like the sun critical thinking answers

Have an account?

Like The Sun

9th - 12th grade.

17 questions

Introducing new   Paper mode

No student devices needed.   Know more

• 1. Multiple Choice Edit 30 seconds 1 pt What is the name of the protagonist? Sekhar Nelson BK Wilson
• 2. Multiple Choice Edit 30 seconds 1 pt What is the protagonist's job? Chef Teacher CEO Banker
• 3. Multiple Choice Edit 30 seconds 1 pt What is the protagonist's goal? Lie to everyone for the entire day. Tell the direct truth for the entire day.
• 4. Multiple Choice Edit 30 seconds 1 pt Why does the protagonist say that "truth is like the sun"? It is yellow and bright. Most people can't face it directly.

After the trial of telling absolute truth that day, Sekhar feels

Telling the truth is worthwhile

It's very difficult to tell absolute truths due to moral dilemmas

Truth is like the sun-- everyone needs it

One can always tell the truth the next day

Sekhar wants to tell the truth for one day because he thinks

telling the truth is important

all other days don't require the truth

truth is like the sun--very warm

truth can make people blink

What is another word for "dilemma"?

What is the protagonist dreading?

Grading papers.

Giving detention.

Eating breakfast

Sekhar's first trial is

his comment on the headmaster's singing

his reply to his wife's cooking

his grading 100 papers

his contact with his colleagues

His comment on his wife's "culinary masterpiece" that morning is due to

his determination to tell the absolute truth

his inconsideration of his wife's feelings

his hurry to leave the house for work

his wife burns the food

Sekhar's contact with his colleagues reveals that

he is an unsympathetic man

he is an enemy to his colleagues

he doesn't get along with people

he passes his second test

• 12. Multiple Choice Edit 30 seconds 1 pt He was dreading grading the test papers.  He had "shirked" the papers for weeks.  What does shirk most likely mean? working on, making progress put off, procrastinate
• 13. Multiple Choice Edit 30 seconds 1 pt Truth is like the sun is an example of..... a metaphor a hyperbole a simile personification

The reason the headmaster tells Sekhar that he is childless is to show that

music is his child

he needs a friend

he doesn't have a future

his talent should be recognized

The headmaster's reaction to Sekhar's truthful comment is revealed in his

firing Sekhar

not continuing music lessons

his strength to receive the truth

How does Sekhar feel on his way home after telling the truth to his headmaster?

he's afraid of losing his job

unhappy he has displeased people

anxious to grade papers

Which phrase best illustrates the title, "Like the Sun"?

Everyone needs the sun to grow

People fear to look it straight in the face

People desire truth

Plants desire the sun

Explore all questions with a free account

Continue with email

Continue with phone

The Sitting Bee

Short Story Reviews

Like the Sun by R.K. Narayan

In Like the Sun by R.K. Narayan we have the theme of honesty, conflict, anger, change and rejection. Taken from his Under the Banyan Tree and Other Stories collection the story is narrated in the third person by an unnamed narrator and from the beginning of the story the reader realises that Narayan may be exploring the theme of honesty. Sekhar decides to spend one day telling the truth even though he is fully aware of the consequences of telling those in his life the truth about their qualities. Something that is noticeable when Sekhar comments on his wife’s food suggesting that it is not good. This may be significant as not only is Sekhar angering his wife but he also leaves himself open to personal criticism. Though on this occasion his wife does not retaliate even though she is so shocked by Sekhar’s bluntness and honesty. It may also be a case that Sekhar hopes that others will change if he is more honest with them. Yet there is to be no change in Sekhar. He may not necessarily be open to the same criticism he gives others.

The incident with his colleague in school is also interesting as Sekhar opinions only appear to isolate him from his colleague. Though Sekhar might consider himself to be displaying an honest trait. In reality he is no more than expressing his opinion with regard to the man who died. Sekhar did not know the man personally or at least the reader is left to believe that he did not. Which may be the point that that Narayan is attempting to make. He may be suggesting that some people’s truths are no more than opinions. Opinions that for the most are non-critical till one decides to abandon any thought for another person’s feelings. Something that Sekhar has deliberately chosen to do despite the obvious pitfalls that await him. One of which is alienation from others and a refusal by others to engage constructively with Sekhar due to his opinion or honesty. Though Sekhar from the start of the day when he criticized his wife’s cooking is aware of the consequences that await him for his honesty towards others. If anything one might suggest that Sekhar is either being foolish or brave.

There is also the matter of how beneficial Sekhar’s honesty is. When it comes to his wife she remains angry at what she perceives to be criticism but noticeably continues to cook for Sekhar. With the headmaster it is more positive and he no longer fools himself when it comes to his musical aspirations. Thankful for Sekhar’s input with regard to what he thought of his musical abilities. However it is noticeable that the headmaster may have taken matters a little too personal. Even though he is grateful to Sekhar. Something that is noticeable by way of the fact that the headmaster wants all one hundred test papers on his desk the following day. Disregarding what he had previously said to Sekhar in whereby he allowed him ten days to mark the papers. This could be important as Narayan may be highlighting that there are consequences for being honest. Though the headmaster might have been grateful to Sekhar. He also appears to be a little too demanding of him at the same time. Perhaps he is driven by the rejection he may have felt. Even if he had been grateful to Sekhar for his honesty.

It is also interesting that Sekhar can only wish for the day to be over as he knows that his honesty comes with a price. Something he learns when he is told to mark all one hundred test papers. It may also be a case that Sekhar wishes that the truth was not like the sun as his honesty only manages to create problems for himself. Not only in his home life but in his professional life too. As to what the trigger for Sekhar’s experiment was is difficult to say. Perhaps he wished to live for one day being totally honest even if there were repercussions. It is an idealist approach to life and as such this may be the reason as to why Sekhar only was completely honest for one day. He may have been aware of the realities of life and the fact that being honest has its consequences. As to whether being honest is more beneficial to being politely evasive with the truth is left for each reader to decide for themselves. Some may suggest that honesty is the foundation of a good society while others might suggest it is better to curtail the truth in order not to hurt another person’s feelings. Particularly in matters that border on the trivial and which may not really be very important to the progression of society.

• Mother and Son by R.K. Narayan
• The Coachman’s Son by R.K. Narayan
• A Tiger Comes to Town by R.K. Narayan
• Four Rupees by R.K. Narayan
• R.K. Narayan

You can use some more simple words for better understanding

Nice story.

Please tell Tamil short please.

Please tell me the background of this story

I remembered reading this in high school about 13 years ago at Kcp with my teacher Mr. Frank Palange.

Always got me thinking… I just feel Sehkar failed at something in this story, he wasn’t tactful.

Sometimes it’s not what you say but HOW you say it.

Honesty doesn’t need to come with a high price, you can be honest and tactful at the same time, you deliver the truth but in a way that makes it easier and friendlier to bear, while motivating a person to improve next time.

If truth is like the sun, tactfulness are the sun glasses. I rest my case.

was there any symbols in the story

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Unit 2: Metaphysics

Plato’s “Simile of the Sun” and “The Divided Line”

And which, I said, of the gods in heaven would you say was the lord of this element? Whose is that light which makes the eye to see perfectly and the visible to appear?

