Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
【Education Policy Studies Series】
Promoting Critical Thinking: Discussing the Capacity of Issue-
Inquiry Approach in Liberal Studies
Christy Wai-hung Ip
Faculty of Education Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
About the Author
Christy Wai-hung Ip is a doctoral candidate of the Faculty of
Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
© Christy Wai-hung Ip, 2010
All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without
permission in writing from the author.
ISBN 978–962–8908–34–9
Education Policy Studies Series
Education embraces aspirations of individuals and society. It
is a means of strengthening human resources, sustaining
competit iveness of society, enhancing mobili ty of the
underprivileged, and assimilating newcomers to the mainstream
of society. It is also a means of creating a free, prosperous, and
harmonious environment for the populace.
Education is an endeavor that has far-reaching influences,
for it embodies development and justness. Its development needs
enormous support from society as well as the guidance of policies
that serve the imperatives of economic development and social
justice. Policy-makers in education, as those in other public
sectors, can neither rely on their own visions nor depend on the
simple tabulation of fi nancial cost and benefi t to arrive at decisions
that will affect the pursuit of the common good. Democratization
warrants public discourse on vital matters that affect all of us.
Democratization also dictates transparency in the policy-making
process. Administrative orders disguised as policies have a very
small audience indeed. The public expects well-informed policy
decisions, which are based on in-depth analyses and careful
deliberation. Like the policy-makers, the public and professionals
in education require a wealth of easily accessible facts and views
so that they can contribute constructively to the public discourse.
To facilitate rational discourse on important educational
matters, the Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research of
The Chinese University of Hong Kong organizes from time to
time “Education Policy Seminars” to address critical issues in
educational development of Hong Kong and other Chinese
societies. These academic gatherings have been attended by
stakeholders, practitioners, researchers and parents. The bulk of
this series of occasional papers are the fruit of labor of some of
the speakers at the seminars. Others are written specifi cally as
contributions to the series.
The aim of this Education Policy Studies Series is to present
the views of selected persons who have new ideas to share and
to engage all stakeholders in education in an on-going discussion
on educational matters that will shape the future of our society.
1Promoting Critical Thinking:
Discussing the Capacity of
Issue-Inquiry Approach in Liberal Studies
Abstract
The New Senior Secondary Curriculum (NSSC) of Liberal
Studies has been launched since the academic year of 2009. As
a core subject to promote generic skills, Liberal Studies is
regarded as an interdisciplinary subject that nurtures critical
thinking through issue-inquiry learning approach as one of its
learning objectives. In order to explore the capacity of issue-
inquiry approach in Liberal Studies to promote critical thinking,
this paper discusses such an issue in three parts. First, it
introduces the nature of critical thinking and the four habits of
mind for critical thinking. Second, the relationship between
issue-inquiry learning approach and issue-inquiry learning in
Liberal Studies is discussed with the four habits of mind for
critical thinking. Finally, this paper reveals some of the
problems in the NSSC of Liberal Studies and concludes with
recommendations. It is found that although the issue-inquiry
learning approach in the NSSC of Liberal Studies includes all
the four core habits of mind for critical thinking, there are still
rooms for improvement for Liberal Studies to become a more
comprehensive curriculum for critical thinking.
Introduction
Nurturing critical thinking has been one of the educational
objectives in many countries and cities (e.g., the United States,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, China,
2and Taiwan). In Hong Kong, it has been treated as a signifi cant
topic in the education as well. Although it has been one of the
learning objectives in various school subjects in Hong Kong
since the 1990s, both of the 1998/99 and 2000/01 annual reports
of the Education Bureau (EDB) revealed that secondary students
lacked appropriate learning activities to develop their critical
thinking skills (EDB, 2007a, 2007b). In order to re-emphasize
the importance of critical thinking in the curriculum, in the
core education reform document of Learning to Learn: The
Way Forward in Curriculum Development, critical thinking
was declared as one of the generic skills that need to be fostered
under the 21st century education reform (Curriculum
Development Council [CDC], 2001, p. vi). In the document, it
was clearly stated that generic skills are one of the components
of the curriculum framework that helps students learn how to
learn.
In line with the education reform, the consultation
document of the New Senior Secondary Curriculum (NSSC)
of Liberal Studies was released in 2004. One year later, Liberal
Studies was announced to be one of the core subjects in the
“3+3+4” education system. Since then, there were a fl ood of
discussions among educators on the issues like the subject nature,
the administrative arrangement, the professional development
among teachers, the learning approach, the assessment, the
connection with the higher education system, and the recognition
by the employers (e.g., Chiu & Mak, 2006; Deng, 2009; Fok,
2007; Kwok, 2007; Lam & Zhang, 2005; Rong, 2005; Tsang,
2006; Wong & Wong, 2007). Nonetheless, the promotion of
critical thinking in Liberal Studies using the issue-inquiry
3learning approach has not been fully explored. To reveal the
feasibility to advance critical thinking in Liberal Studies, this
paper is composed of three parts: the nature of critical thinking
with the list of habits of mind for critical thinking, the issue-
inquiry learning approach of Liberal Studies, and fi nally the
exploration of the learning approach used in Liberal Studies
with the four habits of mind for critical thinking.
Defi nition of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking has been a popular study topic in the fi elds of
philosophy, psychology, and education. Many scholars tried
to make a fi nal defi nitions of critical thinking by synthesizing
different defi nitions proposed by signifi cant scholars (Abrami
et al., 2008; Carrithers & Bean, 2008; Mazer, Hunt, &
Kuznekoff, 2007; McGregor, 2007; Renaud & Murray, 2008).
Dewey, one of the most infl uential educators, fi rst used the
concept of refl ective thinking to describe critical thinking in
1910. He considered critical thinking as “active, persistent,
and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the
further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1910, p. 6).
Glaser (1985) expanded on Dewey’s (1910) perspective by
illustrating it as “intelligent judgments on public issues
and thus contribute democratically to the solution of social
problems” (p. 27). Ennis (1985), an authoritative scholar in
critical thinking, echoed with Dewey’s (1910) and Glaser’s
(1985) defi nitions by delineating critical thinking as “reasonable
refl ective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do”
(p. 14). A few years later, Halpern (2003) captured the essence
of critical thinking as “the use of those cognitive skills or
4strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome.
It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned,
and goal directed — the kind of thinking involved in solving
problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and
making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are
thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of
thinking task” (p. 6).
Although many scholars regarded critical thinking as the
application of logic or cognitive thinking skills, others had
different points of view about critical thinking. Lipman (2003)
treated critical thinking as reliable thinking which “both
employs criteria and can be assessed by appeal to criteria.” In
one sense, critical thinking “facilitates judgment because it relies
on criteria.” In another sense, critical thinking “is self-correcting
and sensitive to context” (p. 212). Another notable scholar,
Fisher (2005), extended the meaning of critical thinking to
“a readiness to reason, a willingness to challenge and a desire
for truth” (p. 80). Paul, Binker, and Willsen (1993) further
elaborated the meaning of critical thinking as “disciplined and
self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of
thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking”
(p. 137). Facione (2006), another important scholar of critical
thinking in recent years, defi ned critical thinking as “the process
of purposeful, self-regulation judgment. This process reasoned
consideration to evidence, context, conceptualizations, methods,
and criteria” (p. 17).
From the researcher’s viewpoint, critical thinking is a self-
examination process of the gap between the mind and the outside
world. Critical thinkers make judgments and decisions on what
5to believe or do by inspecting what is perceived. The author’s
standpoint was supported by Dewey (1910), Ennis (1985), and
Glaser (1985). They claimed that critical conclusions, decisions
or judgments should be based on careful consideration of
supportive reasons. In other words, it is undoubtedly that making
judgments or decisions are core to critical thinking. Critical
thinkers compare the old concept in mind with the newly
received information from the outside world in order to make
a reasonable and believable judgment. However, critical
thinking is much more than such kind of judgment or decision
making. If critical thinkers only rely on the comparison between
old concepts and new concepts in mind, the decision might
be unreliable because one might retain outdated or even
misconceived perception that leads to fault judgments.
To supplement their defi nitions, a set of criteria for a well-
reasoned and rational judgment should be added into the
examining process. For example, Paul and Nosich (1992)
identifi ed the intellectual standards of critical thinking, namely
clearness, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breath, and so
on. Furthermore, logic is a crucial criterion used in the reasoning
process of critical thinking. In other words, one investigates
the correctness of an argument by examining the logic of the
conclusion and hypothesis with its premises and provided
reasons. This kind of thinking process that applies criteria like
the informal logic and monotonic logic in reasoning can also
be labeled as disciplined thinking. As a result, Paul et al.’s
(1993) and Lipman’s (2003) definitions of critical thinking
seem agreeable. Above all, critical thinkers should be fair-
minded when they examine the evidence for a judgment.
6Fair-minded critical thinkers not only consider evidence
comprehensively, but also “have knowledge about himself as
well as an understanding of others” (Fisher, 2005, p. 78),
“disciplined to take into account the interests of diverse persons
or groups” (Paul et al., 1993, p. 138), and are “willing to
reconsider an opinion” (Facione, 2006, p. 9). In short, critical
thinking might be defi ned as an examining process which judges
and reasons with a set of criteria.
When compared with the literature meaning of critical
thinking, the proposed defi nition seems agreeable as well. The
word critical is derived from two Greek words: the fi rst one is
Kritein, which means “to choose” and “to decide”; and the
second one is Krino, which signifi es “to judge” (Parker, 2009).
In addition, the word critical is related to the English word
criterion, which stands for a standard, rule or method. In other
words, critical thinkers do not take truth for granted. They
make reasonable judgment against certain criteria.
Skills, Dispositions, and Habits of Mind
for Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is commonly discussed in three dimensions:
skills, dispositions, and habits of mind. For critical thinking
skills, it has been a long-lasting topic for study in education
since the 1950s. It not only plays a predominant role in the
instruction of critical thinking, but also acts as an important
indicator of critical thinking. Many notable assessment tools
have been developed to measure critical thinking skills, for
example, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, the
Cornell Critical Thinking test, and the California Critical
7Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). In addition, critical thinking
skills were closely related to the high-order thinking skills in
the cognitive objectives of Bloom’s taxonomy and generic skills
(Ennis, 1962). Although there are different inventories of critical
thinking skills, the three inventories proposed by Ennis (1987),
Facione (1990), and Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000) are the
most popular. In Appendix 1, the inventories of critical thinking
skills proposed by these three scholars are compared.
It was not until the 1980s that the importance of critical
thinking dispositions has been recognized (e.g., Ennis, 1981;
Nickerson, 1984; Norris, 1985; Siegel, 1980; Sternberg, 1986).
In 1995, Facione, Giancarlo, Facione, and Gainen (1995) posed
an infl uential argument about critical thinking. They claimed
that people who have good critical thinking skills might not
incline to use critical thinking. Their argument was supported
by research later (e.g., Colucciello, 1997; Profetto-McGrath,
Hesketh, Lang, & Estabrooks, 2003; Ricketts & Rudd, 2004).
For example, Ricketts and Rudd (2004) used the CCTST and
the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory
(CCTDI) to fi nd out the correlation between critical thinking
skills and dispositions. In their studies, positive correlation
between critical thinking dispositions and critical thinking skills
was found. This implied that we could not solely foster “the
ability to think but also the disposition to think, to develop
patterns of thinking and habits of mind students not only can
use but that they do use … ability alone is insuffi cient for good
thinking; one also must have the inclination to use that ability
along with the awareness of opportunities for its use” (Ritchhart,
2007, p. 138; italics original). Therefore, in addition to critical
8thinking skills, critical thinkers should also possess critical
thinking dispositions to recognize the necessity of critical
thinking skills and apply it. In other words, both critical thinking
skills and dispositions are essential to critical thinkers.
In some occasions, when people talk about critical thinking
dispositions, they relate them with habits of mind for critical
thinking. For instance, Norris (1992) posed that critical thinking
disposition is not only a desire or predilection to thinking
critically, but also a habit to use certain abilities or overtly
think and choose to use the abilities they possess. Facione,
Giancarlo, et al. (1995) described critical thinking dispositions
as a constellation of attitudes, intellectual virtues, character
traits, and habits of mind. They even named the seven critical
thinking dispositions toward critical thinking as habits of mind
for critical thinking (Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo, 1997),
while Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000) used habits of mind for
critical thinking to represent critical thinking dispositions in
their Nursing Delphi Study. In Appendix 2, the lists of critical
thinking dispositions proposed by Ennis (1987), Facione,
Giancarlo, et al. (1995), and the inventory of habits of mind
for critical thinking by Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000) are
compared.
One may ask: if habits of mind for critical thinking are
comparable to critical thinking dispositions, does it mean that
they are equivalent or replaceable by each other? Actually,
they are different in meaning. For disposition, it means an
inclination, tendency, or willingness to behave in a particular
way (Longman Online Dictionary, 2009). It is “a tendency to
exhibit frequently, consciously, and voluntarily a pattern of
9behavior that is directed to a broad goal” (Katz, 1993), which
is composed of three endurable psychological elements:
sensitivity, inclination, and abilities (Ritchhart & Perkins,
2000). Ennis (1989) regarded critical thinking dispositions as
a tendency to do something in a given condition. Facione,
Giancarlo, et al. (1995) added that “the disposition toward
critical thinking is the consistent internal motivation to engage
problems and make decisions by using thinking” (p. 2). For
habits of mind, they are the intellectual tendencies or dispositions
to act in a particular way (Nciku, 2009). Costa and Kallick
(2008) defi ned a habit of mind as “having a disposition toward
behaving intelligently when confronted with problems with
dichotomies, dilemmas, enigmas and uncertainties” (p. 30),
which is “a composite of many skills, attitudes, cues, past
experiences, and proclivities” (Costa, 2008, p. 17) (see
Table 1).
Table 1. Dimensions of Habits of Mind
Dimension Description
Value • Choosing to employ a pattern of intellectual behaviors
rather than other, less productive patterns
Inclination • Feeling the tendency to employ a pattern of
intellectual behaviors
Sensitivity • Perceiving opportunities for, and appropriateness of,
employing the pattern of behaviors
Capability • Possessing the basic skills and capacities to carry
through with the behaviors
Commitment • Constantly striving to reflect on and improve
performance of the pattern of intellectual behaviors
Policy • Making it a policy to promote and incorporate the
patterns of intellectual behaviors into actions,
decisions, and resolutions of problematic situations
Source: Costa and Kallick (2008, p. 17).
10Siegel (1999) labeled the composition of critical thinking
as the “critical spirit” consisting of dispositions, attitudes, habits
of mind, and character traits. According to Siegel (1999),
disposition is the tendency to seek reasons and evidence for
judgments; attitudes is a respect for the importance of reasoned
judgment and for truth; habits of mind are the combination of
dispositions and attitudes that engage in the fair-minded and
non-self-interested consideration of reasoned assessment;
character traits include all of the above. Tishman (2000) added
that habits of mind were the intelligence expressed as
characteristic patterns of intellectual behavior in everyday
situations. It is transferable and can be expressed as a disposition
view of intelligence that goes beyond basic cognitive capacity
to include character traits, values, and emotions. Critical
thinking is one of its dimensions only. To justify Tishman’s
(2000) viewpoint, the inventories of habits of mind for critical
thinking proposed by Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000) and Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL)
(2009) are compared with the lists of sixteen habits of mind
proposed by Costa and Kallick (2008) and Sizer (1992,
pp. 73–74) in Table 2. It is found that the result is coherent to
Tishman’s (2000) viewpoint that the two lists of habits of mind
for critical thinking only included some items in the considerably
comprehensive list of habits of mind proposed by Costa and
Kallick (2008).
In conclusion, the viewpoints of Ritchhart and Perkins
(2000), Siegel (1999) and Costa and Kallick (2008) about
critical thinking dispositions and habits of mind for critical
thinking are agreeable. For critical thinking dispositions, it is
11comprised of sensitivity, inclination, and abilities. This means
that people with critical thinking dispositions has the tendency
toward critical thinking and are able to sense when it is needed
and to apply it. However, for habits of mind for critical thinking,
it includes four more elements: attitudes, values, commitment,
and policy. This implies that people with habits of mind for
critical thinking has the obligation to behave in such a way
intrinsically and treasure critical thinking in addition. Therefore,
fostering habits of mind for critical thinking is more valuable
and desirable than fostering critical thinking dispositions.
Furthermore, it is also signifi ed by the shift of the study in
critical thinking in the last few decades: from skills (e.g., since
Watson & Glaser, 1952) to dispositions (e.g., since Ennis, 1987),
then to habits of mind (e.g., since Scheffer & Rubenfeld, 2000).
Hence, habits of mind are of most importance in the cultivation
of critical thinking.
Four Habits of Mind for Critical Thinking
Since critical thinking appeared differently in different
occasions like verbal reasoning, argument analysis, hypothesis
thinking, decision making, and problem-solving (Halpern,
1998), scholars tried to advocate the general characteristics of
critical thinking in the last two decades (e.g., Alfaro-LeFevre,
2004; ATEEC, 2003, as cited in Petress, 2004; Beeken, 1997;
Daniel, 2001; Gorman-Gelder, Loder, Pinette, & Gelder, 2004,
as cited in Petress, 2004; Facione, 1990; Ferrett, 1997; Kienzler,
2001; Lacey & Pritchett, 2003; Nickerson, 1987; Petress, 2004;
SNJourney, 2007; Wade, 1995). By investigating these
literature, four core habits of mind for critical thinking
(i.e., fair and open-mindedness, truth-seeking, understanding
Tab
le 2
. C
ompa
riso
n of
Hab
its
of M
ind
H
abits
of
min
d H
abits
of
min
d (C
ritic
al th
inki
ng)
Cos
ta a
nd K
allic
k (2
008)
Si
zer
(199
2)
Sche
ffer
and
Rub
enfe
ld (
2000
) M
cRE
L (
2009
)
1.
Res
pond
ing
wit
h w
onde
rmen
t and
aw
e : T
hey
seek
1.
Jo
y : S
ensi
ng th
e w
onde
r an
d 1.
In
quis
itiv
enes
s : A
n ea
gern
ess
(No
com
para
ble
in
trig
uing
phe
nom
ena.
The
y se
arch
for
pro
blem
s to
sol
ve
pr
opor
tion
in w
orth
y th
ings
and
to k
now
by
seek
ing
habi
t of
min
d)
for
them
selv
es a
nd to
sub
mit
to o
ther
s. T
hey
delig
ht in
res
pond
ing
to th
ese
delig
hts
kn
owle
dge
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g
mak
ing
up p
robl
ems
to s
olve
on
thei
r ow
n, a
nd th
ey s
o
th
roug
h ob
serv
atio
n an
d
enjo
y th
e ch
alle
nge
of p
robl
em s
olvi
ng th
at th
ey s
eek
thou
ghtf
ul q
uest
ioni
ng in
pe
rple
xitie
s an
d pu
zzle
s fr
om o
ther
s. T
hey
enjo
y fi g
urin
g
or
der
to e
xplo
re p
ossi
bilit
ies
th
ings
out
by
them
selv
es, a
nd th
ey c
ontin
ue to
lear
n
an
d al
tern
ativ
es
th
roug
hout
thei
r lif
etim
es.
2.
Gat
heri
ng d
ata
thro
ugh
all s
ense
s : I
ntel
ligen
t peo
ple
know
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
2.
Inte
llec
tual
inte
grit
y : S
eek
the
1.
B
e cl
ear
and
th
at a
ll in
form
atio
n ge
ts in
to th
e br
ain
thro
ugh
sens
ory
trut
h th
roug
h si
ncer
e, h
ones
t
seek
cla
rity
pa
thw
ays:
gus
tato
ry, o
lfac
tory
, tac
tile,
kin
esth
etic
,
proc
esse
s, e
ven
if th
e re
sults
audi
tory
, and
vis
ual.
Mos
t lin
guis
tic, c
ultu
ral,
and
phys
ical
are
cont
rary
to o
ne’s
lear
ning
is d
eriv
ed f
rom
the
envi
ronm
ent b
y ob
serv
ing
or
as
sum
ptio
ns a
nd b
elie
fs
taki
ng it
in th
roug
h th
e se
nses
. To
know
a w
ine
it m
ust b
e
drun
k; to
kno
w a
rol
e it
mus
t be
acte
d; to
kno
w a
gam
e it
m
ust b
e pl
ayed
; to
know
a d
ance
it m
ust b
e pe
rfor
med
; to
kn
ow a
goa
l it m
ust b
e en
visi
oned
. Tho
se w
hose
sen
sory
path
way
s ar
e op
en, a
lert
, and
acu
te a
bsor
b m
ore
in
form
atio
n fr
om th
e en
viro
nmen
t tha
n th
ose
who
se
pa
thw
ays
are
with
ered
, im
mun
e, a
nd o
bliv
ious
to s
enso
ry
st
imul
i.
3.
Que
stio
ning
and
pos
ing
prob
lem
s : E
ffec
tive
prob
lem
2.
