Critical Thinking Signature Assignments Guidebook Rev 1-3

Oral/Verbal Communications Rubrics
Page i

I mpl ement i ng Cr i t i c al
Thi nk i ng w i t h
Si gnat ur e Assi gnment s

Spring 2013
Thomas W. Zane PhD

Critical Thinking With Signature Assignments
Salt Lake Community College 2013
Page ii

Page iii
How to Use This Guide

This is a print version of an online resource. Do not read this guide front to
back.

Section 1: Read this section if you are unsure about what critical thinking
is, how to teach it, how to make great assignments that demand it, and how
to measure it.

Section 2: Read this section for instructions about how to decide which
critical thinking skills matter to you and your discipline, how to build your
signature assignments, and how to build your rubrics.

Section 3: Do not read this section! It contains lengthy reference
appendices that should only be accessed if needed. You will access these
from links in sections 1 and 2.

Section 4: This section contains templates (and links to the original files)
for your signature assignments and rubrics.

Page iv

Page v

Section 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking ............................................................................. ix
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Why Is Critical Thinking (CT) So Important to Educators? ...................................................... 1
Why is CT Underutilized in Higher Education Courses Today? ................................................ 1
Critical Thinking Defined ............................................................................................................... 2
A Simple Definition .................................................................................................................... 2
CT From a Teaching and Learning Perspective ......................................................................... 2
CT From a Process Perspective The Critical Thinking Framework ........................................ 2
Strategies for Using Critical Thinking in Your Classroom ............................................................ 3
1. Assign Students to Use and Apply What They Are Learning ................................................ 3
2. Ask Critical Thinking Questions in Your Assignments, Discussions, and Exams ................. 3
3. Assess Critical Thinking Explicitly ........................................................................................ 3
4. Provide direct instruction in thinking like a _______: {Historian, Welder, Nurse, etc.} ....... 4
Engaging Students .......................................................................................................................... 5
The Challenge ............................................................................................................................. 5
A Few Proven Methods .............................................................................................................. 5
1. Establish a positive professional relationship with your students. ............................... 5
2. Explain your methods, and reasoning up front. ............................................................ 5
3. Explicitly teach active learning strategies for completing assignments and performing
better on assessments. ............................................................................................................. 5
4. Give students your reasoning. ...................................................................................... 5
5. Establish reasonable rules for discussion and other interaction. .................................. 5
Critical Thinking Implementation A Brief Overview .................................................................. 6
How Do We Implement CT In Our Courses? ............................................................................. 6
CT Implementation Steps Using a Signature Assignment (The Brief View) ................................. 6
1. Select Critical Thinking Skills That Pertain to Your Discipline ............................................ 6
2. Identify or Create a Signature Assignment That Collects Evidence of Critical Thinking
Skills ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Select Critical Thinking Scoring Criteria & Create Your Scoring Rubric ............................. 6
Section 2: Detailed Implementation Instructions....................................................................... 7
Detailed Instructions for CT Implementation Steps ....................................................................... 9
1. Select Critical Thinking Skills That Pertain to Your Discipline ............................................ 9
A. Ask yourself questions about what practitioners in your field do with their thinking. ...... 9
B. Use the six-part critical thinking process framework in Appendix A The Critical
Thinking Framework: A Six-part Process View of Critical Thinking. .................................. 9
Page vi
C. If you prefer to browse for ideas, review the list in Appendix C: Examples of Critical
Thinking Skills. ....................................................................................................................... 9
2. Identify or Create a Signature Assignment That Collects Evidence of Critical Thinking
Skills ......................................................................................................................................... 10
A. Select an existing assignment. ......................................................................................... 10
B. Plan a new signature assignment. ..................................................................................... 10
C. Create the signature assignment narrative. ....................................................................... 10
3. Select Critical Thinking Scoring Criteria & Create Your Scoring Rubric ........................... 11
Why Use Our Method for Measuring Critical Thinking? ..................................................... 11
A. Select one row from each of the six categories in the critical thinking framework. ........ 11
B. Adapt the wording of the descriptors (the words in each scoring cell) to fit your signature
assignment. (Optional but Highly Recommended Step) ....................................................... 12
C. Copy and paste each row into the Critical Thinking Rubric Template. [WebLink] ........ 12
D. Send your rubric to me for posting online. tom.zane@slcc.edu ...................................... 12
Section 3: Appendices and Other Help Documents ................................................................ 13
Appendix A The Critical Thinking Framework: A Six-part Process View of Critical Thinking 15
1. Interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 15
2. Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 15
3. Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 15
4. Inference ............................................................................................................................... 15
5. Explanation ........................................................................................................................... 15
6. Metacognition ....................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix B: Detailed Definitions of the Critical Thinking Process Framework ......................... 17
Introductory Caveats to Instructors ........................................................................................... 17
Prerequisite Skills: Dispositions or Critical Spirit .................................................................... 17
1. Interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 17
Clarifying Understanding...................................................................................................... 18
Comprehension ..................................................................................................................... 18
Critical Reading .................................................................................................................... 18
Decoding & Finding Significance ........................................................................................ 19
2. Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 19
Categorization ....................................................................................................................... 20
Classification......................................................................................................................... 20
Deconstruction ...................................................................................................................... 20
Page vii
Identifying Connections ........................................................................................................ 20
Identifying Arguments .......................................................................................................... 20
Considering Diverse Perspectives......................................................................................... 20
3. Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 21
Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 21
J udgment ............................................................................................................................... 22
4. Inference ............................................................................................................................... 22
Causal Modeling ................................................................................................................... 23
Conjecturing Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 23
Decision Making ................................................................................................................... 23
Drawing Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 23
Generalization ....................................................................................................................... 23
Making Connections ............................................................................................................. 23
Planning ................................................................................................................................ 23
Prediction .............................................................................................................................. 24
Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 24
5. Explanation ........................................................................................................................... 24
Argumentation ...................................................................................................................... 25
Synthesis ............................................................................................................................... 25
6. Metacognition for Self-regulation ........................................................................................ 25
Reflection .............................................................................................................................. 26
Appendix C: Examples of Critical Thinking Skills ...................................................................... 27
Predisposing Factors for Critical Thinking ............................................................................... 27
Interpretation Skills ................................................................................................................... 27
Reasoning Skills ....................................................................................................................... 28
Assessment Skills ..................................................................................................................... 29
Meta-Cognitive Skills ............................................................................................................... 29
Appendix D: Examples of Critical Thinking Question Stems ...................................................... 31
Reference Notes .................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix E: Signature Assignment Examples ............................................................................. 35
Appendix F: Definitions and Examples of Completed Rubric Rows ........................................... 37
1. Interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 37
2. Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 38
3. Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 39
Page viii
4. Inference ............................................................................................................................... 40
5. Explanation Optional Category. ........................................................................................... 42
6. Metacognition ....................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix G: Critical Thinking References Reading List ............................................................. 45
Other Useful Articles ................................................................................................................ 46
Section 4: Forms & Templates................................................................................................... 49
Forms and Templates #1: Critical Thinking Skills Worksheet ..................................................... 51
Forms and Templates #2: Signature Assignment Planning Template .......................................... 53
Forms and Templates #3: Signature Assignment Student Handout Template ............................. 55
Forms and Templates #4: Signature Assignment Rubric Template ............................................. 57
Critical Thinking References List ................................................................................................. 59

Page ix

Section 1:
Introduction
to
Critical Thinking

Page x

1

Introduction
Why Is Critical Thinking (CT) So Important to Educators?
Brain and educational research suggests that CT is an essential driver for learning and growth.
Indeed, critical thinking is to knowing as listening is to hearing (Snyder and Snyder, 2008). Truly
and deeply learning the content of any discipline or profession can only occur via conscious and
deliberate engagement with the content. Clearly then, CT is not a new curricular or content area
for us to teach. We are not teaching critical thinking per se. Instead, our goal is to help our
students to think critically about the content.

Why is CT Underutilized in Higher Education Courses Today?
You might think that a concept as ubiquitous as CT would be found in nearly all aspects of
higher education. After many discussions across campus, Ive seen that CT does appear in many
of our Course Curriculum Outlines (CCOs), yet only a small percentage of us can point to
specific instances of CT in our current teaching methods and assessments.

So why is CT rarely formalized into our teaching and assessment practices? I have encountered
five interrelated reasons:

1. CT is a mushy buzzword that is so broad and so varied in definition that it becomes
nearly unusable.
2. We teach like we were taught. Lectures are common yet learning and brain research
suggests that the lecture followed by fact-based exams approach to teaching is a poor
method for long-term learning. Instead, this leads to a surface level, read-memorize-
regurgitate-forget cycle of learning leaving little room for deeper thinking about, and use
of the content of our courses and disciplines.
3. Many of us cover CT in our courses by offering assignments that we believe will
require our students to think. We default to this approach mainly because nobody
bothered to tell us how to use CT for learning that is, how to teach, assign, and assess
CT skills.
4. Textbooks rarely encourage CT. Passive fact-based extraction and even note taking can
short circuit CT.
5. Many of us are driven by a cover the material mindset. We have replaced good
thinking with content volume.
6. Many of us feel inadequate to the task of teaching and learning CT. Whether due to
lack of training, experience, or because we maintain some misconceptions, we just dont
seem to deal with CT effectively.

2

Critical Thinking Defined
A Simple Definition

Critical thinking is the conscious and deliberate use of thinking
skills and strategies used for guiding what to think, believe, or do.

(See CT theorists such as Paul, Elder, Facione, & Ennis for similar definitions Critical Thinking
References List or for a shorter reading list see Appendix I: Critical Thinking References
Reading List.

CT From a Teaching and Learning Perspective
CT is a strategic mental process driven by four factors:
1. A prerequisite desire and willingness to use CT.
2. Specific knowledge, information, or other content to engage with.
3. Thinking skills and strategies for learning and applying the content.
4. Criteria (standards) for determining what to think, believe, or do.

CT From a Process Perspective The Critical Thinking Framework
CT can be organizedalbeit looselyinto six inter-related types of thinking. I have found that
this framework holds up to many specific applications of CT across the institution.

1. Interpretation

The primary definition of interpretation is the act of making sense of
various inputs. Interpretation requires that we clarify the purpose, issue,
problem/question, meaning, etc.
2. Analysis Analysis means to break down, examine, or otherwise explore the issues,
available information, arguments, etc. With analysis, we must manipulate,
process, or otherwise make active changes to the inputs to make better
sense of them.
3. Evaluation To evaluate means to determine the merit, value, efficacy, advantages,
worth, authenticity, validity, impact, or significance, of something (e.g.,
the evidence, claims, assumptions, biases, perspectives, etc.)
4. Inference This broad term covers reasoning coupled with the use of evidence and
standards that together are necessary for synthesizing, coming to a
conclusion, making decisions, identifying alternatives, generalizing,
planning, predicting, etc.
5. Explanation
(Communication)
Communicate the outcomes of thinking such as stating results, justifying
procedures, explaining meaning, presenting arguments, etc. This is
considered CT because of the mental processes involved in designing a
well-written (or spoken) message.
6. Self-regulation
(Metacognition)
During all of the above (and sometimes following the thinking as well),
reflect, self-examine, pose questions about thinking, self-correct, etc.
(Based on Facione, 1990)
3

Strategies for Using Critical Thinking in Your Classroom
Implementing CT in your classroom can be very simple or could involve very detailed methods.
If you are a novice instructor or have little experience with using CT for deeper learning, I
recommend that you start small and simple. The following list offers strategies that have been
shown to work in classrooms from kindergarten to graduate school.

These strategies are listed roughly by relative ease of use & effectiveness.

1. Assign Students to Use and Appl y What They Are Learning
This is a powerful tool for learning and teaching students to use CT because it leads to hands-on
and brains-on tasks (e.g., what educational theorists call active engagement).

2. Ask Critical Thinking Questions in Your Assignments, Discussions, and Exams
Movebeyond the common facts level (what level) sorts of content questions to demand
things like comparison, analysis, synthesis, planning, prediction, trouble-shooting, etc. For
example, make assignments that require research, problem solving, decision making, etc. that go
beyond what is in the textbook. (See Appendix C: Examples of Critical Thinking Skills for
examples of CT issues and Appendix D: Examples of Critical Thinking Question Stems for help
with developing CT questions.)

