Gifted Education International 2009 Vol25, pp 286-295

2009 A B Academic Publishers

Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Foundation for Critical Thinking

close reading, substantiv e

writing and critical
thinking: foundational skills
essential to the educated mind
We know, not by a direct and simple vision, not at a glance, but, as it were, by piecemeal and
accumulation, by a mental process, by going round an object, by the comparison, the combination, the
mutual correction, the continual adaptation, of many partial notions, by the employment,
concentration, and joint action of many faculties and exercises of mind.
All I say is, call things by their right names, and do not confuse together ideas which are essentially
different. A thorough knowledge of one science and a superficial acquaintance with many, are not the
same thing; a smattering of a hundred things or a memory for detail, is not a philosophical or
comprehensive view. Recreations are not education; accomplishments are not education. Do not say, the
people must be educated, when, after all, you only mean, amused, refreshed, soothed, put into good
spirits and good humour ...
John Henry Newman, 1952

One seminal goal of gifted education

programs is the development and
cultivation of the intellect. To cultivate the
intellect requires developing intellectual
skills, tools of mind that enable the thinker to
reason well through any question or issue, to
think through complexities and confusions,
to empathize with competing viewpoints
and world views. It requires, in short, the
tools of critical thinking. Developing the
intellect also presupposes the ability to read
closely and write substantively. And it
entails understanding the intimate
connection between close reading,
substantive writing, and critical thinking.
286, Gifted Education International

When we have a rigorous conception of

critical thinking clearly in mind, we can
develop an approach to reading, writing,
and thinking that then seamlessly leads to
competency standards for close reading and
substantive writing, as well as performance
indicators and outcomes based on critical
thinking principles. The outcome measures
clarify the kinds of classroom activities
relevant to teaching students to read, write,
and learn well.
Thus the general approach we recommend
incorporates a systematic use of critical
thinking concepts interconnected with

reading and writing strategies in the design

of instruction.
In this article, we:
introduce a robust conception of critical
thinking, one which we believe should
guide gifted, and indeed all, education;
briefly detail the relationship between
skilled reading, writing and thinking;
outline competency standards for close
reading and substantive writing;
lay out five levels of close reading and
substantive writing, and provide a
sample of the first level of close reading,
namely paraphrasing.
We begin with a brief introduction to critical
thinking.

The Nature of Critical Thinking

The basic nature of critical thinking is simple.
Human thinking left to itself is often flawed:
unclear, inaccurate, irrelevant. When we
recognize this problem, this obstacle to
quality in our lives, we use our thinking to
improve our thinking. We use our capacity to
think at a higher level (using critical thinking
concepts) to work on and improve our
thinking (trapped otherwise on a lower level).
Flawed thinking is then minimized.
We can put this into a "definition" as
follows: "Critical thinking is the art of

analyzing and assessing thinking with a view to

improving it." We analyze thinking in order
to assess it. We assess it in order to improve
it---making it more clear, more accurate,
more logical, more insightful, etc ... as a
result. Critical thinking, then, is relevant
whenever our thinking matters to us--whenever we care enough about it to take
our thinking in hand, hold it up against
relevant intellectual standards, and raise it to
a higher level as a result.

Put another way, critical thinking is that

mode of thinking - about any subject,
content, or problem - in which the thinker
improves the quality of his or her thinking
by skillfully taking charge of the structures
inherent in thinking and imposing
intellectual standards upon them.
A well cultivated critical thinker, then:
raises vital questions and problems,
formulating them clearly and precisely;
relevant
assesses
and
gathers
information, using abstract ideas to
interpret it effectively
comes to well-reasoned conclusions and
solutions, testing them against relevant
criteria and standards;
thinks open-mindedly within alternative
systems of thought, recognizing and
assessing, as need be, their assumptions,
implications, and practical consequences;
and,
communicates effectively with others in
figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, selfdirected, self-disciplined, self-monitored,
and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes
assent to rigorous standards of excellence
and mindful command of their use.
Critical thinking is essential to
reasonable, rational living because for
whatever we do, we use our thinking to do it.
The thinking we do as parents determines
the quality of our parenting. The thinking we
do as teachers determines the quality of our
teaching. The thinking our students do as
students determines the quality of their
learning. In like manner: the quality of our

thinking as readers and writers determines the

quality of our reading and writing.