P
ersp
ecti
ve: O
rgan
izin
g an
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
(No
com
para
ble
so
lver
s kn
ow h
ow to
ask
que
stio
ns to
fi ll
in th
e ga
ps
ar
gum
ent,
read
or
hear
d or
see
n,
m
ind)
habi
t of
min
d)
betw
een
wha
t the
y kn
ow a
nd w
hat t
hey
don’
t kno
w.
in
to it
s va
riou
s pa
rts,
and
sor
ting
E
ffec
tive
ques
tione
rs a
re in
clin
ed to
ask
a r
ange
of
out t
he m
ajor
fro
m th
e m
inor
ques
tions
. The
y al
so p
ose
ques
tions
abo
ut a
ltern
ativ
e
m
atte
r w
ithin
it. S
epar
atin
g
poin
ts o
f vi
ew. E
ffec
tive
ques
tione
rs p
ose
ques
tions
that
opin
ion
from
fac
t and
mak
e ca
usal
con
nect
ions
and
rel
atio
nshi
ps. S
omet
imes
appr
ecia
ting
the
valu
e of
eac
h
they
pos
e hy
poth
etic
al p
robl
ems
char
acte
rize
d by
“if
”
ques
tions
. Inq
uire
rs r
ecog
nize
dis
crep
anci
es a
nd
ph
enom
ena
in th
eir
envi
ronm
ent,
and
they
pro
be in
to
th
eir
caus
es.
4.
Thi
nkin
g an
d co
mm
unic
atin
g w
ith
clar
ity
and
prec
isio
n :
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f m
ind)
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
(No
com
para
ble
In
telli
gent
peo
ple
stri
ve to
com
mun
icat
e ac
cura
tely
in b
oth
min
d)
ha
bit o
f m
ind)
w
ritte
n an
d or
al f
orm
, tak
ing
care
to u
se p
reci
se la
ngua
ge;
de
fi nin
g te
rms;
and
usi
ng c
orre
ct n
ames
, lab
els,
and
an
alog
ies.
The
y st
rive
to a
void
ove
rgen
eral
izat
ions
,
dele
tions
, and
dis
tort
ions
. Ins
tead
, the
y su
ppor
t the
ir
st
atem
ents
with
exp
lana
tions
, com
pari
sons
, qua
ntifi
catio
n,
an
d ev
iden
ce.
5.
Stri
ving
for
accu
racy
: Peo
ple
who
val
ue tr
uthf
ulne
ss,
3.
Ana
lysi
s : P
onde
ring
eac
h of
thes
e
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f
2.
Be
accu
rate
and
accu
racy
, pre
cisi
on, a
nd c
raft
sman
ship
take
tim
e to
che
ck
ar
gum
ents
in a
refl
ect
ive
way
,
min
d)
se
ek a
ccur
acy
ov
er th
eir
prod
ucts
. The
y re
view
the
rule
s by
whi
ch th
ey
us
ing
such
logi
cal,
mat
hem
atic
al,
ar
e to
abi
de; t
hey
revi
ew th
e m
odel
s an
d vi
sion
s th
ey a
re to
and
artis
tic to
ols
as m
ay b
e
follo
w; a
nd th
ey r
evie
w th
e cr
iteri
a th
ey a
re to
use
to
re
quir
ed to
ren
der
evid
ence
;
confi
rm
that
thei
r fi n
ishe
d pr
oduc
t mat
ches
the
crite
ria
know
ing
the
limits
as
wel
l as
the
ex
actly
. To
be c
raft
sman
like
mea
ns k
now
ing
that
one
can
impo
rtan
ce o
f su
ch a
naly
sis
co
ntin
ually
per
fect
one
’s c
raft
by
wor
king
to a
ttain
the
hi
ghes
t pos
sibl
e st
anda
rds
and
by p
ursu
ing
ongo
ing
le
arni
ng to
bri
ng a
lase
r-lik
e fo
cus
of e
nerg
ies
to
ac
com
plis
hing
a ta
sk.
6.
Tak
ing
resp
onsi
ble
risk
s : R
isk
take
rs s
eem
to h
ave
an
4.
Hum
ilit
y : K
now
ing
one’
s ri
ght,
3.
C
onfi d
ence
: Ass
uran
ce o
f
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e
alm
ost u
ncon
trol
labl
e ur
ge to
go
beyo
nd e
stab
lishe
d
on
e’s
debt
s, a
nd o
ne’s
lim
itatio
ns,
on
e’s
reas
onin
g ab
ilitie
s
habi
t of
min
d)
limits
. The
y ar
e un
easy
abo
ut c
omfo
rt; t
hey
live
on th
e
an
d th
ose
of o
ther
s; k
now
ing
ed
ge o
f th
eir
com
pete
nce.
The
y se
em c
ompe
lled
to p
lace
wha
t one
kno
ws
and
wha
t one
them
selv
es in
situ
atio
ns in
whi
ch th
ey d
o no
t kno
w w
hat
do
es n
ot k
now
; bei
ng d
ispo
sed
th
e ou
tcom
e w
ill b
e. T
hey
acce
pt c
onfu
sion
, unc
erta
inty
,
and
able
to g
ain
the
need
ed
an
d th
e hi
gher
ris
ks o
f fa
ilure
as
part
of
the
norm
al p
roce
ss,
kn
owle
dge,
and
hav
ing
the
an
d th
ey le
arn
to v
iew
set
back
s as
inte
rest
ing,
cha
lleng
ing,
confi
den
ce to
do
so
and
grow
th p
rodu
cing
. How
ever
, res
pons
ible
ris
k ta
kers
do
no
t beh
ave
impu
lsiv
ely.
The
ir r
isks
are
edu
cate
d. T
hey
dr
aw o
n pa
st k
now
ledg
e, a
re th
ough
tful
abo
ut
co
nseq
uenc
es, a
nd h
ave
a w
ell-
trai
ned
sens
e of
wha
t is
ap
prop
riat
e. T
hey
know
that
all
risk
s ar
e no
t wor
th ta
king
.
7.
Man
agin
g im
puls
ivit
y : E
ffec
tive
prob
lem
sol
vers
are
5.
C
omm
itm
ent :
Rec
ogni
zing
the
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
3.
R
estr
ain
de
liber
ate:
they
thin
k be
fore
they
act
. The
y in
tent
iona
lly
ne
ed to
act
whe
n ac
tion
is c
alle
d
m
ind)
impu
lsiv
ity
es
tabl
ish
a vi
sion
of
a pr
oduc
t, an
act
ion
plan
, a g
oal,
or a
for;
ste
ppin
g fo
rwar
d in
res
pons
e;
de
stin
atio
n be
fore
they
beg
in. T
hey
stri
ve to
cla
rify
and
pers
istin
g, p
atie
ntly
, as
the
un
ders
tand
dir
ectio
ns; t
hey
deve
lop
a st
rate
gy f
or
si
tuat
ion
may
req
uire
ap
proa
chin
g a
prob
lem
; and
they
with
hold
imm
edia
te v
alue
judg
men
ts a
bout
an
idea
bef
ore
they
ful
ly u
nder
stan
d it.
Refl
ect
ive
indi
vidu
als
cons
ider
alte
rnat
ives
and
cons
eque
nces
of
seve
ral p
ossi
ble
dire
ctio
ns b
efor
e th
ey
ta
ke a
ctio
n. T
hey
decr
ease
thei
r ne
ed f
or tr
ial a
nd e
rror
by
ga
ther
ing
info
rmat
ion,
taki
ng ti
me
to r
efl e
ct o
n an
ans
wer
befo
re g
ivin
g it,
mak
ing
sure
they
und
erst
and
dire
ctio
ns,
an
d lis
teni
ng to
alte
rnat
ive
poin
ts o
f vi
ew.
Tab
le 2
(C
onti
nued
)
H
abits
of
min
d H
abits
of
min
d (C
ritic
al th
inki
ng)
Cos
ta a
nd K
allic
k (2
008)
Si
zer
(199
2)
Sche
ffer
and
Rub
enfe
ld (
2000
) M
cRE
L (
2009
)
8.
Per
sist
ing :
Effi
cac
ious
peo
ple
stic
k to
a ta
sk u
ntil
it is
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
4.
Per
seve
ranc
e : P
ursu
it of
a
4.
Tak
e a
posi
tion
com
plet
ed. T
hey
don’
t giv
e up
eas
ily. T
hey
are
able
to
co
urse
with
det
erm
inat
ion
to
w
hen
the
an
alyz
e a
prob
lem
, and
they
dev
elop
a s
yste
m, s
truc
ture
, or
over
com
e ob
stac
les
si
tuat
ion
st
rate
gy to
atta
ck it
. The
y ha
ve a
rep
erto
ire
of a
ltern
ativ
e
w
arra
nts
it
stra
tegi
es f
or p
robl
em s
olvi
ng, a
nd th
ey e
mpl
oy a
who
le
ra
nge
of th
ese
stra
tegi
es. T
hey
colle
ct e
vide
nce
to in
dica
te
th
at th
eir
prob
lem
-sol
ving
str
ateg
y is
wor
king
, and
if o
ne
st
rate
gy d
oesn
’t w
ork,
they
kno
w h
ow to
bac
k up
and
try
an
othe
r. T
hey
reco
gniz
e w
hen
a th
eory
or
an id
ea m
ust b
e
reje
cted
and
ano
ther
em
ploy
ed. T
hey
have
sys
tem
atic
met
hods
for
ana
lyzi
ng a
pro
blem
, whi
ch in
clud
e kn
owin
g
how
to b
egin
, wha
t ste
ps m
ust b
e pe
rfor
med
, wha
t dat
a
mus
t be
gene
rate
d or
col
lect
ed, a
nd w
hat r
esou
rces
are
avai
labl
e to
ass
ist.
Bec
ause
they
are
abl
e to
sus
tain
a
pr
oble
m-s
olvi
ng p
roce
ss o
ver
time,
they
are
com
fort
able
with
am
bigu
ous
situ
atio
ns.
9.
Thi
nkin
g fl e
xibl
y : F
lexi
ble
peop
le h
ave
the
mos
t con
trol
.
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
5.
Fle
xibi
lity
: Cap
acity
to a
dapt
,
(No
com
para
ble
T
hey
have
the
capa
city
to c
hang
e th
eir
min
ds a
s th
ey
ac
com
mod
ate,
mod
ify
or
ha
bit o
f m
ind)
re
ceiv
e ad
ditio
nal d
ata.
The
y en
gage
in m
ultip
le a
nd
ch
ange
thou
ghts
, ide
as, a
nd
si
mul
tane
ous
outc
omes
and
act
iviti
es, a
nd th
ey d
raw
upo
n
be
havi
ors
a
repe
rtoi
re o
f pr
oble
m-s
olvi
ng s
trat
egie
s. T
hey
also
prac
tice
styl
e fl e
xibi
lity,
kno
win
g w
hen
thin
king
bro
adly
and
glob
ally
is a
ppro
pria
te a
nd w
hen
a si
tuat
ion
requ
ires
deta
iled
prec
isio
n. T
hey
crea
te a
nd s
eek
nove
l app
roac
hes,
and
they
hav
e a
wel
l-de
velo
ped
sens
e of
hum
or. T
hey
en
visi
on a
ran
ge o
f co
nseq
uenc
es.
10.
Thi
nkin
g in
terd
epen
dent
ly: W
orki
ng in
gro
ups
requ
ires
the
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
6.
Ope
n-m
inde
dnes
s : A
5.
M
aint
ain
an
ab
ility
to ju
stif
y id
eas
and
to te
st th
e fe
asib
ility
of
solu
tion
view
poin
t cha
ract
eriz
ed b
y
op
en m
ind
st
rate
gies
on
othe
rs. I
t als
o re
quir
es d
evel
opin
g a
bein
g re
cept
ive
to d
iver
gent
will
ingn
ess
and
an o
penn
ess
to a
ccep
t fee
dbac
k fr
om a
view
s an
d se
nsiti
ve to
one
’s
cr
itica
l fri
end.
Thr
ough
this
inte
ract
ion,
the
grou
p an
d th
e
bi
ases
in
divi
dual
con
tinue
to g
row
. The
cha
ract
eris
tics
incl
ude:
liste
ning
, con
sens
us s
eeki
ng, g
ivin
g up
an
idea
to w
ork
w
ith s
omeo
ne e
lse’
s, e
mpa
thy,
com
pass
ion,
gro
up
le
ader
ship
, kno
win
g ho
w to
sup
port
gro
up e
ffor
ts, a
ltrui
sm.
11.
Lis
teni
ng w
ith
unde
rsta
ndin
g an
d em
path
y : T
he a
bilit
y to
6.
C
omm
unic
atio
n : A
ccep
ting
the
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
6.
R
espo
nd
pa
raph
rase
ano
ther
per
son’
s id
eas;
det
ect i
ndic
ator
s (c
ues)
duty
to e
xpla
in th
e ne
cess
ary
in
m
ind)
appr
opri
atel
y to
of f
eelin
gs o
r em
otio
nal s
tate
s in
ora
l and
bod
y la
ngua
ge
w
ays
that
are
cle
ar a
nd r
espe
ctfu
l
othe
rs’
feel
ings
(em
path
y); a
nd a
ccur
atel
y ex
pres
s an
othe
r pe
rson
’s
bo
th to
thos
e he
arin
g or
see
ing
and
leve
l of
co
ncep
ts, e
mot
ions
, and
pro
blem
s —
all
are
indi
cato
rs
an
d to
the
idea
s be
ing
know
ledg
e
of li
sten
ing
beha
vior
. Peo
ple
who
dem
onst
rate
this
hab
it
co
mm
unic
ated
; bei
ng a
goo
d
of m
ind
are
able
to s
ee th
roug
h th
e di
vers
e pe
rspe
ctiv
es
lis
tene
r
of o
ther
s. T
hey
gent
ly a
ttend
to a
noth
er p
erso
n,
7.
Em
path
y : S
ensi
ng o
ther
dem
onst
ratin
g th
eir
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
and
em
path
y fo
r
re
ason
able
vie
ws
of a
com
mon
an id
ea o
r a
feel
ing
by p
arap
hras
ing
it ac
cura
tely
,
pred
icam
ent,
resp
ectin
g al
l, an
d
build
ing
upon
it, c
lari
fyin
g it,
or
givi
ng a
n ex
ampl
e of
it.
ho
nori
ng th
e m
ost p
ersu
asiv
e
am
ong
them
12.
App
lyin
g pa
st k
now
ledg
e to
new
sit
uati
ons :
Int
ellig
ent
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f m
ind)
7.
C
onte
xtua
l per
spec
tive
:
(No
com
para
ble
hu
man
s le
arn
from
exp
erie
nce.
Whe
n co
nfro
nted
with
a
C
onsi
dera
te o
f th
e w
hole
habi
t of
min
d)
new
and
per
plex
ing
prob
lem
, the
y w
ill d
raw
for
th
si
tuat
ion,
incl
udin
g
expe
rien
ces
from
thei
r pa
st. T
hey
ofte
n ca
n be
hea
rd to
rela
tions
hips
, bac
kgro
und
and
sa
y: “
Thi
s re
min
ds m
e of
…”
or “
Thi
s is
just
like
the
time
envi
ronm
ent,
rele
vant
to s
ome
w
hen
I …
.” T
hey
expl
ain
wha
t the
y ar
e do
ing
now
with
happ
enin
g
anal
ogie
s ab
out o
r re
fere
nces
to th
eir
expe
rien
ces.
The
y
call
upon
thei
r st
ore
of k
now
ledg
e an
d ex
peri
ence
as
so
urce
s of
dat
a to
sup
port
, the
orie
s to
exp
lain
, or
proc
esse
s
to s
olve
eac
h ne
w c
halle
nge.
The
y ar
e ab
le to
abs
trac
t
mea
ning
fro
m o
ne e
xper
ienc
e, c
arry
it f
orth
, and
app
ly it
in
a
nove
l situ
atio
n.
13.
Thi
nkin
g ab
out t
hink
ing
(met
acog
niti
on) :
Int
ellig
ent p
eopl
e
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f m
ind)
8.
R
efl e
ctio
n : C
onte
mpl
atio
n
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e
plan
for
, refl
ect
on,
and
eva
luat
e th
e qu
ality
of
thei
r ow
n
up
on a
sub
ject
, esp
ecia
lly
ha
bit o
f m
ind)
th
inki
ng s
kills
and
str
ateg
ies.
Met
acog
nitio
n m
eans
one’
s as
sum
ptio
ns a
nd
be
com
ing
incr
easi
ngly
aw
are
of o
ne’s
act
ions
and
the
thin
king
for
the
purp
oses
of
ef
fect
of
thos
e ac
tions
on
othe
rs a
nd o
n th
e en
viro
nmen
t;
de
eper
und
erst
andi
ng a
nd
fo
rmin
g in
tern
al q
uest
ions
in th
e se
arch
for
info
rmat
ion
self
-eva
luat
ion
an
d m
eani
ng; d
evel
opin
g m
enta
l map
s or
pla
ns o
f ac
tion;
men
tally
reh
ears
ing
befo
re a
per
form
ance
; mon
itori
ng
pl
ans
as th
ey a
re e
mpl
oyed
(be
ing
cons
ciou
s of
the
need
for
mid
cour
se c
orre
ctio
n if
the
plan
is n
ot m
eetin
g
expe
ctat
ions
); r
efl e
ctin
g on
the
com
plet
ed p
lan
for
se
lf-e
valu
atio
n; a
nd e
ditin
g m
enta
l pic
ture
s fo
r im
prov
ed
pe
rfor
man
ce.
Tab
le 2
(C
onti
nued
)
H
abits
of
min
d H
abits
of
min
d (C
ritic
al th
inki
ng)
Cos
ta a
nd K
allic
k (2
008)
Si
zer
(199
2)
Sche
ffer
and
Rub
enfe
ld (
2000
) M
cRE
L (
2009
)
14.
Cre
atin
g, im
agin
ing,
inno
vati
ng: C
reat
ive
hum
an b
eing
s
8.
Imag
inat
ion :
Bei
ng d
ispo
sed
to
9.
Cre
ativ
ity :
Int
elle
ctua
l
(No
com
para
ble
tr
y to
con
ceiv
e so
lutio
ns to
pro
blem
s di
ffer
ently
,
evol
ve o
ne’s
ow
n vi
ew o
f a
inve
ntiv
enes
s us
ed to
habi
t of
min
d)
exam
inin
g al
tern
ativ
e po
ssib
ilitie
s fr
om m
any
angl
es. T
hey
mat
ter,
sea
rchi
ng f
or b
oth
new
gene
rate
, dis
cove
r, o
r
tend
to p
roje
ct th
emse
lves
into
dif
fere
nt r
oles
usi
ng
an
d ol
d pa
ttern
s th
at s
erve
wel
l
rest
ruct
ure
idea
s; im
agin
e
anal
ogie
s, s
tart
ing
with
a v
isio
n an
d w
orki
ng b
ackw
ard,
one’
s ow
n an
d ot
hers
’ cu
rren
t
alte
rnat
ives
an
d im
agin
ing
they
are
the
obje
ct b
eing
con
side
red.
and
futu
re p
urpo
ses
10.
Intu
itio
n : I
nsig
htfu
l sen
se o
f
Cre
ativ
e pe
ople
take
ris
ks a
nd f
requ
ently
pus
h th
e
kn
owin
g w
ithou
t con
scio
us
bo
unda
ries
of
thei
r pe
rcei
ved
limits
. The
y ar
e in
trin
sica
lly
us
e of
rea
son
ra
ther
than
ext
rins
ical
ly m
otiv
ated
, wor
king
on
the
task
beca
use
of th
e ae
sthe
tic c
halle
nge
rath
er th
an th
e m
ater
ial
re
war
ds. C
reat
ive
peop
le a
re o
pen
to c
ritic
ism
. The
y ho
ld
up
thei
r pr
oduc
ts f
or o
ther
s to
judg
e, a
nd th
ey s
eek
fe
edba
ck in
an
ever
-inc
reas
ing
effo
rt to
refi
ne
thei
r
tech
niqu
e. T
hey
are
unea
sy w
ith th
e st
atus
quo
. The
y
cons
tant
ly s
triv
e fo
r gr
eate
r fl u
ency
, ela
bora
tion,
nov
elty
,
pars
imon
y, s
impl
icity
, cra
ftsm
ansh
ip, p
erfe
ctio
n, b
eaut
y,
ha
rmon
y, a
nd b
alan
ce.
15.
Rem
aini
ng o
pen
to c
onti
nuou
s le
arni
ng: I
ntel
ligen
t peo
ple
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e
are
in a
con
tinuo
us le
arni
ng m
ode.
The
y ar
e in
vigo
rate
d by
min
d)
ha
bit o
f m
ind)
th
e qu
est o
f lif
elon
g le
arni
ng. T
heir
con
fi den
ce, i
n
com
bina
tion
with
thei
r in
quis
itive
ness
, allo
ws
them
to
co
nsta
ntly
sea
rch
for
new
and
bet
ter
way
s. P
eopl
e w
ith th
is
ha
bit o
f m
ind
are
alw
ays
stri
ving
for
impr
ovem
ent,
gr
owin
g, le
arni
ng, a
nd m
odif
ying
and
impr
ovin
g
them
selv
es. T
hey
seiz
e pr
oble
ms,
situ
atio
ns, t
ensi
ons,
confl
icts
, and
cir
cum
stan
ces
as v
alua
ble
oppo
rtun
ities
to
le
arn.
16.
Fin
ding
hum
or: P
eopl
e w
ho e
ngag
e in
the
mys
tery
of
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e
hum
or h
ave
the
abili
ty to
per
ceiv
e si
tuat
ions
fro
m a
n
m
ind)
habi
t of
min
d)
orig
inal
and
oft
en in
tere
stin
g va
ntag
e po
int.