3. Assess Critical Thinking Explicitl y
Students learn and do what is assessed, so try one of the following approaches:
A. Provide criteria and standards for good thinking in your discipline. Rubrics are an easy
and extremely powerful way to define and communicate these.
B. Assign students to get directly involved with assessment via peer review. Taking the role
of evaluator forces students to think about their (and others) thinking (metacognition).
Hold students accountable for their peer assessments.
C. Where appropriate, use ill-structured
1
, real-world, authentic problems that may have
several good solutions.
D. Provide feedback to students on their CT ability (using those same rubrics mentioned
previously is a good way to handle this approach).
E. Demand regular reflection from your students on the content you are teaching, how well
they are learning, their assumptions, changes in their thinking, etc. (see examples of
reflection questions at the bottom section of Appendix D: Examples of Critical Thinking
Question Stems.

1
An ill-structured problem is messy, real world (authentic), complex, yields answers based on judgment, often has
multiple right answers, and is almost always not found in the textbook. For example, recommend whether the city
should budget for sidewalk repair, street repair, or another police officer. Ill-structured problems are not convergent
problems with just one correct solution or personal preference questions that have as many answers as you have
students.
4

4. Provide direct instruction in thinking like a _______: {Historian, Welder, Nurse,
etc.}
a. Explain what CT is, what it means in your discipline, and give examples.
b. Model CT by thinking aloud to walk your students through your thinking (e.g.,
when I need to decide which approach to take with this problem I consider x.
c. Ask the whole class to walk through some CT using your disciplines content.

5

Engaging Students
The Challenge
Research suggests that many students in the western world are victims of our educational system.
Average students are guided day by day in simple passive learning activities. They read, listen to
lectures, and regurgitate what they have learned on exams. In many classes, they have to do
relatively little work and almost no deep thinking about the content. Unfortunately, this approach
leads to shallow, surface, short-term learning. Clearly, this sort of learning is not the intent of
higher education. Few among us would argue against leaning to be better thinkers. But moving
beyond passive learning into active learning places some burden on the student which
inevitably leads to some resistance.

A Few Proven Methods
It is up to us to help our students make the switch from passive recipient of knowledge to
engaged, active user of knowledge. Suggestions for helping students make this change abound in
the educational, learning, organizational behavior, and other literatures. Nearly all articles and
books that Ive read agree on a few simple approaches to overcoming student resistance to
change:

1. Establi sh a positive professional rel ationship with your students.
Dont play a part be yourself. Trust and respect when properly earned can overcome nearly all
resistance.

2. Explain your methods, and reasoning up front.
When higher education students are told the whys and wherefores of active learning methods the
majority will go along. For example, many students dont know how the material of your class
will be used later on. Further, most dont know that learning for long term memory can make
their lives easier next semester or on the job. Help your students to understand how active
learning practices are in their best interest.

3. Expli citl y teach active learning strategies for completing assignments and performing better
on assessments.
Remember that most students have not been taught explicitly how to learn and how to think
through issues within a given discipline. Research suggests that think aloud modeling is an
excellent tool for teaching students to think.

4. Give students your reasoning.
Describe why you are making the assignment and explain what you expect students to gain from
doing the work.

5. Establi sh reasonabl e rul es for discussion and other interaction.
Your goal is to maximize active thinking and learning yet protect fairness and safety.

See Keeley, Shemberg, Cowell, & Zinnbauer, 2010 for additional information on these issues.

6

Critical Thinking Implementation A Brief Overview

How Do We Implement CT In Our Courses?
Several authors have written entire books to answer this question. The vast majority of the
strategies Ive seen boil down to this:

Select, use, and assess a small subset of critical thinking skills you
believe are essential for learning and applying the content of your
discipline.

It is really up to you how simple or complex you make your use of CT skills in your classroom.
Ensuring that students are practicing CT can be as simple as asking the right sorts of questions or
as complex as initiating a full-blown problem-based learning pedagogy.

If you are new to CT, I recommend starting at the small and simple end of the spectrum. Identify
what thinking skills matter to your profession and then find a way to get students to use those
skills. Most importantly, assesses your students on their use of the skills since research suggest
that our students learn what is graded.

CT Implementation Steps Using a Signature Assignment (The Brief View)
In this document I will assume you want to start small and simple with your CT implementation.
An excellent way to do this, and, a way to also take care of your College-wide Student Learning
Outcomes (CWSLOs) assessment requirements, would be to use a signature assignment scored
with a rubric that measures CT. This simple approach can be easily handled in three brief steps.

1. Select Critical Thinking Skills That Pertain to Your Discipline
You have been utilizing the thinking skills of your discipline for years so this step may be fairly
simple. In this step you will identify the critical thinking skills that matter to you and to your
discipline.

2. Identify or Create a Signature Assignment That Collects Evidence of Critical
Thinking Skills
Next, find an existing assignment or to build a new one that will show you the qualities of your
students thinking. Note that showing is not the same as doing. While an assignment may
require certain thinking to complete, if evidence doesnt appear in their submissions you wont
be able to judge the quality of their thinking.

3. Select Critical Thinking Scoring Criteria & Create Your Scoring Rubric
In this step you will determine how you will know how well your students are thinking. For
example, if you value predicting financial trends or diagnosing reasons for an event, how will
you know just how successful they are at this skill?

[Webpage LINK - Signature Assignment Production Home Page]
7

Section 2:
Detailed Implementation Instructions

8

9

Detailed Instructions for CT Implementation Steps

1. Select Critical Thinking Skills That Pertain to Your Discipline
The selection of specific CT skills is related to the nature of your discipline and your personal
values. To identify some of the CT elements in your discipline try this.

A. Ask yourself questions about what practitioners in your field do with their thinking.

1. What do practitioners in my discipline do with their knowledge and thinking day to
day?
o What clarifications do they need to make?
o What assessments and judgments must they make?
o What questions do they have to pose?
o What problems do they have to solve?
o What decisions do they have to make?
2. How do practitioners in my field go about analyzing information in their jobs?
3. How do they go about communicating all of the above (and to whom)?

B. Use the si x-part critical thinking process framework in Appendi x A The Critical Thinking
Framework: A Six-part Process View of Critical Thinking.

C. If you prefer to browse for ideas, review the list in Appendi x C: Exampl es of Critical Thinking
Skill s.

10

2. Identify or Create a Signature Assignment That Collects Evidence of Critical
Thinking Skills
Did you notice that the title did not mention using an assignment that requires students to simply
use CT?

A good signature assignment goes beyond simply requiring critical thinking to
finish it. Instead, a good signature assignment yields gradable evidence of the
critical thinking skills that matter to you.

A. Select an exi sting assi gnment.
The easiest way to handle this step is to identify an assignment that you already use. I prefer this
method because it is more consistent with our belief that CT is simply a part of learning. So it is
better to select a naturally occurring assignment from within your curriculum than to build an
add-on assignment that captures CT skills.

B. Pl an a new signature assignment.
We have created a Signature Assignment Planning Template to help you build your assignment.
The full macro-enabled version of this template with help text is online at [Web LINK]

Hint: For an assignment that measures critical thinking, ask the right sorts of questions!
To browse critical thinking questions that might help you conceptualize your signature
assignment, see Appendix D: Examples of Critical Thinking Question Stems.

C. Create the signature assignment narrative.
We have also created a Signature Assignment Student Handout Template that you can give to
your students. The macro-enabled version of this template with help text is online at [Web
LINK]. {Instructions are included with the template.}

We will post examples of signature assignments as we collect them in Appendix E. If you are
willing to share yours, please send it to me tom.zane@slcc.edu

11

3. Select Critical Thinking Scoring Criteria & Create Your Scoring Rubric
In the previous step you selected the critical thinking skills that you value. Now you will create a
rubric that will allow you to determine how well your students perform each skill.

Note: If you already have a rubric or other scoring method, you might be able to use that if it
goes after the same thinking skills shown in our rubric examples. If you prefer to build your own
rubric rows rather than selecting from our examples, we welcome that as well.

Why Use Our Method for Measuring Critical Thinking?
Recall from previous materials that CT is a cyclical and iterative process made up of multiple
and overlapping activities. CT can be simply defined as:

Critical thinking is the conscious and deliberate use of thinking skills and
strategies used for guiding what to think, believe, or do.

Critical thinking (CT) is a holistic, complex, and integrated thinking skill. While thinking
happens in phases, everything is connected. But scoring student signature assignments
holistically (one score for all of their thinking) is difficult and can be unreliable. On the other
hand, if we atomize the elements of thinking down too far in our rubrics, we do just as much
damage to the validity of the scores. So we need to strike a balance between these two extremes.
We do this by building at least six rows in our scoring rubrics based around the six-part process
view of critical thinking.

The following steps are a quick and easy approach to building rubrics that can
score critical thinking elements in student work.

Before you begin, recall the steps you completed when selecting/building your signature
assignment:

Decide whether you are going to score a product, performance, person, and/or process.
Decide whether you will score in sections or as a whole.
Select at least one specific bulleted criterion from each of the parts of the critical thinking
framework to use in your critical thinking rubric.

A. Select one row from each of the six categories i n the critical thinking framework.
Like a Chinese lunch menu, pick one from Column A, one from Column B The following
links take you to definitions of each skill and examples of some rubric rows for you to select.

1. Interpretation [WebLink]
2. Analysis [WebLink]
3. Evaluation [WebLink]
4. Inference [WebLink]
12

5. Explanation (Communication) [WebLink]
6. Self-regulation (Metacognition) [WebLink]

All of these six sets of examples are in Appendix F.

B. Adapt the wording of the descriptors (the words in each scoring cel l) to fit your signature
assignment. (Optional but Highly Recommended Step)
Rubrics are handed out to students along with the signature assignment. Research has shown that
giving students the rubric improves learning (and scores). We recommend adapting (also called
localizing) the rubric rows when you are using the scoring rubric for just one assignment. Doing
so will help your students see what good thinking looks like in the context of that assignment.

Note how the critical thinking involved here is how well the student thought about the sorts of
questions that should be asked to guide their research project.

Original Example
Clarifying Questions
Does not ask
questions.
Identifies some
questions.
Asks good
questions.
Analyzes insightful
questions.
Adapted Version
Clarifying Questions
Does not ask
questions about the
budget problem.
Identifies some
basic common or
obvious questions
about the budget
problem.
Asks relevant
questions that guide
further research
into the budget
problem.
Analyzes insightful
questions showing
a deep
understanding of
how the questions
can guide the
research.

C. Copy and paste each row into the Critical Thinking Rubric Template. [WebLink]

D. Send your rubric to me for posting online. tom.zane@sl cc.edu

13

Section 3:
Appendices and
Other Help Documents

14

15

Appendix A
The Critical Thinking Framework:
A Six-part Process View of Critical Thinking

This list is not exhaustive so some critical thinking skills that are important to you and your
discipline may not appear here. Feel free to substitute your skills within any of the six parts of
the framework. For a more detailed view of these skills see Appendix B: Detailed Definitions of
the Critical Thinking Process Framework. [WebLink to each bulleted item]

1. Interpretation
Clarifying Understanding
Comprehension
Critical Reading
Decoding
Finding Significance

2. Anal ysis
Categorization
Classification
Deconstruction
Identify and Examine
o Arguments
o Assumptions
o Connections
o Concepts
o Ideas
o Reasons and Claims
o Voice, Subjectivity, Agenda, Bias
Considering Diverse Perspectives

3. Evaluation
Assess
o Credibility
o Quality
o Relevance
o Etc.
J udgment
Using Inductive or Deductive Reasoning

4. Inference
Causal Modeling
Conjecturing Alternatives
Decision Making
Drawing Conclusions
Generalization
Making Connections
Planning
Prediction
Reasoning (Inductive or Deductive)

5. Explanation
(Optional because many of these may be covered
by previous criteria).
Abstraction
Argumentation
Integration
J ustify Procedures (based on evidence)
Present Arguments
State Results
Summarization
Synthesis

6. Metacognition
Self-monitoring
Reflection
Self-correction

16

17

Appendix B: Detailed Definitions of the Critical Thinking Process
Framework
Introductory Caveats to Instructors
A. To understand critical thinking we need to recognize that it is a process made up of many
sub-skills. Those sub-skills may take on different titles and meanings across disciplines.
For a given title shown below, definitions from some disciplines are very broad while
others are quite specific. Some are inclusive while others are nuanced. So the titles and
definitions listed below may resonate with some faculty and not with others. I have
attempted to find the most common titles and definitions and Ive tried to point out where
major differences may exist across disciplines.