Volume 25 No 3, 2009, 287

Close Reading, Substantive Writing,

and Critical Thinking
Close reading, substantive writing and
critical thinking are three deeply interwoven
skill-sets essential to the educated mind.
Development in one contributes to
development in the other two. Deficiencies
in one reflect and lead to deficiencies in the
other two. Taught together as three
inseparable processes, we arm our students
with tools for lifelong learning. We pave the
way to mastery of content. We foster success
in decision-making, problem solving, and,
believe it or not, even test-taking. When
approached insightfully, reading, writing
and thinking create a whole that is greater
than the sum of their parts. The key insight is
that students acquire the ability to read a text
closely only when they can write
substantively about what they have read,
and to do either, they must use the most
basic tools of critical thinking (as quality
controls) in the process. Let us approach this
insight from a couple of interrelated angles.

Reading, Writing and the Educated

Mind
Close reading and substantive writing are
powerful processes in the acquisition of
knowledge. To understand this, it is
important to recognize, first, that the only
way students can learn important ideas is to
construct them in their own minds, to
actively bring them into their thinking using
their thinking. At the same time, there are
basic critical thinking abilities inherent in
skilled reading and writing. These abilities
are fundamental to the active construction of
knowledge, and hence to the development of
the educated mind.

288, Gifted Education International

To read a text well, students must learn

how to read a paragraph well. To read a
paragraph well students must learn to read a
sentence well. To read a sentence well,
students must learn how to construct and
elaborate its meaning (accurately) in their
mind. Put it in terms of basic critical thinking
strategies: If students cannot accurately
state, elaborate, exemplify, and illustrate
what is said in a text, they do not understand
what is meant by what is said. In other
words, reading, at its very essence, involves
fabricating the thinking of an author in one's
own mind in such a way that were the
author to hear the summary, he or she would
say, "Excellent, you understand exactly what
I am saying!"
Unfortunately, many people, as a result of
faulty learning, read in superficial
impressionistic ways, vaguely, often
erroneously, creating misleading facsimiles of
what they read. They cannot be trusted to
accurately capture the meaning of the texts
they read. Some few, of course, arise to
cleverness in construing texts, even though
their construal distorts what the text is saying.

Acquiring Intellectual Discipline

At present many students are poor readers
and writers (yes, even "gifted students").
They are poor readers and writers because
they are poor thinkers. They are poor
readers, writers, and thinkers not because
they are incapable of learning to read, write,
and think well, but because they have never
been taught the foundations of reading,
writing, and thinking. Most importantly
they have not been taught the elements of
intellectual discipline. They lack strategies
for improving their reading, writing, or
thinking. They lack the intellectual
foundations that would enable them to excel
in all three domains. They have not learned

the difference between flawed impressionistic reading and disciplined close reading,
between flashy writing and substantial
writing, between undisciplined uncritical
thinking and disciplined critical thinking.
Educated persons understand the
important difference between writing that is
merely fluent (but says nothing worth
saying) and writing that is substantial (that
says something important). They realize, in
other words, the difference between "style"
and "substance."
To read and write with skill and insight,
students need to understand the basic theory
behind close reading, substantive writing,
and critical thinking. And that theory is
simple at its roots. Most of all, students need
to be engaged in activities that connect
reading, writing, and thinking to the
acquisition of knowledge. They need to learn
how to digest what they read, internalize
"content," read-write-think ideas into their
minds.

thought. As we read and write, our thinking

should be clear and precise. It should be
relevant and logical. Most of all, it should be
accurate. If the thinking of students is
unclear, imprecise, irrelevant, illogical, and
inaccurate; their reading, writing, and
learning will be similarly flawed. They will
mistake vague ideas for clear ones. They will
think they understand when they don't.
Their learning will take on the quality of
activated ignorance.
For example, suppose students read the
sentence, "Democracy is a form of government in which the people rule." Students
skilled in close reading will recognize that
they don't really know what this sentence
means until they answer the following
questions: "Who exactly are the people?" and
"What exactly is meant by the word rule?" In
other words, they will recognize the
importance of explicating the meaning of the
words people and rule. They will see that
understanding these concepts lies at the heart
of giving meaning to the sentence.

Students need daily practice in

disciplined reading, writing, and thinking to
become disciplined thinkers. They must
develop the habit of careful reading and
writing. Through this practice they can
transform their minds. They can gain skills
enabling them to make substantia/learning a
routine feature of their lives.

Similarly, if students cannot detect

significant vagueness and ambiguity within
texts, they will have difficulty formulating
significant concepts as they write. To write
substantively, students must be able to read
the works of important authors carefully,
effectively bringing ideas from the text into
their thinking, arranging those ideas
logically in clear prose style.