The
y te
nd to
initi
ate
hum
or m
ore
ofte
n, to
pla
ce g
reat
er v
alue
on
havi
ng
a
sens
e of
hum
or, t
o ap
prec
iate
and
und
erst
and
othe
rs’
hu
mor
, and
to b
e ve
rbal
ly p
layf
ul w
hen
inte
ract
ing
with
othe
rs. H
avin
g a
whi
msi
cal f
ram
e of
min
d, th
ey th
rive
on
fi n
ding
inco
ngru
ity; p
erce
ivin
g ab
surd
ities
, iro
nies
, and
satir
e; fi
ndin
g di
scon
tinui
ties;
and
bei
ng a
ble
to la
ugh
at
si
tuat
ions
and
them
selv
es.
17comprehensively, and judging reasonably) were found (see
Appendix 3). In the following sections, the four habits of mind
for critical thinking would be discussed one by one.
Fair and Open-mindedness
One of the common habits of mind for critical thinking
mentioned by many scholars is “fair and open-mindedness.” It
is not only labeled as a habit of mind, commitment, or sensitivity
of critical thinking (Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999),
but also an approach to apply critical thinking attitudes in
workplace (Jackson, Ignatavicius, & Case, 2006, p. 153), an
element of the Critical Thinking Indicators (Alfaro-LeFevre,
2003, pp. 46– 47), a component of the Critical Thinking
Competence Standards (Paul & Elder, 2006), and a characteristic
of critical thinking (Daniel, 2001; Facione, 1990). According
to Jackson et al. (2006, p. 153), being fair and open to others’
viewpoints could help people to reconstruct their own views
and to reason from others’ ideas in a more accurate way. Critical
thinkers with “fair and open-mindedness” welcome and consider
different viewpoints honestly, patiently, and empathetically.
There are two components in the habit of mind of “fair and
open-mindedness”: fair-mindedness and open-mindedness.
According to Paul et al. (1993), fair-mindedness is defi ned as:
willingness and consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints
alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests,
or the feelings or vested interests of one’s friends, community,
or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without
reference to one’s own advantage or the advantage of one’s
group. (p. 326)
18Strong sense or fair-minded critical thinkers not only treat
all viewpoints equally regardless of their personal feelings or
interests, but also question and refl ect on their own viewpoints,
and avoid biases or prejudice consciously (Elder & Paul, 1998;
Paul & Elder, 2006).
For open-mindedness, it is the willingness to question the
assumptions, suspend judgment until more information is
gathered, attempt to clarify diffi cult issues, think in new ways,
and review evidence (Halpern, 1997, p. 11; Paul et al., 1993,
p. 54). In other words, a critical thinker is an open-minded
person, who is flexible in mindset, sensitive to his or her
own bias, and willing to tolerate divergent views (Facione,
Giancarlo, et al., 1995; Halpern, 1997; Scheffer & Rubenfeld,
2000).
In summary, fair and open-minded critical thinkers are
willing to clarify difficult issues, question the assumptions,
review evidence, and suspend judgment until more information
is gathered. They are keen to reflect on their own point of
view in order to avoid biases, prejudice, and being infl uenced
by personal feelings and self and group interests. They welcome
and consider different viewpoints equally, honestly, and
patiently. They also possess fl exible mindsets and are able to
think in new ways (Appendix 3).
Truth-Seeking
Similar to “fair and open-mindedness,” many lists of critical
thinking dispositions include the trait of “truth-seeking” (Dunn,
Halonen, & Smith, 2008, p. 37). For example, Bailin et al.
19(1999) regarded it as another habit of mind — commitment or
sensitivity of critical thinking (p. 281). It is also an element of
the CCTDI, which is a popular assessment tool of critical
thinking (Facione & Facione, 1992). Since “truth-seeking” is
the “desire for the best knowledge, even if it does not support
one’s own beliefs” (Jackson et al., 2006, p. 36), an critical
thinker, who is also a truth-seeker, is eager to ask questions;
identify relevant sources; search for evidence, facts or
knowledge (the truth) in a given context; and gather objective,
subjective, historical and current data from all senses (Scheffer
& Rubenfeld, 2000, p. 358).
To sum up, critical thinkers, as truth-seekers, desire for
the best knowledge, even if it does not support their own
beliefs. They are eager to ask questions and search for relevant
evidence, facts or knowledge (e.g., objective, subjective,
historical and current data, etc.) in a given context from all
senses (Appendix 3).
Understanding Comprehensively
Additionally, critical thinkers should develop an in-depth and
comprehensive understanding of the information from multiple
perspectives (McPeck, 1990, p. 28; Miller & Babcock, 1996,
p. 7). Not only could they compare and organize all the
information from diverse sources in a concise, coherent and
meaningful way, but also interpret and consider all the
inferences, relationships, background and environment. From
the reverse perspective, they should identify all the problems,
misconceptions, fallacies, and ambiguity in context. It was
supported by Kuhn’s (1999) research that epistemological
20understanding is essential to critical thinking, especially when
people make judgment with criteria and evidence (p. 23). It is
essential to have a clear picture and in-depth understanding
of the issue to be investigated before making any judgment.
Therefore, “understanding comprehensively” is an essential habit
of mind for critical thinking.
In short, critical thinkers develop an in-depth understanding
of an event by considering multiple sources of information;
comparing and organizing all the information in a concise,
coherent and meaningful way; interpreting and pondering all
the inferences, relationships, background and environment; and
identifying all the problems, misperceptions, fallacies and
ambiguity in context (Appendix 3).
Judging Reasonably
As defi ned previously, critical thinking is an examining process
which judges and reasons with a set of criteria; it is closely
related to reasoned judgment. For instance, Case (2005) claimed
that it is essential to engage in deliberations with the intention
to make reasoned judgment in critical thinking. Siegel (1980)
denoted that a critical thinker assess claims and make reasoned
judgments (p. 8). He used “critical spirit” to describe the habits
of mind which seek and evaluate reasons and evidence carefully
when making judgments (Siegel, 1991, p. 26). Cassel and
Congleton (1993) even equated reasoned judgment with critical
thinking (p. 21). Therefore, to “judge reasonably” means to
distinguish sheer, unreasonable, and subjective opinions or
preference in reasoning and to conclude based on careful thought
21and reflection (Paul & Elder, 2002). A critical thinker who
“judges reasonably” recognizes the necessity of criteria (rules
and procedures) or grounds for judgment (Case, 2005; Jones
& Brown, 1991), and is able to apply reasons logically, fairly,
rationally and with humility. During the process, a critical
thinker fi nds the logical cause and effect, makes predictions
with evidence, draws independent inferences, views situations
from another person’s perspective, fi nds logical strategies to
solve problems, and perseveres when facing uncertainty (Davis-
Seaver, 2000, pp. 38, 48).
In sum, by using necessary criteria (rules and procedures)
and logical strategies, critical thinkers make careful and
refl ective reasoned judgment by fi nding the logical cause and
effect; drawing independent inferences; making predictions with
evidence; viewing situations from other perspectives; applying
logical, fair and rational reasons; and distinguishing sheer,
unreasonable, and subjective opinions or preferences in their
reasoning (Appendix 3).
By comparing the above four habits of mind for critical
thinking with four important lists of critical thinking dispositions
and habits of mind for critical thinking in Table 3, it is found
that the list of the author almost includes all the items in
the four lists except creativity and intuition. It was explained
by Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000, p. 357) that these two
components were unique to nursing and were not included
in others’ inventories of critical thinking such as Facione,
Giancarlo, et al.’s (1995) because the nursing experts believed
that they are vital in the fi eld of nursing.
Tab
le 3
. C
ompa
riso
n of
Dis
posi
tion
s an
d H
abit
s of
Min
d fo
r C
riti
cal T
hink
ing
Hab
its o
f m
ind
Dis
posi
tions
H
abits
of
min
d
The
list
of
the
auth
or
Enn
is (
1987
) Fa
cion
e, G
ianc
arlo
, et a
l. (1
995)
Sc
heff
er a
nd R
uben
feld
(20
00)
McR
EL
(20
09)
1.
Fai
r an
d op
en-m
inde
dnes
s :
1.
Be
open
-min
ded :
1.
O
pen-
min
dedn
ess :
Bei
ng
1.
Ope
n-m
inde
dnes
s : A
1.
R
estr
ain
Fa
ir a
nd o
pen-
min
ded
criti
cal
C
onsi
der
seri
ousl
y ot
her
tole
rant
of
dive
rgen
t vie
ws
view
poin
t cha
ract
eriz
ed b
y
im
puls
ivit
y
thin
kers
are
will
ing
to c
lari
fy
po
ints
of
view
than
one
’s
an
d se
nsiti
ve to
the
bein
g re
cept
ive
to d
iver
gent
2.
M
aint
ain
an
di
ffi c
ult i
ssue
s, q
uest
ion
the
own
(dia
logi
cal t
hink
ing)
;
poss
ibili
ty o
f on
e’s
own
view
s an
d se
nsiti
ve to
one
’s
op
en m
ind
as
sum
ptio
ns, r
evie
w e
vide
nce,
reas
on f
rom
pre
mis
es
bi
as
bi
ases
3.
R
espo
nd
an
d su
spen
d ju
dgm
ent u
ntil
with
whi
ch o
ne
2.
Refl
ect
ion :
Con
tem
plat
ion
appr
opri
atel
y to
mor
e in
form
atio
n is
gat
here
d.
di
sagr
ees
— w
ithou
t
upon
a s
ubje
ct, e
spec
ially
othe
rs’
feel
ings
The
y ar
e ke
en to
refl
ect
on
letti
ng th
e di
sagr
eem
ent
on
e’s
assu
mpt
ions
and
and
leve
l of
th
eir
own
poin
t of
view
in
in
terf
ere
with
one
’s
th
inki
ng f
or th
e pu
rpos
es o
f
kn
owle
dge
or
der
to a
void
bia
ses,
reas
onin
g (s
uppo
sitio
nal
de
eper
und
erst
andi
ng a
nd
pr
ejud
ice,
and
bei
ng in
fl uen
ced
thin
king
); w
ithho
ld
se
lf-e
valu
atio
n
by p
erso
nal f
eelin
gs a
nd s
elf
judg
men
t whe
n th
e
3.
Fle
xibi
lity
: Cap
acity
to a
dapt
,
and
grou
p in
tere
sts.
The
y
ev
iden
ce a
nd r
easo
ns a
re
ac
com
mod
ate,
mod
ify
or
w
elco
me
and
cons
ider
insu
ffi c
ient
chan
ge th
ough
ts, i
deas
, and
diff
eren
t vie
wpo
ints
equ
ally
, 2.
B
e se
nsit
ive
to th
e
be
havi
ors
ho
nest
ly, a
nd p
atie
ntly
. The
y
fe
elin
gs, l
evel
of
al
so o
wn
fl exi
ble
min
dset
s
kn
owle
dge
and
degr
ee o
f
and
are
able
to th
ink
in n
ew
so
phis
tica
tion
of o
ther
s
way
s.
3.
Loo
k fo
r al
tern
ativ
es
2.
Tru
th-s
eeki
ng: C
ritic
al
4.
Seek
a c
lear
sta
tem
ent o
f 2.
In
quis
itiv
enes
s : O
ne’s
4.
In
quis
itiv
enes
s : A
n ea
gern
ess
(No
com
para
ble
th
inke
rs d
esir
e fo
r th
e be
st
th
e th
esis
or
ques
tion
inte
llect
ual c
urio
sity
and
to k
now
by
seek
ing
habi
t of
min
d)
know
ledg
e, e
ven
if it
doe
s no
t 5.
T
ry to
be
wel
l-in
form
ed
on
e’s
desi
re f
or le
arni
ng
kn
owle
dge
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g
supp
ort t
heir
ow
n be
liefs
. 6.
Se
ek r
easo
ns
ev
en w
hen
the
appl
icat
ion
thro
ugh
obse
rvat
ion
and
T
hey
are
eage
r to
ask
7.
Se
ek a
s m
uch
prec
isio
n as
of th
e kn
owle
dge
is n
ot
th
ough
tful
que
stio
ning
in
qu
estio
ns a
nd s
earc
h fo
r
th
e su
bjec
t per
mit
s
read
ily a
ppar
ent
or
der
to e
xplo
re p
ossi
bilit
ies
re
leva
nt e
vide
nce,
fac
ts, o
r
8.
Use
and
men
tion
cre
dibl
e
3.
Tru
th-s
eeki
ng: B
eing
eag
er
an
d al
tern
ativ
es
know
ledg
e (e
.g.,
obje
ctiv
e,
so
urce
s
to s
eek
the
best
kno
wle
dge
5.
In
tell
ectu
al in
tegr
ity :
See
k th
e
subj
ectiv
e, h
isto
rica
l and
in a
giv
en c
onte
xt,
tr
uth
thro
ugh
sinc
ere,
hon
est
cu
rren
t dat
a, e
tc.)
in a
giv
en
co
urag
eous
abo
ut a
skin
g
pr
oces
ses,
eve
n if
the
resu
lts
co
ntex
t fro
m a
ll se
nses
.
ques
tions
, and
hon
est a
nd
ar
e co
ntra
ry to
one
’s
ob
ject
ive
abou
t pur
suin
g
as
sum
ptio
ns a
nd b
elie
fs
inqu
iry
even
if th
e fi n
ding
s
do n
ot s
uppo
rt o
ne’s
self
-int
eres
ts o
r on
e’s
pr
econ
ceiv
ed o
pini
ons
3.
Und
erst
andi
ng
9.
Try
to r
emai
n re
leva
nt to
4.
M
atur
ity :
App
roac
h
6.
Con
text
ual p
ersp
ecti
ve:
4.
Be
clea
r an
d
com
preh
ensi
vely
: Cri
tical
the
mai
n po
int
pr
oble
ms,
inqu
iry,
and
Con
side
rate
of
the
who
le
se
ek c
lari
ty
thin
kers
dev
elop
an
in-d
epth
10
. K
eep
in m
ind
the
orig
inal
deci
sion
mak
ing
with
a
si
tuat
ion,
incl
udin
g
5.
Be
accu
rate
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
an
even
t by
and
/or
basi
c co
ncer
n
sens
e th
at s
ome
prob
lem
s
re
latio
nshi
ps, b
ackg
roun
d an
d
se
ek a
ccur
acy
co
nsid
erin
g m
ultip
le s
ourc
es
11.
Tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt th
e
ar
e ne
cess
arily
envi
ronm
ent,
rele
vant
to s
ome
of
info
rmat
ion;
com
pari
ng a
nd
to
tal s
itua
tion
ill-s
truc
ture
d, s
ome
happ
enin
g
orga
nizi
ng a
ll th
e in
form
atio
n
si
tuat
ions
adm
it of
mor
e
in a
con
cise
, coh
eren
t and
than
one
pla
usib
le o
ptio
n,
m
eani
ngfu
l way
; int
erpr
etin
g
an
d m
any
times
judg
men
ts
an
d po
nder
ing
all t
he in
fere
nces
,
mus
t be
mad
e ba
sed
on
re
latio
nshi
ps, b
ackg
roun
d
st
anda
rds,
con
text
s an
d
and
envi
ronm
ent;
and
evid
ence
whi
ch p
recl
ude
id
entif
ying
all
the
prob
lem
s,
ce
rtai
nty
m
ispe
rcep
tions
, fal
laci
es a
nd
am
bigu
ity in
con
text
.
4.
Judg
ing
reas
onab
ly: B
y
12.
Use
one
’s c
riti
cal
5.
Syst
emat
icit
y : B
eing
7.
C
onfi d
ence
: Pur
suit
of a
6.
T
ake
a po
siti
on
us
ing
nece
ssar
y cr
iteri
a (r
ules
thin
king
abi
liti
es
or
gani
zed,
ord
erly
, foc
used
,
cour
se w
ith d
eter
min
atio
n to
whe
n th
e
and
proc
edur
es)
and
logi
cal
13.
Dea
l in
an o
rder
ly
an
d di
ligen
t in
inqu
iry
ov
erco
me
obst
acle
s
situ
atio
n
stra
tegi
es, c
ritic
al th
inke
rs
m
anne
r w
ith
the
part
s
6.
Cri
tica
l thi
nkin
g
8.
Per
seve
ranc
e : P
ursu
it of
a
w
arra
nts
it
mak
e ca
refu
l and
refl
ect
ive
of a
com
plex
who
le
se
lf-c
onfi d
ence
: Tru
st th
e
co
urse
with
det
erm
inat
ion
to
re
ason
ed ju
dgm
ent b
y fi n
ding
14
. T
ake
a po
siti
on (
and
soun
dnes
s of
one
’s o
wn
over
com
e ob
stac
les
th
e lo
gica
l cau
se a
nd e
ffec
t;
ch
ange
a p
osit
ion)
whe
n
re
ason
ed ju
dgm
ents
and
draw
ing
inde
pend
ent
th
e ev
iden
ce a
nd r
easo
ns
le
ad o
ther
s in
the
ratio
nal
in
fere
nces
; mak
ing
are
suffi
cien
t to
do s
o
reso
lutio
n of
pro
blem
s
pred
ictio
ns w
ith e
vide
nce;
7.
A
naly
tici
ty: P
rize
the
vi
ewin
g si
tuat
ions
fro
m o
ther
appl
icat
ion
of r
easo
ning
and
pers
pect
ives
; app
lyin
g lo
gica
l,
th
e us
e of
evi
denc
e to
fair
and
rat
iona
l rea
sons
; and
reso
lve
prob
lem
s, a
ntic
ipat
e
dist
ingu
ishi
ng s
heer
,
pote
ntia
l con
cept
ual o
r
unre
ason
able
, and
sub
ject
ive
prac
tical
diffi c
ultie
s, a
nd
op
inio
ns o
r pr
efer
ence
s in
cons
iste
ntly
be
aler
t to
the
th
eir
reas
onin
g.
ne
ed to
inte
rven
e
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e ha
bit o
f
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e di
spos
ition
) 9.
C
reat
ivit
y : I
ntel
lect
ual
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e
min
d)
di
spos
ition
)
inve
ntiv
enes
s us
ed to
hab
it of
min
d)
gene
rate
, dis
cove
r, o
r
rest
ruct
ure
idea
s; im
agin
e
alte
rnat
ives
10.
Intu
itio
n : I
nsig
htfu
l sen
se o
f
know
ing
with
out c
onsc
ious
use
of r
easo
n
24Critical Thinking in the NSSC of Liberal Studies
The NSSC of Liberal Studies is an interdisciplinary subject,
which consisted of six modules of study with specifi c learning
themes related to students’ lives under three study areas (“Self
and Personal Development,” “Society and Culture,” and
“Science, Technology and the Environment”). Since textbooks
are not recommended by the EDB, teachers have more
fl exibility in lesson preparation and resources utilization when
they connect the learning content to the contemporary issues
under the guidelines of the “question for inquiry” and
“explanatory notes” in each theme of study (Appendix 4).
In the three years of study, students are required to conduct
an Independent Inquiry Study, which apply and extend what is
learned from the three learning areas to the new issue of their
inquiry study. On the other hand, critical thinking is regarded
as a kind of life-long learning skills, which is embedded in the
aims of Liberal Studies (Curriculum Development Council &
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority [CDC &
HKEAA], 2007, p. 5). In addition to life-long learning skills,
critical thinking is also a component of the high-order thinking
skills, generic skills, and independent learning skills (CDC &
HKEAA, 2007, pp. 3, 6, 140).
It appears in the Learning to Learn consultation document
that the generic critical thinking skills is concerning with the
judgment of what is believable by questioning and inquiring
about the accuracy of given statements (CDC, 2000a, p. 47). It
aims at helping students to draw meaning from given data or
statements, to generate and evaluate arguments. By comparing
25the syllabus of Liberal Studies and the expected achievements
across the school curricula, it is found that all the learning
outcomes of critical thinking skills for senior secondary students
proposed by the CDC (2000a) are embedded in the Liberal
Studies curriculum (Table 4). This reveals that students are
expected to identify the underlying viewpoints, values and
judgments, and to apply critical thinking skills in making
decisions and judgments on personal and social issues and
problems (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 6).
Issue-inquiry Approach in the
NSSC of Liberal Studies
Issue-inquiry approach has been adopted as the learning
approach in the NSSC of Liberal Studies. Although issue-inquiry
was embedded as one of the learning approaches in subjects
like Economics and Public Affairs, Geography, and Science
since the 1970s (EDB, 2007b), it was not until 1992 that
issue-inquiry approach was fully utilized in the Advanced
Supplementary Level (ASL) curriculum of Liberal Studies. In
the syllabus of ASL Liberal Studies, it described the learning
process of issue-inquiry approach in details. With the guiding
questions provided, students are able to search for relevant
solutions of a problem and to argue reasonably for and against
the possible solutions in the learning process of issue-inquiry.
