viewpoints and perspectives: What is an alternative view? Who might disagree and why? What would someone who disagrees say?
- Questions that probe implications and consequences: What are the consequences of that assumption? What are you implying by that? If that happened, what else would happen as a result?
- Questions about the question: Why do you think I asked that question? Why is this question important? What does this question assume?
- Questions that probe concepts and definitions: What do you mean by that? Could you give me an example? How does this relate to what we discussed earlier?
For faculty: Resist the urge to answer student questions immediately. Instead, respond with questions that help students find answers themselves. Model intellectual curiosity by genuinely wondering aloud about problems. As Paul and Elder (2007) noted, “Socratic questioning is an explicit focus on framing self-directed, disciplined questions to achieve that goal.”
For students: Practice asking yourself these questions when you read, write, or solve problems. Keep a “question journal” where you record questions that arise during your studies. The goal is to make questioning habitual.
Maria suddenly looked up from her phone with an expression of dawning horror. “Oh my God,” she said. “I just realized something terrible.”
Everyone turned to look at her. “All those times I’ve shared stuff on social media without checking if it’s true… all those times I’ve believed something because it confirmed what I already thought… I’ve been doing the exact opposite of critical thinking.”
“Welcome to self-awareness,” Dr. Bear said kindly. “That recognition is itself an act of critical thinking. The question now is: what will you do differently?”
“I guess… check sources before sharing? Ask myself why I want to believe something?”
“Excellent start,” Dr. Bear nodded. “And you’ve just demonstrated another key principle: metacognition – thinking about your own thinking. That’s the self-regulation skill from the Delphi Report.”
Malik grinned at Maria. “Are you saying Maria just leveled up in critical thinking by realizing she wasn’t doing it?”
“In a sense, yes,” Dr. Bear said. “Recognizing your own biases and blind spots is often the first and hardest step. Socrates called it knowing that you don’t know.”
“I don’t know a lot of things,” Maria said ruefully. “Does that make me super wise?”
“It makes you a beginner,” Dr. Bear laughed. “Which is exactly where all wisdom starts.”
Principle 3: Practice Active Learning
Research consistently shows that passive learning – sitting in lectures, highlighting textbooks, rereading notes – does little to develop critical thinking. Active learning strategies, where students engage directly with material and each other, are far more effective (Snyder & Snyder, 2008; Golden, 2023).
If this sounds a bit idealistic, take heart: when educators actually design courses around these ideas, the data look encouraging. In a recent 14-week elective for first-year nursing students, instructors built a whole course around critical thinking, using case-based learning, small-group discussion, the Six Thinking Hats technique, and structured reflection. Students in this course showed significantly higher gains in critical thinking disposition than those in a comparison elective that looked much more like a traditional class (Elbilgahy, 2025). In other words, when you deliberately teach students how to think – rather than just hoping it rubs off while you cover content – they actually get better at it.
Meta-analytic evidence suggests that some active approaches are especially powerful. A 2024 synthesis of studies on “learning-management approaches” found that inquiry-based learning – where students investigate questions and problems rather than passively receive answers – produced particularly large gains in critical thinking, with an average effect size well above 1.0 (Phonapichat & Srisawat, 2024). That is researcher-speak for “this is not a tiny, maybe-if-you-squint effect.” When students wrestle with real questions, generate and test their own ideas, and defend their reasoning, their critical thinking improves far more than when they sit quietly and highlight PowerPoints in four colors.
Evidence-based active learning strategies include:
Discussion and Debate: Cooper (1995) argued that “putting students in group learning situations is the best way to foster critical thinking.” When students must articulate and defend their ideas to peers, they engage in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and explanation – four of the six Delphi skills. Debate formats, in particular, require students to consider opposing viewpoints and respond to counterarguments. Such dialogic, group-based work aligns with socio-constructivist accounts of critical thinking as something developed through shared inquiry rather than solitary contemplation (Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023).
