Topoi
DOI 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
Robert H. Ennis1
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract This essay offers a comprehensive vision for a
higher education program incorporating critical thinking
across the curriculum (CTAC) at hypothetical Alpha Col-
lege, employing a rigorous detailed conception of critical
thinking called ‘‘The Alpha Conception of Critical Think-
ing’’. The program starts with a 1-year, required, freshman
course, two-thirds of which focuses on a set of general
critical thinking dispositions and abilities. The final third
uses subject-matter issues to reinforce general critical
thinking dispositions and abilities, teach samples of subject
matter, and introduce subject-specific critical thinking.
Subject-matter departmental and other units will make
long-range plans for incorporating critical thinking in
varying amounts in subject-matter courses, culminating in
a written Senior Thesis/Project involving investigating,
taking, and defending a position, which reinforce critical
thinking abilities and dispositions and increase subject-
matter knowledge. Teaching approaches used in the pro-
gram are involving and based on the principle, ‘‘We learn
what we use.’’ Both summative and formative assessment
are employed as appropriate. Coordination and support are
extensive. Objections and concerns are discussed, and
alternatives, including possible transitions, are considered.
An extended review of research supports moving toward
CTAC.
Keywords Alpha conception of critical thinking
Critical
thinking
Critical thinking across the curriculum
General
critical thinking
Subject-specific critical thinking

Critical thinking glossary
Problem-based learning (PBL)

& Robert H. Ennis
RHEnnis@illinois.edu
1
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Lecture-discussion teaching (LDT)
Transfer
Critical
thinking principles
Critical thinking abilities
Critical
thinking dispositions
1 Introduction
The current interest in education for critical thinking can be
traced to Dewey (1933, p 9; first edition 1910), but the
recent explosion of interest in critical thinking in the
United States did not really start until the late 1970s,
expressed by, among many others, the (Rockefeller)
Commission on the Humanities (1980, p 37). Interest has
expanded further since then (Ennis 2011a, pp 4–8). I now
regularly see mention and endorsements of critical thinking
in the newspapers and in college mission statements, and
note that presidents from both major political parties in the
United States have endorsed critical thinking as a goal of
education. In his preface to America 2000 (U. S. Office of
Education 1991) President George H.W. Bush supported
six specific goals for education, one of which calls for more
students to have an advanced ability to think critically. And
President Barak Obama in his State of the Union Address
in 2014 listed critical thinking as one of six basic goals of
education.
Employers feel that critical thinking is very important
(Casserly 2012), as do higher education faculty (DeAn-
gelo et al. 2009; Bok 2006). But recent media reports
have deemed critical thinking development in higher
education to be unsatisfactory (Belkin 2015; De Vise
2012). Arum and Roksa (2011) studied the degree of
improvement in critical thinking from freshman to senior
year at 24 higher education institutions, and deemed the
results insufficient.
123

Assuming that this dissatisfaction is at least partly jus-
tified, I shall in this essay offer a vision of a program in
critical thinking across the curriculum (CTAC) that has a
good chance of leading to a significant improvement in the
situation. In response to challenges to the vision, I shall
offer research results further justifying the partial dissat-
isfaction and supporting moving in the direction of this
vision or something like it. A few possible transitional
steps are briefly suggested, but this essay does not provide
a detailed transitional plan. My goal is to provide and
defend a vision toward which we might move in various
ways in the future.
The organizational details are modifiable to fit local
situations in the United States and other countries. How-
ever, the underlying concerns addressed cannot be
neglected, and in any case, strong faculty, administrative,
and student support is essential.
2 What Is Critical Thinking?
For over 30 years I have been urging that an accurate
definition of the concept of critical thinking that most
people actually use is ‘‘reasonable reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe or do’’—even though
they may not so articulate it. Other well-known definitions,
including one by Scriven and Paul, ‘‘Critical thinking is the
intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by,
observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or commu-
nication, as a guide to belief and action’’ (1987), as well as
definitions by Siegel (1988), Facione (1990; Table 1),
Fisher and Scriven (1997, p 20), and Kuhn (2015, p 47), are
not significantly different from mine or from each other.
Each is a different way of cutting the same conceptual pie,
which I hold to be the mainstream concept of critical
thinking. The proposition that they are essentially the same
is strongly supported by the fact that Table 1 and the
elaborations there of could have been developed on the
basis of any of them—not just my ‘‘reasonable reflec-
tive…’’ definition.