They are encouraged to ask question and conduct research when
they look for possible solutions. Furthermore, students learn
practical skills when they gather, identify, investigate, and
evaluate essential information in the learning process (CDC,
2000b, p. 10). Additionally, students develop the awareness of
and commitment to responsible actions through community
Tab
le 4
. C
riti
cal T
hink
ing
Skill
s in
the
Sch
ool C
urri
cula
Des
crip
tors
of
expe
cted
ach
ieve
men
ts
Exe
mpl
ars
of im
plem
enta
tion
in P
erso
nal,
T
he N
SSC
of
Lib
eral
Stu
dies
(C
DC
& H
KE
AA
, 200
7)
acro
ss th
e sc
hool
cur
ricu
lum
(C
DC
, So
cial
and
Hum
aniti
es E
duca
tion
(CD
C,
2000
a, p
. 49)
20
00a,
p. 4
9)
Key
Sta
ge F
our
(Sen
ior
Seco
ndar
y)
Lea
rner
s:
Stud
ents
will
lear
n to
:
Lea
rner
s w
ill le
arn
to:
1.
iden
tify
the
pers
onal
vie
w o
r st
and
of
1.
iden
tify
the
valu
es u
nder
lyin
g di
ffer
ent v
iew
s an
d
1.
dist
ingu
ish
real
and
sta
ted
issu
es,
a
hist
oria
n by
ana
lyzi
ng th
e w
ays
judg
men
ts o
n pe
rson
al a
nd s
ocia
l iss
ues,
and
app
ly
fa
lse
and
accu
rate
imag
es, a
nd
hi
stor
ical
fac
ts a
re s
elec
ted
and
criti
cal t
hink
ing
skill
s, c
reat
ivity
and
dif
fere
nt
re
leva
nt a
nd ir
rele
vant
evi
denc
e;
ar
rang
ed in
his
/her
wri
ting;
pers
pect
ives
in m
akin
g de
cisi
ons
and
judg
men
ts o
n
2.
reco
gniz
e an
d ch
alle
nge
subt
le
2.
eval
uate
arg
umen
ts in
sup
port
of
issu
es a
nd p
robl
ems
at b
oth
pers
onal
and
soc
ial
co
nsis
tenc
ies
and
inco
nsis
tenc
ies,
cultu
ral o
r so
cial
bia
s an
d ch
alle
nge
leve
ls (
p. 6
);
un
stat
ed f
unda
men
tal
th
e fa
lse
imag
es p
ortr
ayed
and
2.
cr
itica
lly e
valu
ate
info
rmat
ion,
phe
nom
ena
and
idea
s
as
sum
ptio
ns, p
erm
eatin
g va
lue
inco
nsis
tenc
ies
hidd
en;
pr
esen
ted
in th
e m
edia
, so
that
they
can
dis
tingu
ish
or
ient
atio
ns a
nd id
eolo
gies
; 3.
ch
alle
nge
the
just
ifi ca
tion
for
a ce
rtai
n
be
twee
n fa
ct a
nd o
pini
on a
nd s
ense
obj
ectiv
ity
3.
dist
ingu
ish
amon
g so
phis
ticat
ed
ec
onom
ic p
olic
y by
exp
osin
g its
vers
us b
ias
(p. 4
);
fa
ct, o
pini
on a
nd r
easo
ned
unde
rlyi
ng a
ssum
ptio
ns a
nd v
alue
3.
ac
quir
e a
rela
tivel
y co
mpr
ehen
sive
und
erst
andi
ng o
f
ju
dgm
ent;
or
ient
atio
ns;
th
e is
sues
, mas
ter
rela
ted
fact
s, a
naly
se th
e co
re o
f
4.
be a
war
e th
at th
e se
lect
ion
and
4.
an
alyz
e th
e di
ffer
ent v
iew
s of
the
ques
tions
, giv
e ba
lanc
ed c
onsi
dera
tions
to
de
ploy
men
t of
info
rmat
ion/
fact
s is
indi
vidu
als
and
grou
ps o
n th
e
di
ffer
ent v
iew
s an
d m
ake
reas
oned
judg
men
ts (
p. 4
).
af
fect
ed b
y pe
rson
al p
ersp
ectiv
e;
su
stai
nabl
e us
e of
the
loca
l env
iron
men
t
5.
draw
war
rant
ed c
oncl
usio
ns,
an
d id
entif
y pe
rson
al a
nd g
roup
T
hese
them
es e
mbo
dy is
sues
whi
ch a
re im
port
ant t
o th
e
pr
edic
t and
ass
ess
prob
able
inte
rest
s, r
easo
ned
and
obje
ctiv
e
stud
ents
and
soc
iety
, and
are
app
ropr
iate
for
the
stag
e of
co
nseq
uenc
es, a
nd m
ake
reas
oned
judg
men
ts a
s w
ell a
s di
ffer
ent v
alue
de
velo
pmen
t of
seni
or s
econ
dary
stu
dent
s. T
hese
issu
es
ju
dgm
ent i
n re
adin
g, w
ritin
g, a
nd
or
ient
atio
ns b
ehin
d th
e is
sue;
ar
e pe
renn
ial i
n th
e se
nse
that
they
invo
lve
diff
eren
t
sp
eech
. 5.
an
alyz
e ca
refu
lly th
e ar
gum
ents
for
or
va
lues
(e.
g. e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t and
env
iron
men
tal
ag
ains
t a s
ocia
l iss
ue a
nd d
isce
rn th
e
cons
erva
tion;
indi
vidu
al c
hoic
e an
d co
llect
ive
inte
rest
).
is
sue
at s
take
. (p
. 13)
27involvement. Besides, students learn to modify predetermined
positions and to respect reasonable, non-consensual and strongly
held views in the discussions. Eventually, they learn to refl ect
and adjust their life situations by making use of collected facts,
acquired skills and hold values. At the end, both the learning
interest and the intrinsic learning motivation would be enhanced
(CDC, 2000b, pp. 10–11).
Promotion of Critical Thinking through Issue-
inquiry Approach in the NSSC of Liberal Studies
In the NSSC of Liberal Studies, it has mentioned that the issue-
inquiry approach not only helps students to develop with
independent learning capacity, but also offers students with
the opportunities to see the connection among different themes
and disciplines, and to appreciate the complexities and
organization of knowledge (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 4). The
purpose of applying issue-inquiry approach in Liberal Studies
is to provide students with learning experience in interpreting
facts and making practical judgments. Additionally, in one of
the introductory seminars of the NSSC of Liberal Studies, it
was informed that knowledge building, issue-inquiry approach,
and critical thinking are the three fundamental building blocks
of Liberal Studies (CDC, 2006). These presage that critical
thinking plays an important role in the learning of Liberal
Studies. Nevertheless, the relationship between issue-inquiry
approach and critical thinking has never been discussed in any
of the curriculum documents. Therefore, in order to reveal
this issue, the issue-inquiry approach in Liberal Studies is
discussed with the four habits of mind for critical thinking in
the following sub-sections.
28Issue-inquiry Approach Promotes “Fair and Open-
mindedness”
The fi rst habit of mind for critical thinking is “fair and open-
mindedness.” In the inquiry process, open-mindedness supports
certain strategic behaviors. With open-mindedness, students
freely display sensitivity to problems, explore ideas and values,
question one’s beliefs, withstand ambiguity, withhold judgment,
detect bias, and act on empirically derived information in the
inquiry learning process (Haas & Van Scotter, 1975, p. 79).
Moreover, it is unavoidable to interact and exchange ideas
among peers in the inquiry community (Lipman, 2003). In an
inquiry community, students focus on questioning, accept
reasonable criticisms, respect and build on the ideas from
different perspectives (Duffy & Kirkley, 2004, p. 146; Lipman,
2003).
In order to guarantee fair treatment to both personal and
others’ viewpoints, students need many perspectives to view
the world (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). On
the one hand, they reflect on their own viewpoint to avoid
being infl uenced by personal or group benefi ts; on the other
hand, they make balance and objective decision on opinions
from multiple perspectives (Haas & Van Scotter, 1975, pp. 76,
80). It was agreed by Paul et al.’s (1993) viewpoint of critical
thinking that everyday issues are “multilogical” (pp. 480–481).
Since there is no single truth in a “multilogical” problem, people
are required to extract themselves from the issue, put side by
side the pros and cons, look at a situation from all angles, and
examine the multiple perspectives from the outside (Moon,
2008, p. 60). In other words, critical thinking means to weigh
29against different views about an issue (Moon, 2008, p. 61).
Therefore, the habit of mind for critical thinking — “fair and
open-mindedness” is treasured in the inquiry process.
In Liberal Studies, “fair and open-mindedness” is appreciated
in issue inquiry as well. It was clearly mentioned in the
curriculum of Liberal Studies that “present arguments clearly
and demonstrate respect for evidence” and “open-mindedness
and tolerance towards the views and values held by other people”
are two of the learning outcomes (CDC & HKEAA, 2007,
p. 6). In addition, one of the curriculum aims of Liberal Studies
is to develop students with multiple perspectives on contemporary
issues in different contexts such as cultural, social, economic,
political, and technological contexts (CDC & HKEAA, 2007,
p. 5). It is anticipated that students can see the connection among
different themes and disciplines by means of issue-inquiry
approach (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 4).
In the process of issue inquiry and the development of
multiple perspectives (Table 5), students not only develop a
broad vision of different viewpoints, values and interests related
to an issue, but are also able to appraise and analyze different
claims fairly based on relevant facts and phenomena from
multiple channels using appropriate tools (CDC & HKEAA,
2007, p. 89). Students can “distinguish between fact and opinion
and sense objectivity versus bias” by evaluating information,
phenomena and ideas presented in the media critically (CDC
& HKEAA, 2007, p. 4). They can also distinguish between
“subjective” views and opinions held by different parties and
“objective” information and knowledge (CDC & HKEAA,
30
2007, p. 90). Since objectivity versus subjectivity and facts
versus bias are analyzed from multiple perspectives in the
learning process of Liberal Studies, it is concluded that the
habit of mind of “fair and open-mindedness” for critical thinking
is treasured in the issue-inquiry approach of Liberal Studies.
Issue-inquiry Approach Promotes “Truth-Seeking”
The second habit of mind for critical thinking is “truth-seeking.”
In inquiry learning, the term “inquiry” means seeking for
truth, information or knowledge by questioning (Educational
Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). Davis and Davis (2000)
claimed that “learning through inquiry is by questioning”
Table 5. Process of Issue Inquiry and the Development of
Multiple Perspectives in the NSSC of Liberal Studies
Processes Relationship with
development of multiple perspectives
[ I ] • Different sources of information
Mastering the facts, • Different ways of collecting data
understanding the • Different interpretations and explanations
phenomena, • Different associations
clarifying the concepts • …
[ II ] • Different values
Understanding the • Different interests
differences and confl icts • Different convictions
involved • …
• Considering all sides of the argument
• Weighing the pros and cons
[ III ] • Putting forward reasons and justifi cations
Refl ection, evaluation, • Taking action, evaluating and accepting
judgment, solution, action consequences
• Revising judgment
• …
Source: CDC & HKEAA (2007, p. 90).
31(p. 86). Besides, students are required to formulate questions,
detect misconception and underlying assumptions, seek evidence
and reason from multiple perspectives during inquiry process
(Lipman, 2003, pp. 167–171). They need to investigate, explore,
search, quest, pursuit, and study various sources of information
and ideas together in order to increase their understanding of
an issue (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007, p. 90). Thus,
similar to critical thinking, “truth-seeking” is essential to inquiry
learning.
In the curriculum guide of Liberal Studies, it was written
that the acquisition of information skills and habits enable
students to collect, digest, organize and analyze information
independently (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 72). For example,
when they conduct library research, interview and survey, they
can practice how to select useful information from all forms of
sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, reports, statistics,
maps, diagrams, charts, mass media, the Internet and so forth.
By gathering necessary information, student can practice how
to identify, investigate, and evaluate the issues they concern.
Besides, since collected information may not present the whole
truth of an issue, especially those information from the mass
media and the Internet, students might need to question and
examine them carefully. On the other hand, students with
different learning styles and abilities learn to share the research
task and duty in a learning community (CDC & HKEAA, 2007,
p. 108). They have the chance to examine the accuracy of an
argument and question each other’s viewpoints in their
discussion as well (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 103). With such
an interaction, students learn more about the history, background,
32and incidents of an issue. Above all, they are able to discover
the underlying beliefs and assumptions from different
perspectives of different parties. In conclusion, the habit of
mind of “truth-seeking” for critical thinking is essential to the
issue-inquiry approach in Liberal Studies.
Issue-inquiry Approach Promotes “Understanding
Comprehensively”
The third habit of mind for critical thinking is “understanding
comprehensively.” According to Kuhlthau et al. (2007), the
main purpose of inquiry learning is to construct new ideas and
deep understanding by synthesizing and assimilating facts
(p. 22). The Educational Broadcasting Corporation (2004) also
pointed out that the generation and transmission of knowledge
are the two crucial elements in inquiry. For profi cient inquirers,
not only can they see patterns and meanings by retrieving their
knowledge and connecting to the new information, but they
can also access, transfer, and apply their in-depth knowledge to a
variety of situations. Horn (2004) added that a critical thinker
refl ects critically and understands all the contexts in the process
of inquiry (p. 213). Therefore, “understanding comprehensively”
is vital for inquiry.
In the curriculum guide of Liberal Studies, “understanding
comprehensively” was emphasized. It was one of its rationales
for students to “acquire a broad knowledge base, and be able to
understand contemporary issues that may affect their daily life
at personal, community, national and global levels” (CDC &
HKEAA, 2007, p. 3). It was also suggested that more than half
of the inquiry process should be focused on the acquisition of
33the content knowledge so as to provide students with suffi cient
understanding of the background, nature, and complexity of
the issues explored (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 4). On the
other hand, it is one of the design principles to expose students
to “perspectives and concepts essential to the understanding of
issues of human concern, while at the same time emphasising
students’ ability to transfer and apply these perspectives and
concepts to the understanding of new issues” (CDC & HKEAA,
2007, p. 9). It was suggested that various learning strategies
should be employed in order to develop “a relatively
comprehensive understanding of the issues, master related facts,
analyse the core of the questions, give balanced considerations
to different views and make reasoned judgments” (CDC &
HKEAA, 2007, p. 4). Students are also expected to construct
their practical knowledge via a dual process of both the
development and testing of their understanding of issue (CDC
& HKEAA, 2007, p. 89).
In Table 5, it was shown that students should master the
facts, understand the phenomena, and clarify the concepts in
the fi rst stage of the issue-inquiry process. Afterwards, they
would understand the differences and confl icts involved in the
second stage of the inquiry process. It was further elaborated
in the document that:
As learners gather more information on an issue, fresh conflicts
and controversies may appear; as they try to sort out the different
conflicts, further information may be needed and new concepts
may emerge; and as they reflect on the learning process and
evaluate the results of the enquiry, new issues and problems
may arise which require the collection and analysis of additional
34information. Therefore, at the end of the enquiry process, a
learner might have more questions than answers, but would
have a richer and deeper understanding of the issues involved.
(CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 90)
Since the issue-inquiry approach of Liberal Studies
highlights the importance of comprehensive understanding
as critical thinking does, it is concluded that issue-inquiry
approach also involves the habit of mind of “understanding
comprehensively” for critical thinking.
Issue-inquiry Approach Promotes “Judging
Reasonably”
The final habit of mind for critical thinking is “judging
reasonably.” According to Pappas and Tepe (2002), it is
important to provide practice and experience of critical thinking
by applying knowledge, evaluating various choices, and making
judgments to a problem (pp. 94–95). Lee (2004), in agreement
with Pappas and Tepe, proposed that the process of inquiry is
in line with critical thinking; evidential reasoned judgment is
formed in the inquiry process, particularly in the fi nal stage
(pp. 11–14). By addressing additional questions, considering
alternative points of view, proceeding to logical conclusion,
appropriate reasoned judgment relating to an issue could be
made.
For issue-inquiry approach of Liberal Studies, it is intended
to make practical judgments by taking into account “both the
facts and the different interpretations of their practical
signifi cance and meaning” (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 89). It
35was reminded that criticisms from the negative side solely are
not reasoned judgment; a right judgment should be made under
the consideration of different perspectives (CDC & HKEAA,
2007, p. 89). This involves the organization of relevant facts,
opinions or argument of the issue; the detection of confl icts,
values and attitudes; the verifi cation of the completeness and
correctness of information; the reference to collected data; the
validity to generalize the hypothesis; the evaluation of the
limitations and alternatives to different positions; and the
decision on possible solutions (CDC, 2000b, p. 13). Additionally,
as shown in Table 5, students are required to take action,
evaluate and accept consequences and revise judgment after
considering all sides of the argument, weighing the pros and
cons, and putting forward reasons and justifi cations in stage
III of the issue-inquiry process. In view of the similarities
between inquiry learning and critical thinking on the issue of
reasoned judgment, it arrives at a conclusion that the habit of
mind of “judging reasonably” for critical thinking exists in
issue-inquiry approach in Liberal Studies as well.
Concluding Remarks
In the above discussion, it is found that the four habits of mind
for critical thinking exist in the issue-inquiry approach of the
NSSC of Liberal Studies. Thus, the issue-inquiry approach
seems to be benefi cial to the cultivation of critical thinking.
It is also found that the two core elements of issue-inquiry
approach — multiple perspectives and learning communities
— may facilitate students to grow with critical mind. With
multiple perspectives, students may obtain a comparatively
comprehensive understanding about the inquired issue through
36truth-seeking. They may also evaluate the pros and cons of
each perspective in a controversial issue before reaching a
reasonable judgment. Above all, students may develop a fair
and open-minded attitude when dealing with value confl ict from
different perspectives. They may learn to refl ect on personal
values and be objective to others’ opinions seriously even when
they are against their own views.
On the other hand, students are required to communicate
with their peers in the learning process according to the NSSC
of Liberal Studies. They may not only learn to divide the truth-
seeking work in the issue-inquiry process, but also contribute
their own thought toward the inquired issue. When they share
their digestion of the issue in their learning community, all
the community members may understand the issue more
comprehensively. In addition, they may make use of their life
experience and value judgment to give critical comments on
the issue. They may also learn to examine different perspectives
of an issue together by posing questions and discussing their
own opinions within their learning communities. Debate and
role play are some of the inquiry activities commonly used for
such a purpose. In such a tolerated, fair and open-minded
learning atmosphere, students may be able to make collective
and reasonable judgment under comprehensive consideration.
In conclusion, issue-inquiry approach of Liberal Studies
may promote students’ critical thinking by providing
opportunities for them to identify the underlying viewpoints
and values, and to apply critical thinking skills when making
judgments on personal and social issues (CDC & HKEAA,
2007, p. 6).
37Discussion
Although the promotion of critical thinking through issue-
inquiry approach in the NSSC of Liberal Studies has been
discussed with the four habits of mind for critical thinking in
the previous section, it may only appear as one of the possible
perspectives to nurture critical thinking in Liberal Studies.
In the curriculum guide of the NSSC of Liberal Studies,
the term “critical thinking” appears as many as 19 times. For
instance, one of the curriculum aims is “to develop in students
a range of skills for life-long learning, including critical
thinking skills” (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 5); it is also one of
the learning outcomes and assessment objectives to “identify
the values underlying different views and judgments on personal
and social issues, and apply critical thinking skills … in making
decisions and judgments on issues and problems at both personal
and social levels” (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 6); it is one of
the generic skills to be promoted as well (CDC & HKEAA,
2007, p. 182).
However, the relationship between the curriculum and
critical thinking has never been discussed in details. No clear
instruction has been provided in the curriculum to demonstrate
how critical thinking can be developed and applied in each of
the study areas, which kind of strategies can encourage critical
thinking, what is the role of teachers in the development of
critical thinking, and how the assessment of critical thinking
can successfully evaluate the application of critical thinking in
Liberal Studies. Hence, the appearance of the four habits of
mind for critical thinking in the issue-inquiry learning of Liberal
Studies may only be a coincidence.
38Since critical thinking is one of the generic skills which
are expected to be promoted in the 21st century education
reform in Hong Kong, other New Senior Secondary curricular
that apply issue-inquiry approach to learn may also include the
four habits of mind for critical thinking. For example, the
Personal, Social and Humanities Education curricula such as
Geography, Economics, and History; and the curricula like
“Technology and Living” and “Ethics and Religious Studies”
are curricula that aim at promoting critical thinking and apply
issue-inquiry approach to learn as well. It is predictable that
the core elements of critical thinking (four habits of mind)
may probably emerge in these curricula. In other words, the
four habits of mind for critical thinking may easily be found
among the New Senior Secondary curricula which apply issue-
inquiry approach to learn. Therefore, the four habits of mind
for critical thinking as the evidence may not suffi ciently support
that the NSSC of Liberal Studies was designed especially for
the promotion of critical thinking.
On the other hand, when comparing with other curricula,
it seems that not enough guidelines are provided to facilitate
the learning of issue-based inquiry in Liberal Studies. For
example, in the previous curriculum of Geography, an example
of worksheet to demonstrate how issue-based inquiry is adopted
in the teaching and learning of Geography (CDC, 2003,
pp. 51–57); and in the ASL curriculum of Liberal Studies, the
teaching and learning strategies of issue-based inquiry are
demonstrated (CDC, 2000b, pp. 36–46). Nonetheless, in the
NSSC of Liberal Studies, when discussing issue-inquiry
learning, it is solely related to the development of multiple
39perspectives. For example, “the processes involved in conducting
an issue-enquiry in Liberal Studies, and how these processes
are relevant to the development of multiple perspectives” (CDC
& HKEAA, 2007, p. 89); and “the development of multiple
perspectives throughout the entire issue-enquiry process” (CDC
& HKEAA, 2007, p. 90) were written. In such case, it seems
that the development of multiple perspectives is more relevant
to the investigation of contemporary issues than the development
of critical thinking in Liberal Studies.