Case-Based Learning: Real-world cases with incomplete information and no clear right answer force students to apply concepts in context, weigh competing considerations, and justify their decisions. McDade (1995) found that case study pedagogy is particularly effective for developing critical thinking because it mirrors the complexity of real-world decision-making. Consistent with recent systematic reviews, case-based and problem-based learning are among the most effective ways to foster critical thinking in health sciences and other professional fields (Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023).
Writing Assignments: Wade (1995) identified writing as “fundamental to developing critical thinking skills.” Writing requires students to organize their thoughts, construct arguments, consider counterarguments, and explain their reasoning. Yeh et al. (2023) found that reflective writing, in particular, helps students develop deeper critical thinking abilities.
Collaborative Projects: Group work exposes students to different perspectives and thinking styles. When diverse students work together on meaningful problems, they must negotiate different viewpoints, synthesize information, and create shared understanding – all critical thinking activities.
A meta-review of instructional strategies found that active, problem-centered approaches – such as simulation, problem-based learning, concept mapping, and structured dialog – produce the largest gains in critical thinking compared to traditional lecture formats (Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023; Hyytinen et al., 2019). These methods work in part because they repeatedly push students to make their thinking visible, defend their judgments, and revise in response to feedback.
For faculty: Incorporate these strategies consistently throughout your courses. Research shows that critical thinking develops through sustained practice and repetition, not one-time activities (Hooks, 2010). Create an environment where students feel safe taking intellectual risks and expressing half-formed ideas.
For students: Engage actively in class discussions, even when it feels uncomfortable. Form study groups where you discuss and debate ideas, not just quiz each other on facts. When you write papers, don’t just summarize – analyze, evaluate, and argue. The more you practice these thinking skills, the more automatic they become.
Principle 4: Use Explicit Instruction and Feedback
A key debate in the critical thinking literature is whether these skills should be taught explicitly or developed implicitly through subject-matter instruction. The research suggests that the answer is: both.
Ennis (2018) identified four approaches to teaching critical thinking: (1) the general approach, where critical thinking is taught as a standalone subject; (2) the infusion approach, where critical thinking principles are made explicit within subject-matter instruction; (3) the immersion approach, where students learn critical thinking implicitly through deep engagement with subject matter; and (4) the mixed approach, combining elements of the others.
Research suggests that the infusion and mixed approaches are most effective. Students benefit from explicit instruction in critical thinking concepts and vocabulary, but they need to practice applying these skills in meaningful disciplinary contexts (Bensley & Spero, 2014; Golden, 2023). Recent systematic reviews strongly support this “infusion plus explicitness” approach, concluding that general critical thinking instruction has the greatest impact when it is integrated across subjects and combined with opportunities to apply skills in authentic disciplinary problems (Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023; El Soufi & See, 2019, as summarized in Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023).
A recent mixed-meta-analysis of critical thinking training in higher education backs this up on a large scale. Looking across many different programs and disciplines, Kang and Stupple (2024) found that well-designed interventions – especially those that combine explicit instruction in critical thinking concepts with dialogic activities and authentic problem tasks – produce medium to large improvements in students’ critical thinking and even their grades. Their conclusion is wonderfully Deweyan: thinking does not improve by osmosis. It improves when we intentionally design learning experiences that require students to articulate, test, and revise their reasoning.
For faculty: Name and describe the thinking skills you want students to develop. Use tools like Bloom’s Taxonomy to design assignments that target higher-order thinking skills like analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Provide explicit feedback on students’ reasoning, not just their conclusions. As Angelo (1995) emphasized, ongoing classroom assessment helps monitor and develop students’ critical thinking.
For students: Learn the vocabulary of critical thinking – terms like “inference,” “assumption,” “evidence,” “counterargument,” and “bias.” Having words for these concepts helps you recognize and use them. Seek feedback on your reasoning process, not just your final answers.