The Relationship Between Reading

Well, Writing Well, and Thinking
Well

In superficial uncritical reading, students

often forget and/ or distort what they read.
In superficial writing, they misrepresent
what is in the texts they are called upon to
summarize. Superficial writing does not
help students take ownership of the
substance about which they write. It
produces instead an illusion of knowledge. It
opens the door to multiple forms of
misunderstanding.

Let us look at some important relationships.

There is a difference between superficial
reading, writing, and thinking; and reading,
writing, and thinking well. The difference is
clarified by critical thinking standards for

Volume 25 No 3, 2009, 289

Thus, close reading and substantive

writing are symbiotic skills of disciplined
thought. Both require that we think from
multiple perspectives. Both require that we
learn and use intellectual standards. Both
require that we learn and use the elements of
reasoning1 For example, both require the
intellectual ability to:
clarify purposes- an author's purpose(s)
(when we read}, and our own purpose(s}
(when we write);
formulate clear questions - those that an
author is asking (as we read) and those
we are pursuing (as we write);
distinguish accurate and relevant
information from inaccurate and
irrelevant information - in texts that we
read and in preparation for our own
writing;
identify significant and deep concepts those of an author and those that we want
to guide our thinking while we write;
trace logical implications - those of an
author's thinking, and those that may
follow from our written work.
These are just a few examples that shed
light on the intimate relationship between
close reading and substantive writing and on
the important connection between
disciplined thought and skilled reading and
writing. As students learn to read closely,
write substantively, and think critically, they
come to see the many ways in which the
three processes are interrelated.

Competency Standards for Close

Reading and Substantive Writing
Now we are ready to look at competency
standards for close reading and substantive

writing, including the critical thinking

principles they are based on, the
performance indicators they entail, and the
outcomes they generate. These standards
can be used as guides for fostering and
assessing close reading and substantive
writing skills. Note that the skills outlined
here are presupposed in many of the tests
students are required to take in multiple
domains and for multiple purposes.

Standard: Skills in the Art of Close Reading

Students who think critically read texts
worth reading and take ownership of the
most important ideas in texts.

Critical Thinking Principle

To become educated persons, students must
read texts closely and, through that process,
take ownership of the most important ideas
in them.

Performance indicators and dispositions

Students who think critically routinely read
in texts that are significant and thus expand
their worldview. Recognizing that every text
has a purpose, they clarify the purpose of
texts as they read them. Recognizing that
close reading requires active engagement in
reading, they create an inner dialog with the
text as they read-questioning, summarizing
and connecting important ideas with other
important ideas.
Outcomes include:
Students reflect as they read.
Students monitor how they are reading
as they are reading-distinguishing
between what they understand in the
text and what they do not understand.
Students accurately summarize and
elaborate (in their own words) texts as

Note: For further reading see The Thinker's Guide to the Foundations of Analytic Thinking (2006); The Thinker's Guide to
How to Write a Paragraph and Beyond: The Art of Close Reading (2003); and A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking
Competency Standards (2005) by Linda Elder and Richard Paul, Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation For Critical
Thinking, www.criticalthinking.org.
290, Gifted Education International

they read.
Students give examples, from their
experience, of ideas in texts.
Students connect the core ideas in a text
to other core ideas they understand.
Students take the core ideas they obtain
through reading and apply them to their
lives.
Students accurately paraphrase what
they read (e.g. sentence by sentence).
Students accurately and logically
explicate the thesis of a paragraph:
First, students state the main point of the
paragraph in one or two sentences.
Second, students elaborate what they
have paraphrased. In other words, ...
Third, students give examples of the
meaning by tying it to concrete situations
in the real world. For example, ...
Fourth,
students
generate
apt
illustrations: metaphors, analogies,
pictures, or diagrams of the basic thesis
to connect the thesis to other meanings
they already understand.
Students analyze the logic of what they
read (its purpose, its main question, the
information it contains, its main idea).
Students evaluate what they read (for
clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance,
depth, breadth, logic, and significance).
Students accurately role-play an author's
viewpoint, as presented in a text.

Standard: Skills in the Art of Substantive

Writing
Students who think critically write papers
that say something worth saying about
something worth saying something about.

Critical Thinking Principle

Educated persons are able to write in such a
way as to say something substantive, and
understand the importance of writing to
learning.