Further elaboration is needed for the mainstream con-
cept to be a guide to teaching and assessment. Using the
concept-conception distinction (Rawls 1971, p 5; Hart
1961, pp 155–159), one can find a number of general
conceptions (proposals for implementation) of the main-
stream concept of critical thinking that provide varying
emphases and degrees of specificity. The conception I have
developed over the years is outlined in Table 1, listing
dispositions and abilities (earlier versions in Ennis
1987a, b, 1991, 2011b, 2015a, b), and as elaborated (most
recently in 2011b and 2015b), this conception is
123
R. H. Ennis
comprehensive, detailed, and rigorous. I shall call these
dispositions and abilities (together with their elaborations)
‘‘The Alpha Conception of Critical Thinking’’.
The abilities in Table 1 rely on elaboration by principles
and criteria to guide us in their employment. For example,
an elaborating criterion for judging a hypothesis (Ability
#9b) is that the hypothesis or conclusion explains or helps
to explain evidence (a necessary, though not a sufficient,
condition). The employment of this criterion is useful in
judging a hypothesis, which is important in many fields in
deciding what to believe or do.
An extended elaboration called ‘‘The Nature of Critical
Thinking’’ containing considerable augmentation by an
unexemplified set of principles and criteria to guide
employment of the abilities listed in Table 1 is available at
www.criticalthinking.net under ‘‘What is critical think-
ing?’’ (Ennis 2015b), and also Ennis (2011b). However, the
abilities, even if augmented with principles and criteria, are
more easily understood and applied if exemplified. This is
done for a number of principles and criteria in two versions
of the article ‘‘Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Concep-
tion’’. The first is available at www.criticalthinking.net
(Ennis 1991; Ennis 2005 for a Spanish version). The other
is Ennis (2015a). The 2015a version is a revised and
expanded version of the one published in 1991.
This streamlined-conception article could provide an
issue-based introduction to a first course in critical think-
ing. It exemplifies the use and non-use of critical thinking
by jurors in a murder trial. Thus it exemplifies and dis-
cusses critical thinking and uncritical thinking in a signif-
icant real-life issue. It also shows that almost all of these
dispositions and abilities could easily be needed in one
important event. The problem was, ‘‘Is the defendant guilty
or not guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter?’’ This
exact issue is not frequently faced by our students, but
questions about the justification of the jurors’ many deci-
sions are just the sorts of questions that our students reg-
ularly face, and most citizens of the United States face
being a member of a jury more than once, requiring
application of critical thinking abilities and dispositions to
this basic civic function.
More complete and varied exemplifications of the basic
principles and criteria of this Alpha Conception appear in
the textbook, Critical Thinking (Ennis 1996), which would
be useful as a text for this program. Other critical thinking
textbooks, for example the one by Bailin and Battersby
(2010), could also be used for teaching this conception of
critical thinking.
An advantage of this fully elaborated conception is that
it is not only comprehensive but also more detailed and
rigorous than most. For example, its approach to assump-
tion ascription (Ennis 1982) distinguishes between ‘‘used’’
and ‘‘needed’’ assumptions, or respectively ‘‘assumption of
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision

Table 1 Brief outlines of general critical thinking dispositions and abilities

Dispositions. Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to:
Seek and offer clear statements of the conclusion or question
Seek and offer clear reasons, and be clear about their relationships with each other and the conclusion
Try to be well-informed
Use credible sources and observations, and usually mention them
Take into account the total situation
Keep in mind the basic concern in the context
Be alert for alternatives
Be open-minded
Seriously consider other points of view
Withhold judgment when the evidence and reasons are insufficient
Take a position and change a position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient
Seek as much precision as the nature of the subject admits
Seek the truth when it makes sense to do so, and more broadly, try to ‘‘get it right’’ to the extent possible or feasible
Employ their critical thinking abilities and dispositions
Abilities. Ideal critical thinkers have the ability to:
(Basic Clarification)
Focus on a question
Analyze arguments
Ask and answer clarification questions
Understand and use elementary graphs and maths
(Bases for a decision)
Judge the credibility of a source
Observe, and judge observation reports
Use existing knowledge
Background knowledge, including (with discrimination) internet material
Their knowledge of the situation
Their previously-established conclusions
(Inference)
Deduce, and judge deductions
Make, and judge inductive inferences and arguments
Enumerative induction
Argument and inference to best explanation
Make, and judge value judgments
(Advanced clarification)
Define terms, and judge definitions
Handle equivocation appropriately
Attribute and judge unstated assumptions
Think suppositionally
Deal with fallacy labels
Be aware of, and check the quality of, their own thinking (‘‘metacognition’’)
Deal with things in an orderly manner
(Non-Constitutive, But Helpful)
Employ rhetorical strategies

the person’’ and ‘‘assumption of the argument’’ (as Hitch- but perhaps unconsciously. This assumption-ascription
cock 1985 describes them). A claim that someone’s used claim gets its support from its satisfaction of the criteria
assumption is X is an empirical hypothesis about what elaborating Ability #9b, ‘‘Argument and inference to best
proposition the person actually used, usually consciously explanation’’, which criteria include ability to explain the

123

data, etc. A claim that someone’s needed assumption is Y
is supported by showing that Y’s addition to an argument is
needed to make the argument as strong as possible, whether
or not the assumer ever even thought about Y. Most dis-
cussions of assumptions do not deal with these alternatives
in assumption ascription and only ask students what is
assumed, without giving them any idea about how to
decide what is assumed, except possibly the incorrect ones
that whatever is needed to make the argument deductively
valid, or that whatever does make an argument deductively
valid, is an assumption (Ennis 1961, 1982).