Principle 5: Confront Bias and Cultivate Intellectual Humility
Critical thinking is impeded by a host of cognitive biases – systematic errors in thinking that affect everyone. Kahneman (2011), in his landmark book Thinking, Fast and Slow, documented dozens of these biases. Among the most relevant for critical thinking are:
- Confirmation bias: The tendency to seek out and favor information that confirms our existing beliefs while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence.
- Belief bias: The tendency to evaluate the strength of an argument based on whether we agree with its conclusion, rather than on the quality of its reasoning.
- Framing effects: The tendency to draw different conclusions based on how information is presented, even when the underlying facts are identical.
- Overconfidence bias: The tendency to overestimate our own knowledge, abilities, and the reliability of our judgments.
In a recent study of international students, Aston (2024) found that explicitly teaching common cognitive biases, coupled with structured reflection on students’ own reasoning, helped learners articulate why critical thinking felt “hard” and improved their willingness to question initial intuitions. Students reported that once they had names for patterns like confirmation bias and belief bias, they were more able to catch themselves in the act – and less likely to assume that “thinking harder” was enough.
For faculty: Teach about cognitive biases explicitly. Design assignments that require students to consider perspectives opposed to their own. Model intellectual humility by acknowledging the limits of your own knowledge and changing your mind when presented with good evidence.
For students: Practice “steelmanning” – representing opposing viewpoints in their strongest form, rather than attacking weak versions of arguments you disagree with. When you find yourself strongly agreeing with something, ask: “What would someone who disagrees say? Is there evidence I’m ignoring?” Cultivate the humility to admit when you’re wrong.
“Professor Bear,” Isara said, “in my accounting studies, we learn about ‘professional skepticism.’ This sounds like similar idea – not being too quick to accept what clients or managers tell you.”
“Exactly right,” Dr. Bear confirmed. “Professional skepticism is critical thinking applied to auditing. The core idea – questioning, seeking evidence, remaining open to different interpretations – is the same across domains.”
Part IV: Putting It All Together
The afternoon light had shifted, casting long shadows across the study tables. Dr. Bear looked at the four students – each now more engaged than they had been hours ago.
“Let me leave you with a framework you can actually use,” he said. “Robert Ennis developed an acronym – FRISCO – that captures the essence of practical critical thinking. It has become a widely used tool in practitioner summaries.”
The FRISCO Framework for Critical Thinking
- F – Focus: Identify the central issue, question, or conclusion. What exactly is being discussed or decided?
- R – Reasons: Identify and evaluate the reasons given. What evidence or arguments support the conclusion?
- I – Inference: Assess the quality of the inference from reasons to conclusion. Does the conclusion actually follow from the evidence?
- S – Situation: Consider the context. What is the background? Who are the stakeholders? What circumstances are relevant?
- C – Clarity: Ensure clarity of language and concepts. Are key terms defined? Is there ambiguity?
- O – Overview: Step back and review the whole picture. Have you considered everything? Are your conclusions justified?
“I want each of you to apply this framework to something you encounter this week,” Dr. Bear said. “James, apply it to a lesson plan or educational article. Maria, apply it to a marketing campaign or advertisement. Malik, apply it to a financial news story. Isara, apply it to a business case or audit scenario. Write up your analysis and bring it to our next study session.”
What the Research Tells Us
Taken together, these recent studies paint a consistent picture: critical thinking grows when students are given structured practice with rich problems, explicit tools for reasoning, and feedback on how they think. Multi-technique courses that blend cases, discussion, and reflective activities (Eskiyurt, 2024), targeted training programs with clear critical thinking objectives (Kang & Stupple, 2024), inquiry-based learning that lets students investigate genuine questions (Phonapichat & Srisawat, 2024), AI-supported tasks that require critiquing and revising machine output (Li et al., 2025), and practical planning tools for teachers (Golden, 2023) all point in the same direction. Critical thinking is less a mysterious talent and more a trainable habit of mind – provided, as Dr. Bear might say, that we actually train it.