Performance indicators and dispositions

Students who think critically use writing as
an important tool both for communicating
important ideas and for learning. They use
writing to deepen their understanding of
important concepts and to clarify
interrelationships between concepts. They
consistently write in such a way as to
become more clear, precise, accurate,
relevant, deep, broad, logical and significant
as thinkers. In writing, they are able to
clearly and accurately analyze and evaluate
ideas in texts and in their own thinking.
They consistently learn to write as they write
to learn. In other words, they use writing as
an important tool for learning ideas deeply
and permanently.

Outcomes include:
Students reflect as they write.
Students monitor how they are writing
as they are writing-distinguishing
between what they understand in the
text and what they do not understand.
Students accurately summarize (in their
words) texts they read, or ideas they
hear.
Students routinely give examples from
their experience as they write, to
exemplify important ideas.
Students explicitly connect core ideas to
other core ideas as they write.
Students write about ideas that apply to
their lives.
Students demonstrate the ability to
explicate in writing the thesis they are
developing or defending:
They state the main point of what they
are saying.
They elaborate their main point.
They give examples of what they mean.
They create analogies and metaphors
that help readers understand what they
mean.
Students demonstrate the ability to
Volume 25 No 3, 2009, 291

clearly and accurately analyze, in

writing, the logic of a text, chapter,
academic subject, significant concept,
etc.: (its purpose, its main question, the
information it contains, its main idea, ... )
Students consistently use universal
intellectual standards in their writing,
routinely checking their writing for
clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance,
depth, breadth, logic, significance, and
fairness.

Five Levels of Close Reading and

Substantive Writing
We are now ready to explicate five levels of
close reading and substantive writing. We
begin with the least challenging of the levels
and proceed to the most challenging. The
"easiest," we might add, is also one of the
most powerful and should permeate
instruction. Once deeply in place it will
insure that students are genuinely
constructing the knowledge we all too often
mistakenly think we are teaching them.

First Level
The first level of ability is that of accurately
translating an author's wording into your
own. In other words, you put the words and
thoughts of the author into your words. Your
paraphrase is successful only to the extent
that your words capture the essential
meaning of the original text. It is successful
only if the reformulation of the text opens
up, or at least begins to open up, the meaning
of the original.
Hence, if you read the following in a text:
"democracy is rule by the people," your
paraphrase of it might read, "Democracy
exists only to the extent that there is a broad
basis of equality of political power among
the people at large. This means that all
292, Gifted Education International

people within the state should have

relatively equal power and equal input in
determining what the laws will be. By
implication, a state fails to be democratic to
the extent that a few people - whether they
be wealthy or otherwise influential - have
significantly more political power than do
the mass of citizens." The paraphrase helps
open up the text because it points us to
possible problems in assessing a country for
the degree to which it is democratic, for
example, "Does it restrict the influence of
those with wealth so that they cannot use it
to exercise a disproportionate influence in
the decision-making of the government?"

Second Level
The second level of proficiency is the ability
to state, elaborate, exemplify, and illustrate
the thesis of a paragraph. Consider the four
questions that can be used to assess writing
for clarity:
Could you state your basic point in one
simple sentence?
Could you elaborate your basic point
more fully (in other words)?
Could you give me an example of your
point from your experience?
Could you give me an analogy or
metaphor to help me see what you
mean?
Each of these clarification strategies requires
substantive writing skills.

Third Level
The third level of proficiency is the ability to
deconstruct (analyze) a text into the
components that document the "logic" of the
text. It enables the reader to explain the
system that underlies the text. Insightful
readers look for these components in making
sense of a text. Insightful writers explain
these components in their writing. It is
important that students understand these
components as interrelated and non-linear in

nature. In principle, one could explain these

components in any order. Change any one of
them and all of the others shift accordingly.
In any case, whether in reading or writing,
students should be able to explain:
The purpose of a text.
Its most important question, problem, or
issue.
Its most significant information or data.
Its most basic conclusion.
Its most basic concepts, theories, or ideas.
Its most fundamental assumptions.
Its most significant implications.
Its point of view.