Other examples of being thorough and rigorous are devel-
oped in Ennis (1964, 1968, 1973, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007).
Having a conception of critical thinking that is comprehensive,
thorough, and rigorous is a part of the support for the Alpha
College CTAC program.
3 The First-Year Course
The first-year required course is a 30-week, 3-h-per-week
course called ‘‘Introduction to Critical Thinking’’. In its
first two-thirds, it will teach the general critical thinking
skills and dispositions in Table 1 and help students learn to
apply them to their civic, personal, vocational, and aca-
demic lives. The final third introduces students to three
subject-specific issues (in case studies) calling for critical
thinking in subject-matter areas, and provides reinforce-
ment of the general critical thinking dispositions and
abilities as well as a taste of three subjects and their sub-
ject-specific critical thinking (a concept to be explained
shortly). A variety of teaching methods will be used, and
assessment is employed throughout.
One other desirable feature of exploring a subject-matter
issue in a case study is that doing it in an interesting and
involving way might attract students to the field.
3.1 Organization
Here are two alternate organization plans for the first-year
course. I prefer the first but local conditions might require
the second.
3.1.1 Small Sections Three Times Per Week
One alternative is to have small sections (around 15–20
students per section) meeting three times per week with a
critical thinking instructor who would present, provoke,
explain, challenge, assign, direct, and interact with stu-
dents. This provides the maximum opportunity for human
interaction and problem-based learning (PBL, to be
explained later). Lecture-discussion teaching will also be
employed.
123
R. H. Ennis
3.1.2 Large- and Small-Group Sections
An alternative is to have two large-group meetings per week at
which time the head critical thinking instructor will, as in the
previous approach, present, provoke, explain, challenge,
assign, direct, and interact with students, and arrange for
students to interact in student-led small groups, as seems
appropriate to help a large group of students learn and become
involved with critical thinking. The large group would be
broken into a number of small groups of 15–20 students to
meet once a week under the leadership of a small-group crit-
ical thinking instructor to complement and expand upon the
things done in the large-group meetings. The large-group
instructor would be in charge of coordinating the work of the
small-group instructors. Human interaction and problem-
based learning would still be emphasized and lecture-discus-
sion teaching would also be employed as appropriate.
3.2 The First Two-Thirds (20 Weeks):
An Introduction to General Critical Thinking
Assuming a 30-week course, the first 19 weeks will be
focused on students’ acquiring and enhancing general critical
thinking dispositions and abilities, which were briefly outlined
in Table 1 and are elaborated in ‘‘The Nature of Critical
Thinking’’ (Ennis 2011b, 2015b). These abilities and dispo-
sitions will be applied to students’ civic, personal, vocational,
and academic lives. Because this is a required course, student
involvement (see Sect. 6.2.2 and 6.3) is essential.
The last week of the first 20 weeks will be devoted to
assessing and reviewing the learning of the first 19 weeks,
and introducing the subject-specific case studies of the next
9 weeks.