You mean the sun, as you and all mankind say.

May not the relation of sight to this deity be described as follows?

Neither sight nor the eye in which sight resides is the sun?

The eye like the sun, but not the same with it. Yet of all the organs of sense the eye is the most like the sun?

By far the most like.

And the power which the eye possesses is a sort of effluence which is dispensed from the sun?

Then the sun is not sight, but the author of sight who is recognised by sight?

True, he said.

And this is he whom I call the child of the good, whom the good begat in his own likeness, to be in the visible world, in  relation to sight and the things of sight, what the good is in the intellectual world in relation to mind and the things of mind:

Will you be a little more explicit? he said.

Why, you know, I said, that the eyes, when a person directs them towards objects on which the light of day is no longer shining, but the moon and stars only, see dimly, and are nearly blind; they seem to have no clearness of vision in them?

Div isible objects are to be seen only when the sun shines upon them; truth is only known when illuminated by the idea of good. But when they are directed towards objects on which the sun shines, they see clearly and there is sight in them?

And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and understands, and is radiant with intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence?

The idea of good higher than science or truth (the objective than the subjective). Now, that which imparts truth to the known and the power of knowing to the knower is what I would have you term the  idea of good, and this you will deem to be the cause of science, and of truth in so far as the latter becomes the subject of knowledge; beautiful too, as are both truth and knowledge, you will be right in esteeming this other nature  as more beautiful than either; and, as in the previous instance, light and sight may be truly said to be like the sun, and yet not to be the sun, so in this other sphere, science and truth may be deemed to be like the good, but not the good; the good has a place of honour yet higher.

What a wonder of beauty that must be, he said, which is the author of science and truth, and yet surpasses them in beauty; for you surely cannot mean to say that pleasure is the good?

God forbid, I replied; but may I ask you to consider the image in another point of view?

In what point of view?

You would say, would you not, that the sun is not only the author of visibility in all visible things, but of generation and nourishment and growth, though he himself is not generation?

As the sun is the cause of generation, so the good is the cause of being and essence. In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power.

Glaucon said, with a ludicrous earnestness: By the light of heaven, how amazing!

Yes, I said, and the exaggeration may be set down to you; for you made me utter my fancies.

And pray continue to utter them; at any rate let us hear if there is anything more to be said about the similitude of the sun.

Yes, I said, there is a great deal more.

Then omit nothing, however slight.

I will do my best, I said; but I should think that a great deal will have to be omitted.

I hope not, he said.

You have to imagine, then, that there are two ruling powers, and that one of them is set over the intellectual world, the other over the visible. I do not say heaven, lest you should fancy that I am playing upon the name ( οὐρανός, ὁρατός ). May I suppose that you have this distinction of the visible and intelligible fixed in your mind?

The two spheres of sight and knowledge are represented by a line which is divided into two unequal parts. Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion, and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible, and then compare the subdivisions in respect of their clearness and want of clearness, and you will find that the first section in the   sphere of the visible consists of images. And by images I mean, in the first place, shadows, and in the second place, reflections in water and in solid, smooth and polished bodies and the like: Do you understand?

Yes, I understand.

Imagine, now, the other section, of which this is only the resemblance, to include the animals which we see, and everything that grows or is made.

Would you not admit that both the sections of this division have different degrees of truth, and that the copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of knowledge?

Most undoubtedly.

Next proceed to consider the manner in which the sphere of the intellectual is to be divided.

In what manner?

Images and hypotheses. Thus:—There are two subdivisions, in the lower of which the soul uses the figures given by the former division as images; the enquiry can only be hypothetical, and instead of going upwards to a principle descends to the other end; in the higher of the two, the soul passes out of hypotheses, and goes up to a principle which is above hypotheses, making no use of images as in the former case, but proceeding only in and through the ideas themselves.

I do not quite understand your meaning, he said.

The hypotheses of mathematics. Then I will try again; you will understand me better when I have made some preliminary remarks. You are aware that students of geometry, arithmetic, and the kindred sciences assume the odd and the even and the figures and three kinds of angles and the like in their several branches of science; these are their hypotheses, which they and every body are supposed to know, and therefore they do not deign to give any account of them either to themselves or others; but they begin with them, and go on until they arrive at last, and in a consistent manner, at their conclusion?

Yes, he said, I know.

In both spheres hypotheses are used, in the lower taking the form of images, but in the higher the soul ascends above hypotheses to the idea of good. And do you not know also that although they make use of the visible forms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but of the ideals which they resemble; not of the  figures which they draw, but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on—the forms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflections in water of their own, are converted by them into images, but they are really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can only be seen with the eye of the mind?

That is true.

And of this kind I spoke as the intelligible, although in the search after it the soul is compelled to use hypotheses; not ascending to a first principle, because she is unable to rise above the region of hypothesis, but employing the objects of which the shadows below are resemblances in their turn as images, they having in relation to the shadows and reflections of them a greater distinctness, and therefore a higher value.

I understand, he said, that you are speaking of the province of geometry and the sister arts.

Dialectic by the help of hypotheses rises above hypotheses. And when I speak of the other division of the intelligible, you will understand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as hypotheses—that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole; and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this, by successive steps she descends again without the aid of  any sensible object, from ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends.

I understand you, he replied; not perfectly, for you seem to me to be describing a task which is really tremendous; but, at any rate, I understand you to say that knowledge and being, which the science of dialectic contemplates, are clearer than the notions of the arts, as they are termed, which proceed from hypotheses only: these are also contemplated by the understanding, and not by the senses: yet, because  they start from hypotheses and do not ascend to a principle, those who contemplate them appear to you not to exercise the higher reason upon them, although when a first principle is added to them they are cognizable by the higher reason. Return to psychology. And the habit which is concerned with geometry and the cognate sciences I suppose that you would term understanding and not reason, as being intermediate between opinion and reason.

Four faculties: Reason, understanding, faith, perception of shadows. You have quite conceived my meaning, I said; and now, corresponding to these four divisions, let there be four faculties in the soul—reason answering to the highest,  understanding to the second, faith (or conviction) to the third, and perception of shadows to the last—and let there be a scale of them, and let us suppose that the several faculties have clearness in the same degree that their objects have truth.

I understand, he replied, and give my assent, and accept your arrangement.

Additional Resources

This brief video (5:08) will provide more clarity on Plato’s Sun analogy.

For a relevant and concise overview of Plato’s “Divided Line” (including some additional background information), please review the information here: The Divided Line.

Plato's Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Good

Plato's metaphysics and epistemology: the sun.

Check Your Understanding

Consider the 2 charts above, which summarize Plato’s “Divided Line,”  and the information provided on this website:  The Four Segments of the Divided Line .

Then follow the instructions to complete two matching exercises below the chart to check your understanding of the concepts.

How well do you understand the epistemology?

For this first activity, consider each word/phrase below the chart. click and drag each to the section containing the ancient greek term to which it most closely matches., activity 2 directions: the tiles below the chart each describe a stage of the character’s awareness in plato’s “allegory of the cave.” drag each tile to the correct row on the chart..