B. Almost any of the sub-skills listed below can be reframed as a process made up of other
sub-skills found within this list. For example, the word evaluation denotes a specific
mental process related to passing judgment. However, performing an evaluation project
would require most of the other thinking skills listed below. Thus, the language we use
for describing thinking is mushy at best. When in doubt, use your own language.

C. The list shown below is not exhaustive. There are hundreds of other terms that are related
to each of the sub-skills listed below. I have attempted to list a few of the more common
related terms.

Prerequisite Skills: Dispositions or Critical Spirit
Dispositions or a Critical Spirit are a nebulous and often undefined set of beliefs, aspirations,
feelings, desires, etc. Simply put, a proper mental mindset is a prerequisite to true critical
thinking. The thinker has to want to think critically about something to avoid taking the easier
routes forward. Dispositions or what some call a critical spirit encompass our motivations and
our nature toward thinking rather than denoting a specific thinking skill.

Caution: This sub-skill is a prerequisite to true critical thinking rather than a first step in the
critical thinking process. Most authors suggest that one must be purposeful and should maintain
a level of open-mindedness to allow for critical thinking to occur. It is extremely difficult to
measure dispositions. In most cases, we can collect indirect evidence that suggest a thinkers
motivations or beliefs.

Related terms include such things as decentering, flexibility, objectivity, honesty, truth seeking,
fairness, maturity, willingness to suspend judgment, etc.

1. Interpretation
The primary definition of interpretation is the act of making sense of various inputs. The inputs
may include such things as arguments, evidence, statements, ideas, concepts, graphics, pictures,
questions, problems, situations, beliefs, etc. For example, at a very simple level, the ability to
read and understand a text would be a form of interpretation. At a more complex level, the ability
to interpret the message of a political cartoon would also qualify as interpretation.
18

Interpretation does have other meanings related to outputs. For some, it is the artists ability to
place a personal touch to a piece. Still others see interpretation as a production task in writing
where the writers approach and framing illustrate their thoughts about the subject at hand. To
avoid confusion, we will not use either of these definitions here. Both of these production
definitions will fall under communication instead.

Caution: Interpretation is very similar to analysis in many ways. Both deal with making
meaning of various inputs. But interpretation is making sense of what is given while analysis
suggests the brain manipulate, process, or otherwise make active changes to the inputs to make
better sense of the materials.

Interpretation - To comprehend and express the meaning or significance of a wide variety
of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules,
procedures, or criteria (Facione, 2011).

Sub-skills and Related Terms
Comprehension
Critical Reading
Decoding
Finding Significance
Bolded terms are consistent with the Delphi study of critical thinking (Facione, 1990).

Although this skill is often a subpart of many other skills in this document, it is called out
here to show the wide variety of sub-skills connected to clarification activities. When
reviewing materials the thinker makes sense of the input.

Related terms include such things as understanding, recognizing issues and nuances,
consideration, or finding main and related ideas.

Comprehension
The term comprehension is perhaps synonymous with understanding. Comprehension
assumes actively engagement by the thinker with the elements found in materials or
events. In reading instruction and testing the term comprehension holds a specific
meaning in that the thinking is limited to what is found within the written text. Thus,
comprehension may be a sub-set of the larger term interpretation. Compare with critical
reading.

Critical Reading
Evaluating, interpreting, and reflecting upon a given text. Critical readers consider
how/why the text was written versus what was said. Colloquially, this term is sometimes
known as reading between the lines or clarifying meaning. Contrast critical reading with
reading comprehension which determines if an individual understood the actual words,
concepts presented, and other things found within a reading passage.
19

Decoding & Finding Signi ficance
The term decoding simply means the act of making meaning from complex inputs such as
source documents, videos, events, etc. Decoding is different than the skills listed above in
that it demands a conversion from one form to another. For example, translating foreign
words into English, seeing the meaning of mathematical equation conventions, or even
recognizing nonverbal communications would fit here. Decoding is a precursor to
analysis in that one must first fully understand the messages presented. The word
decoding has a special meaning to reading teachers. We will not use that definition here.

2. Anal ysis
The most common definition of analysis is the act of breaking a complex construct, situation, or
other entity into component parts to aid understanding. However, analysis is an enormous
construct that comes in many forms when it is connected to reading, viewing, or listening
(inputs) such as recognizing relationships, listing constraints and assumptions, finding ideas
within a work, considering diverse perspectives, identifying implications or consequences,
discriminating, etc. Analysis is often paired with other skills such as evaluation and judgment to
aid deconstruction.

Related terms may include such things as consideration, investigation, looking deeply at issues,
comparing, contrasting, reasoning, and many others.

Caution: Analysis is similar to interpretation and evaluation in terms of some of the thinking
patterns involved. However, analysis goes beyond interpretation by working with materials to
improve sense making and stops short of evaluation in that the thinker does not yet place value
or render judgments about the materials at hand. Although our thinking is actually not this linear,
think of analysis for our purposes as sandwiched between understanding material (inputs) and
assessing or making value judgments about the material.

Identify relationships among and between statements, questions, concepts, descriptions,
or other forms of representation intended to express belief, judgment, experiences,
reasons, information, or opinions (Facione, 2011).

Categorization
Classification
Deconstruction
Identify and Examine
o Arguments
o Assumptions
o Connections
o Concepts
o Ideas
o Reasons and Claims
o Voice, Subjectivity, Agenda, Bias
Bolded terms are consistent with the Delphi study of critical thinking.

20

Categorization
The skill of identifying a set of categories from a complex milieu and the ability to place
information, objects, items, etc. into categories based on certain criteria. Sub-skills in
categorization include such things as the ability to identify relationships, similarities,
differences, find potential categories for grouping data, and then organizing information into
those categories to aid communication or inference.
Related skills include interpretation, abstraction, combination, simplification, analysis, and
summarization.

Classification
This skill is very similar to categorization however for our purposes classification assumes a
hierarchy or scale among the component parts. For example, classifying life forms uses a
highly specialized and pre-determined set of categories.

Deconstruction
Deconstruction means actively breaking complex issues down into component parts to aid
understanding or to make new meaning of materials.

Identifying Connections
Connecting one abstract construct to another, or connecting an abstract construct (e.g.,
theory) to a real-world event. In addition, some disciplines use this term for the act of
integrating knowledge from disparate sources (e.g., learning from humanities can inform
learning in another discipline). {See also: Making Connections under Inference.}

Identifying Arguments
This sub-skill is similar in form to most of the others in the list under analysis. However, the
fodder for this sub-skill is quite specific. The thinker in this case is working with determining
the authors position, claims, or message and finding the reasons, evidence, etc. that support
the argument. In other words, the thinker figures out what the author has to say and begins to
see the reasons why.

Related terms include finding claims, determining the authors purpose or main ideas, etc.

This skill has to do with openly considering an issue from different perspectives or points of
view. It includes the ability to identify bias in self, others, and in materials. The origin for
this sort of critical thinking may be an awareness or internal impetus to seek out others
ideas. Terms for this internal locus include open-mindedness, empathy, dedication to fairness
and social justice, maturity, or even the elements of the critical spirit.

While considering perspectives is often done as a part of reviewing source materials,
personal reflection, or problem solving, the ability to see and articulate perspectives is
considered a separate skill by some disciplines. For human relationships, the term
21

decentering is used to denote the ability to stand outside ourselves to objectively view a
situation from another persons perspective.

Related terms include creativity, thinking outside the box, looking through another persons
eyes, open-mindedness, and reframing.

3. Evaluation
Evaluation is the skill of determining merit, efficacy, advantages, worth, authenticity, validity,
impact, or significance, of something (e.g., evidence, sources, assumptions, etc.).

Some disciplines consider the evaluation of source materials as a wholly different construct and
place the skill within information literacy rather than critical thinking. Some disciplines separate
elements of reviewing source materials into phases of understanding (interpretation),
categorization, clarification of meaning, and other skills.

Related terms include assessment, criteria construction, and judgment.

Caution: Evaluation normally leads to rating, value statements, and decision making. However,
for our purposes, evaluation must be limited to the sub-skills listed below and should not be
confounded with outcomes of the evaluation. Making a good decision may involve evaluation.
But a good decision is not necessarily dependent on evaluation, so cant be a surrogate for
good evaluation skills. For example, an expert makes unconscious good decisions based on
experience rather than any sort of evaluation or other critical thinking.

To assess the credibility of statements or other representations which are accounts or
descriptions of a persons perception, experience, situation, judgment, belief, or opinion;
and to assess the logical strength of the actual or intended inferential relationships
among statements, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation (Facione
2011).

Assess
o Credibility
o Quality
o Relevance
o Etc.
J udgment
Using Inductive or Deductive Reasoning

Assessment
At the heart of evaluation is the ability to assess, claims, arguments, situations, beliefs etc. in
terms of their credibility, quality, relevance, and other similar factors. This sort of thinking is
the act of placing value to facilitate subsequent thinking. Some authors place assessment of
information sources here while others move this specific sub-skill under Information
Literacy.

22

Unfortunately, thinkers often place value subconsciously rather than actively evaluating and
deciding on value explicitly. For example, a bigoted person might discount opinions or ideas
from authors of another social group without even reading, much less understanding the
messages involved. Thus, assessment in the critical thinking sense demands a strong
dispositional component to make fair judgments.

Related terms include weighing the evidence, considering the issues, open mindedness,
explicit decision making, suspending judgment, etc.

Judgment
This sub-skill is a mix of evaluation and decision making. Often, it is limited to the use of
evidence in making a decision whereas decision making might be a broader construct.
J udgment in various professions could be founded on emotion, bias, or codified standards
external to the individual. Note that this term has special meaning in mathematics
(assertions).

4. Inference
Inference is easily and specifically defined as coming to a conclusion, or making decisions,
deductions, assumptions, etc., based on the evidence at hand. This sub-skill represents the result
of critical thinking. While easily defined, many sub-skills are necessarily involved that go
beyond such things as analysis and evaluation.

There are more specific meanings to inference in some disciplines such as statistics, where
assumptions about a population are made from a small sample of evidence or in various sciences
where hypothesis testing is necessary.

Related terms include confirmation, deduction, determining implications, identifying potential
consequences, inquiry, supposition, etc.

To identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions; to form
conjectures and hypotheses,; to consider relevant information and to educe the
consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments, beliefs,
opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation (Facione
2011).

Causal Modeling
Decision Making
Drawing Conclusions
Generalization
Making Connections
Planning
Prediction
Reasoning (Inductive or Deductive)

23

Causal Modeling
This skill is the act of thinking-through or otherwise using a causal model. A causal model is
a representation of real-world relationships, dynamic, and/or connections among variables.
Causal models are used to examine cause and effect, chronological relationships, and
processes. These uses often result in making predictions (running the causal model forward),
determining root causes (diagnosing or running the causal model backward), or identifying
errors. Because causal modeling has various interpretations, it can look identical to planning
(see Conjecturing Alternatives above), prediction (see Drawing Conclusions above), decision
making, etc.

On first glance this sub-skill seems to fit earlier in the critical thinking process. However, it is
placed here underneath inference because coming up with alternatives involves integrated
reasoning and decision making. For example, the thinker may need to come up with plan A,
B, and C to allow for contingencies.

Decision Making
Although the phrase decision making is a large process in its own right, the more specific
act of making a decision fits well into inference. Like drawing conclusions, decision making
assumes the use of various sub-skills of critical thinking that precede this section.

Drawing Conclusions
This sub-skill is simply defined as the endpoint of using Inference (see the Inference section -
- above). The thinker uses evidence, ideas, beliefs, etc. to come to closure in one form or
another (e.g., opinions, positions, arguments. choices, decisions, etc.).

General ization
Generalization is the inference of specific rules, conclusions, principles, broad statements,
etc. It is perhaps a sub-part of Drawing Conclusions in that it is a specific method for using
evidence from a small sample to a larger population. For example, the thinker may use the
results of three lab experiments to generalize a rule about the boiling point of water or may
use a few past experiences to make broad comments about an issue. In this sense,
generalizations can be under or over stated based on the sufficiency of the evidence at hand.