The Fourth Level

The fourth level of proficiency is the ability
to evaluate or assess the text from the point
of view of eight basic intellectual standards.
We assess what we read by applying
intellectual standards to it, standards such as
clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance,
significance, depth, breadth, logic, and

fairness. Some authors adhere to some

standards while violating others. For
example, an author might be clear in stating
his or her position, while at the same time
using information that is not accurate. An
author might use relevant information but
fail to think through the complexities of the
issue (that is, fail to achieve depth). An
author's argument might be logical but not
significant. As readers, then, we need to
become adept at assessing the quality of an
author's reasoning. We do this only after we
can accurately state in our own words an
author's meaning.
To assess an author's work, answer the
following questions:
Does the author clearly state his or her
meaning, or is the text vague, confused,
or muddled in some way?
Is the author accurate in what he or she
claims?
Is the author sufficiently precise in
providing details and specifics when
specifics are relevant?

Volume 25 No 3, 2009, 293

 Does the author introduce irrelevant

material, thereby wandering from
his I her purpose?
Does the author take us into the
important complexities inherent in the
subject, or is the writing superficial?
Does the author consider other relevant
points of view, or is the writing overly
narrow in its perspective?
Is the text internally consistent, or does
the
text
contain
unexplained
contradictions?
Is the text significant, or is the subject
dealt with in a trivial manner?
Does the author display fairness, or does
the author take a one-sided, narrow
approach?

The Fifth Level

The fifth level of proficiency entails the
student's ability to actively role-play the
thinking of the author. Role-playing an
author is, in one way, the ultimate test of
understanding. When we role-play, in
essence we say: "Look, I will enter the mind
of the author and speak as if I were the
author. I will discuss any questions you may
have about the text by adopting the voice of
the author and will answer your questions as
I think the author would. I will speak in the
first person singular. I will be like an actor
playing the part of Hamlet. I will try to be
the author fully and truly for the purpose of
this exercise."
To role-play an author, students need a
partner who has read the text and is willing
to ask important questions about it.
Responding to questions forces the student
to think within the author's logic. Having
students practice speaking within the voice
of an author is a good way to get a personal
sense of whether they have really absorbed
the core meanings of a text.

Sample of the First Level of

Proficiency:
Paraphrasing a Sentence
To teach students how to take ownership of
the meaning of a sentence, we give them
multiple sentences to read and paraphrase.
To model what we want them to do, we first
give them sample paraphrases of sentences.
We then give them sentences to paraphrase
for themselves (either orally, working in
pairs, or in writing). Depending on the
difficulty of the passage, the students may
have to struggle with the details and wrestle
with the sense of what is said. They may
have to discuss dictionary entries of key
words and consider the implications of
different interpretations. All of this is
intellectually healthy and will help them
discipline their minds.
Consider the following model cases:
Sentence to be paraphrased:

He who passively accepts evil is as much

involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sample paraphrase:
People who see unethical things being
done to others but who fail to intervene
(when they are able to intervene) are as
unethical as those who are causing harm
in the first place.

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have

unless you are willing to give it to others.
William Allen White

If you want to be free, you have to allow

others their freedom.

I can't understand why people are frightened

of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.
John Cage

294, Gifted Education International

Many of the ideas that have permeated

human thinking throughout the years are
harmful or dangerous. An old idea is not
necessarily a good idea, nor is a new idea
necessarily a bad one.

The legitimate powers of government extend

to such acts as are only injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson
The only authority government should
have is to stop people from harming one
another.

The propagandist's purpose is to make one set

of people forget that certain other sets of
people are human.
Aldous Huxley
The goal of propaganda is to convince
people that other groups of people are
inhuman, and therefore not worthy of
respect and just treatment.

The shepherd always tries to persuade the

sheep that their interests and his own are the
same.
Stendhal
People in control always try to
manipulate people into believing that
what is good for those in control is good
for the people as well.

Conclusion
When students learn the interrelated,
dynamic relationship between critical
thinking, close reading, and substantive
writing; when they are deeply practiced in
these skill sets; they possess intellectual
abilities and dispositions that are the
hallmark of the educated mind. They display
intellectual empathy and fair-mindedness.
They persevere through complexities in
reading and writing. They closely analyze
and carefully assess what they are reading,
what they are writing, what they are
thinking. They distinguish what they know
from what they do not know, what they
understand from what they do not
understand. They replace faulty beliefs with
sounder ones. They look increasingly like
the persons that John Henry Newman (1852,
The Idea of a University), described more
than a hundred and fifty years ago:
It is education which gives a man a clear
conscious view of his own opinions and
judgments, a truth in developing them, an
eloquence in expressing them, and a force in
urging them. It teaches him to see things as
they are, to go right to the point, to
disentangle a skein of thought, to detect
what is sophistical, and to discard what is
irrelevant. It prepares him to master any
subject with facility.

Volume 25 No 3, 2009, 295