Accessibility note: The background for the activity is an image derived from the two table charts expressed above.  For screen-reader access, the four drop zones are associated as follows:

top row: noesis second row: dianoia third row: pistis bottom row: eikasia

This work ( Plato's "Simile of the Sun" and "The Divided Line" by Plato) is free of known copyright restrictions.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: Lab 3 - Earth-Sun Relationships

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 25327

Learning Objectives

• Describe how Earth’s rotation, revolution, tilt, polarity, and shape influence the Annual March of the Seasons.
• Diagram the seven special lines of latitude and explain their relationship to solstices and equinoxes.
• Explain the relationship between the angle of incidence and radiation intensity.
• Identify vertical, oblique, and tangent rays from the Sun.
• Use an analemma to calculate solar altitude.
• Analyze daylength at different locations and times of the year.

Introduction

Earth’s annual revolution around the Sun influences the angle of incoming solar rays and the length of day at different latitudes. The amount of incoming solar radiation, or insolation , along with daylength influence the Earth’s seasons. In this lab, we will study the relationships between the Earth and the Sun and how those relationships influence the seasons we experience every year. This relationship results in what is known as the Annual March of the Seasons .

Part A. The Annual March of the Seasons

Earth has five key characteristics that play a role in the Annual March of the Seasons: rotation, revolution, tilt, polarity, and shape.

1. Rotation

Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours, which we consider to be one day (Figure 3.1). Each rotation can be seen in the daily change from day to night. The circle of illumination is the line separating the part of the planet receiving sunlight and the part of the planet in darkness.

Why does Earth rotate? It will help to understand how our solar system formed. Almost five billion years ago, our solar system had its beginnings as a vast cloud of dust and gas. The cloud began to collapse, flattening into a giant disk that rotated faster and faster, just as an ice skater spins faster as she brings her arms in. The Sun formed at the center, and the swirling gas and dust in the rest of the spinning disk clumped together to produce the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. The reason so many objects orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane (called the ecliptic) and in the same direction is that they all formed from this same disk. While the planets were forming, clumps of matter of all sizes often collided, and either stuck together or side-swiped each other, knocking off pieces and sending each other spinning. [38]

2. Revolution

Earth revolves around the Sun every 365.25 days, which we consider to be one year. This orbit is not a perfect circle as we might imagine; it is actually an elliptical orbit (Figure 3.2). In one revolution, Earth travels approximately 940 million kilometers (584 million miles)! Because Earth is traveling in an elliptical orbit , it is closer to the Sun on or around January 3 (known as perihelion ) than it is on or around July 4 (known as aphelion ). At perihelion, Earth is 147.5 million kilometers (approximately 91 million miles) from the Sun and at aphelion Earth is 152.6 million kilometers (approximately 95 million miles) from the Sun. Tip: to help you remember that aphelion occurs when Earth is furthest away from the Sun, think of the “a” in aphelion as further “away”.

Currently, the axis of the Earth is tilted at 23.5°. Earth revolves around the Sun on an imaginary straight line known as the plane of the ecliptic (Figure 3.3).

4. Polarity

While Earth’s axis is currently pointing toward Polaris, known as the North Star, the top of the Earth or the North Pole is not always orientated toward the Sun. As you can see in Figure 3.3 sometimes the North Pole is orientated toward the Sun and other times it is orientated away from the Sun. This phenomenon influences the amount of daylight received by the Earth at various latitudes, known as daylength .

Earth is an oblate sphere and like all spheres, its surface is curved. This means that the Sun's rays strike the Earth at different angles for each latitude. As you can see in Figure 3.4, the Sun’s rays strike the Earth at the center (equator) directly, almost at 90°, while they strike toward the poles at a lower angle, more like 10° or 20°. Because the Earth is curved, the angle of incidence (the angle of the Sun’s rays) varies by latitude. And, because the Earth is titled, the angle of incidence also varies by season.

Ever wonder why Earth has different seasons and variations in daylength? This video , Why Do We Have Different Seasons?, by the California Academy of Sciences demonstrates how Earth’s tilt and its revolution around the Sun influence the annual march of the seasons. Understanding the reasons for the seasons is important to know for your physical geography class. (Video length is 3:17).

The Sun’s vertical rays strike the Earth at the equator (0°) on the March equinox (March 20) and the September equinox (September 21). The March equinox is known as spring in the northern hemisphere and fall in the southern hemisphere, while the September equinox is known as fall in the northern hemisphere and spring in the southern hemisphere. During the equinoxes, the circle of illumination bisects all parallels (remember that parallels are lines measured in latitude). This even division creates an equal amount of daylight of exactly 12 hours for all latitudes. The circle of illumination can be seen in Figure 3.5.

The Sun’s vertical rays strike the Earth at the Tropic of Cancer (23.5°N), located in the northern hemisphere, on the June solstice (June 22). The Sun’s vertical rays strike the Earth at the Tropic of Capricorn (23.5°S), located in the southern hemisphere, on the December solstice (December 21). The June solstice is known as summer in the northern hemisphere and winter in the southern hemisphere, while the December solstice is known as winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the southern hemisphere. In addition, both hemispheres experience longer daylength in the summer and shorter daylength in the winter. During the December Solstice the Arctic Circle receives 24 hours of darkness, while the Antarctic Circle receives 24 hours of daylight.

To get a better understanding of how changes in Earth’s orbit can impact climate and weather, watch this cool video on the natural cycles of Earth-Sun relations. These cycles will be important to remember later in the lab class when climate patterns and climate change are discussed. (Video length is 6:34).

Use what you have learned from the reading, your prior knowledge, and the Pin It! Annual March of the Seasons to answer the questions below.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• In which hemisphere do you currently live?
• What season are you experiencing?
• What is the daylength like during this season?
• What three key observations can you make about your daily routine?
• What activities might you do during this season that you might not do in other seasons? Why?
• North Pole, 90°N
• South Pole, 90°S
• Tropic of Cancer, 23.5°N
• Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5°S
• Arctic Circle, 66.5°N
• Antarctic Circle, 66.5°S
• Equator, 0°

• Label the approximate point in the elliptical revolution when the perihelion and aphelion occur.
• March equinox, June solstice, September equinox, December solstice
• Season in northern hemisphere: winter, spring (vernal), summer, fall (autumnal)

• During which northern hemisphere season does the Sun’s rays strike the Earth at 23.5°N latitude?
• During which solstice does the south pole experience winter and receive no daylight?
• During which season in the northern hemisphere does Earth experience aphelion?
• During which season in the northern hemisphere does Earth experience perihelion?
• Use Your Critical Thinking Skills: According to your answers for 8 and 9, does distance between the Earth and the Sun determine the seasons of the year? Why or why not? Explain your response in at least one sentence.

As you have learned, Earth’s surface is curved. Therefore, the Sun’s rays strike Earth at different angles depending on latitude. Rays that strike Earth directly at a 90° angle are known as vertical rays (VR), rays that strike Earth at an angle less than 90° are known as oblique rays (OR), and rays that strike Earth at exactly 0° are known as tangent rays (TR). Note that there is only one location that experiences vertical rays on a given day, while there are multiple latitudes that experience oblique and tangent rays on a given day.