Above all, the development of multiple perspectives may
not intentionally aim at that of critical thinking. It is counted
that the term “multiple perspectives” appear for 15 times
(4 times less than the term “critical thinking”) in the curriculum
of Liberal Studies. It is not only one of its aims “to enable
students to develop multiple perspectives on perennial and
contemporary issues in different contexts” (CDC & HKEAA,
2007, p. 5), but also one of the assessment objectives of Liberal
Studies to “analyse issues … solve problems, make sound
judgments and conclusions and provide suggestions, using
multiple perspectives, creativity and appropriate thinking skills”
(CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 124). It seems reasonable to assess
the application of critical thinking by means of multiple
perspectives since it helps making the assessment of critical
thinking explicit. However, it is doubtful that the development
of critical thinking and multiple perspectives appears as two
different aims in the NSSC of Liberal Studies. From the
researcher’s viewpoint, such inconsistence in the appearance
of multiple perspectives and critical thinking in curriculum
aims and assessment outcomes seems to be the reason that the
40
development of multiple perspectives and critical thinking
intersect each other (Figure 1).
People who are able to view an issue from different
perspectives do not imply that they possess the critical thinking
ability and vice versa. Multiple perspectives help students to
develop a broader view of an issue so that they understand
the issue in a comparably comprehensive way. When people
understand an issue more comprehensively, it seems that they
are comparably abler to arrive at a reasonable judgment.
However, some people who are able to view an issue from
different perspectives may not possess critical thinking ability.
They may make judgment with fallacies. For example, appeal
to authority and appeal to majority are two of the common
fallacies people often commit even they possess information
from multiple perspectives.
Conversely, multiple perspectives may not be the mere
method for reasoned judgment or even critical thinking. Some
Figure 1. Relation Between the Development of Multiple
Perspectives and Critical Thinking
Development Development
of multiple of critical
perspectives thinking
41scholars even claimed that logic is directly relational to reasoned
judgment which is fundamental to critical thinking (e.g.,
Dewey, 1933; Halpern, 2003; Paul et al., 1993; Walters, 1994).
Logic is reasoning by considering the relationships between
propositions (Paul et al., 1993, p. 476). With logical thinking,
people may probably think critically and make judgment
reasonably by deduction or induction. For instance, Dewey
(1933) emphasized that:
“logical,” as applied to the process of thinking, signifies that
the course of thoughts is carried on reflectively, in the sense
in which reflection was discriminated from other kinds of
thinking. (p. 76; italics original)
Walters (1994) reviewed that:
the explosion of interest in critical thinking that spread across
the academy in the last twenty years, focusing squarely and
almost exclusively as it does on the cannons of logical analysis,
operates from an orientation I earlier characterized as logicistic.
As a consequence, standard textbooks and courses in critical
thinking typically concentrate on exercises and lectures that
drill students in the mechanics of logical argumentation …
many institutions use the terms “critical thinking” and “informal/
logic” interchangeably in their rosters of course descriptions.
As Joanne Kurfiss correctly notes, “teaching ‘critical thinking,’
at least at the introductory level, has become almost synonymous
with the methods of applied informal logic”. (pp. 4–5)
Halpern (2003) echoed with these scholars and summarized
that:
42many definitions of the term critical thinking identify reasoning
as central to the concept as seen in the definition … They
agreed that “critical thinking is … cohesive, logical reasoning
patterns”. (p. 138; italics original)
However, this kind of critical thinking may not involve
multiple perspectives in reasoning. Paul et al. (1993) extended
that “critical thinking can now be understood as a deep interest
in the logic of logic, … in which we use human reason well or
poorly in attempting to make sense of things and our created
interpretations of them” (p. 111). In addition, he divided critical
thinking into weak sense and strong sense which are monological
and multilogical respectively (Paul et al., 1993, pp. 205–206).
Since then, the development of multiple perspectives is
considered as an important element on top of logic that facilitates
the development of critical thinking in Liberal Studies.
In different curricula that apply issue-based inquiry learning
to develop critical thinking, the purposes are different. For
example, in the previous syllabus of Geography, it emphasized
decision making and problem solving (CDC, 2003, p. 50);
in ASL curriculum of Liberal Studies, it emphasized problem
solving and solution fi nding (CDC, 2000b, p. 10). It was not
until the Certifi cate Level (CL) of Integrated Humanities that
judgment became one of the purposes of issue-based inquiry
learning (CDC, 2003, p. 26). For the NSSC of Liberal Studies,
it adopted the idea of the CL of Integrated Humanities and
continued to regard judgment as one of the purposes of issue-
based inquiry (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 4). In fact, judgment
is not necessarily related to inquiry learning. They seldom
related judgment to inquiry learning (Pappas & Tepe, 2002).
43The most common purpose of inquiry learning is problem
solving (Jin, 2005, p. 4; Ren, 2005, p. 28). However, decision,
solutions and conclusions (made in problem solving) are closely
related to judgments. Therefore, critical thinking may appear
in different ways when learning via issue-inquiry approaches.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In recent years, the nurturing of critical thinking in liberal
education has been emphasized (Gary, 2007, p. 151). As a
transformed curriculum from liberal education, the NSSC of
Liberal Studies inherits the development of “liberated mind”
as its objective (Tsang, 2006, p. 14). Therefore, it is one of its
missions to nurture refl ective, critical, creative, and advanced
“habit of mind.” Like many other liberal education curricula,
it is hoped that conceptual analysis, argument clarifi cation, and
critical evaluation would eventually become habits through the
learning of Liberal Studies. However, the absolutism in
methodology and overemphasis on critical thinking strategies
led to criticism (Walters, 1986, p. 238). It has been criticized
that too much attention was paid to what critical thinking is
(knowing) rather than the demand of critical thinking in living
(willing) (Gary, 2007, p. 151). Therefore, both the training
within the curriculum and the transfer of critical thinking into
practice should be treasured.
For the interdisciplinary curriculum of Liberal Studies, it
provides a good opportunity for students to apply and transfer
critical thinking skills across different contexts and learning
situations. With contemporary issues, students are able to
resemble the true situations and deal with authentic problems
44in personal and social life. After acquiring practical learning
experience, it is anticipated that students are able to apply and
transfer their learning to real-life situations. Previous research
supports that critical thinking skills can be transferred from
school context to various settings or real world context
successfully if it is taught with appropriate instruction (e.g.,
Kosonen & Winne, 1995; Lehman & Nisbett, 1990; Nisbett,
1993; Perkins & Grotzer, 1997). Thus, the integration of issue-
inquiry approach into the interdisciplinary curriculum of Liberal
Studies could probably promote the transfer of critical thinking
skills.
On the other hand, despite knowledge, skills, values and
attitudes were stressed as the core elements in the NSSC of
Liberal Studies, the nurturing of critical thinking is only limited
to the skills dimension. The Liberal Studies syllabus only
concerned with the content knowledge and its transferability
across the three areas of study in the knowledge dimension,
while all values and attitudes mentioned are related to the
content knowledge as well (Appendix 4). Given these, teachers
might easily incline to the teaching of the content knowledge
rather than the fostering of critical thinking. Above all, it is
believed that skills, dispositions, and habits of mind are essential
to critical thinking. Thus, only providing training of critical
thinking skills is not enough; students’ inclination to apply
critical thinking in daily life needs to be enhanced until they
develop the required habits of mind.
The determining factor for success in the cultivation of
critical thinking in Liberal Studies is the implementation of
45issue-inquiry learning approach. Nonetheless, there is no clear
guideline on how the learning approach could facilitate the
cultivation of critical thinking. Therefore, in order to fi ll in
the gap, it is recommended that practical examples on the
teaching and learning strategies of critical thinking and
guidelines in the assessment of critical thinking should be
provided. Besides, the relationship among critical thinking,
issue-inquiry learning, and multiple perspectives should be
demonstrated clearly in the NSSC of Liberal Studies.
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes,
M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions
affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4),
1102–1134.
Alfaro-LeFevre, R. (2003). Critical thinking in nursing: A practical
approach (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Alfaro-LeFevre, R. (2004). Critical Thinking Indicators™
(CTIs™). Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.
alfaroteachsmart.com/2005CTI.pdf
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Common
misconceptions of critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 31(3), 269–283.
Beeken, J. E. (1997). The relationship between critical thinking
and self-concept in staff nurses and the influence of these
characteristics on nursing practice. Journal of Nursing Staff
Development, 13(5), 272–278.
Carrithers, D., & Bean, J. C. (2008). Using a client memo to assess
critical thinking of fi nance majors. Business Communication
Quarterly, 71(1), 10–26.
46Case, R. (2005). Bringing critical thinking to the main stage.
Education Canada, 45(2), 45–46, 48–49.
Cassel, J. F., & Congleton, R. J. (1993). Critical thinking: An
annotated bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.
Chiu, C. S., & Mak, K. W. (2006). A critical review on curriculum
development of Liberal Studies in Hong Kong (School
Education Reform Series No. 34). Hong Kong: Faculty of
Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong
Institute of Educational Research. [In Chinese]
Colucciello, M. L. (1997). Critical thinking skills and dispositions
of baccalaureate nursing students — A conceptual model for
evaluation. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(4), 236–245.
Costa, A. L. (2008). The school as a home for the mind: Creating
mindful curriculum, instruction, and dialogue (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning and leading
with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Curriculum Development Council. (2000a). Appendix 2:
Development of generic skills in PSHE. In Curriculum
Development Council, Learning to learn: The way forward
in curriculum development. Consultant document for Key
Learning Area of Personal, Social & Humanities Education
(pp. 47–49). Hong Kong: Author.
Curriculum Development Council. (2000b). Liberal studies
(Advanced supplementary level). Hong Kong: Printing
Department.
Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: The
way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Author.
Curriculum Development Council. (2003). Personal, Social and
Humanities Education Key Learning Area: Geography
47curriculum guide (Secondary 4–5). Hong Kong: Printing
Department.
Curriculum Development Council. (2006). The new senior
secondary subject: Liberal Studies. Retrieved December 11,
2009, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/
Content_5953/ld_ls.ppt [In Chinese]
Curriculum Development Council, & Hong Kong Examinations
and Assessment Authority. (2007). Liberal studies:
Curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4–6) (Final
version ed.). Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department.
Daniel, M. F. (2001). Philosophical dialogue among peers: A study
of manifestations of critical thinking in pre-service teachers.
Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice,
6(1), 49–67.
Davis, J. R., & Davis, A. B. (2000). Managing your own learning.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Davis-Seaver, J. (2000). Critical thinking in young children.
Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press.
Deng, Z. (2009). The formation of a school subject and the nature
of curriculum content: An analysis of Liberal Studies in Hong
Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(5), 585–604.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of
refl ective thinking to the educative process (Rev. ed.). Boston,
MA: D. C. Heath.
Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Learner-centered
theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dunn, D. S., Halonen, J. S., & Smith, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching
critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best practices.
Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
48Education Bureau. (2007a). Annual report 1998/99: Secondary
schools. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.edb.
gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=809
Education Bureau. (2007b). Annual report 2000/01: Secondary
schools. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.edb.
gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=767&langno=1
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). Inquiry-based
learning: Explanation. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/
index.html
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1998). Critical thinking: Developing
intellectual traits. Journal of Developmental Education,
21(3), 34–35.
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard
Educational Review, 32(1), 81–111.
Ennis, R. H. (1981). Eight fallacies in Bloom’s taxonomy.
In C. J. B. Macmillan (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1980
(pp. 269–273). Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education
Society.
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A perception of critical thinking: With some
curriculum suggestions. In J. Hoaglund (Ed.), Conference 85
on critical thinking (pp. 13– 40). Newport News, VA:
Christopher Newport College Press.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions
and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching
thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York:
Freeman.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity:
Clarifi cation and needed research. Educational Researcher,
18(3), 4–10.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
49instruction. Research findings and recommendations.
Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A. (2006). Critical thinking: What it is and why it
counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California critical
thinking disposition inventory. Millbrae, CA: California
Academic Press.
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. F. (1997).
Professional judgment and the disposition toward critical
thinking. Millbrae, CA: 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.
Ferrett, S. K. (1997). Peak performance: Success in college and
beyond (2nd ed.). Chicago: Irwin Mirror Press.
Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think (2nd ed.). Cheltenham,
U.K.: Stanley Thornes.
Fok, P. K. (2007). The ideology and implementation of Liberal
Studies in Hong Kong: Between societal level and school
level. New Horizons in Education, 55(2), 104 –121. [In
Chinese]
Gary, K. (2007). Kierkegaard and liberal education as a way of
life. In Philosophy of education yearbook 2007 (pp. 151–
158). Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Glaser, E. M. (1985). Critical thinking: Educating for responsible
citizenship in a democracy. National Forum: The Phi Kappa
Phi Journal, 65(1), 24–27.
Haas, J. D., & Van Scotter, R. (1975). An inquiry model for the
social studies. NASSP Bulletin, 59(389), 74–81.
Halpern, D. F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum:
A brief edition of thought and knowledge. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
50Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer
across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and
metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),
449–455.
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction
to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Horn, R. A., Jr. (2004). Empowerment of teachers and students.
In J. L. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking
and learning: An encyclopaedia for parents and teachers
(pp. 211–215). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Jackson, M., Ignatavicius, D. D., & Case, B. (2006). Conversations
in critical thinking and clinical judgment. Sudbury, MA: Jones
and Bartlett.
Jin, Y. (2005). Inquiry learning: The change of the teaching style
in new curriculum. Chengdu: Sichuan Education Publisher.
[In Chinese]
Jones, S. A., & Brown, L. N. (1991). Critical thinking: Impact
on nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16(5),
529–533.
Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions as education goals. ERIC Digest.
Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.ericdigests.
org/1994/goals.htm
Kienzler, D. (2001). Ethics, critical thinking, and professional
communication pedagogy. Technical Communication
Quarterly, 10(3), 319–339.
Kosonen, P., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Effects of teaching statistical
laws on reasoning about everyday problems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(1), 33–46.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided
inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited.
51Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking.
Educational Research, 28(2), 16–25.
Kwok, H. K. (2007). The implementation of Liberal Studies in
Hong Kong and its strategies. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre
Journal, 6, 1–6. [In Chinese]
Lacey, K., & Pritchett, E. (2003). Nutrition care process and model:
ADA adopts road map to quality care and outcomes
management. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
103(8), 1061–1072.
Lam, C. C., & Zhang, S. (2005). Liberal Studies: An illusive vision?
Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 4, 35–42. [In Chinese]
Lee, V. S. (Ed.). (2004). Teaching and learning through inquiry:
A guidebook for institutions and instructors. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
Psychology, 26(6), 952–960.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Longman Online Dictionary. (2009). Disposition. In Longman
dictionary of contemporary English. Retrieved December 11,
2009, from http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/
disposition
Mazer, J. P., Hunt, S. K., & Kuznekoff, J. H. (2007). Revising general
education: Assessing a critical thinking instructional model
in the basic communication course. Journal of General
Education, 56(3&4), 173–199.
McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking; developing learning:
A guide to thinking skills in education. Maidenhead, U.K.:
Open University Press.
McPeck, J. E. (1990). Teaching critical thinking: Dialogue and
dialectic. New York; London: Routledge.
52Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (2009). What
is dimensions of learning and how is it used? Retrieved
December 16, 2009, from http://www.mcrel.org/dimensions/
whathow.asp
Miller, M. A., & Babcock, D. E. (1996). Critical thinking applied
to nursing. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Moon, J. A. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory
and practice. London; New York: Routledge.
Nciku. (2009). Habit. In Nciku online dictionary. Retrieved
December 11, 2009, from http://www.nciku.com/search/ee/
habit
Nickerson, R. S. (1984). Teaching thinking: What is being done
with what results? Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek & Newman.
Nickerson, R. S. (1987). Why teach thinking? In J. B. Baron &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and
practice (pp. 27–37). New York: Freeman.
Nisbett, R. E. (Ed.). (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking.
Educational Leadership, 42(8), 40–45.
Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking:
Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Pappas, M. L., & Tepe, A. E. (2002). Pathways to knowledge and
inquiry learning. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Parker, P. M. (2009). Critic. In Webster’s online dictionary.
Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.websters-
dictionary-online.org/defi nition/critic
Paul, R., Binker, A. J. A., & Willsen, J. (Eds.). (1993). Critical
thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly
changing world (Rev. 3rd ed.). Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation
for Critical Thinking.
53Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking
charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). A guide for educators to critical
thinking competency standards: Standards, principles,
performance indicators, and outcomes with a critical thinking
master rubric. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical
Thinking.
Paul, R., & Nosich, G. M. (1992). A model for the national
assessment of higher order thinking. Santa Rosa, CA:
Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (1997). Teaching intelligence.
American Psychologist, 52(10), 1125–1133.
Petress, K. (2004). Critical thinking: An extended definition.
Education, 124(3), 461–466.
Profetto-McGrath, J., Hesketh, K. L., Lang, S., & Estabrooks, C. A.
(2003). A study of critical thinking and research utilization
among nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(3),
322–337.
Ren, Z. (2005). Inquiry learning: The self-determined construction
of student knowledge. Beijing: Education Science Publisher.
[In Chinese]
Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2008). A comparison of a subject-
specifi c and a general measure of critical thinking. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 3(2), 85–93.
Ricketts, J. C., & Rudd, R. (2004). The relationship between critical
thinking dispositions and critical thinking skills of selected
youth leaders in the national FFA organization. Journal of
Southern Agricultural Education Research, 54(1), 21–33.
Ritchhart, R. (2007). Cultivating a culture of thinking in museums.
Journal of Museum Education, 32(2), 137–153.
54Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom:
Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social
Issues, 56(1), 27–47.
Rong, M. C. (2005). The implementation and challenges of Liberal
Studies in education reform in Hong Kong. Hong Kong
Teachers’ Centre Journal, 4, 43–53. [In Chinese]
Rubenfeld, M. G., & Scheffer, B. K. (2006). Critical thinking tactics
for nurses: Tracking, assessing, and cultivating thinking to
improve competency-based strategies. Sudbury, MA: Jones
and Bartlett.
Scheffer, B. K., & Rubenfeld, M. G. (2000). A consensus statement
on critical thinking in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education,
39(8), 352–359.
Siegel, H. (1980). Critical thinking as an educational ideal.
Educational Forum, 45(1), 7–23.
Siegel, H. (1991). The generalizability of critical thinking.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23(1), 18–30.
Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions?
Educational Theory, 49(2), 207–221.
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American
high school. New York: Houghton Miffl in.
SNJourney. (2007). Critical thinking. Retrieved December 11,
2009, from http://www.snjourney.com/ClinicalInfo/
Select%20Topics/Critical%20Thinking/CritThinkBullets.
htm
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement,
and improvement. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Education.
Tishman, S. (2000). Why teach habits of mind? In A. L. Costa &
B. Kallick (Eds.), Discovering and exploring habits of mind
(pp. 41–52). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
55Tsang, W. K. (2006). In search of the meanings for Liberal Studies
in Hong Kong senior secondary education (Education Policy
Studies Series No. 59). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Institute
of Educational Research. [In Chinese]
Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical
thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24–28.
Walters, K. S. (1986). Critical thinking in liberal education:
A case of overkill? Liberal Education, 72(3), 233–244.
Walters, K. S. (Ed.). (1994). Re-thinking reason: New perspectives
in critical thinking. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1952). Watson-Glaser critical thinking
appraisal. New York: World Book.
Wong, C. K., & Wong, H. C. (2007). Teacher professional
development in the context of Liberal Studies (LS) in New
Senior Secondary (NSS) curriculum. Hong Kong Teachers’
Centre Journal, 6, 7–15. [In Chinese]
App
endi
x 1:
Com
pari
son
of C
riti
cal T
hink
ing
Skill
s(M
odifi
ed f
rom
Rub
enfe
ld &
Sch
effe
r, 2
006,
pp.
17–
18)
Enn
is (
1987
) Fa
cion
e (1
990)
Sc
heff
er a
nd R
uben
feld
(20
00)
1.
Ask
ing
and
answ
erin
g qu
esti
ons
of c
lari
fi cat
ion
and
1.
In
terp
reta
tion
: To
com
preh
end
and
expr
ess
the
1.
D
iscr
imin
atin
g : R
ecog
nizi
ng
ch
alle
nge :
Why
? W
hat i
s yo
ur m
ain
poin
t? W
hat d
o
m
eani
ng o
r si
gnifi
canc
e of
a w
ide
vari
ety
of
di
ffer
ence
s an
d si
mila
ritie
s am
ong
yo
u m
ean
by “
__”?
Wha
t wou
ld b
e an
exa
mpl
e? W
hat
ex
peri
ence
s, s
ituat
ions
, dat
a, e
vent
s, ju
dgm
ents
,
thin
gs o
r si
tuat
ions
and
dis
tingu
ishi
ng
w
ould
not
be
an e
xam
ple
(tho
ugh
clos
e to
bei
ng o
ne)?
conv
entio
ns, b
elie
fs, r
ules
, pro
cedu
res
or c
rite
ria
care
fully
as
to c
ateg
ory
or r
ank
H
ow d
oes
that
app
ly to
this
cas
e (d
escr
ibe
a
(S
ub-s
kills
: Cat
egor
izat
ion,
Dec
odin
g Si
gnifi
canc
e,
co
unte
rexa
mpl
e)?
Wha
t dif
fere
nce
does
it m
ake?
Cla
rify
ing
Mea
ning
)
Wha
t are
the
fact
s? I
s th
is w
hat y
ou a
re s
ayin
g: “
__”?
Wou
ld y
ou s
ay s
ome
mor
e ab
out t
hat?
2.
Foc
usin
g on
a q
uest
ion :
Ide
ntif
ying
or
form
ulat
ing
2.
In
fere
nce :
To
iden
tify
and
secu
re e
lem
ents
nee
ded
to
2.