Making Connections
Connecting one abstract construct to another, or connecting an abstract construct (e.g.,
theory) to a real-world event. In addition, some disciplines use this term for the act of
integrating knowledge from disparate sources (e.g., learning from humanities can inform
learning in another discipline). {See also: Identifying Connections under Analysis.}

Planning
The organization of ideas, steps, etc. for guiding future events. See also, Causal Modeling.
24

Related terms include design, projecting, scheduling, logistics, etc.

Predi ction
Prediction has to do with using often incomplete data to determine future events. Prediction
often utilizes causal modeling, analysis, evaluation, decision making, etc.

Related terms include forecasting.

Reasoning
This term is a very large construct that includes much of what is in this entire document. As
such, reasoning could fit under many of the headings. Reasoning can be limited to inductive
or deductive thought. Or, it could be expanded to include any sort of deep thinking or
thinking through something that begins with such things as examining assumptions or
identifying perspectives then ends with such things as explanations, justifications, or
predictions. The end product of reasoning could be a conclusion or position; but could also
look much like making a decision or solving a problem.

Reasoning is placed here underneath Inference because we will use a specific definition
based on the use of logic for considering issues. Inductive reasoning (making general
conclusions from specific evidence or deveining principles from facts) as well as deductive
reasoning (moving from general to specific or principle to instantiation) are both fair game.

5. Explanation
Now it is time in the critical thinking process to communicate all that has come before. Thinkers
must organize their thoughts and feelings in ways that illustrates their thinking and
communicates their meaning. The thinking behind the resulting narrative, report, picture, or other
representation is what matters here.

Related terms may include clarification, description, portrayal, excerpting (or abstracting)
information, etc.

Caution: The point to this last sub-skill is the ability to communicate well. All of the previously
listed sub-skills are separate and distinct in that there might be strong explanation yet faulty
reasoning involved. Thus this sub-skill has more to do with how well a narrative is written than
what it is saying. When measuring this sub-skill ensure that graders understand the difference
between the traits of good explanation versus what is good about the previous sub-skills
discussed earlier in this document. So why is this still considered critical thinking? Lets take
writing traits as an example. Traits include such things as Consideration of Audience, Content
Development, Use of Evidence, etc. Clearly, the writer must do a fair bit of critical thinking to
succeed with these traits. Therefore we recommend using both pure critical thinking measures
for the sub-skills discussed earlier as well as trait measures showing how well the narrative or
other submission communicated.

25

To present in a cogent and coherent way the results of ones reasoning. This includes
stating and justifying the reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological,
criteriological, and contextual considerations upon which ones results were based; and
to present ones reasoning in the form of cogent arguments (Facione 2011).

Abstraction
Argumentation
Integration
Justify Procedures (based on evidence)
Present Arguments
State Results
Summarization
Synthesis

Argumentation
The term argument is most often defined as the ability to construct reasons for a position
or to support a conclusion. In writing, the term argument may relate to the ability to
persuasively explain a point of view, position, decision, etc.
Like most of the other terms related to critical thinking, it is similar, a part of, or a super-
set to terms like logical reasoning, mathematical proofs, analysis, evaluation,
prioritization, organization, justification, explanation, prediction, presentation of
evidence, use of examples, etc.

Synthesi s
Organizing, assembling, or otherwise combining variables, issues, etc. into a coherent whole.

6. Metacognition for Self-regulation
This skill is not a linear step in the critical thinking path. Rather, it is a special form of critical
thinking that is related, but uses different sorts of thinking and has different goals.

To self-consciously monitor and control ones own cognitive activities, the elements used
in those activities, and the results educed, particularly by applying skills in analysis and
evaluation to ones own inferential judgments with a view toward questioning, confirming,
validating, or correcting either ones reasoning or ones results (Facione 2011).

Self-monitoring
Reflection
Self-correction

This is another large construct with various definitions. The construct has been defined as
thinking about thinking (thinking about thinking and self-awareness), thinking about personal
knowledge and learning (knowing about knowing and epistemic awareness) and stepping outside
automatic thoughts and actions to monitor and regulate thinking/learning (executive management
and control of cognition).
26

Related terms include self-directed or intentional learner, reflective professional, reflective
judgment, etc.

Caution: Any one of the three definitions listed above denotes a very large and multifaceted
construct. For example, reflection is made up of several components and can even be seen as a
large process versus a type of thinking. Self-monitoring and self-correction each contain several
smaller steps that each have levels of skill involved and assume a goodly portion of discipline-
based knowledge to pull off. Therefore, measuring any of these sub-skills can quickly expand
beyond practical limits. Unless the ultimate goal of grading is one of these three constructs, (for
example, a measure of a students reflection) I recommend using a brief and limited operational
definition for measuring these sub-skills.

Reflection
In nearly every discipline, reflection involves some sort of retrospection or self-
evaluation of actions, biases, assumptions, beliefs, feelings, or, of recently completed
events, products, or processes. These are often a part of a portfolio. In almost every use of
the term, reflection involves looking back at symptoms or outcomes as opposed to
making predictions. Depending on the discipline, reflection can be a broad construct that
encompasses many of the terms listed in this document or can describe a prescribed
mental process. In many academic disciplines, reflection is limited to a product often
written in which students describe their reasoning, judgments, feelings, evaluations, etc.
In a few disciplines reflection is defined even more narrowly as a search for truth or
social justice. However, some believe truth seeking is an outcome or purpose for critical
thinking.

27

Appendix C: Examples of Critical Thinking Skills
This list is taken directly from a useful study of critical thinking.

Fischer, S. C., Spiker, A., & Riedel, S. L. (2009). Critical thinking training for army officers volume two: A model of critical thinking.
(Report No. 1882). Fort Leavenworth, KA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Retrieved
March 25, 2013 from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/critical/criticalthinking1882.pdf

Predisposing Factors for Critical Thinking
1. Knows that opinions vary in quality, with good opinions supported by reasons
2. Intellectual honesty
3. Skeptical
4. Fair-minded
5. Respects clarity and precision
6. Demands justification
7. Reflective cognitive style
8. Persistence (some people opt not to begin the thinking process)
9. Ability to break set
10. Having incremental (as opposed to an entity) view of intelligence
11. Willing to suspend judgment and gather more information
12. Aware of own gaps in knowledge
13. Concern for accuracy
14. Maintains an open attitude
15. Adaptability
16. Objectivity
17. Cognitive flexibility to detach reasoning from prior knowledge
18. Desire for knowledge even if it undermines own cause
19. Open-mindednesstolerance for other views
20. Analyticityanticipate consequences
21. Confidence in own reasoning skills
22. Intellectual curiosityeagerness to learn even when knowledge is not immediately useful
23. Cautious in making judgments

Interpretation Skills
1. Recognize gist in material
2. Break goal into sub-goals
3. Strip verbal argument of irrelevancies and rephrase it in essential terms
4. Extract meaning from context
5. Understand contextual nuances
6. Frame the message
7. Probe question or problem to obtain clarifying information
8. Question deeply
9. Redefine problem and goal
10. Seek clear statement of the question
11. Understand intended definition of certain words
12. Discern when a term is used with different meanings
28

13. Recognize need for operational definition
14. Identify and challenge assumptions
15. Identify unstated assumption in a discussion
16. Identify missing information from an argument
17. Identify premises and conclusions
18. Identify missing premises
19. Analyze ambiguities in arguments
20. Critique to distinguish reliable from unreliable assumptions
21. Distinguish fact/opinion/assumption elements in an argument
22. Distinguish relevant from irrelevant information
23. Examine evidence to distinguish anecdote from fact
24. Determine whether a statement is overly vague or overly specific
25. Identify own assumptions

Reasoning Skills
1. Understand limits of extrapolation
2. Reason by finding analogous arguments to bolster conclusion
3. Refine generalizations and avoid oversimplification
4. Apply general principles to specific cases
5. Generalize from specific instances to broader classes
6. Determine whether a simple generalization is warranted
7. Draw inductive inference from observations
8. Reason by taking representative samples
9. Distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning
10. Reason by deductive logic to draw conclusions from premises
11. Reason dialogically to identify and compare perspectives
12. Reason dialectically to evaluate points of view
13. Trace logic in an argument
14. Determine whether a statement follows from premises
15. Distinguish between logically valid and invalid inferences
16. Check consistency of information in the problem
17. Avoid ad hominem reasoning fallacy (consider argument not the person)
18. Avoid false dichotomy reasoning fallacy (artificially reduce the number of choices)
19. Avoid guilt by association reasoning fallacy
20. Avoid emotional appeal reasoning fallacy
21. Identify instances of faulty thinking
22. Mentally simulate plans to see if they achieve goals
23. Mentally generate a structure of possibilities that presently dont exist
24. Mentally simulate probable consequences of alternative
25. Develop and use mental models
26. Recognize bias in hindsight analysis
27. Reason from starting point with which one disagrees
28. Recognize fallibility of own

29

Assessment Skills
1. Know value and cost of information, how and when to seek it
2. Know when new information supports/refutes conclusion
3. Consider new evidence as it becomes available
4. Weigh multiple factors when necessary
5. Perform means-ends analysis to check status
6. Support general assertions with details
7. Frame decision in alternative ways
8. Assess an assertions truthfulness based on accuracy of relevant facts
9. Assess an assertions truthfulness based on its degree of precision
10.Assess an assertions truthfulness based on presence of unbiased evidence
11.Assess an assertions truthfulness based on having credible sources
12.Assess an assertions truthfulness based on its logical consistency
13.Assess an observations credibility based on short time between observation and report
14.Assess an observations credibility based on first-hand report by observer
15.Assess an observations credibility based on minimal interference
16.Assess an observations credibility based on reporters belief that observation was accurate
17.Assess an observations credibility based on corroboration by other sources
18.Assess credibility of information source based on authors reputation for accuracy
19.Assess credibility of information source based on being in authors field of expertise
20.Assess credibility of information source based on absence of conflict of interest
21.Assess credibility of information source based on known risk to authors reputation
22.Assess credibility of information source based on data-gathering and processing methods
23.Assess credibility of information source based on agreement with other sources
24.Assess strength of conclusion based on reasonableness of assumptions
25.Assess strength of conclusion based on consistency with known facts
26.Assess strength of conclusion based on alternatives are inconsistent with known facts
27.Assess strength of conclusion based on its ability to explain the evidence
28.Assess strength of argument based on clarity of meaning
29.Assess strength of argument based on identity of stated and unstated conclusions
30.Assess strength of argument based on identity of premises supporting conclusions
31.Assess strength of argument based on identity of unstated assumptions
32.Assess strength of argument based on reliability and reasonableness of inferences

Meta-Cogniti ve Skills
1. Look beyond first obvious explanation to consider alternative interpretations
2. Identify the need to think hard
3. Develop perspective to explore the implications of beliefs, arguments, or theories
4. Ask questions and be willing to ponder (e.g., use scientific method)
5. Generate summaries
6. Generate alternative explanations
7. Generate multiple ideas
8. Adopt multiple perspectives
9. Consider multiple sides of an issue
10.Stay relevant to the main point
30

11.Take total situation into account
12.Monitor events for consistency with expectations
13.Monitor own understanding of problem
14.Compare analogous situations

31

Appendix D: Examples of Critical Thinking Question Stems
The best questions in education go beyond asking a fact or definition. The following table is
organized by major thinking categories in column one. In column two Ive included question
stems for classroom discussions or in your assignments.

Critical Thinking
Framework
Categories

Question Stems
{Each stemcontains lead-in words and blanks for you to fill in. Some stems contain multiple options
separated by a slash (/). In these cases, select the word or words that best fit your needs}
1. Interpretation
The primary definition
of interpretation is the
act of making sense of
various inputs.
Interpretation requires
that we clarify the
context, purpose,
issue,
problem/question,
meaning, etc.

Why Am I Here Today
What is your purpose / goal / objective for ________?
What are the problems / conflicts / issues ________?
What questions would you ask of ________?
What constraints might limit ________?
What guiding question / hypothesis will you use to ________?

Situation
What assumptions exist that might influence ________?
What contextual factors are influencing ________?
What points of view / perspectives are influencing ________?
What biases are present in ________?