• vertical ray label as VR
• oblique rays label as OR
• tangent rays label as TR

• Refer to Figure 3.8. Study the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun in order to answer the following questions:
• What solstice is represented in this diagram? How can you tell?
• Which hemisphere is experiencing winter?
• Is daylength longer or shorter in the Southern Hemisphere?
• What latitude is the vertical ray striking?
• What parallel is the vertical ray striking?
• What type of ray is striking the equator?
• What type of ray is striking the Antarctic Circle?

As you have just learned, vertical rays are those that strike Earth at 90°. These are the most direct rays. Therefore, the latitudes on Earth that receive vertical rays will receive the most intense insolation compared to other latitudes. The latitude of the Sun's vertical rays is called the declination of the Sun.

The declination of the Sun changes throughout the year. Let us determine the declination of the Sun for random days of the year so you can see how it changes. To do this, we can use a tool called the analemma (see Figure 3.9). An analemma looks like a figure-eight; it is basically a calendar displaying the Sun’s declination on each day of the year. On the vertical axis of the analemma, you can see the Sun’s declination with values ranging from 24°N to 24°S. Along the figure eight pattern itself, you can see each day of the year. The days of the year are shown with alternating black and white bars along the figure-eight pattern (each bar represents a day). For example, on November 16th, the Sun’s declination is approximately 19°S.

• Why is the analemma’s vertical axis limited to the range of 24°N to 24°S?

Go step-by-step on how to use the analemma with this video from Scott’s Geography Notebook , Using an Analemma . (Video length is 6:16).

• February 16:
• November 16:
• Write your birthdate and the Sun’s declination on that date:
• Which solstice or equinox occurs closest to your birthdate?

Part B. Angle of Incidence

Angle of incidence is the angle at which Sun’s rays strike Earth’s surface. One way to understand angle of incidence is to think of someone shining a flashlight in your direction. If the flashlight is shining directly in your eyes, the light is intense and you look away. If the flashlight is shining on the ground below you, the light is less intense and you can see clearly. Figure 3.10 shows two angles of incidence represented by flashlights shining on two books.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\)

• Refer to Figure 3.10.
• Does the flashlight on the left or right represent a 90° angle of incidence? (Hint: a 90° angle of incidence is also known as a direct ray or a perpendicular ray.)
• Does the higher or lower angle of incidence result in the flashlight’s energy being distributed over a wider area?

There is a direct relationship between the angle of incidence and the intensity of solar radiation that actually reaches the ground. Higher angles of incidence result in higher percentages of radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. When the angle of incidence is at a 90° angle to the Earth (called direct or perpendicular rays), approximately 75% of the radiation emitted from the Sun reaches the surface of the Earth.

Throughout the year, the angle of the Sun’s rays are low (less than 25°) at the poles, compared to those closer to the equator. As a result, insolation at the poles is spread out over a much wider area as represented by the yellow color on Figure 3.4 (shown previously in this lab). The more spread out the yellow color, the more diffused the radiation will be. The opposite is true at the equator. Throughout the year, the angle of the Sun’s rays at the equator is high (more than 65°) and at the equinoxes sunlight strikes the equator directly, which results in a 90° angle of incidence. Insolation at the equator is not as spread out as it is at the poles; therefore, the radiation is more intense.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\)

• Refer to Figure 3.4 (shown previously in this lab).
• Which latitude has the highest angle of incidence?
• Which latitudes have the lowest angles of incidence?
• Apply What You Learned: Does this diagram represent the March equinox, June solstice, September equinox, or December solstice? Explain your response in one sentence.

Table 3.1 provides angle of incidence data for the special lines of latitude at the solstices and equinoxes. The data represent the angle of incidence at solar noon.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{4}\)

• Refer to Table 3.1 above. On Figure 3.11 below, draw a Sun to represent the correct angle of incidence for each time of year at the equator . The Sun location at the March equinox has already been drawn for you.

• Refer to Table 3.1 above. On Figure 3.12 below, draw a Sun to represent the correct angle of incidence for each time of year at the Tropic of Cancer.

• Refer to Table 3.1 above. On Figure 3.13 below, draw a Sun to represent the correct angle of incidence for each time of year at the Arctic Circle .

• Refer to Table 3.1 above. On Figure 3.14 below, draw a Sun to represent the correct angle of incidence for each time of year at the North Pole.

• Refer to your completed Figures 3.11 through 3.14.
• Which latitude has the highest angle of incidence year-round?
• Which latitude has the lowest angle of incidence year-round?
• In one sentence, describe how the angles of incidence change throughout the year for the Tropic of Cancer.
• Apply What You Learned: When would the radiation intensity be highest for the Arctic Circle?

The amount of sunlight that strikes the Earth's surface in an hour and a half is enough to handle the entire world's energy consumption for a full year. Solar technologies convert sunlight into electrical energy either through photovoltaic (PV) panels or through mirrors that concentrate solar radiation. This energy can be used to generate electricity or be stored in batteries or thermal storage. [52] Solar panel installations require an understanding of the angle of incidence. The Solar Electricity Handbook (2019, n.p.) says “to get the best out of your photovoltaic panels, you need to angle them towards the Sun. The optimum angle varies throughout the year, depending on the seasons and your location”. If you lived at the Equator, you would want to lay your solar panel flat on the ground (at a 0° angle) during the equinoxes so that the maximum radiation is received.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{5}\)

• Apply What You Learned: Imagine that you want to install a solar panel at your latitude. At what angle(s) would you orientate the solar panel in order to maximize the amount of radiation that is received? Would you install the solar panels in a stationary position, or would you allow for the solar panels to move throughout the year? Explain your response in two to three sentences. Tip: estimate the angle of incidence at your latitude based on the data provided in Table 3.1. Hint: it may be easiest to sketch the surface of the Earth, your solar panel, and the estimated angle of incidence in order to respond to these questions.

Part C. Calculating Solar Altitude

The solar altitude (SA) , also called the angle of the noon Sun , represents the elevation of the noon Sun in the sky. Another way of understanding this is to think of the SA as the point at which the Sun is highest in the sky at noon. The arc distance (AD) is the number of degrees of latitude between the latitude you are determining the SA for and the declination of the Sun. The equation to determine the SA for a given location is:

SA = 90 - AD

The following steps demonstrate how to calculate solar altitude at a particular location on a particular day. For the example, we will use November 1 st and the latitude of 33°N in the following example:

Use the analemma (Figure 3.9, shown previously in the lab) to determine the declination of the Sun for the day of the year in question.

November 1 st = 14°S

Calculate the arc distance between the declination of the Sun and the latitude for which you are determining the SA. To do this, take the latitude in question and add or subtract the declination of the Sun. Remember to pay attention to the latitude’s designated hemisphere (north or south). See Figure 3.15 for examples on how to calculate the arc distance for latitudes with the same hemisphere and those with opposite hemispheres. Note: values of the latitudes always remain positive in the equation, regardless of whether they are in the southern or northern hemisphere.

14° + 33° = 47 arc degrees (Refer to the bottom diagram of Figure 3.15).

Calculate the SA by subtracting the arc distance from 90°. Remember, the equation from above is SA = 90°- AD.

90° - AD = SA

90° - 47° = 43°

On November 1 st at 33°N, SA = 43°

Check out the diagram below (Figure 3.16). It shows where the noon Sun is in the sky on November 1 st at 33°N.