A Final Thought on Wisdom
As the students gathered their materials, Dr. Bear had one more thing to share. “You know,” he said thoughtfully, “the word ‘philosophy’ comes from Greek words meaning ‘love of wisdom.’ And wisdom, in the ancient understanding, was not just about knowing facts – it was about knowing how to live well. Critical thinking is part of that tradition. It’s not just about being smart. It’s about being wise – making good decisions, understanding yourself and others, navigating a complex world with integrity.”
He stood up, gathering his empty honey latte cups. “Dewey believed that education should help people become better thinkers and better citizens. Critical thinking is how we get there. It’s how we avoid being manipulated. It’s how we solve problems that haven’t been solved before. It’s how we continue learning throughout our lives, long after formal education ends.”
James, who had been quiet for much of the afternoon, spoke up. “Professor Bear? I think I understand now why I want to be a teacher. It’s not just about helping kids pass tests. It’s about helping them think.”
Dr. Bear smiled warmly. “And that, James, may be the most important realization you’ll have in college. Critical thinking isn’t just a skill – it’s a gift you can give to others. Each of you, in your own careers, will have the opportunity to help people think better. That’s no small thing.”
As the four freshmen headed out into the autumn evening, their minds were buzzing with new questions – which, Dr. Bear would have said, was exactly the point.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways
For Faculty Members
- Critical thinking is not an automatic byproduct of higher education – it must be intentionally taught and consistently practiced.
- The most effective approach combines explicit instruction in critical thinking concepts with application in disciplinary contexts.
- Active learning strategies – discussion, debate, case studies, collaborative projects, and writing – are more effective than passive learning for developing critical thinking.
- Model critical thinking yourself: acknowledge uncertainty, consider alternative views, and change your mind when evidence warrants.
- Assess not just what students conclude, but how they reason. Provide feedback on the thinking process, not just the product.
- Create a classroom culture where questioning is welcomed, intellectual risk-taking is encouraged, and being wrong is seen as a learning opportunity.
For Students
- Critical thinking is one of the most valuable skills you can develop for your career – and one of the biggest gaps employers see in graduates.
- Embrace doubt and confusion as opportunities for learning. The discomfort of not knowing is where genuine thinking begins.
- Ask questions constantly – of your instructors, your textbooks, the news, social media, and most importantly, yourself.
- Learn about cognitive biases and actively guard against them. Be especially suspicious of conclusions you want to believe.
- Practice critical thinking skills in every class and every domain of life. Like any skill, it improves with deliberate practice.
- Cultivate intellectual humility. The wisest people are those who know the limits of their own knowledge.
“The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry.”
– John Dewey, How We Think (1910)
About the Author
Ron A. Rhoades, JD, CFP® is an Associate Professor of Finance at the Gordon Ford College of Business, Western Kentucky University. He also serves as a financial advisor at Scholar Financial, a practice within XY Investment Solutions LLC. With a background as both an attorney and a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professional, Ron is a nationally recognized authority on the fiduciary duties of financial advisors.
This article is for educational purposes only. The characters depicted are fictional and any relation to real persons is solely incidental. Scenarios and references to real people or experiences are used solely to illustrate educational concepts. These examples may not apply to your individual circumstances. It should not be construed as financial, legal, tax, or investment advice, nor as a recommendation to implement any specific strategy, product, or investment.
Advisory services are offered through XYPN Sapphire and its various IAR brands under which it operates. XYPN Sapphire is an SEC registered investment adviser. For additional disclosure and privacy information, please visit XYPNSapphire.com/disclosures.
Sources
Abanto-Ramírez, C. D., Turpo-Chaparro, J. E., Apaza, A., & Latorre-Cosculluela, C. (2024). Disposition to critical thinking, anxiety due to COVID-19 and academic self-efficacy in university students. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1332847. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1332847
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2025). Survey of employers on college learning and the American workforce (National employer survey report). AAC&U.
American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). Peter A. Facione, Principal Investigator. ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423.
