Stella_Cottrell_Critical_Thinking_Skills_Deve

predicated on a Marxist interpretation of wealth; the progrnmine was predicated on the asszltnption that the prisoner was innocent.

premises Propositions believed to be true and used as the bases for the argument; the basic building blocks for the argument. Premises that are not well-founded are referred to as false premises.

Propositions Statements believed to be true and presented as arguments or reasons for consideration by the audience. A proposition may turn out to be true or false.

Reasons The contributing arguments put forward to support the overalI argument or line of reasoning.

Reasons - independent reasons The author may use several reasons to support the conclusion, each of which may be valid in its own right but may have nothing to do with the other reasons given.

Reasons - joint reasons The reasons provided to support an argument when they are connected in some way and mutually reinforce each other.

Salience 'Salient' simply means 'relevant to the argument'.

Substantive point The central point that is being made, or the core of the argument. This expression is used to focus attention on the main point, especially if an argument has been diverted towards more minor issues and when the key message is becoming obscured.

Tautology Unnecessary repetition, when the author makes the same point but in different words. For example, in poor arguments, a tautology may be used to make it appear as if there are two reasons to support a conclusion, when the first reason has merely been reproduced in a different way.

Proposition 3: The mountainside can be dangerous during some storms.

Propositiorz 4: Some members of the team are not familiar with the area or with mountaineering.

Conchsion: It isn't a good moment to launch an expedition into the mountains.

Premises

It is not a good time for the expedition to go into the mountains as a storm is expected and some of the team may not have the health or experience to cope with this.

False premises

The argument against launching the expedition sounds convincing. However, it could be based on false premises: a storm may not be due, the dangers might be exaggerated, or the team may be more experienced than described, or the team member may have only a minor cold. In that case, the argument against launching the expedition would be based on false premises.

Predicate

The argument against the expedition is predicated on an assumption that the safety of the team should take priority over the requirements of the expedition.

Salience

The question of safety is salient to the debate about whether to launch the expedition. Other things may not be salient to that argument. For example, the facts that a team member was good at sports at school 20 years ago, or had hiccups yesterday, are probably not salient to the discussion.

I offer many thanks to all those who have contributed to bringing this book into being. First of all, I thank all those students who used study skills sessions with me to develop strategies for improving their own critical thinking skills. For many, this involved taking courageous steps in asking for help. I hope that their efforts and bravery may now also help others, especially those who find the mysterious words 'more critical analysis needed' on feedback to their work. Secondly, I thank the lecturers who took the trouble to point out to students that they needed to improve their critical and analytical abilities and sent them in the direction of help. Thirdly, I thank the readers of the early draft of the book, who made excellent suggestions for its improvements: any remaining errors and

weaknesses are my own. I owe a great deal to the research into various disciplines undertaken by others. Where I have drawn on this as background reading, this is acknowledged at the end of the chapter or the bibliography. I am grateful, as ever, to the many staff at Palgrave Macmillan who work so hard behind the scenes to pull together all the different aspects of the book, and to Suzannah Burywood in particular, for making everything run so smoothly, I am grateful, too, to Valery Rose and Jocelyn Stockley for editing the script and preparing it for the printers, and for the enormous care they take with the small details. Above all, I thank my partner 'for everything', but especially for all the good things to eat as I laboured and for endless patience.

S.C.

Introduction

This chapter provides a general orientation to critical thinking. It examines what is meant by 'critical thinking', the skills associated with it, and the barriers that can hinder effective development of critical approaches. Many people can find it difficult to order their thoughts in a logical, consistent, and reasoned way. This book starts from the premise that skills in reasoning can be developed through a better understanding of what critical thinking entails, and by practice.

Critical thinking is a cognitive activity, associated with using the mind. Learning to

think in critically analytical and evaluative ways means using mental processes such as attention, categorisation, selection, and judgement.

However, many people who have the potential to develop more effective critical thinking can be prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons apart from a lack of ability. In particular, personal and emotional, or 'affective', reasons can create barriers. You are invited to consider, in this chapter, how far such barriers could be affecting your own thinking abilities and how you will manage these.

Good critical thinking involves making accurate judgements. We noted above that our thinking might not be accurate if we are not fully aware of the influences that affect it. These can include such things as our own assumptions, preconceptions, bias, dislikes, beliefs, things we take for granted as normal and acceptable, and all those things about our selves and our world that we have never questioned.

People who are outstanding at critical thinking tend to be particularly self-aware. They reflect upon and evaluate their personal motivations, interests, prejudices, expertise and gaps in their knowledge. They question their own point of view and check the evidence used to support it.

Becoming more self-aware takes courage. It can be unsettling to find out things about ourselves we didn't know, as most of us like to think we know ourselves very well. It is also challenging to question our belief systems. We think of these as part of our identity and it can be unsettling if we feel our identity is called into question.