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing :
Sea
rchi
ng f
or
a
ques
tion;
iden
tifyi
ng o
r fo
rmul
atin
g cr
iteri
a fo
r
dr
aw r
easo
nabl
e co
nclu
sion
s; to
for
m c
onje
ctur
es a
nd
ev
iden
ce, f
acts
or
know
ledg
e by
judg
ing
poss
ible
ans
wer
s; k
eepi
ng th
e si
tuat
ion
in
hy
poth
eses
; to
cons
ider
rel
evan
t inf
orm
atio
n an
d to
iden
tifyi
ng r
elev
ant s
ourc
es a
nd
m
ind
ed
uce
the
cons
eque
nces
fl ow
ing
from
dat
a,
ga
ther
ing
obje
ctiv
e, s
ubje
ctiv
e,
3.
Judg
ing
the
cred
ibil
ity
of a
sou
rce :
Exp
ertis
e, la
ck o
f
st
atem
ents
, pri
ncip
les,
evi
denc
e, ju
dgm
ents
, bel
iefs
,
hist
oric
al, a
nd c
urre
nt d
ata
from
thos
e
confl
ict o
f in
tere
st, a
gree
men
t am
ong
sour
ces,
opin
ions
, con
cept
s, d
escr
iptio
ns, q
uest
ions
, or
othe
r
so
urce
s (C
ompa
rabl
e to
sub
-ski
ll:
re
puta
tion,
use
of
esta
blis
hed
proc
edur
es, k
now
n ri
sk
fo
rms
of r
epre
sent
atio
n (S
ub-s
kills
: Que
ryin
g
Q
uery
ing
Evi
denc
e)
to r
eput
atio
n, a
bilit
ies
to g
ive
reas
ons,
car
eful
hab
its
E
vide
nce,
Con
ject
urin
g A
ltern
ativ
es, D
raw
ing
C
oncl
usio
ns)
4.
Iden
tify
ing
assu
mpt
ions
: Uns
tate
d re
ason
s, n
eede
d
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
as
sum
ptio
ns; a
rgum
ent r
econ
stru
ctio
n5.
D
efi n
ing
term
s an
d ju
dgin
g de
fi nit
ions
in th
ree
di
men
sion
s: F
orm
, defi
niti
onal
str
ateg
y, c
onte
nt
6.
Dec
idin
g on
act
ions
: Defi
nin
g th
e pr
oble
m; s
elec
ting
(No
com
para
ble
skill
) 3.
P
redi
ctin
g : E
nvis
ioni
ng a
pla
n an
d its
crite
ria
to ju
dge
poss
ible
sol
utio
ns; f
orm
ulat
ing
cons
eque
nces
(C
ompa
rabl
e to
alte
rnat
ive
solu
tions
; ten
tativ
ely
deci
ding
wha
t to
do;
su
b-sk
ill: C
onje
ctur
ing
Alte
rnat
ives
)
revi
ewin
g, ta
king
into
acc
ount
the
tota
l situ
atio
n; a
nd
de
cidi
ng, m
onito
ring
the
impl
emen
tatio
n
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
4.
Tra
nsfo
rmin
g kn
owle
dge :
Cha
ngin
g or
conv
ertin
g th
e co
nditi
on, n
atur
e, f
orm
,
or f
unct
ion
of c
once
pts
amon
g co
ntex
ts
7.
Ded
ucin
g an
d ju
dgin
g de
duct
ions
: Cla
ss lo
gic,
3.
E
xpla
nati
on: T
o st
ate
the
resu
lts o
f on
e’s
reas
onin
g;
5.
Log
ical
rea
soni
ng: D
raw
ing
infe
renc
es
co
nditi
onal
logi
c, in
terp
reta
tion
of s
tate
men
ts
to
just
ify
that
rea
soni
ng in
term
s of
the
evid
entia
l,
or
con
clus
ions
that
are
sup
port
ed in
or
8.
Indu
cing
and
judg
ing
indu
ctio
ns: G
ener
aliz
ing,
conc
eptu
al, m
etho
dolo
gica
l, cr
iteri
olog
ical
, and
just
ifi ed
by
evid
ence
in
ferr
ing
expl
anat
ory
conc
lusi
ons
and
hypo
thes
is
co
ntex
tual
con
side
ratio
ns u
pon
whi
ch o
ne’s
res
ults
wer
e ba
sed;
and
to p
rese
nt o
ne’s
rea
soni
ng in
the
form
of c
ogen
t arg
umen
ts (
Sub-
skill
s: S
tatin
g R
esul
ts,
Ju
stif
ying
Pro
cedu
res,
Pre
sent
ing
Arg
umen
ts)
9.
Ana
lyzi
ng a
rgum
ents
: Ide
ntif
ying
con
clus
ions
; 4.
A
naly
sis :
To
iden
tify
the
inte
nded
and
act
ual
6.
Ana
lyzi
ng: S
epar
atin
g or
bre
akin
g a
id
entif
ying
sta
ted
reas
ons;
iden
tifyi
ng u
nsta
ted
infe
rent
ial r
elat
ions
hips
am
ong
stat
emen
ts, q
uest
ions
,
who
le in
to p
arts
to d
isco
ver
thei
r
reas
ons;
see
ing
sim
ilari
ties
and
diff
eren
ces;
conc
epts
, des
crip
tions
or
othe
r fo
rms
of r
epre
sent
atio
n
na
ture
, fun
ctio
n, a
nd r
elat
ions
hips
id
entif
ying
and
han
dlin
g ir
rele
vanc
e; s
eein
g th
e
in
tend
ed to
exp
ress
bel
iefs
, jud
gmen
ts, e
xper
ienc
es,
st
ruct
ure
of a
n ar
gum
ent;
sum
mar
izin
g
reas
ons,
info
rmat
ion,
or
opin
ions
(Su
b-sk
ills:
Exa
min
ing
Idea
s, I
dent
ifyi
ng A
rgum
ents
, Ana
lyzi
ng
A
rgum
ents
)
10.
Obs
ervi
ng a
nd ju
dgin
g: o
bser
vati
on r
epor
ts, c
rite
ria :
5.
E
valu
atio
n : T
o as
sess
the
cred
ibili
ty o
f st
atem
ents
7.
A
pply
ing
stan
dard
s : J
udgi
ng
M
inim
al in
ferr
ing
invo
lved
, sho
rt ti
me
inte
rval
or o
ther
rep
rese
ntat
ions
whi
ch a
re a
ccou
nts
or
ac
cord
ing
to e
stab
lishe
d pe
rson
al,
be
twee
n ob
serv
atio
n an
d re
port
, rep
ort b
y ob
serv
er
de
scri
ptio
ns o
f a
pers
on’s
per
cept
ion,
exp
erie
nce,
prof
essi
onal
, or
soci
al r
ules
or
crite
ria
ra
ther
than
som
eone
els
e (i
.e.,
not h
ears
ay),
rec
ords
situ
atio
n, ju
dgm
ent,
belie
f, o
r op
inio
n; a
nd to
ass
ess
ar
e ge
nera
lly d
esir
able
; if
repo
rt is
bas
ed o
n a
reco
rd,
th
e lo
gica
l str
engt
h of
the
actu
al o
r in
tend
ed
it
is g
ener
ally
bes
t; co
rrob
orat
ion,
pos
sibi
lity
of
in
fere
ntia
l rel
atio
nshi
ps a
mon
g st
atem
ents
,
corr
obor
atio
n; c
ondi
tions
of
good
acc
ess;
com
pete
nt
de
scri
ptio
ns, q
uest
ions
or
othe
r fo
rms
of
em
ploy
men
t of
tech
nolo
gy, i
f te
chno
logy
is u
sefu
l;
re
pres
enta
tion
(Sub
-ski
lls: A
sses
sing
Cla
ims,
satis
fact
ion
by o
bser
ver
(and
rep
orte
r, if
a d
iffe
rent
Ass
essi
ng A
rgum
ents
)
pers
on)
of c
redi
bilit
y cr
iteri
a11
. M
akin
g an
d ju
dgin
g va
lue
judg
men
ts: B
ackg
roun
d
fact
s, c
onse
quen
ces,
pri
ma
faci
e ap
plic
atio
n of
acce
ptab
le p
rinc
iple
s, c
onsi
deri
ng a
ltern
ativ
es,
ba
lanc
ing,
wei
ghin
g, a
nd d
ecid
ing
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
6.
Self
-reg
ulat
ion :
To
mon
itor
self
-con
scio
usly
one
’s
(C
ompa
rabl
e to
hab
its o
f m
ind:
cogn
itive
act
iviti
es, t
he e
lem
ents
use
d in
thos
e
re
fl ect
ion)
ac
tiviti
es, a
nd th
e re
sults
edu
ced,
par
ticul
arly
by
8.
R
efl e
ctio
n : C
onte
mpl
atio
n up
on a
appl
ying
ski
lls in
ana
lysi
s an
d ev
alua
tion
to o
ne’s
subj
ect,
espe
cial
ly o
ne’s
ass
umpt
ions
own
infe
rent
ial j
udgm
ents
with
a v
iew
tow
ard
and
thin
king
for
the
purp
oses
of
qu
estio
ning
, con
fi rm
ing,
val
idat
ing,
or
corr
ectin
g
de
eper
und
erst
andi
ng a
nd
ei
ther
one
’s r
easo
ning
or
one’
s re
sults
(Su
b-sk
ills:
self
-eva
luat
ion
Se
lf-e
xam
inat
ion,
Sel
f-co
rrec
tion)
12.
Inte
ract
ing
wit
h ot
hers
: Em
ploy
ing
and
reac
ting
to
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e sk
ill)
fa
llacy
labe
ls, l
ogic
al s
trat
egie
s, r
heto
rica
l str
ateg
ies,
argu
men
tatio
n; p
rese
ntin
g a
posi
tion,
ora
l or
wri
tten
App
endi
x 2:
Com
pari
son
of C
riti
cal T
hink
ing
Dis
posi
tion
s an
d H
abit
s of
Min
d(M
odifi
ed f
rom
Rub
enfe
ld &
Sch
effe
r, 2
006,
pp.
19
–20)
Cri
tical
thin
king
dis
posi
tions
H
abits
of
min
d fo
r cr
itica
l thi
nkin
g
Enn
is (
1987
) Fa
cion
e, G
ianc
arlo
, et a
l. (1
995)
Sc
heff
er a
nd R
uben
feld
(20
00)
1.
Seek
a c
lear
sta
tem
ent o
f the
thes
is o
r
1.
Inqu
isit
iven
ess :
One
’s in
telle
ctua
l cur
iosi
ty
1.
Inqu
isit
iven
ess :
An
eage
rnes
s to
kno
w b
y
ques
tion
and
one’
s de
sire
for
lear
ning
eve
n w
hen
the
seek
ing
know
ledg
e an
d un
ders
tand
ing
2.
Try
to b
e w
ell-
info
rmed
appl
icat
ion
of th
e kn
owle
dge
is n
ot r
eadi
ly
th
roug
h ob
serv
atio
n an
d th
ough
tful
appa
rent
ques
tioni
ng in
ord
er to
exp
lore
pos
sibi
litie
s
and
alte
rnat
ives
3.
Seek
rea
sons
2.
T
ruth
-see
king
: Bei
ng e
ager
to s
eek
the
best
2.
In
tell
ectu
al in
tegr
ity :
See
k th
e tr
uth
thro
ugh
4.
Seek
as
muc
h pr
ecis
ion
as th
e su
bjec
t per
mit
s
know
ledg
e in
a g
iven
con
text
, cou
rage
ous
sinc
ere,
hon
est p
roce
sses
, eve
n if
the
resu
lts
5.
Use
and
men
tion
cre
dibl
e so
urce
s
abou
t ask
ing
ques
tions
, and
hon
est a
nd
ar
e co
ntra
ry to
one
’s a
ssum
ptio
ns a
nd b
elie
fs
obje
ctiv
e ab
out p
ursu
ing
inqu
iry
even
if th
e
fi ndi
ngs
do n
ot s
uppo
rt o
ne’s
sel
f-in
tere
sts
or
one
’s p
reco
ncei
ved
opin
ions
6.
Dea
l in
an o
rder
ly m
anne
r w
ith
the
part
s of
3.
Sy
stem
atic
ity :
Bei
ng o
rgan
ized
, ord
erly
, 3.
P
erse
vera
nce :
Pur
suit
of a
cou
rse
with
a co
mpl
ex w
hole
focu
sed,
and
dili
gent
in in
quir
y
dete
rmin
atio
n to
ove
rcom
e ob
stac
les
7.
Try
to r
emai
n re
leva
nt to
the
mai
n po
int
4.
Mat
urit
y : A
ppro
ach
prob
lem
s, in
quir
y, a
nd
4.
Con
text
ual p
ersp
ecti
ve: C
onsi
dera
te o
f th
e 8.
K
eep
in m
ind
the
orig
inal
and
/or
basi
c
de
cisi
on m
akin
g w
ith a
sen
se th
at s
ome
who
le s
ituat
ion,
incl
udin
g re
latio
nshi
ps,
co
ncer
n
prob
lem
s ar
e ne
cess
arily
ill-
stru
ctur
ed, s
ome
back
grou
nd a
nd e
nvir
onm
ent,
rele
vant
to
9.
Tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt th
e to
tal s
itua
tion
situ
atio
ns a
dmit
of m
ore
than
one
pla
usib
le
so
me
happ
enin
g
optio
n, a
nd m
any
times
judg
men
ts m
ust b
e
mad
e ba
sed
on s
tand
ards
, con
text
s an
d
evid
ence
whi
ch p
recl
ude
cert
aint
y
10. L
ook
for
alte
rnat
ives
(No
com
para
ble
disp
ositi
on)
5.
Fle
xibi
lity
: Cap
acity
to a
dapt
, acc
omm
odat
e,
m
odif
y or
cha
nge
thou
ghts
, ide
as, a
nd
be
havi
ors
11. U
se o
ne’s
cri
tica
l thi
nkin
g ab
ilit
ies
5.
Cri
tica
l thi
nkin
g se
lf-c
onfi d
ence
: Tru
st th
e
6.
Con
fi den
ce: A
ssur
ance
of
one’
s re
ason
ing
so
undn
ess
of o
ne’s
ow
n re
ason
ed ju
dgm
ents
abili
ties
an
d le
ad o
ther
s in
the
ratio
nal r
esol
utio
n of
prob
lem
s
12. B
e op
en-m
inde
d : C
onsi
der
seri
ousl
y ot
hers
’
6.
Ope
n-m
inde
dnes
s : B
eing
tole
rant
of
7.
O
pen-
min
dedn
ess :
A v
iew
poin
t cha
ract
eriz
ed
po
ints
of
view
than
one
’s o
wn
(dia
logi
cal
di
verg
ent v
iew
s an
d se
nsiti
ve to
the
by b
eing
rec
eptiv
e to
div
erge
nt v
iew
s an
d
thin
king
); r
easo
n fr
om p
rem
ises
with
whi
ch
po
ssib
ility
of
one’
s ow
n bi
as
se
nsiti
ve to
one
’s b
iase
s
one
disa
gree
s —
with
out l
ettin
g th
e
disa
gree
men
t int
erfe
re w
ith o
ne’s
rea
soni
ng
(s
uppo
sitio
nal t
hink
ing)
; with
hold
judg
men
t
whe
n th
e ev
iden
ce a
nd r
easo
ns a
re
in
suffi
cie
nt13
. Be
sens
itiv
e to
the
feel
ings
, lev
el o
f
know
ledg
e, a
nd d
egre
e of
sop
hist
icat
ion
of
ot
hers
14. T
ake
a po
siti
on (
and
chan
ge a
pos
itio
n) w
hen
7.
A
naly
tici
ty: P
rize
the
appl
icat
ion
of r
easo
ning
(No
com
para
ble
habi
t of
min
d)
the
evid
ence
and
rea
sons
are
suf
fi cie
nt to
do
and
the
use
of e
vide
nce
to r
esol
ve p
robl
ems,
so
an
ticip
ate
pote
ntia
l con
cept
ual o
r pr
actic
al
di
ffi c
ultie
s, a
nd c
onsi
sten
tly b
e al
ert t
o th
e
need
to in
terv
ene
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e di
spos
ition
)
(Com
para
ble
to C
ritic
al T
hink
ing
Skill
: 8.
R
efl e
ctio
n : c
onte
mpl
atio
n up
on a
sub
ject
,
Self
-reg
ulat
ion)
espe
cial
ly o
ne’s
ass
umpt
ions
and
thin
king
for
8.
Se
lf-r
egul
atio
n : M
onito
r se
lf-c
onsc
ious
ly
th
e pu
rpos
es o
f de
eper
und
erst
andi
ng a
nd
on
e’s
cogn
itive
act
iviti
es, t
he e
lem
ents
use
d
se
lf-e
valu
atio
n
in th
ose
activ
ities
, and
the
resu
lts e
duce
d,
pa
rtic
ular
ly b
y ap
plyi
ng s
kills
in a
naly
sis
and
ev
alua
tion
to o
ne’s
ow
n in
fere
ntia
l jud
gmen
ts
w
ith a
vie
w to
war
d qu
estio
ning
, con
fi rm
ing,
valid
atin
g, o
r co
rrec
ting
eith
er o
ne’s
reas
onin
g or
one
’s r
esul
ts
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e di
spos
ition
)
(No
com
para
ble
disp
ositi
on)
9.
Intu
itio
n : I
nsig
htfu
l sen
se o
f kn
owin
g
with
out c
onsc
ious
use
of
reas
on
(N
o co
mpa
rabl
e di
spos
ition
)
(No
com
para
ble
disp
ositi
on)
10. C
reat
ivit
y : I
ntel
lect
ual i
nven
tiven
ess
used
to
ge
nera
te, d
isco
ver,
or
rest
ruct
ure
idea
s;
im
agin
e al
tern
ativ
es
Fair
and
ope
n-
min
dedn
ess
Tru
th-s
eeki
ng
Und
erst
andi
ng
com
preh
ensi
vely
Judg
ing
reas
onab
ly
(Oth
ers)
* C
ited
in P
etre
ss (
2004
).
Mission
Nickerson (1987)
Ferrett (1997)
Facione (1990)
Daniel (2001)
Beeken (1997)
Lacey &
Pritchett (2003)
Alfaro-LeFevre
(2004)
SNJourney (2007)
Petress (2004)
ATEEC (2003) *
Gorman-Gelder
et al. (2004) *
Wade (1995)
Kienzler (2001)
App
endi
x 3:
Fou
r H
abit
s of
Min
d fo
r C
riti
cal T
hink
ing
Com
pari
son
of th
e C
hara
cter
istic
s of
Cri
tical
Thi
nkin
g W
ith F
our
Hab
its o
f M
inds
for
Cri
tical
Thi
nkin
g
Fai
r an
d O
pen-
min
dedn
ess
E
lem
ents
C
hara
cter
istic
s of
cri
tical
thin
king
• Fa
ir a
nd o
pen-
min
dedn
ess
• B
eing
ope
n-m
inde
d (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• Fa
ir-m
inde
d in
eva
luat
ion
(Fac
ione
, 199
0)
•
Ope
n-m
inde
d (F
acio
ne, 1
990)
• W
illin
g to
que
stio
n th
e
• O
bjec
tivity
: Are
sup
port
ing
mat
eria
ls f
air
and
undi
stor
ted?
Doe
s su
ppor
t ori
gina
te f
rom
exp
ert s
ourc
es?