3.3 The Next 9 Weeks: Case Studies
In nine of the remaining 10 weeks of the course, students
will consider, discuss, and evaluate features of three case
studies of specific subject-matter issues, devoting 3 weeks
to each, and taking and briefly defending in writing a
position about each issue. Every student will be engaged in
one 3-week case study of an issue in a subject area in each
of the three broad areas, (1) humanities, (2) sciences, and
(3) professional fields.
Each 3-week session will incorporate a subject-specific
issue, the application of general critical thinking disposi-
tions and abilities in dealing with the issue, subject matter
(and acquisition thereof) that is relevant to the issue, and
one or a few elementary subject-specific critical thinking
abilities and/or dispositions relevant to dealing with the
issue. The conscious application of general critical thinking
abilities and dispositions to this subject-matter content will
not only reinforce the general abilities and dispositions in
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
new situations (i.e., transfer), but also reinforce students’
willingness and ability to apply them in new contexts
(further transfer).
3.3.1 Subject-Specific Critical Thinking
I introduce a distinction between general and subject-
specific critical thinking abilities and dispositions. Rather
than being a sharp either-or distinction, it represents a
rough continuum with clear examples at either end.
General critical thinking abilities and dispositions are
outlined in Table 1 and are applicable in all, or almost all,
endeavors. Subject-specific critical thinking abilities and
dispositions apply in several areas, possibly only one, but
not anywhere near all. An example of a subject-specific
ability is the ability to plan, perform, and judge the results
and relevance of analysis of covariance (used in most social
sciences) in order to judge the practical and statistical sig-
nificance of a difference—with an understanding of the
limitations involved. However, just understanding the con-
cept of statistical significance, including sensitivity to its
major strengths and weakness, is arguably a general ability.
Another subject-specific ability is planning and per-
forming double-blind experiments in medicine. A more
elementary one is the ability/disposition to take three
readings rather than just one (but perhaps more than three,
depending on the nature of the material) in determining a
quantity. This ability/disposition was promoted in the lab
for a freshman college physics course I once took.
The various fields of study typically involve all the
general critical thinking dispositions and abilities in
Table 1, and also involve critical thinking abilities and
dispositions more or less specific to each field. Although
critical thinking texts and the entire field of critical think-
ing have tended to be concerned only with general critical
thinking, subject-specific critical thinking must also be
considered in a program dedicated to CTAC and is inclu-
ded in The Alpha Conception of Critical Thinking. It is
reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to
believe or do in one, or several fields, and hence is part of
the critical thinking of those fields.
In disagreement with McPeck (1981, 1990), I have pre-
viously (1990, 1989) argued that the general critical thinking
abilities and dispositions in Table 1 are not subject-specific. I
still hold that position, as do most critical thinking special-
ists, but am here suggesting that there are also subject-
specific critical thinking abilities and dispositions.
3.3.2 Examples
Here are some examples of possible issues to consider in
case studies in the first-year course. It is important for
subject-matter instructors who are teaching the case studies
to be open to and understanding of students’ views that are
in disagreement with the received views in a field – in order
to invite discussion, investigation, and exploration of
alternatives.
3.3.2.1 Anthropology A possible issue for an anthropol-
ogy case study is whether the insecurity and inner conflict
in adolescent girls common in our culture is an inherited
characteristic of most adolescents, or is situationally and
culturally caused. Reference could be made to Mead’s
Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), and the controversy
surrounding her and other authors’ evidence. Her advisor
for her dissertation was a strong advocate of the environ-
ment side of the environment/heredity dispute, which is
also the position she took. So she had a conflict of interest.
It was to her interest to take a position to which her advisor
subscribed. But did it influence her? That is another issue
that is relevant to the first. Case studies will evidence the
fact that real issues are rarely simple.
3.3.2.2 Literature In a case study dealing with Shake-
speare’s Hamlet, the topic might be how to interpret one or
a few characters. For example, should Polonius be played
as a silly old fool, which Hamlet claimed he was, or a wise
elder? In Othello, did Emelia suspect throughout the play
that her husband Iago was a villain or not? An underlying
issue, which could grow into being the primary issue, is
whether such questions can be answered by appeal to the
text, or are merely matters of taste, or something else.
3.3.2.3 Educational Research In an educational-research
case study, the issue might be whether any legitimate
educational research about the efficacy or consequences of
some method of teaching must provide random assignment
to experimental and control groups. Random assignment is
a criterion some (but not all) researchers have urged the
U.S. Office of Education to use in choosing research pro-
jects to fund.