Furthermore, the result of your critical thinking might place you in a minority amongst your friends, family or colleagues. Nobody else might interpret the evidence in the same way as you. It takes courage to argue an alternative point of view, especially when it is possible that you might be wrong.

I will deal with this by:

I deal with these by:

Below, three lecturers describe h o w they view critical thinking.

I may make a quick first reading to get the overall picture and check my initial response. 1 see whether it rings true or contradicts what I believe to be true.

I compare what I read with what I already know about the topic and with my experience.

I summarise as I go along, and hold the overall argument in my head to make sense of what comes next.

I look for the author'sposition or point of view, asking 'Whatare they trying to "sell me"?'

As I read, I check each section and ask myself if I know what it means. If not, I check again - sometimes it is clearer when I read the second time. If it is still unclear, I remind myself to come back to it later as the rest of the passage may make it clearer.

I then read more carefully, seeing what reasons the writers present and checking whether I am persuaded by these.

If I am persuaded, I consider why. Is it because they make use of experts in the field? Is there research evidence that looks thorough and convincing?

If I am not persuaded, then why not? I check if this is a 'gutlevel'thing or whether I have good reasons for not being convinced. If I have relied on a gut response, I check for hard evidence such as whether I have read other material that contradicts it.

I then create my own position, and check that my own point of view is convincing. Could I support it if I was challenged?

Here the lecturer is describing an overall critical thinking strategy for reading and analysing the text. The example below indicates that, as well as the words o n the page or other material being critiqued, there are wider considerations t o be taken into account.

I put my energy into looking for the heart of the issue: what is really being said, and why? The answers may not be on the page; they may be in the wider history of a debate, a cultural clash, or conflicting bids for project money. It is surprising how often the wider context, popular debates, even a desire to be seen to be saying what is currently in fashion, have a bearing on what a given passage is really saying.

The third lecturer wouldn'tdisagree w i t h what has gone before, but adds another dimension.

The trick is being able to see the wood for the trees; identifying what is relevant amongst a mass of less relevant information. It isn't enoughjust to understand; you have to be constantly evaluating whether something is accurate, whether it gets to the heart of the issue, whether it is the most important aspect on which to focus, whether it is the best example to use - and whether what you are saying about it is a fair representationof it.

All three examples illustrate different aspects of the critical thinking process:

an analytical strategy for the material; understanding of the wider context; an evaluative and selective approach; being self-critical about your o w n

interpretation and evaluation.

Development of understanding

Students are expected to develop critical thinking skills so that they can dig deeper below the surface of the subjects they are studying and engage in critical dialogue with its main theories and arguments. This is usually through engaging in critical debate in seminars, presentations or writing produced for assessment or publication.

One of the best ways of arriving at a point where we really understand something is by doing, or replicating, the underlying research for ourselves. However, as undergraduates, and indeed in everyday life, there simply isn't the time to research everything we encounter. The depth of understanding that comes through direct experience, practice and experimentation has to be replaced, at times, by critical analysis of the work of other people.

Students need to develop the ability to critically evaluate the work of others. Whilst some find this easy, others tend to accept or apply the results of other people's research too readily, without analysing it sufficiently to check that the evidence and the reasoning really support the main points being made. Bodner (1988), for example, describes chemistry students as being unable to 'apply their knowledge outside the narrow domain in which it was learnt. They "know" without understanding.' Bodner suggests that, instead of focusing primarily on standard chemical calculations in books, students should be looking for answers to questions such as 'How do we know . . . ?'and 'Why do we believe ... ?'

Bodner's description is likely to be just as true of students in other subjects. It is not unusual for students, and for people generally, to rely unquestioningly on research that is based on a small sample of the population, or that is based on faulty reasoning, or that is now out of date. Evidence from small or isolated projects is often treated as if it were irrefutable proof of a general principle, and is sometimes quoted year after year as if it were an absolute truth. Chapter 8 looks further at critically examining and evaluating evidence.

8 Critical Thinking Skills

Do you recognise anything of yourself in Bodner's description of students?What effect would the

Both positives and negatives

In academic contexts, 'criticism' refers to an analysis of positive features as well as negative ones. It is important to identify strengths and satisfactory aspects rather than just weaknesses, to evaluate what works as well as what does not. Good critical analysis accounts for wlzy something is good or poor, why it works or fails. It is not enough merely to list good and bad points.

Comprehensive: nothing i s excluded

At most English-speaking universities, students are expected to take a critical approach to what they hear, see and read, even when considering the theories of respected academics. Normally, any theory, perspective, data, area of research or approach to a discipline could be subjected to critical analysis. Some colleges, such as religious foundations, may consider certain subjects to be out of bounds, but this is not typical.

O Stella Cotrrell (2005), Critical Tl~inkirrgSkills,