This video , Calculating Solar Altitude, goes through the above example step-by-step, and provides an explanation of what to do when the declination of the Sun and the particular latitude happen to be in the same hemisphere. (Video length is 2:54).

Exercise \(\PageIndex{6}\)

• Use the SA equation and the analemma to calculate the Sun’s declination, arc distance (AD), and SA for the dates and latitudes shown in Table 3.2. Show your work in the space provided in the table. The first row has been done as an example.
• Use the information from Table 3.2 and draw the Sun in its correct place in the sky for each of the following four dates: April 8th, July 17th, October 31st, and December 7th. Use Figure 3.16 as a model for your diagrams and write captions with the same information shown in Figure 3.16.
• October 31st:
• December 7th:

Part D. Daylength Analysis

Table 3.3 shows the daylength for various locations on Earth on selected days of the year. The dates February 16th, May 16th, August 16th, and November 16th were chosen at random and do not align with the solstices and equinoxes to give you an idea of daylength during other times of the year. You found the declination of the Sun for these dates earlier in this lab.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{7}\)

• Apply What You Learned: Add the daylength information for the North Pole and South Pole into Table 3.3.
• Refer to Table 3.3.
• Use Your Critical Thinking Skills: Why does Table 3.3 have a specific location for 60°N but no location for 60°S? Hint: look at a globe, an atlas, or Google Earth!
• Use Your Critical Thinking Skills: If a specific location had been provided for 60°S, would daylength at that location be similar to the daylength for 60°N? Explain why or why not in one to two sentences.
• Other than the poles, which of the eight locations has the greatest variation in daylength throughout the year? Explain why in one to two sentences. Tip: for each location, subtract the largest daylength number from the smallest to find the variation in daylength at that latitude.
• Other than the equator, which of the eight locations has the least variation in daylength throughout the year? Explain why in one to two sentences.
• Canberra and Tokyo are both located at a general latitude of 35°, however, their daylengths are different from each other on each of the four dates. Explain why in one to two sentences.
• On which date(s) does Palmas have a longer daylength than the equator? What are the seasons of these dates for Palmas?
• Does the equator have seasons? Why or why not?
• Find the latitude of your home city on a map, globe, or the internet.
• Which of the eight locations listed are you closest in latitude to?
• Apply What You Learned: Based on what you have learned so far, explain how daylength would vary for your city. Explain your response in two to three sentences.
• Use Your Critical Thinking Skills: Now that you have determined the declination of the Sun and daylength for February 16th, May 16th, August 16th, and November 16th, what connection can you make between the declination of the Sun and daylength for these dates? Explain your response in one to two sentences.
• Using the data from your completed Table 3.3, create a line graph on Figure 3.17 that shows daylength for each season for the South Pole, White Horse, Quito, and Canberra. Create a key for your graph; be sure to use a different color for each of the four locations.

• Refer to your completed Figure 3.17. Tip: when appropriate, be sure to discuss the title of the Earth or the circle of illumination in your responses.
• Discuss how daylength changes throughout the year for each of the four locations and why those changes occur. Provide a detailed answer that is three to four sentences in length.
• How does the data for the South Pole vary from the other three locations you graphed?
• During which season does White Horse have the longest daylength?
• How would you explain the seasonal variation for Quito, a city located on the equator?
• Of the four locations you graphed, which one would you like to live in year-round? Why? Explain your response in at least one sentence.
• Use Your Critical Thinking Skills: How could farming and other food services be impacted at latitudes with significantly less daylength throughout the year? Explain your response in at least one sentence.
• Use Your Critical Thinking Skills: If you lived on or near the equator, do you think it would be valuable for you to use renewable energy (solar and wind) versus nonrenewable energy (gas and oil)? Why or why not? Explain your response in at least one sentence.

Part E. Wrap-Up

Consult with your geography lab instructor to find out which of the following wrap-up questions you should complete. Attach additional pages to answer the questions as needed.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{8}\)

• What is the most important idea that you learned in this lab? In two to three sentences, explain the concept and why it is important to know.
• What was the most challenging part of this lab? In two to three sentences, explain why it was challenging. If nothing challenged you in the lab, write about what you think challenged your classmates.
• What is one question that you have about what you learned in this lab? Write your question along with one to two sentences explaining why you think your question is important to ask.
• Review the learning objectives on page 1 of this lab. How would you rate your understanding or ability for each learning objective? Write one sentence that addresses each learning objective.
• Sketch a concept map that includes the key ideas from this lab. Include at least five of the terms shown in bold-faced type.
• Create an advertisement to educate your peers on the important information that you learned in this lab. Include at least three key terms in your advertisement. The advertisement should be about half a page in size (about 4 inches by 6 inches).
• One way to think of physical geography is that it is the study of the relationships among variables that impact the Earth's surface. Select two variables discussed in this lab and describe how they are related.
• How does what you learned in this lab relate to your everyday life? In two to three sentences, explain a concept that you learned in this lab and how it relates to your day-to-day actions.
• Write the title, source, and date of a news item that relates to this lab.
• In two to three sentences, discuss how the news item relates to what you have learned in this lab.
• In one to two sentences, discuss whether or not the news item accurately represents the science that you learned. Tip: consider whether or not the news item includes the complexity of the topic.
• What is the name of the occupation that you found?
• Write two to three sentences that summarize the most important information that you learned about this occupation.
• What is one question that you would want to ask a person with this occupation?

[38] Text adapted from NASA is in the public domain

[52] Text by U.S. Department of Energy is in the public domain

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it 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: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “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, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

A Raisin in the Sun

Literary Analysis

Character analysis, character development.