Just the Facts Maam
Who ________?
What is (are) ________?
When ________?
Where ________?
Why ________?
How ________?

Clarifying Meaning
What confusing or otherwise ambiguous information exists in ________?
What additional resources are needed to clarify ________?
How would you translate / convert ________ into ________?
What research process will you use to ________?

2. Analysis
Analysis means to
break down, examine,
or otherwise explore
the issues, available
information,
arguments, etc. With
analysis, we must
manipulate, process, or
otherwise make active
changes to the inputs
to make better sense of
them.
Break It Down
What are the parts / features / functions / processes of________?
What is the theme / thesis / central message / argument in _______?
What patterns exist in the ________?
What inconsistencies are present in ________?

Categorization for Clarity
What categories would help us better understand ________?
How would you categorize / classify / group / order ________?
What patterns can you find in ________?

Cause, Effect, and Connections
What are the reasons / results of ________?
What are the causes / effects of ________?
32

How is ________ similar to / different than ________?
How is ________ related to ________?
How does ________ apply to _________?
How would you compare / contrast ________?
What evidence can you find for or against ________?

3. Evaluation
To evaluate means to
determine the merit,
value, efficacy,
advantages, worth,
authenticity, validity,
impact, or
significance, of
something (e.g., the
evidence, claims,
assumptions, biases,
arguments,
perspectives, etc.)
Preparing for the Evaluation
What criteria will you use to determine ________?
How will you know if ________?
How will you verify ________?

Evaluation Based on Standards External to the Student
Is / are _______ Accurate?
Capable?
Clear?
Complex?
Comprehensive?
Creative?
Diverse?
Effective?
Fair?
Honest?
Influential?
Logical?
Precise?
Relevant?
Significant?
Sufficient?
Valuable?
These pertain to any sort of evaluation (e.g., of an argument, claim, data,
source material, document, illustration, idea, opinion etc.)

Evaluation Based On Opinion
Do you think ________ is a good or a bad thing?
What is your opinion of ________?
Do you agree or disagree with ________?
How would you feel if ________?
What should or should not happen if ________?
What are the pros or cons of ________?

4. Inference
This broad term covers
reasoning coupled
with the use of
evidence and standards
that together are
necessary for coming
to a conclusion,
making decisions,
identifying
alternatives,
Procedural Knowledge
How could / would you ________?

Prediction
Could this have happened in ________?
If ________ had happened, then what would be different?
What does the _________ theory predict will happen if ________?
What might occur if ________?
What would you do if ________?

Diagnosis
33

generalizing, planning,
predicting, etc.
What caused ________?
What are the reasons for ________?
Why did ________ happen?
Why did ________ changes occur?
Why did ________ choose________?
Under what conditions would ________ occur?
Why is it NOT possible for ________?

Planning & Prioritization
How would you plan to________?
If you had access to all resources how would you deal with ________?
What is the most important ________?

Conclusions, Decisions
What would you select________?
What conclusions can you draw from ________?
What are the possible solutions/ resolutions to ________?
Are there alternatives to________?
How would you have handled ________?
What approach would you use to________?
What could be done to minimize (maximize) ________?
What inference can you make________?
What generalizations could you make about ________?

Recommendations
What would you recommend________?
What changes to ________ would you recommend?
What ________ would you change if ________?
Is there a better solution to ________?

5. Explanation
(Communication)
Communicate the
outcomes of thinking
such as stating results,
justifying procedures,
explaining meaning,
presenting arguments,
etc. This is considered
CT because of the
mental processes
involved in designing
a well-written (or
spoken) message.
Justification and Use of Evidence
What data was used to ________?
What information would you use to support ________?
Which facts / information / ideas justify________?
Why do you think ________?
How could you defend the ________?
Why was ________ better than ________?
What examples can you find of ________?

Application
(Show that the student can do x this requires an inferential leap on the part
of the faculty members who score student projects.)
Use the information to________.
Apply the ________ to _________.
Argue ________.
Construct a ________ that would ________.
Create new uses for ________.
Describe / explain / clarify ________.
Provide examples of ________.
Summarize _________.
Synthesize / distill down the information to ________.
34

6. Self-regulation
(Metacognition)
During all of the above
(and sometimes
following the thinking
as well), reflect, self-
examine, pose
questions about
thinking, self-correct,
etc.
Before (Executive Control)
What do you need to accomplish today?
Why are you doing this?
How does this information relate to what you already know?
What assumptions or prejudices, or other thoughts might be influencing you?
What strategy should you use?

During (Self-monitoring)
How well are you doing?
What are you sure you know / dont know?
What do you still need to do?

After (Self-correction)
How would you rate your efforts?
What could you do better next time?
What do you need to learn / change to do better next time?

Look Back (Reflection)
What progress have you made?
How have you changed in your thinking /understanding /competence?
How does this information relate to other courses you have taken?
How could you apply what you have learned to upcoming courses or to life
in general?

Reference Notes
Similar tables of question stems can be found throughout the literature and online. A Google
search using the terms Question Stems will result in over 100K hits. We acknowledge the
many efforts that helped us brainstorm our list. A good discussion of the use of these sorts of
stems can be found in the following article.
King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum.
Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of
Psychology, 22(1), 13-16. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/695%20King%201995.pdf

35

Appendix E: Signature Assignment Examples

None yet.

Please send exemplars to tom.zane@slcc.edu

36

37

Appendix F: Definitions and Examples of Completed Rubric Rows

1. Interpretation
The primary definition of interpretation is the act of making sense of various inputs. The inputs
may include such things as arguments, evidence, statements, ideas, concepts, graphics, pictures,
questions, problems, situations, beliefs, etc. For example, at a very simple level, the ability to
read and understand a text would be a form of interpretation. At a more complex level, the ability
to interpret the message of a political cartoon would also qualify as interpretation.

Interpretation does have other meanings related to outputs. For some, it is the artists ability to
place a personal touch to a piece. Still others see interpretation as a production task in writing
where the writers approach and framing illustrate their thoughts about the subject at hand. To
avoid confusion, we will not use either of these definitions here. Both of these production
definitions will fall under communication instead.

Caution: Interpretation is very similar to analysis in many ways. Both deal with making
meaning of various inputs. But interpretation is making sense of what is given while analysis
suggests the brain manipulate, process, or otherwise make active changes to the inputs to make
better sense of the materials.

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Clarifying Questions Does not ask
questions.
Identifies some
questions.
Asks good
questions.
Analyzes insightful
questions.
Clarifying Questions Omits key
questions to guide
efforts.
Includes key
questions to guide
efforts.
Defines key
questions to guide
efforts.
Clarifies key
questions to guide
efforts.
Clarifying
Understanding
Does not raise key
issues.
Mentions key
issues.
Describes key
issues.
Examines key
issues.
Critical Research Misses key source
materials.
Records the
content found in
source materials.
Describes the
content of source
materials.
Critiques the
content of source
materials.
Critical Reading Overlooks
inconsistencies.
Identifies some
inconsistencies or
states that none
exist.
Describes
inconsistencies or
verifies absence of
them.
Examines
inconsistencies or
validates absence of
them.
Finding Relationships
And Patterns
Does not identify
any patterns in the
data or information.
Mentions a
potential main
pattern running
through the data or
information.
Summarizes the
main pattern
running through the
data or information.
Explores patterns
running through the
data by explaining
the patterns and/or
sub-patterns.
Finding Significance Ignores or
misrepresents the
meaning of the
information.
Identifies potential
meanings of the
information.
Describes the
meaning of the
information.
Scrutinizes the
meaning of the
information.

38

2. Anal ysis
The most common definition of analysis is the act of breaking a complex construct, situation, or
other entity into component parts to aid understanding. However, analysis is an enormous
construct that comes in many forms when it is connected to reading, viewing, or listening
(inputs) such as recognizing relationships, listing constraints and assumptions, finding ideas
within a work, considering diverse perspectives, identifying implications or consequences,
discriminating, etc. Analysis is often paired with other skills such as evaluation and judgment to
aid deconstruction.

Related terms may include such things as consideration, investigation, looking deeply at issues,
comparing, contrasting, reasoning, and many others.

Note: Analysis is similar to interpretation and evaluation in terms of some of the thinking
patterns involved. However, analysis goes beyond interpretation by working with materials to
improve sense making and stops short of evaluation in that the thinker does not yet place value
or render judgments about the materials at hand. Although our thinking is actually not this linear,
think of analysis for our purposes as sandwiched between understanding material (inputs) and
assessing or making value judgments about the material.

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Categorization Does not organize
information.
Lists information. Categorizes
information into
meaningful groups.
Explores ways to
categorize
information to
improve meaning.
Classification Lists information. Incorporates
information.
Classifies
information.
Examines
reasoning for
information
classifications.
Consider Biases Does not detect
any biases.
Identifies biases. Contests biases. Overcomes biases.
Consider Assumptions
(Personal And Others)
Does not identify
assumptions.
Identifies
assumptions.
Questions the
validity of
assumptions
Validates
assumptions.
Consider Diverse
Perspectives
Does not identify
various
perspectives.
Identifies various
perspectives
Describes various
perspectives.
Scrutinizes various
perspectives.
Consider Conflicting
Opinions and Points of
View.
Does not identify
conflicting opinions
about the issue.
Identifies
conflicting opinions
about the issue.
Explains both sides
of the issue.
Impartially
explores the issue.
Points of View Expresses personal
bias in presentation
of viewpoints.
Presents one
viewpoint in
support of own
position.
Uses a neutral
approach to
identify pro and
con viewpoints.
Objectively
examines each
stakeholders
viewpoint focusing
especially on own
biases.

39

3. Evaluation
Evaluation is the skill of determining merit, efficacy, advantages, worth, authenticity, validity,
impact, or significance, of something (e.g., evidence, sources, assumptions, etc.).

Some disciplines consider the evaluation of source materials as a wholly different construct and
place the skill within information literacy rather than critical thinking. Some disciplines separate
elements of reviewing source materials into phases of understanding (interpretation),
categorization, clarification of meaning, and other skills.

Related terms include assessment, criteria construction, and judgment.

Note: Evaluation normally leads to rating, value statements, and decision making. However, for
our purposes, evaluation must be limited to the sub-skills listed below and should not be
confounded with outcomes of the evaluation. Making a good decision may involve evaluation.
But a good decision is not necessarily dependent on evaluation, so cant be a surrogate for
good evaluation skills. For example, an expert makes unconscious good decisions based on
experience rather than any sort of evaluation or other critical thinking.

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Assess or Judge Based
on Standards
Misinterprets
____.
Accepts ____ at
face value.
Makes some
judgments about
____.
States and uses
standards to
examine ____.

Assess Data or Source
Materials
Ignores the validity
of data or source
materials.
Recognizes the
validity of data or
source materials.
Assesses the
validity of data or
source materials.
Evaluates the
potential effects of
the validity of data
or other source
material.
Use of Standards and
Criteria
Does not use
criteria or use
invalid criteria for
making judgments.
Identifies criteria
used for making
judgments.
Defines the criteria
and reasoning used
to make judgments.
Applies relevant
criteria to the
problem or issue.
Judgment Guesses or
restates others
judgments about
the
value/merit/efficacy
of _____.

States a judgment
about the
of _____.
Determines the
of ______
Explains the
reasons for a given
value judgment
about ______.
Evaluation States the
credibility/ quality/
relevance/ etc. of
_____.
Describes the
relevance/ etc. of
_____.
Explains the
relevance/ etc. of
_____.
Critiques the
relevance/ etc. of
_____.

40

4. Inference
Hint: You may want/need to select two rows from this, the largest of the six part of the critical
thinking framework.

Inference is easily and specifically defined as coming to a conclusion, or making decisions,
deductions, assumptions, etc., based on the evidence at hand. This sub-skill represents the result
of critical thinking. While easily defined, many sub-skills are necessarily involved that go
beyond such things as analysis and evaluation.

There are more specific meanings to inference in some disciplines such as statistics, where
assumptions about a population are made from a small sample of evidence or in various sciences
where hypothesis testing is necessary.

Related terms include confirmation, deduction, determining implications, identifying potential
consequences, inquiry, supposition, etc.