Andreucci-Annunziata, P., Riedemann, A., Cortés, S., Mellado, A., del Río, M. T., & Vega-Muñoz, A. (2023). Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1141686. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1141686
Angelo, T. A. (1995). Beginning the dialogue: Thoughts on promoting critical thinking: Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6–7.
Aston, K. J. (2024). ‘Why is this hard, to have critical thinking?’ Exploring the factors affecting critical thinking with international higher education students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231168341
Bensley, D. A., & Spero, R. A. (2014). Improving critical thinking skills and metacognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001
Britannica. (2023). Socratic method. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Socratic-method
Cooper, J. L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7–9.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Company.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath and Company.
Elbilgahy, A. A., & Alanazi, F. J. (2025). Effect of applying six thinking hats teaching method for development through life span course on students opinion and critical thinking skills. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 884. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07362-w
El Soufi, N., & See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 140–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). W. H. Freeman.
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Eskiyurt, R., & Özkan, B. (2024). Exploring the impact of collaborative learning on the development of critical thinking and clinical decision-making skills in nursing students: A quantitative descriptive design. Heliyon, 10(17), e37198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37198
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The California Academic Press. ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423.
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. The California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., Sánchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1–25.
Golden, B. (2023). Enabling critical thinking development in higher education through the use of a structured planning tool. Irish Educational Studies, 42(4), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2258497
Guo, Y., & Lee, J. (2023). The impact of AI-supported learning on metacognition and critical thinking. [As summarized in Ruiz-Rojas et al., 2024].
Hitchcock, D. (2022). Critical thinking. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/
Hooks, B. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. Routledge.
HR Dive. (2025, December 16). Employers want proof: Are candidates ready for the job? https://www.hrdive.com/news/employers-want-proof-candidates-ready-for-the-job/807806/
Hyytinen, H., Nissinen, K., Ursin, J., Toom, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2019). Problematising the equivalence of the test results of performance-based critical thinking tests for undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44, 1–8. [As cited in Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2023].
Intelligent CISO. (2025, September 9). Cybersecurity hiring: Non-technical skills are now king. https://www.intelligentciso.com/2025/09/09/cybersecurity-hiring-non-technical-skills-are-now-king/
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kang, J., & Stupple, E. J. N. (2024). Evaluation of the effectiveness of critical thinking training on critical thinking skills and academic achievement: A mixed-meta-analysis. Review of Education, 12(3), e70001. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70001
Li, X., Zhang, Y., & Guo, L. (2025). Does generative artificial intelligence improve students’ higher-order thinking? A systematic review. Education Sciences, 15(12), Article 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15120456
McDade, S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 9–10.
Partnership Employment. (2025, November). The top skills employers are looking for in 2025. https://partnershipemployment.com/the-top-skills-employers-are-looking-for-in-2025/
Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 36–37.
Philosophy Break. (2023). Socratic method: What is it and how can you use it? https://philosophybreak.com/articles/socratic-method-what-is-it-how-can-you-use-it/
Phonapichat, P., & Srisawat, P. (2024). Developing students’ critical thinking: Examining the influence of learning-management approaches through meta-analysis. European Journal of Educational Research, 13(3), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.13.3.1001
Ruiz-Rojas, J., Acosta-Vargas, P., De-Moreta-Llovet, J., & González-González, M. (2024). Generative AI and critical thinking in online higher education: A systematic review. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 27(2), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.27.2.39480
Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90–99.
TestGorilla. (2025, June). The state of skills-based hiring 2025 report. https://www.testgorilla.com/skills-based-hiring/state-of-skills-based-hiring-2025/
Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24–28.
Wang, X. (2025). Determining factors for the development of critical thinking in higher education students. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1278901. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1278901
World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/in-full/
Yeh, H.-C., Yang, S.-H., Fu, J. S., & Shih, Y.-C. (2023). Developing college students’ critical thinking through reflective writing. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(1), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057450
