This paper attempts three things. It invites you to engage critically with me in the adjudication of a particular controversy. It attempts to argue for and exemplify important procedures which distinguish good and bad thinking in a critical mode. And it argues the case for the separate teaching of critical thinking (henceforth CT).

278 non-freshman university students taking a l2-week critical thinking course in a large single-section class, with computer-assisted guided practice as a replacement for small-group discussion, and all testing in machine-scored multiple-choice format, improved their critical thinking skills, as measured by the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, by half a standard deviation, a moderate improvement. The improvement was more than that reported with a traditional format without computer-assisted instruction, but less than that reported with a format using both computer-assisted instruction and (...) essay-type assignments. Further studies are needed to test hypotheses suggested by these results. (shrink)

Competence is a term which is making its entrance in the university. How might it be understood at this level? The Limits of Competence takes an uncompromising line, providing a sustained critique of the notion of competence as wholly inadequate for higher education.Currently, we are seeing the displacement of one limited version of competence by another even more limited interpretation. In the older definition - one of academic competence - notions of disciplines, objectivity and truth have been central. In the (...) new version, competence is given an operational twist and is marked out by know-how, competence and skills. In this operationalism, the key question is not 'What do students understand?' but 'What can students do?'The book develops an alternative view, suggesting that, for our universities, a third and heretical conception of human being is worth considering. Our curricula might, instead, offer an education for life. (shrink)

This paper argues that general skills and the varieties of subject-specific discourse are both important for teaching, learning and practising critical thinking. The former is important because it outlines the principles of good reasoning simpliciter (what constitutes sound reasoning patterns, invalid inferences, and so on). The latter is important because it outlines how the general principles are used and deployed in the service of ‘academic tribes’. Because critical thinking skills are—in part, at least—general skills, they can be applied to all (...) disciplines and subject-matter indiscriminately. General skills can help us assess reasoning independently of the vagaries of the linguistic discourse we express arguments in. The paper looks at the debate between the ‘specifists’—those who stress the importance of critical thinking understood as a subject-specific discourse—and the ‘generalists’—those that stress the importance of critical thinking understood independently of disciplinary context. The paper suggests that the ‘debate’ between the specifists and the generalists amounts to a fallacy of the false alternative, and presents a combinatory-‘infusion’ approach to critical thinking. (shrink)