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Framing Assumptions
(for complex problems)

Jumps directly to
an answer for the
problem.
Identifies the
assumptions at
work in a given
problem.
Addresses the
framing
assumptions around
a problem when
dealing with an
issue.
Reframes the
problem to yield
new perspectives
on the issue.
Conjecturing
Alternatives
Does not list any
valid alternatives.
Lists some
alternatives but
some may not be
valid.
Considers valid
alternatives.
Discovers unique
alternatives
Decision Making Does not make a
decision.
Mentions
decisions.
Makes some
supporting
comments for
decisions.
Justifies decisions.
Decision Making Based
On Evidence
Does not mention
evidence for
making decisions.
Mentions evidence
for making
decisions.
Explains evidence
for making
decisions.
Examines evidence
for making
decisions.
Decision Making Based
On Support
Does not make a
decision.
Makes a decision
but does not
provide backing.
Makes and
supports a good
decision.
Justifies why a
given decision is
the best.
Drawing Conclusions States conclusions. Describes
conclusions.
Supports
conclusions.
Examines
conclusions.
Making Connections Does not state (or
misstates) the cause
and effect
relationship.
Defines the cause
and effect
relationship.
Summarizes the
elements of the
cause and effect
relationship.
Explains the
nuances of and/or
reasoning for the
cause and effect
relationship.
Synthesis Does not use
external
information.
Cites or lists
information without
synthesis.
Summarizes
information from
various sources.
Synthesizes
information into a
new whole.
Determine Priorities or
Probabilities
Offer outcomes
without
determining their
Identify probable
outcomes.
Distinguish
between probable
and improbable
Explain why some
outcomes are more
probable than
41

probability. outcomes. others.
Use of Alternatives Does not mention
alternatives.
Identifies
alternatives.
Describes
alternatives.
Explores
alternatives.
Argumentation Attempts to
describe an
argument.
Provides a basic
position without
describing the full
argument.
Clearly describes a
cogent argument.
Explains a well-
articulated and
cogent argument.
Induction Does not make a
logical
generalization.
Overgeneralizes
due to missing
evidence or
unfounded
assumptions.
Constructs a valid
generalization
based on evidence.
Clearly articulates
the logic of a
generalization
based on evidence.
Use Inductive Analysis Does not state
potential reasons
for the event OR
makes over-
generalizations
about the reasons
for the event.
Suggests potential
reasons for the
event.
Summarizes the
most likely reasons
for the event.
Explores and/or
prioritizes the
reasons for the
event.
Deduction Makes an
unfounded
conclusion or
prediction.
Makes a weakly
supported
conclusion or
prediction.
Generates a valid
conclusion or
prediction.
Supports the
validity of a
prediction or
conclusion.
Inquiry Attempts to
generate a
hypothesis.
States a valid
hypothesis.
Adequately tests a
hypothesis.
Interprets the
meaning and
implications of test
results for a
hypothesis.
Problem Solving Guesses at a
solution to the
problem.
Offers a less than
valid/effective
solution that does
not fully solve the
problem.
Finds a
valid/effective
solution that
overcomes the
problem.
Explains why a
valid/effective
solution overcomes
the problem.
Planning Suggests a weak or
untenable plan.
Offers a logical
plan.
Describes a
workable plan.
Explains why a
given plan is the
best.
Creativity: Imaginative Copied a solution
from the course
textbook.
Presented a
common or
textbook solution.
Developed an
uncommon solution
that was not in the
textbook.
Generated a
unique solution that
I have not heard
before.
Creativity: Inventive

Replicated the
approach discussed
in class.
Used a
proven/common
approach.
Experimented
with an approach
that was not
previously
discussed in class.
Created an
unconventional
approach that went
well beyond the
assignment.
Creativity: Production

Copies an idea
already presented in
class or from the
textbook.
Generates
something similar
to previously
encountered
models.
Creates something
unusual.

Invents something
completely unique.

42

5. Explanation Optional Category.
Now it is time in the critical thinking process to communicate all that has come before. Thinkers
must organize their thoughts and feelings in ways that illustrates their thinking and
communicates their meaning. The thinking behind the resulting narrative, report, picture, or other
representation is what matters here.

Hint: Many issues found in students submissions may have been covered in the previous four
categories. Consider whether the thinking needed to communicate well has already been covered.
If everything about good communications has already been covered, you dont need to include
anything from this category since it wont add any information about your students thinking.

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Audience
Consideration
Did not address the
audience.
Identified but
didnt communicate
with the audience.
Considered the
audience.
Influenced the
audience OR spoke
convincingly to the
audience.
Argument Makes a
nonsensical or
vague
claim/argument.
Mentions a
claim/argument but
leaves the
reader/listener with
questions.
Describes a
claim/argument
clearly enough to
allow the
reader/listener to
understand the
position.
Elaborates a
claim/argument
clearly enough to
allow the
reader/listener to
appreciate the
position
Illustration Does not provide
information to
illustrate the
content.
Provides
commonly known
information to
illustrate the
content.
Describes
information that
illustrates the
content.
Details important
information that
fully illustrates the
content with
material the reader
could not
personally bring to
the text.
Synthesis Quoted secondary
sources to
understand the
combatants
perspectives.
Paraphrased
mainly secondary
sources to
understand the
combatants
perspectives.
Analyzed primary
source materials to
understand the
combatants
viewpoints.
Synthesized
primary source
materials to fully
understand the
combatants
viewpoints.
Organization Ideas are presented
randomly and/or
are not logically
linked to each other
thus making it
almost impossible
to follow.
Ideas are present
and in a generally
acceptable order,
but are not
connected to each
other in a logical
way thus making it
difficult to follow.
Ideas are arranged
logically and
support each other
making it possible
to follow.
Ideas flow
smoothly from one
to another and are
clearly linked to
each other making
it very easy to
follow.

43

6. Metacognition
This skill is not a linear step in the critical thinking path. Rather, it is a special form of critical
thinking that is related, but uses different sorts of thinking and has different goals. Evidence of
these skills often appear in student reflections.

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Self-Monitoring Does not mention
own shortcomings
or errors.
Mentions own
shortcomings or
errors.
Describes own
shortcomings or
errors.
Explores own
shortcomings or
errors.
Reflection Overlooks or does
not state own
thinking.
Mentions thoughts
or beliefs.
Describes own
thinking.
Examines the
quality of own
thinking.
Self-Correction Does not identify
errors.
Identifies errors. Self-corrects
errors.
Scrutinizes errors
to determine ways
to avoid errors in
the future.

44

45

Appendix G: Critical Thinking References Reading List

From a literature review of the top 200 articles related to critical thinking, the following five
documents were especially helpful and easy to read.

Title and Location Notes
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2007). Talking critical
thinking. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
39(2), 38-45. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.insightassessment.com/content/download/76
6/4859/file/talking+critical+thinking+--
+change+march07.pdf

This is an excellent primer for those new to the
concepts of critical thinking. This article is
relatively short, easy to read, and places critical
thinking ideas into an approachable story.
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Criteria for critical
thinking assignments. Tomales, CA: Author. Retrieved
February 15, 2013 from
http://www.clcillinois.edu/depts/vpe/gened/pdf/CriticalT
hinking_Criteria.pdf

This is perhaps the best of the documents for
faculty to get a feel for what ought to appear in
their signature assignments.
King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to
enhance critical thinking across the curriculum. Inquiring
minds really do want to know: Using questioning to
teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1),
13-16. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from

This article contains one of the better
descriptions of pedagogical practices for
encouraging CT in courses. It is simple,
straightforward, and most of all, brief.
Snyder, L. G., & Gueldenzoph, L. (2007, October). Critical
Thinking: Teaching Methods & Strategies. A handout
presented at the Ashland Teaching-Learning Conference,
Ashland, NC. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from
https://www.spfk12.org/cms/lib07/NJ 01001501/Centricit
y/Domain/15/HANDOUT_-_Critical_Thinking_-
_Teaching_Methods_and_Strategies.doc

This is an excellent resource for those who want
an outline instead of a narrative document that
describes critical thinking and how to implement
it in the classroom.
White, B. Y., Stains, M., Escriu-Sune, M., Medaglia, E.,
Rostamnjad, L., Chinn, C., & Sevian, H. (2011). A novel
instrument for assessing students critical thinking
abilities. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(5),
102-107. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://intro.bio.umb.edu/BW/papers/ACTAPaper.pdf

This is one of the best articles Ive read that
outlines a meaningful approach to assessing
critical thinking.

46

Other Useful Articles

Title and Location Notes
Broadbear, J . T. (2003). Essential elements of lessons
designed to promote critical thinking. Journal of The
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 1-8.
Retrieved April 26, 2013 from
http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/viewFile/1603/1602

Describes how to build a critical thinking
assignment.
Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and
critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In
T. S. Popkewitz, & L. Fendler, (Eds.), Critical theories
in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved April
26, 2011, from
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/papers/critical.html

Good description of critical thinking.
Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and
teaching what we value: The relationship between
college-level writing and critical thinking abilities.
Assessing Writing, 9(2004), 56-75. Retrieved May 12,
2011 from
http://uctl.canterbury.ac.nz/files/staff/articles/rubrics/Con
don_2004_Assessing-and-Teaching.pdf Note: This
website has been compromised as of March 25, 2013 and
may still be down.
An excellent research study that found
assignments needed explicit definition and
specific measurement if faculty expect to see
critical thinking evidence in student work.
Council of Chief State School Officers and The Public
Consulting Group. (n.d.). Blooms critical thinking cue
questions. Handout presented at The Curriculum Institute
annual conference Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.curriculuminstitute.org/conference-
archives/handouts/CCSSO%20Que%20Questions.pdf

An excellent description of the sorts of questions
that faculty can use in classroom discussions or
within their signature assignments to push for
critical thinking from students.
Elder, L. (2011). Global change: Why critical thinking is
essential to the community college mission. And why it
will be difficulty to achieve. Tomales, CA: Foundation
for Critical Thinking. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/why-critical-
thinking-is-essential-to-the-community-college-
mission/529

A good foundational article that describes why
critical thinking is important.
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical
thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44-48.
Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198
510_ennis.pdf

An excellent real-world view of how to
conceptualize critical thinking, why Blooms
Taxonomy is insufficient as-is, and how to
operationalize the critical thinking concepts into
real world activities.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
instruction. Executive Summary. Also known as The
Delphi Study. Millbrae, CA: California Academic
Press. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from
http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/DEXadobe.
PDF

This is the primary source document that many
(most?) colleges use to define critical thinking.
47

Flateby, T. (2010). A system for fostering and assessing
writing and critical thinking skills. Assessment Update,
22(3), 12-15.

This article is an excellent description of why we
elected to use analytic rubrics at SLCC.
Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., &
Harding, H. (2010). Deficient critical thinking skills
among college graduates: Implications for leadership.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212-230.

This article is a good description of the
philosophy behind critical thinking in higher
education.
Keeley, S. M., Shemberg, K. M., Cowell, B. S., & Zinnbauer,
B. J . (2010). Coping with student resistance to critical
thinking: What psychotherapy literature can tell us.
College Teaching, 43(4), 140-145. Retrieved March 26,
2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558737

This is a good, albeit deep and complex, article.
This might be a good read for faculty who have
some experience in the classroom and some
practice with critical thinking.
Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring
individual engagement in critical thinking in online
discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational
Technology and Society, 9(1), 298-307. Retrieved March
26, 2013 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_1/24.pdf

A good description of how faculty defined
critical thinking at their college.
Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J . (2008). Teaching critical
thinking and problem solving skills. The Delta Pi
Epsilon Journal, 1(2), 90-99. Retrieved March 26, 2013
from
https://my.parker.edu/ICS/icsfs/Teaching_Critical_Think
ing_and_Problem_Solving_Ski.pdf?target=6b04f7cc-
9551-4f64-adf7-962940b51029

This article provides a good description of
pedagogical practices that should foster critical
thinking.
Washington State University. (2006). Guide to rating critical
and integrative thinking. Center for Teaching, Learning,
and Technology. Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
https://my.wsu.edu/pls/portal/docs/page/ctlt/citrubric/ori
ginal%20wsu%20ct%20rubric.pdf

One of the better critical thinking rubrics
available.