3.3.2.4 Global Warming One case study could deal with
the issue of whether global warming is occurring, and if so,
what is its cause? Admittedly in the span of 3 weeks, no
one can become an expert on this topic (or the topic of any
of the case studies). But a problem we face as citizens who
have a say in the running of a country is that we are forced
to take explicit or implicit positions on issues without
complete expertise. We can think critically to a degree
about the issue, even if we have not mastered all of the
relevant information.
3.3.2.5 Natural Science Most of the subject-matter
knowledge needed to grasp current issues in the theoretical
natural sciences is beyond college freshmen, who do not
123

have and will not have the background knowledge to deal
with issues about quarks, string theory, and quantum theory,
for example. Some colleagues have raised this as an obstacle
to teaching general critical thinking in a subject area. But this
is not a problem with, among other things, historical case
studies, such as ‘‘Plants and the Atmosphere’’, and ‘‘The
Early Development of the Concepts of Temperature and
Heat’’, or any other of the eight case studies in James Con-
ant’s series, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Sci-
ence (1948–1954). These involve significant elementary
science subject matter which students can understand, but
with which all prospective specialists in the field must be
familiar. So considering them is not a waste of time.
A key question to address might be whether the early
theories were justifiably believed, given the state of
knowledge at the time when these were hot topics. Treating
them exhibits the tentative nature of much scientific
knowledge, an understanding that many people do not have.
There are also many understandable issues about the
plausibility of some basic science content, such as the issue
I am about to describe concerning Newton’s First Law of
Motion.
3.3.3 An Extended Example
Some course content that students encounter is at first
unbelievable to them, and can be subject to experimenta-
tion and discussion calling for learning and reinforc-
ing critical thinking abilities and dispositions. From my
high-school science teaching experiences, I shall describe
an example of an issue involving this sort of subject matter.
It is relevant for first year college physics students, as well
as other students, whether or not they have taken high
school physics, and whether or not they are going on to
major in physics. Incidentally, the following is an example
of Problem-Based Learning (PBL), to be considered later
in the discussion of teaching methods. It is an effective
method for teaching subject matter because it gets students
involved.
Many students find Newton’s First Law of Motion
inconsistent with their experience. This law holds roughly
that, unless acted on by an external force, a body in motion
remains in motion in the same direction and speed, and a
body at rest remains at rest. Dissenting students, based on
such everyday experiences as delivering newspapers by
tossing them from a moving bicycle, had adopted Aris-
totle’s view that a body in motion naturally slows down
and falls to the ground, which is what newspapers thrown
from moving bicycles seem to do.
We had a heated discussion and jointly produced an
experimental plan. As many of us as could arrange it would
sit in the back seat of a car moving at constant speed (thus
controlling one variable) with the windows closed (holding
123
R. H. Ennis
another variable constant), and throw a ball into the air to see
whether it would move further to the back of the car on its up
and down travel, as would be expected on the basis of the
students’ slowing-down theory of motion. From Newton’s
First Law one would predict that the ball would not drift to
the rear of the car because there would be no force inter-
fering with the ball’s forward motion.
But some students soon realized that a key variable would
not be adequately controlled. A possible alternative to the
Newton’s Law explanation of what might appear to be
confirming data could be that the ball would unknowingly be
thrown slightly forward by the experimenter each time.
These students then produced the idea of releasing the
ball inside the car from a designated point just under the
roof, and seeing whether it moves toward the back of the
car on the way down to the floor, using as a comparison the
ball’s action when dropped from the designated point when
the car is stopped, thus controlling some other variables.
These changes were important developments. The stu-
dents themselves realized a weakness in the original plan
and suggested the change. Their suggestions served to
eliminate the alternative possible explanation that
appearing to stay in the same place with respect to the
moving auto could be the result of slightly forward
throwing of the ball. Eliminating alternative possible
explanations is a crucial step in appraising a hypothesis, the
doing of which exemplifies one aspect of critical thinking
Ability #9b (‘‘Make and judge arguments and inferences to
best explanation’’). Eliminating alternative possible
explanations was exemplified in this activity, and I, as
teacher, labeled it, made it and its value explicit, and
complimented them, a teaching strategy I encourage for
CTAC.
We agreed that each student able to do so over the
weekend would try the dropping experiment at least three
times (after practicing the technique) in accord with the
subject-specific disposition/ability to make at least three
measurements of a quantity.
