Best Practices Feature

What Actually Constitutes Critical Thinking, and How Can We Assess It? 

For more than thirty years, the cultivation of critical thinking skills has been hailed as paramount in higher education. Yet, when pressed to offer a definition, it can quickly turn into an exercise in circular logic: “Critical thinking is…well, you know, critical.” Many educators remain skeptical about the feasibility of assessing critical thinking as a tangible skill set, as demonstrated by the tagline for an Inside Higher Ed article “Whether we can actually teach students critical-thinking skills is one of the most overlooked and misunderstood issues in higher education today” (2016). 

Intellectual growth models offer valuable insights into the developmental trajectory of cognitive processes, particularly in the transition from dualistic to contextual thinking. Dualistic thinking, characterized by black-and-white, either/or perspectives, is common among novice learners. However, as students progress toward their capstone courses, they begin to embrace more nuanced perspectives, recognizing shades of gray and embracing the inherent complexities of real-world issues. In other words, what intellectual growth models reveal is that as (proficient) students progress throughout college, they begin to think more like a critic. They synthesize dynamic forms of information, discern relevance, question agendas, make quality judgements and predictions, and come to view themselves and their peers as participants in academic discourse (Perry, 1970; Magolda 1988). They have arrived at contextual thinking.  

But this progression isn’t guaranteed, and even for those who do attain it, it’s often protracted. One explanation lies in the failure to introduce opportunities for students to examine a spectrum of sources, ranging from reliable to unreliable. In many educational settings, students are presented with sanitized, curated materials that do not reflect the messy reality of information abundance in the digital age. As a result, they are ill-prepared to navigate the complexities of real-world information landscapes. 

Higher education often fails to offer opportunities for students to engage in dialogues similar to those professionals have in their fields. Instead, students are passive recipients of curated information, lacking the opportunity to critically assess, question, and challenge the sources they encounter. And the reason is quite understandable: we assume that summative assessments should reflect the “cream of the crop” in our discipline – that the final product in an academic setting should be a showcase in unimpeachable sources. But this passive approach to learning stifles the development of contextual thinking skills, leaving students ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of the information-rich world beyond academia (Association of Colleges and Research Libraries, 2016). 

The AAC&U value rubric for critical thinking underscores the importance of considering “contexts and assumptions” in evaluating students’ critical thinking abilities. This criterion emphasizes the need for students to analyze information within its appropriate context, considering underlying assumptions, biases, situational influences, and even limitations.  

By integrating this criterion into our teaching practices, we can actively promote the analytical skills that lie at the essence of critical thinking.  

Practical Examples of Contextual (Critical) Thinking

Practical examples of college assignments that address contextual thinking abound. For instance, in a Sociology course exploring social inequality, students may be tasked with analyzing historical documents, contemporary news articles, and personal narratives to examine the contextual factors contributing to disparities in wealth and opportunity. Other examples include:  

  • Psychology: Examine the cultural and historical influences on psychological phenomena within a chosen era, considering how context shapes perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. This could include the analyses of research methodology, prevalent theories, and societal norms.  
  • Education: Critically review policy documents, considering how historical, cultural, and socio-economic contexts shape educational practices and outcomes. 
  • Literature: Evaluate the reception of a literary work over time, considering how changing societal norms and cultural contexts have impacted its interpretation and significance. 
  • Communications:  Examine why we shouldn’t underestimate the appeal of salacious and unreliable sources by tracing their influence on contemporary political, economic, and cultural institutions.  
  • Biology: Evaluate the ethical implications of a controversial biotechnological advancement, examining its potential impact on society, the environment, and human health. Consider how you might prompt students to explore the complex interests of various stakeholders.  

More Than Academic Competence 

Teaching contextual thinking is not merely an academic exercise; it’s an essential component of empowering students to navigate the complexities of the world around them. This includes the workplace. The AAC&U regularly conducts surveys of employers across various industries to understand their perceptions of the skills and competencies they seek in college graduates. These surveys consistently reveal that employers highly value skills such as critical thinking. In addition, the AAC&U engages in focus groups and interviews with employers to delve deeper. These interactions provide qualitative insights into how critical thinking abilities contribute to workplace success, innovation, and adaptability. 

 

References 

ACRL, Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2016), http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/Framework_ILHE.pdf 

Association of American Colleges and Universities, Value Rubric Development Project. https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics. 

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1988). Measuring gender differences in intellectual development: A comparison of assessment methods. Journal of College Student Development, 29(6), 528–537. 

Hofer, A.R., L. Townsend, and K. Brunetti, “Troublesome Concepts and Information Literacy: Investigating Threshold Concepts for IL Instruction,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 12, no. 4 (2012): 387–405. 

Perry, William G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 

Schlueter, John. (2016). Higher Ed’s Biggest Gamble. Inside Higher Ed 

Townsend, L., A.R. Hofer, S.L. Hanick, and K. Brunetti, “Identifying Threshold Concepts for Information Literacy: A Delphi Study,” Communications in Information Literacy 10, no. 1 (2016): 23–49. 

 

 

 

Having Trouble with Blackboard?

Contact the IT Service Desk

Call the Design Center

304-696-7117

Contact a Designer

Bookings Link

Calendar Events