48

49

Section 4:
Forms
&
Templates
50

51

Forms and Templates #1: Critical Thinking Skills Worksheet

Click here for the macro-enabled template. [Web LINK]

CT Process Framework Enter at least one skill on each row.
1. Interpretation

2. Analysis

3. Evaluation

4. Inference

5. Explanation (Communication)
(Category 5 is only used if skills you value in students work are not covered on other
rows.)

6. Self-regulation
(Metacognition)
(Category 6 is most commonly related to student reflections.)

52

53

Forms and Templates #2: Signature Assignment Planning Template


1. Title: [Provide a unique title for this assignment to help you communicate. Click here to type.]

2. Brief Description: [Briefly describe what you want your students to do and/or to submit.
Include the real-world (authentic) situation, type of task to be accomplished, and the sorts of
higher-order thinking (analysis, reasoning, critical thinking, etc.) that students will use to
complete the task. You dont need to create step-by-step student instructions yet. Click here to
type.]

3. What course learning outcomes will be tested? [Place applicable course learning outcomes
here. Click here to type.]

4. Which college-wide outcomes will you score? (Check all that apply.)
1. Substantive Content
2. Communication Literacy
3. Quantitative Literacy

4. Critical Thinking
5. Civic Engagement
Others {List below.}

5. What will be graded? [Check all that apply. Be sure to consider the CWSLOs you checked in
#4]
Process {Quality of the methods used.}
Product {Qualities of the artifact (paper, project, etc.) the students submit.}
Performance {Quality of delivery e.g., singing, dance routine, etc.}
Personal Trait {Professionalism, Critical Thinker, Good Listener, etc. Caution: These can be
relatively difficult to define and measure.}
Content {Quality of the discipline-based information presented (e.g., appropriateness,
accuracy, etc.)}

6. What are the criteria for success? [List criteria titles for one or more types of criteria listed
below.]

Type of Criteria Enter ideas into one or
more boxes below.
Quality: {Compelling ideas, good solution, strong evidence,
precise steps, etc.}

Depth/Breadth: {Complexity of analysis, insightfulness,
completeness, etc.}

Relevance/Adequacy: {Proper execution, correct formula, good
teamwork, effective approach, etc.}

54

Impact: {Outcome of the task e.g. solved the dilemma, the
patient lived, reduced manufacturing costs, etc.}

Accuracy: {Use this type of criteria sparingly.}

7. What resources, research, and/or other materials will the student need to use? [Briefly
list here. Click here to type.]

8. How will the assignment be represented in the students ePortfolio? [What will the course
page look like? What form will the assignment take on the course page? If you have created
mock page designs to share with students, paste those URLs here. Click here to type.]

9. What reflection prompts will accompany the signature assignment? [Include at least one
reflection prompt. Giving students a choice of reflection prompts is good practice. Click here to
type.]

55

Forms and Templates #3: Signature Assignment Student Handout Template


1. Assignment Title:

2. Unit, Objectives, Competencies, or Outcomes:

3. Scenario:

4. Task Description:

5. Submission Description:

6. Due Date(s):

7. Scoring (Grading):

8. References, Materials, Equipment:

Signature Assignment student Handout Template for _____________________
56

57

Forms and Templates #4: Signature Assignment Rubric Template

Click Here for the Rubric Template file [Web LINK]

Criteria Well Below
Expectations
1
Below
Expectations
2
Meets
Expectations
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
Interpretation

Analysis

Evaluation

Inference

Explanation (Optional Row)

Metacognition

Signature Assignment Rubric Template for ______________________
58

59

Critical Thinking References List
For recommended readings see Appendix I: Critical Thinking References Reading List.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamin, R., & Zhang,
D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A
stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134.
Ahuna, K. H., Tinnesz, C. G., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2011). Methods of inquiry: Using critical
thinking to retain students. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 249-259.
Allen, J . D., & Razvi, S. (2006, April). Students perspectives, levels of epistemological
understanding, and critical thinking dispositions related to the use of case studies in an
educational psychology course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED491666.pdf
Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a
revision of Booms taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Balin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J . R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from
http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/ctl/__shared/assets/ct-conceptualize597.pdf
Bensley, D. A., Crowe, D. S., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., and Allman, A. L. (2010). Teaching
and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of
Psychology, 37, 91-96.
Bigenho, F. W. (1992). Conceptual developments in schema theory. No longer available from the
ERIC website. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED351392).
Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service ED327218). Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Dev_Metacognition/
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay Co. Inc.
Bowers, P., King, J ., & Peterson, D. (2006, November). Technology and story: Fostering
judgment, insight, and classroom strategy. [Slides]. Presentation at the Sloan-C
Conference, Orlando: FL.
Broadbear, J . T. (2003). Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking.
Journal of The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 1-8. Retrieved April 26,
2013 from http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/viewFile/1603/1602
Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations,
differences, and limits. In T. S. Popkewitz, & L. Fendler, (Eds.), Critical theories in
education. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/papers/critical.html
Butler, H. A. (2012). Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real-world outcomes of
critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 721-729.
60

Carroll, R. T. (2007). Teaching critical thinking. Paper expanded from a presentation at the
Critical Thinking Workshop, Las Vegas, NV. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/teachingCT.html
Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45-49.
Retrieved March 25, 2013 from http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/ctl/__shared/assets/ct-
mainstage595.pdf
Cavaliere, F., & Mayer, B. W. (2012). Flooding the zone: A ten-point approach to assessing
critical thinking as part of the AACSB accreditation process. Education, 133(2), 361-366.
Center for Teaching Excellence. (2013). Strategies for helping students develop critical thinking
skills. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.sanjuancollege.edu/Documents/CTX/Teaching%20Tips/Strategies%20for%2
0Helping%20Students%20Develop%20Critical%20thinking%20Skills.pdf
Chaffee, J . (2004). Thinking critically: A concise guide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cheung, C., Rudowicz, E., Kwan, A. S. F., & Yue, X. D. (2002). Assessing university students
general and specific critical thinking. College Student Journal, 36(4), 1-23.
College of Wooster. (2009). Creative and critical thinking: Assessing the foundations of a liberal
arts education. Wooster, MA: Author. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www3.wooster.edu/teagle/vendiagram.php
Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship
between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9(2004),
56-75. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from
http://uctl.canterbury.ac.nz/files/staff/articles/rubrics/Condon_2004_Assessing-and-
Teaching.pdf Note: This website has been compromised as of March 25, 2013 and may
still be down.
Council of Chief State School Officers and The Public Consulting Group. (n.d.). Blooms critical
thinking cue questions. Handout presented at The Curriculum Institute annual conference
Retrieved March 18, 2013 from http://www.curriculuminstitute.org/conference-
archives/handouts/CCSSO%20Que%20Questions.pdf
Davies, W. M. (2006). An infusion approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking
debate. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 179-193. Retrieved May
23, 2011 from
http://unimelb.academia.edu/MartinDavies/Papers/434010/An_Infusion_Approach_to_Cr
itical_Thinking_Moore_on_the_Critical_Thinking_Debate
Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2003). Metacognition and critical thinking. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service ED477930). Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED477930.pdf
Dewey, J . (1910). How we think. [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_a.html
Dewey, J . (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
61

Elder, L. & Paul, R. (1996). Universal intellectual standards. Tomales, CA: Foundation for
Critical Thinking. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527
Elder, L. (2004). Professional development model: Colleges and universities that foster critical
thinking. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved February 15, 2013
from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-professional-development-model-for-
colleges-and-universities-that-fosters-critical-thinking/435
Elder, L. (2011). Global change: Why critical thinking is essential to the community college
mission. And why it will be difficulty to achieve. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical
Thinking. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/why-
critical-thinking-is-essential-to-the-community-college-mission/529
Endres, B. (1996). Habermas and Critical Thinking. In F. Margonis (Ed.) Philosophy of
Education Yearbook, 168-177. Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society. Retrieved
May 10, 2011, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/96_docs/endres.html
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational
Leadership, 43(2), 44-48. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198510_ennis.pdf
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. New York:
Freeman.
Ennis, R. H. (1997). Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to some
basic issues. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 16(3), 1-9. Retrieved May
23, 2011 from
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/IncorpY400dpiBWNoDropPp1-
9PrintD.pdf
Ennis, R. H. (2012, revised). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking
dispositions and abilities. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCriticalThinking_517
11_000.pdf
Erwin, T. D. (2000). The NPEC sourcebook on assessment, volume 1: Definitions and
assessment methods for critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. Washington D.C.:
National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000195.pdf
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. Also known as The Delphi Study. Millbrae,
CA: California Academic Press. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from
http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/DEXadobe.PDF
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. San J ose, CA: California
Academic Press. Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/What&Why2010.pdf
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2007). Talking critical thinking. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 39(2), 38-45. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
62

http://www.insightassessment.com/content/download/766/4859/file/talking+critical+thin
king+--+change+march07.pdf
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., Giancario, C. A. F., & Blohm, S. W. (2002). Teaching for
Thinking. San J ose, CA: Insight Assessment, California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione N. C., & Gainen, J . (1995). The disposition toward
critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.
http://www.insightassessment.com/content/download/789/4985/file/disposition_to_ct_19
95_jge.pdf
Fani, T. (J une, 2011). Overcoming barriers to teaching critical thinking. Paper presented at the
Future of Education International Conference, Florence, Italy. Retrieved February 15,
2013 from http://www.pixel-
online.net/edu_future/common/download/Paper_pdf/SOE07-Fani.pdf
Felder, R. M., Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.
College Teaching, 44(1), 43-47. Retrieved April 26, 2013 from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Resist.html
Fischer, S. C., Spiker, A., & Riedel, S. L. (2009). Critical thinking training for army officers
volume two: A model of critical thinking. (Report No. 1882). Fort Leavenworth, KA: U.S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Retrieved March 25,
2013 from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/critical/criticalthinking1882.pdf
Flateby, T. (2010). A system for fostering and assessing writing and critical thinking skills.
Assessment Update, 22(3), 12-15.
Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2010). Deficient
critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212-230.
Fogler, H. S., & Grmen, M. N. (2013). Critical and creative thinking. In Strategies for Creative
Problem Solving. [Website]. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/probsolv/strategy/crit-n-creat.htm
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). A sample [critical thinking] assignment format.
Tomales, CA: Author. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-sample-assignment-format/438
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). An overview of how to design instruction using critical
thinking concepts. Tomales, CA: Author. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-where-to-begin/796
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Criteria for critical thinking assignments. Tomales,
CA: Author. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.clcillinois.edu/depts/vpe/gened/pdf/CriticalThinking_Criteria.pdf
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Critical thinking testing and assessment. Tomales, CA:
Author. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/an-
overview-of-how-to-design-instruction-using-critical-thinking-concepts/439
63

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Critical thinking: Where to begin. Tomales, CA:
Author. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-
thinking-where-to-begin/796
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Strategy list: 35 dimensions of critical thought.
Tomales, CA: Author. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/strategy-list-35-dimensions-of-critical-
thought/466
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Structures for student self-assessment. Tomales, CA:
Author. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/structures-for-student-self-assessment/458
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking and
Learning. Tomales, CA: Author. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-role-of-questions-in-teaching-thinking-and-
learning/521
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching,
and learning. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved February 15,
2013 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-role-of-socratic-questioning-in-
thinking-teaching-learning/522
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2013). Three categories of questions: Crucial distinctions. In
Author, The Questioning Mind. Tomales, CA: Author. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/three-categories-of-questions-crucial-
distinctions/482
Friedel, C., Irani, T. Rudd, R. Gallo, M. Eckhardt, E., and Ricketts, J . (2008). Overtly teaching
critical thinking and inquiry-based learning: A comparison of two undergraduate
biotechnology classes. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 72-84. Retrieved May
23, 2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ 839873.pdf
Fulton, R. D. (1989). Critical thinking in adulthood. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED320015).
Gadzella, B. M., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Critical thinking and learning processed for students
in two major fields. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(4), 1-7.
Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-
analysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 746-
762. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v044/44.6gellin.ht
ml
Gent, I, J ohnston, B., & Prosser, P. (1999). Thinking on your feet in undergraduate computer
science: A constructivist approach to developing and assessing critical thinking. Teaching
in Higher Education, 4(4), 511-522.
Greeno, J . G. (1989). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44(2). 134141.
64