• AK RL.11-12.1,
• AK RL.11-12.3,
• AK W.11-12.1,
• AK W.11-12.2,
• AK W.11-12.4,
• AK W.11-12.9,
• AL 11.CL.R.4,
• AL 11.CL.R.6,
• AL 11.CL.W.11.b,
• AL 11.CL.W.11.c,
• AL 11.RL.W.28,
• AL 11.RL.W.29,
• AL 12.CL.R.4,
• AL 12.CL.R.6,
• AL 12.CL.W.11,
• AL 12.CL.W.11.b,
• AL 12.CL.W.11.c,
• AL 12.RL.W.28,
• AR 11.RC.3.RF,
• AR 11.RC.5.RL,
• AR 11.W.1.S,
• AR 11.W.2.S,
• AR 11.W.4.P,
• AR 12.RC.3.RF,
• AR 12.RC.5.RL,
• AR 12.W.1.S,
• AR 12.W.2.S,
• AR 12.W.4.P,
• AZ 11-12.RL.1,
• AZ 11-12.RL.3,
• AZ 11-12.W.1,
• AZ 11-12.W.2,
• AZ 11-12.W.4,
• AZ 11-12.W.9,
• CA 11-12.RL.1,
• CA 11-12.RL.3,
• CA 11-12.W.1,
• CA 11-12.W.2,
• CA 11-12.W.4,
• CA 11-12.W.9,
• CCSS RL.11-12.1,
• CCSS RL.11-12.3,
• CCSS W.11-12.1,
• CCSS W.11-12.2,
• CCSS W.11-12.4,
• CCSS W.11-12.9,
• CO RL.11-12.1,
• CO RL.11-12.3,
• CO W.11-12.1,
• CO W.11-12.2,
• CO W.11-12.4,
• CO W.11-12.9,
• CT RL.11-12.1,
• CT RL.11-12.3,
• CT W.11-12.1,
• CT W.11-12.2,
• CT W.11-12.4,
• CT W.11-12.9,
• DC RL.11-12.1,
• DC RL.11-12.3,
• DC W.11-12.1,
• DC W.11-12.2,
• DC W.11-12.4,
• DC W.11-12.9,
• DE RL.11-12.1,
• DE RL.11-12.3,
• DE W.11-12.1,
• DE W.11-12.2,
• DE W.11-12.4,
• DE W.11-12.9,
• FL ELA.10.C.1.3,
• FL ELA.10.C.1.4,
• FL ELA.10.C.1.5,
• FL ELA.10.R.1.1,
• FL ELA.K12.EE.1.1,
• FL ELA.K12.EE.3.1,
• GA ELAGSE11-12RL1,
• GA ELAGSE11-12RL3,
• GA ELAGSE11-12W1,
• GA ELAGSE11-12W2,
• GA ELAGSE11-12W4,
• GA ELAGSE11-12W9,
• HI 11-12.RL.1,
• HI 11-12.RL.3,
• HI 11-12.W.1,
• HI 11-12.W.2,
• HI 11-12.W.4,
• HI 11-12.W.9,
• IA RL.11-12.1,
• IA RL.11-12.3,
• IA W.11-12.1,
• IA W.11-12.2,
• IA W.11-12.4,
• IA W.11-12.9,
• ID 11/12.RC.L.5,
• ID 11/12.RC.L.5.a,
• ID 11/12.W.RW.1,
• IL RL.11-12.1,
• IL RL.11-12.3,
• IL W.11-12.1,
• IL W.11-12.2,
• IL W.11-12.4,
• IL W.11-12.9,
• IN 11-12.RC.1,
• IN 11-12.W.2,
• KS RL.11-12.1,
• KS RL.11-12.3,
• KS W.11-12.1,
• KS W.11-12.2,
• KS W.11-12.4,
• KS W.11-12.9,
• KY C.11-12.1,
• KY C.11-12.1.a,
• KY C.11-12.2,
• KY C.11-12.2.a,
• KY C.11-12.3.a,
• KY C.11-12.6,
• KY RL.11-12.1,
• KY RL.11-12.3,
• LA RL.11-12.1,
• LA RL.11-12.3,
• LA W.11-12.1,
• LA W.11-12.2,
• LA W.11-12.4,
• LA W.11-12.9,
• MA RL.11-12.1,
• MA RL.11-12.3,
• MA W.11-12.1,
• MA W.11-12.2,
• MA W.11-12.4,
• MA W.11-12.9,
• MD RL.11-12.1,
• MD RL.11-12.3,
• MD W.11-12.1,
• MD W.11-12.2,
• MD W.11-12.4,
• MD W.11-12.9,
• ME R.4.9-D.a,
• ME R.6.9-D,
• ME R.6.9-D.a,
• ME W.1.9-D,
• ME W.3.9-D,
• MI RL.11-12.1,
• MI RL.11-12.3,
• MI W.11-12.1,
• MI W.11-12.2,
• MI W.11-12.4,
• MI W.11-12.9,
• MN 11.4.1.1.,
• MN 11.4.3.3,
• MN 11.7.1.1,
• MN 11.7.2.2,
• MN 11.7.4.4,
• MN 11.7.9.9,
• MO 11-12.RL.1.A,
• MO 11-12.RL.2.D,
• MO 11-12.W.2.A,
• MO 11-12.W.3.A.a,
• MO 11-12.W.3.A.b,
• MO 11-12.W.3.A.d,
• MS RL.11.1,
• MS RL.11.3,
• MS RL.12.1,
• MS RL.12.3,
• MT RL.11-12.1,
• MT RL.11-12.3,
• MT W.11-12.1,
• MT W.11-12.2,
• MT W.11-12.4,
• MT W.11-12.9,
• NC RL.11-12.1,
• NC RL.11-12.3,
• NC W.11-12.1,
• NC W.11-12.1.g,
• NC W.11-12.2,
• NC W.11-12.2.h,
• NC W.11-12.3.g,
• NC W.11-12.6,
• ND 11-12.R.2,
• ND 11-12.R.6,
• ND 11-12.W.3,
• ND 11-12.W.6,
• NE LA.12.RP.2,
• NE LA.12.W.2,
• NE LA.12.W.4,
• NE LA.12.W.5,
• NH RL.11-12.1,
• NH RL.11-12.3,
• NH W.11-12.1,
• NH W.11-12.2,
• NH W.11-12.4,
• NH W.11-12.9,
• NJ RL.11-12.1,
• NJ RL.11-12.3,
• NJ W.11-12.1,
• NJ W.11-12.2,
• NJ W.11-12.4,
• NJ W.11-12.9,
• NM RL.11-12.1,
• NM RL.11-12.3,
• NM W.11-12.1,
• NM W.11-12.2,
• NM W.11-12.4,
• NM W.11-12.9,
• NV RL.11-12.1,
• NV RL.11-12.3,
• NV W.11-12.1,
• NV W.11-12.2,
• NV W.11-12.4,
• NV W.11-12.9,
• NY 11-12 R.1,
• NY 11-12 R.3,
• NY 11-12 W.1,
• NY 11-12 W.2,
• NY 11-12 W.5,
• OH RL.11-12.1,
• OH RL.11-12.3,
• OH W.11-12.1,
• OH W.11-12.2,
• OH W.11-12.4,
• OH W.11-12.9,
• OK 11.3.R.3,
• OK 11.3.W.2,
• OK 11.3.W.3,
• OK 12.3.R.3,
• OK 12.3.W.2,
• OK 12.3.W.3,
• OR RL.11-12.1,
• OR RL.11-12.3,
• OR W.11-12.1,
• OR W.11-12.2,
• OR W.11-12.4,
• OR W.11-12.9,
• PA CC.1.3.11–12.B,
• PA CC.1.3.11–12.C,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.A,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.B,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.C,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.D,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.F,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.G,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.H,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.K,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.L,
• PA CC.1.4.11–12.S,
• RI RL.11-12.1,
• RI RL.11-12.3,
• RI W.11-12.1,
• RI W.11-12.2,
• RI W.11-12.4,
• RI W.11-12.9,
• SC E3.RL.11,
• SC E3.RL.5.1,
• SC E3.RL.8,
• SC E3.RL.8.1,
• SC E4.RL.11,
• SC E4.RL.5.1,
• SC E4.RL.8,
• SC E4.RL.8.1,
• SD 11-12.RL.1,
• SD 11-12.RL.3,
• SD 11-12.W.1,
• SD 11-12.W.2,
• SD 11-12.W.4,
• SD 11-12.W.9,
• TN 11-12.RL.KID.1,
• TN 11-12.RL.KID.3,
• TN 11-12.W.PDW.4,
• TN 11-12.W.RBPK.9,
• TN 11-12.W.TTP.1,
• TN 11-12.W.TTP.2,
• TX TEKS E3.10,
• TX TEKS E3.4,
• TX TEKS E3.4.F,
• TX TEKS E3.5.B,
• TX TEKS E3.5.C,
• TX TEKS E3.6,
• TX TEKS E3.6.A,
• TX TEKS E3.7,
• TX TEKS E3.9.A,
• TX TEKS E3.9.B,
• TX TEKS E3.9.B.i,
• TX TEKS E3.9.B.ii,
• TX TEKS E3.9.C,
• TX TEKS E4.10,
• TX TEKS E4.10.B,
• TX TEKS E4.10.C,
• TX TEKS E4.4,
• TX TEKS E4.4.F,
• TX TEKS E4.5.B,
• TX TEKS E4.5.C,
• TX TEKS E4.6,
• TX TEKS E4.6.A,
• TX TEKS E4.7,
• TX TEKS E4.9.A,
• TX TEKS E4.9.B,
• TX TEKS E4.9.B.i,
• TX TEKS E4.9.B.ii,
• TX TEKS E4.9.C,
• UT 11-12.R.5,
• UT 11-12.R.7,
• UT 11-12.W.1,
• UT 11-12.W.1.d,
• UT 11-12.W.2,
• UT 11-12.W.2.e,
• UT 11-12.W.3.e,
• VT RL.11-12.1,
• VT RL.11-12.3,
• VT W.11-12.1,
• VT W.11-12.2,
• VT W.11-12.4,
• VT W.11-12.9,
• WA RL.11-12.1,
• WA RL.11-12.3,
• WA W.11-12.1,
• WA W.11-12.2,
• WA W.11-12.4,
• WA W.11-12.9,
• WI R.11-12.1,
• WI R.11-12.3,
• WI W.11-12.2,
• WI W.11-12.2.a,
• WI W.11-12.2.b,
• WI W.11-12.3,
• WI W.11-12.3.a,
• WI W.11-12.3.b,
• WI W.11-12.3.c,
• WI W.11-12.4,
• WI W.11-12.9,
• WV ELA.11.1,
• WV ELA.11.20,
• WV ELA.11.21,
• WV ELA.11.23,
• WV ELA.11.28,
• WV ELA.11.3,
• WV ELA.12.1,
• WV ELA.12.20,
• WV ELA.12.21,
• WV ELA.12.23,
• WV ELA.12.28,
• WV ELA.12.3,
• WY RL.11-12.1,
• WY RL.11-12.3,
• WY W.11-12.1,
• WY W.11-12.2,
• WY W.11-12.4,
• WY W.11-12.9