(Pet
ress
,
assu
mpt
ions
2004
)
•
Sens
itive
to th
e di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e va
lidity
of
a be
lief
and
the
inte
nsity
with
whi
ch it
is h
eld
(Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• A
naly
ze a
ssum
ptio
ns a
nd b
iase
s (W
ade,
199
5)
•
Obj
ectiv
e (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• Id
entif
y an
d qu
estio
n as
sum
ptio
ns (
Kie
nzle
r, 2
001)
• E
xplo
re u
nder
lyin
g th
inki
ng a
nd a
ssum
ptio
ns (
SNJo
urne
y, 2
007)
• A
ttem
pt to
cla
rify
diffi c
ult
• A
sses
s th
e st
atem
ents
, whi
ch a
re m
ade
for
thei
r ve
raci
ty a
nd c
oher
ence
, and
eva
luat
es th
e ar
gum
ents
and
thei
r
issu
es
ac
com
pany
ing
prop
ositi
ons
and
hypo
thes
is f
or v
alue
, obj
ectiv
ity a
nd f
ocus
on
the
issu
e un
der
revi
ew (
Ferr
ett,
• R
evie
w e
vide
nce
19
97)
W
illin
g to
cla
rify
diffi c
ult i
ssue
s, q
uest
ion
the
assu
mpt
ions
, rev
iew
evi
denc
e
• R
efl e
ct o
n hi
s/he
r ow
n po
int o
f
• R
efl e
ctiv
e an
d se
lf-c
orre
ctiv
e: C
aref
ully
con
side
r m
eani
ng o
f da
ta a
nd in
terp
erso
nal i
nter
actio
ns, a
sk f
or
vi
ew
fe
edba
ck; c
orre
ct o
wn
thin
king
, ale
rt to
pot
entia
l err
ors
by s
elf
and
othe
rs, fi
nd
way
s to
avo
id f
utur
e m
ista
kes
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• Se
lf-c
orre
ctio
n (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• O
pen
and
fair
-min
ded:
Que
stio
n ho
w o
wn
view
poin
ts a
re in
fl uen
cing
thin
king
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• W
illin
g to
exa
min
e hi
s/he
r be
liefs
, ass
umpt
ions
, and
opi
nion
s an
d w
eigh
them
aga
inst
fac
ts (
Ferr
ett,
1997
)
•
Self
-cri
tical
(D
anie
l, 20
01)
• H
abitu
ally
que
stio
n on
e’s
own
view
s an
d at
tem
pt to
und
erst
and
both
the
assu
mpt
ions
that
are
cri
tical
to th
ose
vi
ews
and
the
impl
icat
ions
of
the
view
s (N
icke
rson
, 198
7)
• A
void
bia
ses
or p
reju
dice
•
Self
-aw
are:
Cla
rify
bia
ses,
incl
inat
ions
, str
engt
hs, a
nd li
mita
tions
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• Se
nsiti
ve to
his
/her
ow
n bi
as
• R
ecog
nize
the
falli
bilit
y of
one
’s o
wn
opin
ions
, the
pro
babi
lity
of b
ias
in th
ose
opin
ions
, and
the
dang
er o
f
wei
ghtin
g ev
iden
ce a
ccor
ding
to p
erso
nal p
refe
renc
es (
Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• H
ones
t in
faci
ng p
erso
nal b
iase
s (F
acio
ne, 1
990)
• N
ot in
fl uen
ced
by p
erso
nal
• Se
lf-a
war
e: A
ckno
wle
dge
whe
n th
inki
ng m
ay b
e in
fl uen
ced
by e
mot
ions
or
self
-int
eres
t (A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
fe
elin
gs o
r th
e ad
vant
age
•
Avo
id e
mot
iona
l rea
soni
ng (
Wad
e, 1
995)
rela
ted
to th
e gr
oups
he/
she
be
long
s to
K
een
to r
efl e
ct o
n th
eir
own
poin
t of
view
in o
rder
to a
void
bia
ses,
pre
judi
ce, a
nd b
eing
infl u
ence
d by
per
sona
l fee
lings
and
sel
f an
d gr
oup
in
tere
sts
• W
elco
me
and
cons
ider
•
Will
ing
to s
ubm
it th
eir
idea
s an
d ex
peri
men
ts to
pee
r re
view
; be
able
to a
ccep
t — in
man
y ca
ses,
eve
n so
licit
—
di
ffer
ent v
iew
poin
ts h
ones
tly,
ch
alle
nges
and
cri
ticis
m to
thei
r w
ork;
and
sub
mit
thei
r fi n
ding
s to
rep
eat t
ests
(G
orm
an-G
elde
r et
al.,
200
4)
patie
ntly
, and
em
path
etic
ally
•
Lik
ely
to li
sten
to o
ther
s, a
nd to
con
side
r in
put w
hen
mak
ing
deci
sion
s (B
eeke
n, 1
997)
• C
onsc
ious
ly c
onsi
der
•
Em
path
etic
: Lis
ten
wel
l; sh
ow a
bilit
y to
imag
ine
othe
rs’
feel
ings
and
diffi c
ultie
s (A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
si
tuat
ions
fro
m m
ultip
le
• A
lway
s w
illin
g to
list
en c
aref
ully
and
be
able
to g
ive
feed
back
. Thi
s ag
ain
pres
uppo
ses
that
the
indi
vidu
al is
a
pe
rspe
ctiv
es
su
bjec
t-m
atte
r-ex
pert
in th
e ar
ea o
f re
view
, and
that
the
indi
vidu
al is
abl
e to
giv
e th
e ap
prop
riat
e fe
edba
ck
• W
illin
g to
tole
rate
div
erge
nt
ne
cess
ary
(Fer
rett,
199
7)
view
s •
Sens
itive
to d
iver
sity
: Exp
ress
app
reci
atio
n of
hum
an d
iffe
renc
es r
elat
ed to
val
ues,
cul
ture
, per
sona
lity,
or
le
arni
ng s
tyle
pre
fere
nces
; ada
pt to
pre
fere
nces
whe
n fe
asib
le (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
•
Ope
n an
d fa
ir-m
inde
d: S
how
tole
ranc
e fo
r di
ffer
ent v
iew
poin
ts (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
•
Sens
itive
to o
ther
s (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• T
reat
all
view
poin
ts e
qual
ly
• U
se e
thic
al c
onsi
dera
tions
(D
anie
l, 20
01)
• A
ccur
atel
y re
cons
truc
t the
view
s of
oth
ers
• R
easo
n fr
om id
eas
othe
r th
an
th
eir
own
Wel
com
e an
d co
nsid
er d
iffe
rent
vie
wpo
ints
equ
ally
with
hon
est,
patie
nt a
nd e
mpa
thy
• T
hink
in n
ew w
ays
• A
ble
to a
djus
t opi
nion
s w
hen
new
fac
ts a
re f
ound
(Fe
rret
t, 19
97)
• Fl
exib
le in
min
dset
•
Will
ing
to r
econ
side
r (F
acio
ne, 1
990)
• C
ritic
ism
, pro
posi
ng o
f al
tern
ativ
es (
Dan
iel,
2001
)
•
Flex
ible
(Fa
cion
e, 1
990)
• O
pen
to p
ossi
bilit
ies
(SN
Jour
ney,
200
7)
•
Cre
ativ
e (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• Fl
exib
le: C
hang
e ap
proa
ches
as
need
ed to
get
the
best
res
ults
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• A
ntic
ipat
e th
e pr
obab
le c
onse
quen
ces
of a
ltern
ativ
e ac
tions
(N
icke
rson
, 198
7)
P
osse
ss fl
exib
le m
inds
ets
and
are
able
to th
ink
in n
ew w
ays
• Su
spen
d ju
dgm
ent u
ntil
mor
e
• Su
spen
d ju
dgm
ent u
ntil
you
have
all
the
data
(SN
Jour
ney,
200
7)
info
rmat
ion
is g
athe
red
•
Susp
end
judg
men
t (be
obj
ectiv
e an
d fa
ctua
l) (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• Su
spen
d ju
dgm
ent i
n th
e ab
senc
e of
suf
fi cie
nt e
vide
nce
to s
uppo
rt a
dec
isio
n (N
icke
rson
, 198
7)
•
Susp
end
judg
men
t unt
il al
l of
the
fact
s ha
ve b
een
gath
ered
and
con
side
red
(Fer
rett,
199
7)
•
Car
eful
and
pru
dent
: See
k he
lp w
hen
need
ed; s
uspe
nd o
r re
vise
judg
men
t as
indi
cate
d by
new
or
inco
mpl
ete
data
(Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
•
Evi
denc
e be
ing
rate
d, b
y th
e cr
itica
l thi
nker
, bas
ed o
n su
ffi c
ienc
y: I
s th
ere
an a
dequ
ate
amou
nt o
f su
ppor
t for
clai
ms?
(Pe
tres
s, 2
004)
Su
spen
d ju
dgm
ent u
ntil
mor
e in
form
atio
n is
gat
here
d
Fai
r an
d op
en-m
inde
d cr
itic
al t
hink
ers
are
wil
ling
to
clar
ify
diffi
cul
t is
sues
, qu
esti
on t
he a
ssum
ptio
ns,
revi
ew e
vide
nce,
and
sus
pend
jud
gmen
t un
til
mor
e in
form
atio
n is
gat
here
d. T
hey
are
keen
to r
efl e
ct o
n th
eir
own
poin
t of
view
in o
rder
to a
void
bia
ses,
pre
judi
ce, a
nd b
eing
infl u
ence
d by
per
sona
l fee
lings
and
sel
f an
d gr
oup
inte
rest
s. T
hey
wel
com
e an
d co
nsid
er d
iffe
rent
vie
wpo
ints
equ
ally
, hon
estly
, and
pat
ient
ly. T
hey
also
pos
sess
fl ex
ible
min
dset
s an
d ar
e ab
le to
thin
k in
ne
w w
ays.
Tru
th-s
eeki
ng
E
lem
ents
C
hara
cter
istic
s of
cri
tical
thin
king
• T
ruth
-see
king
•
Hab
itual
ly in
quis
itive
(Fa
cion
e, 1
990)
• Fo
cus
on in
quir
y (F
acio
ne, 1
990)
• D
esir
e fo
r th
e be
st k
now
ledg
e,
• A
kee
n po
wer
of
obse
rvat
ion;
man
y tim
es it
is th
e m
inis
cule
, the
inci
dent
al, o
r th
e ta
ngen
tial t
hat h
olds
the
ev
en if
it d
oes
not s
uppo
rt
m
yste
ry o
f ou
r in
quir
ies
(Gor
man
-Gel
der
et a
l., 2
004)
on
e’s
own
belie
fs
• C
urio
us a
nd in
quis
itive
: Loo
k fo
r re
ason
s, e
xpla
natio
ns, a
nd m
eani
ng; s
eek
new
info
rmat
ion
to b
road
en
un
ders
tand
ing
(Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
•
Exa
min
ing
evid
ence
(W
ade,
199
5)
•
Aw
are
of th
e fa
ct th
at o
ne’s
und
erst
andi
ng is
alw
ays
limite
d, o
ften
muc
h m
ore
so th
an w
ould
be
appa
rent
to o
ne
w
ith a
non
-inq
uiri
ng a
ttitu
de (
Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• R
ecog
nize
one
’s li
mita
tions
(A
TE
EC
, 200
3)
•
Abl
e to
adm
it a
lack
of
unde
rsta
ndin
g or
that
the
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e is
not
sub
stan
tive
enou
gh to
mak
e a
good
anal
ysis
and
eva
luat
ion
of th
e is
sue
unde
r re
view
(Fe
rret
t, 19
97)
• H
ave
an in
tere
st in
fi nd
ing
new
sol
utio
ns; i
n th
is w
ay, b
eing
cur
ious
and
alw
ays
seek
ing
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t
in u
nder
stan
ding
the
wor
ld (
Ferr
ett,
1997
)
•
Hon
est a
nd u
prig
ht: S
eek
the
trut
h, e
ven
if it
she
ds u
nwan
ted
light
; uph
old
stan
dard
s; a
dmit
fl aw
s in
thin
king
(Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
•
Impr
ovem
ent-
orie
nted
(se
lf, p
atie
nts,
sys
tem
s): S
elf
— I
dent
ify
lear
ning
nee
ds; fi
nd
way
s to
ove
rcom
e
limita
tions
, see
k ou
t new
kno
wle
dge.
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• Pe
rsis
tent
in s
eeki
ng r
esul
ts w
hich
are
pre
cise
as
the
subj
ect a
nd th
e ci
rcum
stan
ce o
f in
quir
y pe
rmitt
ed (
Faci
one,
1990
)
Des
ire
for
the
best
kno
wle
dge,
eve
n if
it d
oes
not s
uppo
rt o
ne’s
ow
n be
liefs
• E
ager
to a
sk q
uest
ions
•
Rec
ency
: Is
offe
red
supp
ort c
urre
nt r
athe
r th
an b
eing
out
-of-
date
? (P
etre
ss, 2
004)
• R
elia
bilit
y: D
oes
the
supp
ort f
or a
rgum
ents
hav
e a
good
trac
k re
cord
? D
oes
evid
ence
rel
ied
upon
em
anat
e fr
om
ex
pert
sou
rces
? (P
etre
ss, 2
004)
• A
sk “
Why
?” a
nd “
Why
not
?” (
SNJo
urne
y, 2
007)
• A
sk q
uest
ions
(W
ade,
199
5)
•
Ask
per
tinen
t que
stio
ns; t
he q
uest
ions
and
the
disc
ussi
on a
re f
ocus
ed o
n th
e is
sue
at h
and
(Fer
rett,
199
7)
•
Dou
bt a
nd s
earc
h fo
r et
hica
l cri
teri
a (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• A
cces
s: A
re s
uppo
rtin
g m
ater
ials
ope
n fo
r re
ceiv
ers’
ver
ifi ca
tion?
Are
sec
ret o
r an
onym
ous
sour
ces
avoi
ded?
(Pet
ress
, 200
4)
•
Eva
luat
e th
e cr
edib
ility
of
sour
ces
(SN
Jour
ney,
200
7)
Eag
er to
ask
que
stio
ns
• Id
entif
y re
leva
nt s
ourc
es
• D
eter
min
e ap
prop
riat
e da
ta to
col
lect
(L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
•
Dili
gent
in s
eeki
ng r
elev
ant i
nfor
mat
ion
(Fac
ione
, 199
0)
•
Rel
evan
ce: I
s th
e ev
iden
ce p
rese
nted
per
tinen
t to
the
issu
e at
han
d? (
Petr
ess,
200
4)
•
Abl
e to
rej
ect i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is in
corr
ect o
r ir
rele
vant
(Fe
rret
t, 19
97)
• Se
arch
for
evi
denc
e, f
acts
or
•
Seek
a m
ultip
licity
of
voic
es a
nd a
ltern
ativ
es o
n a
subj
ect (
Kie
nzle
r, 2
001)
kn
owle
dge
(the
trut
h) in
a
• L
ook
for
“pro
of”
that
a s
et o
f st
atem
ents
is tr
ue a
nd r
epre
sent
the
best
fac
t ava
ilabl
e in
a fi
eld
of p
ract
ice
(Fer
rett,
give
n co
ntex
t
1997
)
•
Loo
k fo
r ev
iden
ce to
sup
port
ass
umpt
ions
and
bel
iefs
(Fe
rret
t, 19
97)
• H
ave
a se
nse
of c
urio
sity
, and
be
an a
ctiv
e in
vest
igat
or o
f fa
cts,
opi
nion
s an
d po
ints
of
view
(Fe
rret
t, 19
97)
• G
athe
r ob
ject
ive,
sub
ject
ive,
•
Seek
them
es, p
atte
rns,
tren
ds (
SNJo
urne
y, 2
007)
hist
oric
al a
nd c
urre
nt d
ata
fr
om a
ll se
nses
Se
arch
for
rel
evan
t evi
denc
e, f
acts
or
know
ledg
e (e
.g.,
obje
ctiv
e, s
ubje
ctiv
e, h
isto
rica
l and
cur
rent
dat
a, e
tc.)
in a
giv
en c
onte
xt f
rom
all
sens
es
Cri
tical
thin
kers
are
als
o tr
uth-
seek
ers
who
des
ire
for
the
best
kno
wle
dge,
eve
n if
it d
oes
not s
uppo
rt th
eir
own
belie
fs. T
hey
are
eage
r to
ask
que
stio
ns a
nd s
earc
h fo
r re
leva
nt e
vide
nce,
fac
ts o
r kn
owle
dge
(e.g
., ob
ject
ive,
sub
ject
ive,
his
tori
cal a
nd c
urre
nt d
ata,
etc
.) in
a g
iven
con
text
fro
m a
ll se
nses
.
Und
erst
andi
ng C
ompr
ehen
sive
ly
E
lem
ents
C
hara
cter
istic
s of
cri
tical
thin
king
• U
nder
stan
d co
mpr
ehen
sive
ly
• U
nder
stan
d th
e di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n re
ason
ing
and
ratio
naliz
ing
(Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• U
nder
stan
d th
e id
ea o
f de
gree
s of
bel
ief
(Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• D
evel
op a
n in
-dep
th a
nd
• C
an th
ink
and
go b
eyon
d th
e cu
rren
t iss
ue (
Bee
ken,
199
7)
com
preh
ensi
ve u
nder
stan
ding
•
Cle
ar a
bout
issu
es (
Faci
one,
199
0)
of th
e in
form
atio
n fr
om
• W
ell-
info
rmed
(Fa
cion
e, 1
990)
m
ultip
le p
ersp
ectiv
es
• T
rans
fera
ble
to o
ther
con
text
s (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• T
rans
fer
know
ledg
e fr
om o
ne s
ituat
ion
to a
noth
er (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• E
xpla
in v
aria
nce
from
exp
ecte
d ou
tcom
es (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
D
evel
op a
n in
-dep
th u
nder
stan
ding
of
an e
vent
by
cons
ider
ing
mul
tiple
sou
rces
of
info
rmat
ion
• C
ompa
re a
nd o
rgan
ize
all t
he
• Se
arch
for
coh
eren
ce (
Dan
iel,
2001
)
info
rmat
ion
from
div
erse
•
Val
idat
e im
port
ant f
rom
uni
mpo
rtan
t dat
a (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
sour
ces
in a
con
cise
, coh
eren
t •
Org
aniz
e an
d ca
tego
rize
the
data
in a
mea
ning
ful f
ram
ewor
k th
at r
elat
es to
nut
ritio
n pr
oble
ms
(Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt,
an
d m
eani
ngfu
l way
2003
)
•
Org
aniz
e th
ough
ts a
nd a
rtic
ulat
e th
em c
onci
sely
and
coh
eren
tly (
Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• M
ake
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y co
nnec
tions
(L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
•
Iden
tify,
ass
imila
te, i
nteg
rate
, and
eva
luat
e in
form
atio
n fr
om d
iver
se s
ourc
es (
AT
EE
C, 2
003)
• M
ake
conn
ectio
ns (
Kie
nzle
r, 2
001)
• A
ble
to s
ort/
cate
gori
ze w
hat t
hey
obse
rve,
exp
erie
nce,
res
earc
h, a
nd e
xper
imen
t with
; suc
h so
rtin
g/c
ateg
oriz
atio
n
freq
uent
ly p
rodu
ces
new
kno
wle
dge
(Gor
man
-Gel
der
et a
l., 2
004)
• D
istin
guis
h re
leva
nt f
rom
irre
leva
nt d
ata
(Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• C
ompa
riso
n (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• U
se a
ppro
pria
te r
efer
ence
sta
ndar
d fo
r co
mpa
riso
n (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
•
Synt
hesi
s (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• C
onsi
sten
cy: A
re s
uppo
rtin
g el
emen
ts in
tern
ally
and
ext
erna
lly c
onsi
sten
t with
eac
h ot
her
and
with
wha
t we
know
from
oth
er e
xper
ienc
es, o
bser
vatio
ns, a
nd s
ourc
es?
(Pet
ress
, 200
4)
•
Dis
tinct
ion
(Dan
iel,
2001
)
•
Stru
ctur
e in
form
ally
rep
rese
nted
pro
blem
s in
suc
h a
way
that
for
mal
tech
niqu
es, s
uch
as m
athe
mat
ics,
can
be
used
to s
olve
them
(N
icke
rson
, 198
7)
Com
pare
and
org
aniz
e al
l the
info
rmat
ion
from
div
erse
sou
rces
in a
con
cise
, coh
eren
t and
mea
ning
ful w
ay
• In
terp
ret a
nd c
onsi
der
all t
he
• A
naly
tical
and
insi
ghtf
ul: I
dent
ify
rela
tions
hips
; exp
ress
dee
p un
ders
tand
ing
(Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
infe
renc
es, r
elat
ions
hips
, •
Find
pat
tern
s an
d re
latio
nshi
ps a
mon
g th
e da
ta a
nd p
ossi
ble
caus
es (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
ba
ckgr
ound
and
env
iron
men
t •
See
sim
ilari
ties
and
anal
ogie
s th
at a
re n
ot s
uper
fi cia
lly a
ppar
ent (
Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• R
elat
ions
hips
(D
anie
l, 20
01)
• In
terp
ret d
ata
gene
rate
d fo
r re
cord
s, fi
les,
and
rep
orts
(A
TE
EC
, 200
3)
•
Mak
e in
fere
nces
(“i
f th
is c
ontin
ues
to o
ccur
, the
n th
is is
like
ly to
hap
pen”
) (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
•
Abl
e to
det
ect,
desc
ribe
, rep
ort,
and
use
rela
tions
hips
(i.e
., ca
use-
effe
ct; c
o-ca
use,
co-
effe
ct, s
ymbi
osis
) be
twee
n
phen
omen
a (G
orm
an-G
elde
r et
al.,
200
4)
•
Dis
tingu
ish
betw
een
logi
cally
val
id a
nd in
valid
infe
renc
es (
Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
• C
onsi
der
othe
r in
terp
reta
tions
(W
ade,
199
5)
Inte
rpre
t and
con
side
r al
l the
infe
renc
es, r
elat
ions
hips
, bac
kgro
und
and
envi
ronm
ent
• Id
entif
y al
l the
pro
blem
s,
• D
efi n
e a
prob
lem
(W
ade,
199
5)
mis
conc
eptio
ns, f
alla
cies
, and
•
Stat
e th
e pr
oble
m c
lear
ly a
nd s
ingu
larl
y (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
ambi
guity
in c
onte
xt
• D
iagn
ose
prob
lem
s fr
om a
set
of
data
and
obs
erva
tions
, and
iden
tify
solu
tions
(A
TE
EC
, 200
3)
•
Ana
lyze
dat
a fo
r ac
cura
cy (
AT
EE
C, 2
003)
• E
xam
ine
prob
lem
s cl
osel
y (F
erre
tt, 1
997)
• T
oler
ate
ambi
guity
(W
ade,
199
5)
Iden
tify
all t
he p
robl
ems,
mis
conc
eptio
ns, f
alla
cies
and
am
bigu
ity in
con
text
Cri
tical
thin
kers
dev
elop
an
in-d
epth
und
erst
andi
ng o
f an
eve
nt b
y co
nsid
erin
g m
ultip
le s
ourc
es o
f in
form
atio
n; c
ompa
ring
and
org
aniz
ing
all t
he in
form
atio
n in
a
conc
ise,
coh
eren
t and
mea
ning
ful w
ay; i
nter
pret
ing
and
pond
erin
g al
l the
infe
renc
es, r
elat
ions
hips
, bac
kgro
und
and
envi
ronm
ent;
and
iden
tifyi
ng a
ll th
e pr
oble
ms,
m
ispe
rcep
tions
, fal
laci
es a
nd a
mbi
guity
in c
onte
xt.