At the beginning of the following week we discussed the
results, which were that not one of the students who did the
experiment found a detectable average difference between
the landing place of the ball when the car was moving and
the landing place when the car was at rest, lending support
to Newton’s First Law because the law explained the result.
All of this could have been performed with more precision,
and there were other conceivable explanations, but the
result seemed satisfactory for this level of sophistication.
This participation was exciting to them. And I believe
most of them did come to hold Newton’s First Law (at its
appropriate level of sophistication) to be much more
plausible than they originally thought, an occurrence that
would not have happened if I had just denied their chal-
lenges and proceeded to his Second Law of Motion.
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
We made use of some general critical thinking abilities
and dispositions that I made explicit, such as, stating your
thesis or problem clearly, being alert for alternative
hypotheses, observing carefully, asking questions of clari-
fication, thinking suppositionally, and judging the credi-
bility of sources; and the somewhat subject-specific
disposition/abilities, making three or more measurements
of a quantity, and controlling the variables; as well as the
disposition to use their critical thinking abilities.
Because of their deep involvement in the issue, and
participation in the planning and execution, these students
retained and understood Newton’s First Law (at their level
of sophistication), and mentioned it and our experiment to
me later in their school careers. This problem-oriented
activity had enhanced their learning of and enthusiasm for
science and their critical thinking prowess, which they
were then more ready to transfer elsewhere.
3.4 The Last Week
The last week, the 30th week of the course, will be devoted
to review of the two-semesters. Review of the critical
thinking dispositions and abilities will generally be orga-
nized as decided by instructors on the basis of what they
have seen in the first 29 weeks, including the students’
work with the case studies and their written reports about
them (which would be ‘‘formative assessment’’). It might
well include very brief student reports and debates (also
formative assessment) in addition to reinforcement. Final
assessment (called ‘‘summative assessment’’) will occur
during the college’s exam period.
One main reason for this distinction between formative
and summative assessment, which was suggested by the
philosopher, Michael Scriven, and has become popular in
the field of assessment, is to make sure that we use
assessment to guide our responsive planning, not just to
motivate and give a grade.
4 Subject-Matter Courses
Each field and some combinations of fields will develop a
plan for courses that includes not only subject matter
content, but also both general and subject-specific critical
thinking that will be applied in some or most courses, and
supervision for students who choose to do their Senior
Thesis/Project in that field (to be discussed shortly). The
plan makers will be urged to include writing tasks that are
appropriate for undergraduates in the fields (including
general education), perhaps articles, reports, proposals,
letters to an editor or editorials—and to request students to
exercise their critical thinking in so doing. These writing
projects will call for practice in applying critical thinking
to new situations, taking and defending a position and
exercising critical thinking while doing so, using outlining
practices in organizing a written position paper, practice
seeing problems and doing something about them, and
developing confidence in approaching a writing task. All
this is subject to the advice of the writing consultants.
These plans will be developed with the help of critical
thinking instructors, if requested; will respect the talents
and interests of the faculty in the field(s); and will be
flexible enough to enable instructors to take advantage of
opportunities that arise.
Since Alpha will include a general higher education
major for students not wanting to specialize in a particular
profession or field, each department’s plan will also include
one or more offerings that would contribute to the general
education major. Each student will have a faculty advisor
to guide him or her in choices leading to concentration(s),
or a general education.
5 The Senior Thesis/Project: The Culmination
of a Student’s Undergraduate Career
A Senior Thesis/Project required of each student will focus
on a subject-matter issue in the student’s field(s), or some
issue of interest for general education students, and include
a written thesis/report on the issue, making use of subject
matter and general and subject-specific critical thinking.
The student’s response to the issue will be clearly stated
early in the thesis, followed by a defense that respects
subject matter and general and subject-specific critical
thinking, and includes background, results of the investi-
gation (possibly including original research), and appro-
priate reservations.
An advisor who is a faculty member from the student’s
field(s), or a general education pool, will supervise and
evaluate the work in regular meetings with the student,
with input from a critical thinking instructor, if requested.
Other faculty members in the field(s) of study, if sought by
the student or the primary faculty member, may also
participate.