Literary Devices

• AK RL.11-12.4,
• AR 11.RC.6.RL,
• AR 12.RC.6.RL,
• AZ 11-12.RL.4,
• CA 11-12.RL.4,
• CCSS RL.11-12.4,
• CO RL.11-12.4,
• CT RL.11-12.4,
• DC RL.11-12.4,
• DE RL.11-12.4,
• FL ELA.10.R.3.1,
• FL ELA.10.V.1.3,
• GA ELAGSE11-12RL4,
• HI 11-12.RL.4,
• IA RL.11-12.4,
• ID 11/12.RC.L.5.b,
• IL RL.11-12.4,
• IN 11-12.RC.11,
• IN 11-12.RC.13,
• KS RL.11-12.4,
• KY RL.11-12.4,
• LA RL.11-12.4,
• MA RL.11-12.4,
• MD RL.11-12.4,
• ME R.7.9-D,
• ME R.7.9-D.a,
• MI RL.11-12.4,
• MN 11.4.4.4,
• MO 11-12.RL.1.B,
• MO 11-12.RL.2.C,
• MS RL.11.4,
• MS RL.12.4,
• MT RL.11-12.4,
• NC RL.11-12.4,
• ND 11-12.R.5,
• NE LA.12.V.2,
• NH RL.11-12.4,
• NJ RL.11-12.4,
• NM RL.11-12.4,
• NV RL.11-12.4,
• NY 11-12 R.4,
• OH RL.11-12.4,
• OK 11.3.R.4,
• OK 11.4.R.2,
• OK 12.3.R.4,
• OK 12.4.R.2,
• OR RL.11-12.4,
• PA CC.1.3.11–12.F,
• RI RL.11-12.4,
• SC E3.RL.10,
• SC E3.RL.10.1,
• SC E3.RL.4.3,
• SC E3.RL.9,
• SC E3.RL.9.1,
• SC E4.RL.10,
• SC E4.RL.10.1,
• SC E4.RL.4.3,
• SC E4.RL.9,
• SC E4.RL.9.1,
• SD 11-12.RL.4,
• TN 11-12.RL.CS.4,
• TX TEKS E3.6.C,
• TX TEKS E3.8,
• TX TEKS E3.8.D,
• TX TEKS E3.8.E,
• TX TEKS E4.8,
• TX TEKS E4.8.D,
• TX TEKS E4.8.E,
• UT 11-12.R.8,
• VT RL.11-12.4,
• WA RL.11-12.4,
• WI R.11-12.4,
• WV ELA.11.7,
• WV ELA.12.7,
• WY RL.11-12.4,

Social-Historical Context

• AK RL.11-12.5,
• AL 11.CL.R.5,
• AL 12.CL.R.5,
• AZ 11-12.RL.5,
• CA 11-12.RL.5,
• CCSS RL.11-12.5,
• CO RL.11-12.5,
• CT RL.11-12.5,
• DC RL.11-12.5,
• DE RL.11-12.5,
• FL ELA.10.R.2.1,
• GA ELAGSE11-12RL5,
• HI 11-12.RL.5,
• IA RL.11-12.5,
• ID 11/12.VD.WB.2.d,
• IL RL.11-12.5,
• IN 11-12.RC.3,
• KS RL.11-12.5,
• KY RL.11-12.5,
• LA RL.11-12.5,
• MA RL.11-12.5,
• MD RL.11-12.5,
• ME R.8.9-D,
• ME R.8.9-D.a,
• MI RL.11-12.5,
• MN 11.4.5.5,
• MO 11-12.RL.2.A,
• MS RL.11.5,
• MS RL.12.5,
• MT RL.11-12.5,
• NC RL.11-12.5,
• NE LA.12.RP.4,
• NH RL.11-12.5,
• NJ RL.11-12.5,
• NM RL.11-12.5,
• NV RL.11-12.5,
• NY 11-12 R.5,
• OH RL.11-12.5,
• OR RL.11-12.5,
• PA CC.1.3.11–12.E,
• RI RL.11-12.5,
• SC E3.RL.12,
• SC E3.RL.12.2,
• SC E4.RL.12,
• SC E4.RL.12.2,
• SD 11-12.RL.5,
• TN 11-12.RL.CS.5,
• TX TEKS E3.7.C,
• TX TEKS E4.6.C,
• TX TEKS E4.7.C,
• UT 11-12.R.10,
• VT RL.11-12.5,
• WA RL.11-12.5,
• WI R.11-12.5,
• WV ELA.11.8,
• WV ELA.12.8,
• WY RL.11-12.5,

Themes & Motifs

Central theme.