Haas, P. F., & Keeley, S. M. (1998). Coping with faculty resistance to teaching critical thinking.
College Teaching, 46(2), 63-73. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558883
Hagerty, D. J ., & Rockaway, T. D. (2012). Adapting entry-level engineering courses to
emphasize critical thinking. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 25-34.
Halonen, J . S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 23(1), 75-81.
Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of
General Education, 50(4), 270-286. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah,
NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. An e-copy of the fourth edition can be read online.
Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/28539999/Thought-and-
Knowledge-An-Introduction-to-Critical-Thinking
Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning. Change, J uly/August,
36-41. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/HalpernHakel.pdf
Hartigan, R., & Bolesta, M. (October, 2006). Critical thinking and critical reflection on
assumptions. Hot and bothered: Critically reframing assumptions about the McDonalds
Hot Coffee Case. [PowerPoint Slides]. Presentation at the 12th Sloan-C International
Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, FL. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/proceedings/2006/ppt/1159975001691.pot
Haskins, G. R. (2006). A practical guide to critical thinking. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/Haskins.html
Hatcher, D. L. (2011). Which test? Whose scores? Comparing standardized critical thinking
tests. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149(Spring), 29-39.
Hoffman, B. (Ed.). (2003). Metacognition. Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved
March 26, 2013 from http://www.cordonline.net/mntutorial2/module_4/Reading%204-
1%20metacognition.pdf
Hummer, A. (1997). Measuring critical thinking outcomes via the capstone course paper.
Assessment Update, 9(3), 8-9.
Hwang, S., Yen, M., Lee, B., Huang, M, & Hung, F. T. A critical thinking disposition scale for
nurses: Short form. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(1), 3171-3176.
J ames, N., Hughes, C. & Cappa, C. (2010). Conceptualizing, developing and assessing critical
thinking in law. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 285-297.
J ones, E.A., & Ratcliff, G. (1993). Critical thinking skills for college students. University Park,
PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Keeley, S. M., Shemberg, K. M., Cowell, B. S., & Zinnbauer, B. J . (2010). Coping with student
resistance to critical thinking: What psychotherapy literature can tell us. College
Teaching, 43(4), 140-145. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
65

Kennedy, M. L., J ones, R., & Wallace, D. (2009, J une). Critical thinking. [PowerPoint
Presentation]. A presentation from the Semantic Technology and Business Annual
Conference. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.sla.org/PDFs/SLA2009/2009_critical-thinking.pdf
King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the
curriculum. Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical
thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13-16. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
King, P. & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting
intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA:
J ossey-Bass.
Krupat, E., Sprague, J . M., Wolpaw, D., Haidet, P., Hatem, D., & OBrien, B. (2011). Thinking
critically about critical thinking: Ability, disposition, or both? Medical Education, 45(1),
625-635.
Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and
educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273. Retrieved March 26, 2013
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3701534
Kurfiss, J . G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. (ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2). Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Retrieved March 27, 2013 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED304041.pdf
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Author, Pearson Assessments. Retrieved
February 15, 2013 from
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf
Landis, M., Swain, K. D., Friehe, M. J ., & Coufal, K. L. (2007). Evaluating critical thinking in
class and online: Comparison of the Newman method and the Facione rubric.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(3), 135-143. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from
http://cdq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/28/3/135
Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 49(2), 23-40.
Lunney, M., Fredrickson, K., Spark, A., and McDuffie, G. (2008). Facilitating critical thinking
through online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 85-97.
Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
http://media.wiley.com/product_ancillary/17/08138160/DOWNLOAD/6%20facilitating
%20critical%20thinking%20in%20online%20courses.pdf
MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause
Quarterly, (4), 38-41. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://eac595b.pbworks.com/f/macknight+2000+questions[1].pdf
Mandernach, B. J . (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to
promote critical thinking. Insight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 1, 41-50.
Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
http://www.insightjournal.net/Volume1/Thinking%20Critically%20about%20Critical%2
66

0Thinking-
%20Integrating%20Online%20Tools%20to%20Promote%20Critical%20Thinking.pdf
Mazer, J . P., Hunt, S. K., & Kuznekoff, J . H. (2008). Revising general education: Assessing a
critical thinking instructional model in the basic communication course. The Journal of
General Education, 56(3-4), 173-199. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27798079?uid=34793&uid=3739928&uid=2134&
uid=34792&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=67&uid=5912200&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid
=21101823955063
McPeck, J . E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational
Researcher, 19(4), 10-12.
Moon, J . A. (2004). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Moore, T. J . (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher
Education Research & Development, 30(3), 261-274.
Morey, D. J . (2012). Development and evaluation of web-based animated pedagogical agents for
facilitating critical thinking in nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(2), 116-120.
Nardone, C. F., & Lee. R. G. (2011). Critical inquiry across the disciplines: Strategies for
student-generated problem posing. College Teaching, 59(1), 13-22. The unpublished
working paper version is available online. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from
http://www.shsu.edu/~coba/cbr/documents/No.09-05MGT.pdf
Ngeow, K, & Kong, Y. (2001). Learning to learn: Preparing teachers and students for problem-
based learning. ERIC Digest. Retrieved April 26, 2013 from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/problem.htm
Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Journal of Educational
Leadership, 42(8), 40-45. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198505_norris.pdf
North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2006). Metacognition. Excerpted from the
Strategic Teaching and Reading Project Guidebook. Medford, MA: Author. Retrieved
March 26, 2013 from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/learning/lr1metn.htm
Northern Arizona University. (2007). Learning centered project assignment ideas: Critical
thinking. Flagstaff, AZ: Author.
Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. (2004). Developing self-directed learners. Portland,
OR: Author.
OHare, L., & McGuinness, C. (2009). Measuring critical thinking, intelligence, and academic
performance in psychology undergraduates. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 38(3-4),
123-131. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from http://textos.pucp.edu.pe/pdf/1112.pdf
Osana, H. P., & Seymour, J . R. (2004). Critical thinking in preservice teachers: A rubric for
evaluating argumentation and statistical reasoning. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 10(4-6), 473-498.
67

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and
improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass Publishers.
Park University. (n.d.). Are you thinking yet? Critical thinking in the curriculum. [PowerPoint
Presentation]. Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Retrieved March 27,
2013 from
http://www.park.edu/cetl/Misc%20Presenations/Campus%20Center%20Critical%20Thin
king%20Presentation%20final%20version.pdf
Paul R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal
of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35.
Paul R., & Elder, L. (2007). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. The
Foundation for Critical Thinking, Dillon Beach, CA. Retrieved May 23, 2011, from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf
Paul, R. W. (1985). Critical thinking research: A response to Stephen Norris. Educational
Leadership, 42(8), 45. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from
http://stallion.abac.peachnet.edu/bray/synthCTresponse.pdf
Peace, R. (2010). Cultivating critical thinking: Five methods for teaching history of U.S. foreign
policy. The History Teacher, 43(2), 265-273. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/Peace.pdf
Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing critical thinking: A colleges
journey and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82(6), 313-320.
Retrieved April 26, 2011, from http://uwf.edu/cutla/QEP/finalreports/Business--
Peach_Mukherjee_Hornyak_2005.pdf
Pellegrino, J . W. (1995). Technology in support of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology,
2(1), 11-12.
Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical
thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology and
Society, 9(1), 298-307. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_1/24.pdf
Potts, B. (1994). Strategies for teaching critical thinking. Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 4(3), 1-4. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=3
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J ., & Hartley, K. Promoting self-regulation in science education:
Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science
Education, 36(1), 111-139. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/Metacog_Articles_files/Schraw,%20Crippen,%20%26%2
0Hartley%20(2006).pdf
Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2004). Defining critical thinking. Paper presented at the 8th Annual
International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform. Retrieved February
11, 2013 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Sezer, R. (2008). Integration of critical thinking skills into elementary school teacher education
courses in mathematics. Education, 128(3), 349-362. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
68

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40535014/integration-of-critical-thinking-skills-into-
elementary-school-teacher-education-courses-in-mathematics
Sherblom, P. R. (2010). Creating critically thinking educational leaders with courage,
knowledge, and skills to lead tomorrows schools today. The Sheppard Institute Journal
of Practical Leadership. (5.1) 81-90. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from
http://aa.utpb.edu/media/leadership-journal-files/2010-
archives/J ohnBenShepperdJ ournalofPracticalLeadership_Vol.5_Iss.1_81-90.pdf
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. New York:
Taylor & Francis, Inc.
Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21
st
century. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.
Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/MeasuringSkills.pdf
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,
119(1), 3-22. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/loveLAB/love/classes/concepts/Sloman
1996.pdf
Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J . (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The
Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 1(2), 90-99. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
https://my.parker.edu/ICS/icsfs/Teaching_Critical_Thinking_and_Problem_Solving_Ski.
pdf?target=6b04f7cc-9551-4f64-adf7-962940b51029
Snyder, M. J . (n.d.). Critical thinking: Teaching methods & strategies. This is an outline of ideas,
see previous source for full text.
Snyder, M. J ., & Gueldenzoph, L. E. (2007, October). Critical Thinking: Teaching Methods &
Strategies. A handout presented at the Ashland Teaching-Learning Conference, Ashland,
NC. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from
https://www.spfk12.org/cms/lib07/NJ 01001501/Centricity/Domain/15/HANDOUT_-
_Critical_Thinking_-_Teaching_Methods_and_Strategies.doc
Spicer, K., & Hanks, W. E. (1995, November). Multiple measures of critical thinking skills and
predisposition in assessment of critical thinking. Paper presented at the 81st Annual
Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the
rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 645-726. Retrieved March 26,
2013 from
http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reasoning_files/bbs2000_1.pdf
Stark, E. (2012). Enhancing and assessing critical thinking in a psychological research methods
course. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 107-112.
Stein, B., & Haynes, A. (2011). Engaging faculty in the assessment and improvement of
students critical thinking using the CAT. Change, March/April, 44-49.
Thomas, T. (2011). Developing first year students critical thinking skills. Asian Social Science,
7(4), 26-35. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/9389/7128
69

Thompson, C. (2011). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Process over output. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 1-7. Retrieved February 15, 2013
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._9_Special_Issue_J uly_2011/1.pdf
University of Memphis Department of Psychology. (n.d.). 25 learning principles to guide
pedagogy and the design of learning environments. Memphis, TN: Author. Retrieved
February 15, 2013 from http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/provost/file47947.pdf
Unsworth, C. A. (2001). The clinical reasoning of novice and expert occupational therapists.
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 8(1), 163-173.
Van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Lessons from cognitive science. College
Teaching, 53(1), 41-46. Retrieved May 24, 2011 from
http://images.austhink.com/pdf/teaching-critical-thinking.pdf
Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology,
2-1, 24-28.
Walsh, C. M., & hardy, R. C. (1999). Dispositional differences in critical thinking related to
gender and academic major. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(4), 149-155.
Washington State University. (2006). Guide to rating critical and integrative thinking. Center for
Teaching, Learning, and Technology. Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
https://my.wsu.edu/pls/portal/docs/page/ctlt/citrubric/original%20wsu%20ct%20rubric.p
df
Weimer, M. (2012). Assessing critical thinking skills. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/newsletter/story/6051/
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J . R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making
science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118. Retrieved
March 26, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233668
White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J . R. (1999). Enabling students to construct
theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for
metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,
10(2), 151-182. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from http://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/73/40/PDF/white99.pdf
White, B. Y., Stains, M., Escriu-Sune, M., Medaglia, E., Rostamnjad, L., Chinn, C., & Sevian,
H. (2011). A novel instrument for assessing students critical thinking abilities. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 40(5), 102-107. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://intro.bio.umb.edu/BW/papers/ACTAPaper.pdf
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy
Review, 109(4), 21-29. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2007/Crit_Thinking.pdf
Wolfe, C. (2013). Criteria for critical thinking assignments. Dobson, NC: Surrey Community
College. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from
http://www.clcillinois.edu/depts/vpe/gened/pdf/CriticalThinking_Criteria.pdf
70

Zygmont, D. M., & Schaefer, K. M. (2006). Assessing the critical thinking skills of faculty:
What do the findings mean for nursing education? Nursing Education Perspectives,
27(5), 260-268.

Critical Thinking Signature Assignments Guidebook Rev 1-3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Signature Assignments Guidebook Rev 1-3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oral/Verbal Communications Rubrics

You might also like