Judg
ing
Rea
sona
bly
E
lem
ents
C
hara
cter
istic
s of
cri
tical
thin
king
• E
ngag
e in
del
iber
atio
ns w
ith
• E
valu
atio
n (D
anie
l, 20
01)
th
e in
tent
ion
of m
akin
g a
•
Eva
luat
ive
argu
men
t (D
anie
l, 20
01)
re
ason
ed ju
dgm
ent o
f cr
itica
l •
Dra
w c
oncl
usio
ns f
rom
a s
et o
f fa
cts
(i.e
., da
ta)
(AT
EE
C, 2
003)
th
inki
ng
• B
ase
judg
men
ts o
n fa
cts
and
reas
onin
g (S
NJo
urne
y, 2
007)
• Se
ek r
easo
ns a
nd e
vide
nce
in
• B
e ev
alua
tive
(Dan
iel,
2001
)
mak
ing
judg
men
ts a
nd
• M
ake
com
para
tive
judg
men
ts f
rom
dat
a (A
TE
EC
, 200
3)
eval
uate
suc
h re
ason
s ca
refu
lly
• C
hoos
e fr
om a
mon
g al
tern
ativ
es to
det
erm
ine
a co
urse
of
actio
n (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)•
Con
clud
e ba
sed
on c
aref
ul
• Pr
uden
t in
mak
ing
judg
men
t (Fa
cion
e, 1
990)
th
ough
t and
refl
ect
ion
• M
ake
holis
tic ju
dgm
ents
(D
anie
l, 20
01)
• U
se e
vide
nce
skill
fully
and
impa
rtia
lly (
Nic
kers
on, 1
987)
M
ake
care
ful a
nd r
efl e
ctiv
e re
ason
ed ju
dgm
ent
• M
ake
judg
men
t and
dec
isio
n
• U
se o
f cr
iteri
a (D
anie
l, 20
01)
w
ith c
rite
ria
• A
ble
to c
lear
ly d
efi n
e a
set o
f cr
iteri
a, f
or a
naly
zing
idea
s; in
this
way
, bei
ng a
sub
ject
-mat
ter-
expe
rt in
the
area
•
Rec
ogni
ze th
e ne
cess
ity o
f
th
at h
e/sh
e is
ana
lyzi
ng, a
nd th
eref
ore,
can
con
trib
ute
to a
n ev
alua
tion
of th
e cr
iteri
a fo
r an
alyz
ing
the
idea
s un
der
cr
iteri
a (r
ules
and
pro
cedu
res)
revi
ew (
Ferr
ett,
1997
)
or g
roun
ds f
or ju
dgm
ent
• O
rder
ly in
com
plex
mat
ters
in th
e se
lect
ion
of c
rite
ria
(Fac
ione
, 199
0)•
Ass
ess
clai
ms
and
mak
e
• A
pply
ass
essm
ent t
ools
in v
alid
and
rel
iabl
e w
ays
(Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
re
ason
ed ju
dgm
ents
•
App
ly p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng te
chni
ques
in d
omai
ns o
ther
than
thos
e in
whi
ch le
arne
d (N
icke
rson
, 198
7)•
Find
logi
cal s
trat
egie
s to
sol
ve
• Se
lect
app
ropr
iate
indi
cato
rs/m
easu
res
(Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
pr
oble
ms
and
pers
ever
e in
the
•
Sele
ct a
sses
smen
t too
ls a
nd p
roce
dure
s (m
atch
ing
the
asse
ssm
ent m
etho
d to
the
situ
atio
n) (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt,
fa
ce o
f un
cert
aint
y
2003
)
•
Mat
ch in
terv
entio
n st
rate
gies
with
clie
nt n
eeds
, dia
gnos
es, a
nd v
alue
s (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
Use
nec
essa
ry c
rite
ria
(rul
es a
nd p
roce
dure
s) a
nd lo
gica
l str
ateg
ies
• D
istin
guis
h sh
eer,
•
Stri
p a
verb
al a
rgum
ent o
f ir
rele
vanc
ies
and
phra
se it
in it
s es
sent
ial t
erm
s (N
icke
rson
, 198
7)
unre
ason
able
, and
sub
ject
ive
•
Mak
e de
cisi
ons
base
d on
larg
e an
d sm
all a
mou
nts
of in
form
atio
n, s
ome
of w
hich
may
be
ambi
guou
s (A
TE
EC
,
opin
ions
or
pref
eren
ce in
2003
)
reas
onin
g
Dis
tingu
ish
shee
r, u
nrea
sona
ble,
and
sub
ject
ive
opin
ions
or
pref
eren
ce in
rea
soni
ng
• A
pply
rea
sons
logi
cally
, fai
rly,
•
Tru
stfu
l of
reas
on (
Faci
one,
199
0)
ratio
nally
and
with
hum
ility
•
Inde
pend
ent t
hink
ers,
thin
king
on
thei
r fe
et w
ith s
ound
rea
soni
ng s
kills
(B
eeke
n, 1
997)
• M
ake
pred
ictio
ns w
ith
• L
ogic
al (
Dan
iel,
2001
)
evid
ence
•
Supp
ort v
iew
s w
ith e
vide
nce
(SN
Jour
ney,
200
7)
Mak
e pr
edic
tions
with
evi
denc
e; a
pply
logi
cal,
fair
and
rat
iona
l rea
sons
• Fi
nd th
e lo
gica
l cau
se a
nd
• D
eter
min
e fa
ctor
s th
at h
elp
or h
inde
r pr
ogre
ss (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
ef
fect
• D
raw
inde
pend
ent i
nfer
ence
s
Fin
d th
e lo
gica
l cau
se a
nd e
ffec
t and
dra
w in
depe
nden
t inf
eren
ces
• V
iew
situ
atio
ns f
rom
ano
ther
•
Det
erm
ine
whe
n a
prob
lem
req
uire
s co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith o
r re
ferr
al to
ano
ther
pro
vide
r (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)
pers
on’s
per
spec
tive
V
iew
situ
atio
ns f
rom
oth
er p
ersp
ectiv
es
By
usin
g ne
cess
ary
crite
ria
(rul
es a
nd p
roce
dure
s) a
nd lo
gica
l str
ateg
ies,
cri
tical
thin
kers
mak
e ca
refu
l and
refl
ect
ive
reas
oned
judg
men
t by
fi ndi
ng th
e lo
gica
l cau
se
and
effe
ct;
draw
ing
inde
pend
ent
infe
renc
es;
mak
ing
pred
ictio
ns w
ith e
vide
nce;
vie
win
g si
tuat
ions
fro
m o
ther
per
spec
tives
; ap
plyi
ng l
ogic
al, f
air
and
ratio
nal
reas
ons;
and
dis
tingu
ishi
ng s
heer
, unr
easo
nabl
e, a
nd s
ubje
ctiv
e op
inio
ns o
r pr
efer
ence
s in
thei
r re
ason
ing.
Oth
ers
Cha
ract
eris
tics
of c
ritic
al th
inki
ng
• A
ble
to a
ntic
ipat
e oc
curr
ence
s, r
esul
ts, o
r ac
cide
nts;
ant
icip
atio
n is
par
t of
thin
king
ahe
ad (
Gor
man
-Gel
der
et a
l., 2
004)
• A
ble
to s
ee th
at c
ritic
al th
inki
ng it
self
is a
life
long
pro
cess
of
self
-ass
essm
ent a
nd le
arni
ng (
Ferr
ett,
1997
)•
Ale
rt to
con
text
: Loo
k fo
r ch
ange
s in
cir
cum
stan
ces
that
war
rant
a n
eed
to m
odif
y th
inki
ng o
r ap
proa
ches
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• A
n ac
tive
imag
inat
ion
that
allo
ws
neve
r-be
fore
-see
n ph
enom
ena
to b
e in
tere
stin
g an
d th
eref
ore
beco
me
usef
ul in
thei
r w
ork
(Gor
man
-Gel
der
et a
l., 2
004)
• A
uton
omou
s an
d re
spon
sibl
e: S
how
inde
pend
ent t
hink
ing
and
actio
ns; b
egin
and
com
plet
e ta
sks
with
out p
rodd
ing;
exp
ress
ow
ners
hip
of a
ccou
ntab
ility
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• A
void
ove
rsim
plifi
catio
n (W
ade,
199
5)•
Bec
ome
faci
le w
ith a
bstr
act t
houg
ht a
nd b
e ab
le to
sha
re a
bstr
actio
ns in
coh
eren
t way
s w
ith o
ther
s (G
orm
an-G
elde
r et
al.,
200
4)•
Can
do
cris
is in
terv
entio
n, ta
king
car
e of
pro
blem
s on
thei
r ow
n (B
eeke
n, 1
997)
• C
onfi d
ent a
nd r
esili
ent:
Exp
ress
fai
th in
abi
lity
to r
easo
n an
d le
arn;
ove
rcom
e di
sapp
oint
men
ts (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Cor
rela
te r
esul
ts a
nd p
lan
actio
n ne
eded
(A
TE
EC
, 200
3)•
Cou
rage
ous:
Sta
nd u
p fo
r be
liefs
; adv
ocat
e fo
r ot
hers
; don
’t h
ide
from
cha
lleng
es (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Cre
ativ
e (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• C
reat
ive:
Off
er a
ltern
ativ
e so
lutio
ns a
nd a
ppro
ache
s; c
ome
up w
ith u
sefu
l ide
as (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Dec
ide
betw
een
disc
harg
e or
con
tinua
tion
of n
utri
tion
care
(L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)•
Defi
ne
the
nutr
ition
pre
scri
ptio
n or
bas
ic p
lan
(Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• D
efi n
e w
here
pat
ient
/clie
nt/g
roup
is n
ow in
term
s of
exp
ecte
d ou
tcom
es (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• D
eman
d an
d us
e ad
equa
te ti
me
to s
olve
pro
blem
s an
d to
thin
k ab
out w
hat i
s do
ne (
Gor
man
-Gel
der
et a
l., 2
004)
• Fo
llow
hun
ches
(SN
Jour
ney,
200
7)•
Fost
er a
ctiv
e in
volv
emen
t (K
ienz
ler,
200
1)•
Gen
uine
: Sho
w a
uthe
ntic
sel
f; d
emon
stra
te b
ehav
iors
that
indi
cate
sta
ted
valu
es (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)
• H
ave
clea
r, c
onci
se c
omm
unic
atio
n sk
ills,
mak
ing
thei
r ex
pect
atio
ns e
asily
und
erst
ood
(Bee
ken,
199
7)•
Hav
e th
e in
tuiti
on o
f kn
owin
g (B
eeke
n, 1
997)
• H
ealth
y: P
rom
ote
a he
alth
y lif
esty
le; u
se h
ealth
y be
havi
ors
to m
anag
e st
ress
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• H
ypot
hesi
s (D
anie
l, 20
01)
• Im
prov
emen
t-or
ient
ed (
self
, pat
ient
s, s
yste
ms)
: Pat
ient
s —
Pro
mot
e he
alth
; max
imiz
e fu
nctio
n, c
omfo
rt, a
nd c
onve
nien
ce. S
yste
ms
— I
dent
ify
risk
s an
d pr
oble
ms
with
hea
lth c
are
syst
ems;
pro
mot
e sa
fety
, qua
lity,
sat
isfa
ctio
n, a
nd c
ost c
onta
inm
ent (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Initi
ate
beha
vior
al a
nd o
ther
inte
rven
tions
(L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)•
Lea
rn in
depe
nden
tly a
nd h
ave
an a
bidi
ng in
tere
st in
doi
ng s
o (N
icke
rson
, 198
7)•
Log
ical
and
intu
itive
: Dra
w r
easo
nabl
e co
nclu
sion
s (i
f th
is is
so,
then
it f
ollo
ws
that
… b
ecau
se …
); u
se in
tuiti
on a
s a
guid
e to
sea
rch
for
evid
ence
; act
on
intu
ition
onl
y w
ith k
now
ledg
e of
ris
ks in
volv
ed (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Nua
nce
(Dan
iel,
2001
)•
Obs
erve
for
non
verb
al a
nd v
erba
l cue
s th
at c
an g
uide
and
pro
mpt
eff
ectiv
e in
terv
iew
ing
met
hods
(L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)•
Patie
nt a
nd p
ersi
sten
t: W
ait f
or r
ight
mom
ent;
pers
ever
e to
ach
ieve
bes
t res
ults
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• Pr
iori
tize
the
rela
tive
impo
rtan
ce o
f pr
oble
ms
for
patie
nt/c
lient
/gro
up s
afet
y (L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)•
Proa
ctiv
e: A
ntic
ipat
e co
nseq
uenc
es, p
lan
ahea
d, a
ct o
n op
port
uniti
es (
Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Rea
listic
and
pra
ctic
al: A
dmit
whe
n th
ings
are
n’t f
easi
ble;
look
for
use
r-fr
iend
ly s
olut
ions
(A
lfar
o-L
eFev
re, 2
004)
• R
ecog
nize
and
cor
rect
dis
crep
anci
es (
AT
EE
C, 2
003)
• R
ule
in/r
ule
out s
peci
fi c d
iagn
oses
(L
acey
& P
ritc
hett,
200
3)•
Self
-dis
cipl
ined
: Sta
y on
task
as
need
ed; m
anag
e tim
e to
foc
us o
n pr
iori
ties
(Alf
aro-
LeF
evre
, 200
4)•
Set g
oals
and
pri
oriti
ze (
Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• Sp
ecif
y th
e tim
e an
d fr
eque
ncy
of c
are
(Lac
ey &
Pri
tche
tt, 2
003)
• T
ake
on th
e ro
le o
f lif
elon
g le
arni
ng a
s a
chal
leng
e an
d ap
ply
to th
at c
halle
nge
to m
ake
cont
ribu
tions
in th
e w
orld
(Fe
rret
t, 19
97)
• T
urn
mis
take
s in
to le
arni
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
(SN
Jour
ney,
200
7)•
Wel
l-gr
oom
ed, s
elf-
confi
den
t, an
d “p
rofe
ssio
nal”
(B
eeke
n, 1
997)
App
endi
x 4:
Cur
ricu
lum
Fra
mew
ork
for
Lib
eral
Stu
dies
(CD
C &
HK
EA
A, 2
007)
A
rea
of s
tudy
R
elat
ed v
alue
s an
d at
titud
es
Inde
pend
ent I
nqui
ry S
tudy
Self
and
Per
sona
l Dev
elop
men
t
Su
gges
ted
them
es:
Mod
ule
1: P
erso
nal D
evel
opm
ent &
Int
erpe
rson
al R
elat
ions
hips
•
Med
ia•
The
me
1: U
nder
stan
ding
one
self
•
Ada
ptab
ility
to c
hang
e; r
espo
nsib
ility
; sel
f-es
teem
; •
Edu
catio
n
Wha
t cha
lleng
es a
nd o
ppor
tuni
ties
does
a p
erso
n ha
ve d
urin
g
self
-refl
ect
ion;
rat
iona
lity;
sel
f-di
scip
line;
•
Rel
igio
n
adol
esce
nce?
inde
pend
ence
•
Spor
ts•
The
me
2: I
nter
pers
onal
rel
atio
nshi
ps
• C
oope
ratio
n; g
ende
r eq
uity
; em
path
y; in
tegr
ity;
• A
rt
Wha
t int
erpe
rson
al f
acto
rs f
acili
tate
ado
lesc
ents
to r
efl e
ct
se
lf-r
efl e
ctio
n; s
elf-
dete
rmin
atio
n; r
espe
ct f
or s
elf;
•
Info
rmat
ion
and
up
on a
nd p
repa
re f
or th
e tr
ansi
tion
to a
dulth
ood?
resp
ect f
or o
ther
s; s
ocia
l har
mon
y; s
ense
of
com
mun
icat
ion
re
spon
sibi
lity;
inte
rdep
ende
nce
te
chno
logy
(IC
T)
Soci
ety
and
Cul
ture
Mod
ule
2: H
ong
Kon
g T
oday
• T
hem
e 1:
Qua
lity
of li
fe
• R
espe
ct f
or q
ualit
y an
d ex
celle
nce;
sus
tain
abili
ty;
W
hich
dir
ectio
ns m
ight
be
chos
en in
mai
ntai
ning
and
ratio
nalit
y; s
ensi
tivity
; car
e an
d co
ncer
n
impr
ovin
g H
ong
Kon
g re
side
nts’
qua
lity
of li
fe?
• T
hem
e 2:
Rul
e of
law
and
soc
io-p
oliti
cal p
artic
ipat
ion
• R
espe
ct f
or th
e ru
le o
f la
w; p
artic
ipat
ion;
hum
an
H
ow d
o H
ong
Kon
g re
side
nts
part
icip
ate
in p
oliti
cal a
nd
ri
ghts
and
res
pons
ibili
ties;
dem
ocra
cy; j
ustic
e
soci
al a
ffai
rs a
nd c
ome
to g
rips
with
rig
hts
and
re
spon
sibi
litie
s w
ith r
espe
ct to
the
rule
of
law
?•
The
me
3: I
dent
ity
• Se
nse
of b
elon
ging
; plu
ralit
y; o
pen-
min
dedn
ess;
How
are
the
iden
titie
s of
Hon
g K
ong
resi
dent
s de
velo
ped?
indi
vidu
ality
; int
erde
pend
ence
Mod
ule
3: M
oder
n C
hina
• T
hem
e 1:
Chi
na’s
ref
orm
and
ope
ning
-up
• So
lidar
ity; p
atri
otis
m; s
usta
inab
ility
; hum
an r
ight
s
Wha
t im
pact
has
ref
orm
and
ope
ning
-up
had
on th
e ov
eral
l
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies;
car
e an
d co
ncer
n; ju
stic
e
deve
lopm
ent o
f th
e co
untr
y an
d on
peo
ple’
s lif
e?
• T
hem
e 2:
Chi
nese
cul
ture
and
mod
ern
life
• C
ultu
re a
nd c
ivili
zatio
n he
rita
ge; r
espe
ct f
or
W
ith r
espe
ct to
the
evol
utio
n of
con
cept
s of
the
fam
ily, w
hat
di
ffer
ent w
ays
of li
fe, b
elie
fs a
nd o
pini
ons;
kind
of
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
trad
ition
al c
ultu
re a
nd m
oder
n
pl
ural
ity; s
ensi
tivity
; app
reci
atio
n
life
has
been
man
ifes
ted?
T
o w
hat e
xten
t are
trad
ition
al c
usto
ms
com
patib
le w
ith
m
oder
n C
hine
se s
ocie
ty?
Mod
ule
4: G
loba
liza
tion
• T
hem
e 1:
Im
pact
of
glob
aliz
atio
n an
d re
late
d re
spon
ses
• In
terd
epen
denc
e; ju
stic
e; c
oope
ratio
n; p
lura
lity;
W
hy d
o pe
ople
fro
m d
iffe
rent
par
ts o
f th
e w
orld
rea
ct
• C
ultu
re a
nd c
ivili
zatio
n he
rita
ge; a
dapt
ing
to
di
ffer
ently
to th
e op
port
uniti
es a
nd c
halle
nges
bro
ught
by
chan
ges;
ope
n-m
inde
dnes
s; e
mpa
thy;
par
ticip
atio
n;
gl
obal
izat
ion?
mut
ualit
y
Scie
nce,
Tec
hnol
ogy
and
the
Env
iron
men
tM
odul
e 5:
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
• T
hem
e 1:
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f pu
blic
hea
lth
• V
alui
ng th
e su
gges
tions
of
othe
rs; r
espe
ct f
or
H
ow is
peo
ple’
s un
ders
tand
ing
of d
isea
se a
nd p
ublic
hea
lth
ev
iden
ce; r
espe
ct f
or d
iffe
rent
way
s of
life
, bel
iefs
affe
cted
by
diff
eren
t fac
tors
?
and
opin
ions
; cul
tura
l her
itage
• T
hem
e 2:
Sci
ence
, tec
hnol
ogy
and
publ
ic h
ealth
•
Bet
term
ent o
f hu
man
kind
; hum
an r
ight
s an
d
To
wha
t ext
ent d
oes
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gy e
nhan
ce th
e
re
spon
sibi
litie
s; c
oope
ratio
n; m
oral
con
side
ratio
ns
deve
lopm
ent o
f pu
blic
hea
lth?
Mod
ule
6: E
nerg
y T
echn
olog
y &
the
Env
iron
men
t•
The
me
1: T
he in
fl uen
ces
of e
nerg
y te
chno
logy
•
Bet
term
ent o
f hu
man
kind
; res
pect
for
evi
denc
e;
H
ow d
o en
ergy
tech
nolo
gy a
nd e
nvir
onm
enta
l pro
blem
s
in
terd
epen
denc
e
rela
te to
eac
h ot
her?
• T
hem
e 2:
The
env
iron
men
t and
sus
tain
able
dev
elop
men
t •
Res
pons
ibili
ty; c
arin
g fo
r th
e liv
ing
and
non-
livin
g
Why
has
sus
tain
able
dev
elop
men
t bec
ome
an im
port
ant
en
viro
nmen
ts; b
ette
rmen
t of
hum
anki
nd;
co
ntem
pora
ry is
sue?
Wha
t is
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
its
su
stai
nabi
lity;
sim
plic
ity
occu
rren
ce a
nd th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gy?