• AK RL.11-12.2,
• AR 11.RC.1.RF,
• AR 11.RC.2.RF,
• AR 12.RC.1.RF,
• AR 12.RC.2.RF,
• AZ 11-12.RL.2,
• CA 11-12.RL.2,
• CCSS RL.11-12.2,
• CO RL.11-12.2,
• CT RL.11-12.2,
• DC RL.11-12.2,
• DE RL.11-12.2,
• FL ELA.10.R.1.2,
• GA ELAGSE11-12RL2,
• HI 11-12.RL.2,
• IA RL.11-12.2,
• ID 11/12.RC.TC.1,
• IL RL.11-12.2,
• IN 11-12.RC.2,
• IN 11-12.RC.5,
• KS RL.11-12.2,
• KY RL.11-12.2,
• LA RL.11-12.2,
• MA RL.11-12.2,
• MD RL.11-12.2,
• ME R.5.9-D,
• ME R.5.9-D.a,
• ME R.5.9-D.b,
• MI RL.11-12.2,
• MN 11.4.2.2,
• MO 11-12.RL.1.D,
• MS RL.11.2,
• MS RL.12.2,
• MT RL.11-12.2,
• NC RL.11-12.2,
• ND 11-12.R.3.b,
• ND 11-12.R.4,
• NE LA.12.RP.1,
• NE LA.12.RP.6,
• NH RL.11-12.2,
• NJ RL.11-12.2,
• NM RL.11-12.2,
• NV RL.11-12.2,
• NY 11-12 R.2,
• OH RL.11-12.2,
• OH RL.11-12.2.a,
• OK 11.2.R.1,
• OK 12.2.R.1,
• OR RL.11-12.2,
• PA CC.1.3.11–12.A,
• RI RL.11-12.2,
• SC E3.RL.6,
• SC E3.RL.6.1,
• SC E4.RL.6,
• SC E4.RL.6.1,
• SD 11-12.RL.2,
• TN 11-12.RL.KID.2,
• TX TEKS E3.4.G,
• TX TEKS E3.6.B,
• TX TEKS E4.4.G,
• TX TEKS E4.6.B,
• UT 11-12.R.6,
• VT RL.11-12.2,
• WA RL.11-12.2,
• WI R.11-12.2,
• WV ELA.11.2,
• WV ELA.12.2,
• WY RL.11-12.2,

Sonnet 130 Summary & Analysis by William Shakespeare

• Line-by-Line Explanation & Analysis
• Poetic Devices
• Vocabulary & References
• Form, Meter, & Rhyme Scheme
• Line-by-Line Explanations

"Sonnet 130" was written by the English poet and playwright William Shakespeare. Though most likely written in the 1590s, the poem wasn't published until 1609. Like many other sonnets from the same period, Shakespeare's poem wrestles with beauty, love, and desire. He tries to find a more authentic, realistic way to talk about these things in the sonnet, and gleefully dismisses the highly artificial poems of praise his peers were writing. Shakespeare's poem also departs from his contemporaries in terms of formal structure — it is a new kind of sonnet—the "Shakespearean" sonnet.

• Read the full text of “Sonnet 130: My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”

The Full Text of “Sonnet 130: My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”

1 My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; 

2 Coral is far more red than her lips' red; 

3 If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun; 

4 If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. 

5 I have seen roses damasked, red and white, 

6 But no such roses see I in her cheeks; 

7 And in some perfumes is there more delight 

8 Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. 

9 I love to hear her speak, yet well I know 

10 That music hath a far more pleasing sound; 

11 I grant I never saw a goddess go; 

12 My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground. 

13    And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare 

14    As any she belied with false compare.

“Sonnet 130: My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” Summary

“sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” themes.

Beauty and Love

• See where this theme is active in the poem.

Love, Personality, and the Superficial

Line-by-line explanation & analysis of “sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”.

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; 

Coral is far more red than her lips' red;  If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;  If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. 

I have seen roses damasked, red and white,  But no such roses see I in her cheeks;  And in some perfumes is there more delight  Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. 

I love to hear her speak, yet well I know  That music hath a far more pleasing sound;  I grant I never saw a goddess go;  My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground. 

Lines 13-14

   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare     As any she belied with false compare.

“Sonnet 130: My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” Symbols

• See where this symbol appears in the poem.

“Sonnet 130: My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” Poetic Devices & Figurative Language

• See where this poetic device appears in the poem.

Parallelism

End-stopped line, “sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” vocabulary.

Select any word below to get its definition in the context of the poem. The words are listed in the order in which they appear in the poem.

• See where this vocabulary word appears in the poem.

Form, Meter, & Rhyme Scheme of “Sonnet 130: My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”

Rhyme scheme, “sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” speaker, “sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” setting, literary and historical context of “sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”, more “sonnet 130: my mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun” resources, external resources.

Harryette Mullen's "Dim Lady" — Read the full text of Harryette Mullen's "Dim Lady," a rewriting of Shakespeare's Sonnet 130.

"Sonnet 130" Glossary — A glossary and commentary on Sonnet 130 from Buckingham University.

1609 Quarto Printing of Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 — An image of Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 as it appeared in its first printing, in 1609.

Reading of "Sonnet 130" — Ian Midlane reads "Sonnet 130" for the BBC, introduced by some smooth jazz.

Blazon Lady — See an image of Charles Berger's blazon lady and read Thomas Campion's contemporaneous blazon. 

Sidney's Astrophil and Stella #9 — Read the full text of Sidney's earlier blazon, Astrophil and Stella #9.  

LitCharts on Other Poems by William Shakespeare

Sonnet 116: Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Sonnet 129: Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame

Sonnet 12: When I do count the clock that tells the time

Sonnet 138: When my love swears that she is made of truth

Sonnet 141: In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes

Sonnet 147: My love is as a fever, longing still

Sonnet 18: Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

Sonnet 19: Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws

Sonnet 20: A woman’s face with nature’s own hand painted

Sonnet 27: "Weary with toil, I haste me to my bed"

Sonnet 29: When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes

Sonnet 30: When to the sessions of sweet silent thought

Sonnet 33: Full many a glorious morning have I seen

Sonnet 45: The other two, slight air and purging fire

Sonnet 55: Not marble nor the gilded monuments

Sonnet 60: Like as the waves make towards the pebbl'd shore

Sonnet 65 ("Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea")

Sonnet 71: No longer mourn for me when I am dead

Sonnet 73: That time of year thou mayst in me behold

Sonnet 94: "They that have power to hurt"

Ask LitCharts AI: The answer to your questions

2269 Chestnut Street, #477 San Francisco CA 94123

Customer Reviews

Original Drafts

Support team is ready to answer any questions at any time of day and night

Is my essay writer skilled enough for my draft?

We select our writers from various domains of academics and constantly focus on enhancing their skills for our writing essay services. All of them have had expertise in this academic world for more than 5 years now and hold significantly higher degrees of education. Once the writers get your topic in hand, only after thorough research on the topic, they move towards the direction to write it. They take up information from credible sources and assure you that no plagiarism could be found in your writing from our writing service website.

• On-schedule delivery
• Compliance with the provided brief
• Chat with your helper
• Ongoing 24/7 support
• Real-time alerts
• Free revisions
• Free quality check
• Free title page
• Free bibliography
• Any citation style
• Admission/Application Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Argumentative Essay
• Book Report Review
• Dissertation