Generally six-to-nine credit hours for each of a student’s
last two semesters will be devoted to the Thesis/Project,
including a 1-h-per-week required discussion meeting each
of those semesters with a faculty member and other stu-
dents in which each student gets a session devoted to his or
her project each semester, receiving feedback from other
students and the faculty leader as well. A brief tentative
plan for the work should be submitted and discussed with
an advisor early on, perhaps even before the official start of
the project. A first draft of the Thesis/Project will be due
half to three-quarters of the way through the final semester,
providing time for at least one revision, but early parts of
123

the draft, or an earlier draft will be considered sooner. An
involving variation on this plan is having a fellow student
read and comment on a draft. Perhaps two students might
read and comment on each other’s drafts before they are
seen by a faculty member. The interaction could be moti-
vating, reinforcing, and helpful for both students.
As an appendix to the Thesis/Project, the student will
include a list of general and subject-specific critical
thinking dispositions and abilities that were employed in
this work, providing examples.
My recommending the Senior Thesis/Project was inspired
by the experience of having witnessed the operation of a
similar requirement at New College of Florida in Sarasota,
Florida, which is the State of Florida’s premium public
academic college. The amount of student effort devoted to
this project is generally about one half of a student’s course
load for the entire senior year, according to Aron Edidin,
New College Professor of Philosophy (personal communi-
cation). My impression from talking to faculty and students
is that the Senior Thesis/Project is a successful and signifi-
cant culmination of students’ careers at New College.
6 Teaching Approaches
6.1 Two Basic Teaching Practices
Here are two basic, complementary, useful teaching prac-
tices I highly recommend. They both are well suited to
incorporation in a CTAC program.
6.1.1 Explicit Principles
Make critical thinking principles explicit when they are used
or relevant, at least until they are thoroughly clear to, and
used by, a large majority of students, and even occasionally
after that. Usually this should be done at first by the instructor
or the text, but for further reinforcement, more often by the
students, perhaps in defense of a proposal.
6.1.2 Transfer
Teach for transfer, that is, promote transferring the applica-
tion of critical thinking dispositions, abilities, criteria, and
principles to a variety of new examples in new contexts,
providing reinforcement, and thus facilitating their further
transfer to still other contexts. CTAC provides more chances
for a variety of general critical thinking disposition and
abilities to be applied to new examples and contexts than
does a stand-alone, single-semester, critical thinking course,
and thus increases the amount and depth of critical thinking
likely to be acquired in higher education. Research to be
reported presently confirms this expectation.
123
R. H. Ennis
Both practices exemplify the general teaching guideline,
‘‘We learn what we use.’’ These two teaching practices are
supported by my experience and by considerable research
(Lehman et al. 1988; Nisbett 1992; Kosonen and Winne
1995).
6.2 Two Basic Methods: LDT and PBL
Two basic teaching methods, Lecture-Discussion Teaching
(LDT) and Problem-Based Learning (PBL), contrast with
each other. Both LDT and PBL can be helpful, depending
on the situation, the subject, the students, and the teacher.
6.2.1 LDT
Lecture-Discussion Teaching is by far the most common
approach to college teaching. Typically there is a lecture
(usually accompanied by some reading in a text book)
presenting one or more aspects of the subject matter, fol-
lowed by a discussion section, or discussion at the end of
the period in which the lecture was presented.
6.2.2 PBL
Problem-Based Learning is not new but has become more
popular recently, and is promoted by a number of educa-
tional psychologists, among others. It calls for dealing with
a subject-matter issue, usually requiring investigating,
developing, testing, and discussing of hypotheses or solu-
tions and possible alternatives. It is probably the appro-
priate approach for the case studies discussions mentioned
earlier. It was the basic method in my Newton’s First Law
experience and is the basic method for the Senior Thesis/
Project.
Some subject-matter specialists have claimed that criti-
cal thinking interferes with coverage. Kuhn and her asso-
ciates (Capon and Kuhn 2004; Pease and Kuhn 2011;
Wirkala and Kuhn 2011) in rigorous studies to be more
fully described later found that PBL groups dealing with
problems calling for critical thinking exhibited more sub-
ject-matter retention than LDT groups.
But more research using PBL in various circumstances
is certainly needed. Because PBL might require more
instructor skills, training, effort, and preparation time than
LDT, the relative costs and benefits must also be explored.
6.3 Twenty-One Strategies and Tactics for Teaching
Critical Thinking
Over the years, partly from my experience and partly from
that of colleagues, I have gathered a number of both very
specific as well as general strategies and tactics for teach-
ing critical thinking. They provide ways of involving
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
students and helping them organize and keep their focus.
The selection, ‘‘Twenty-one Strategies and Tactics for
Teaching Critical Thinking’’ presents these strategies and
tactics in Inquiry (Ennis 2011b, pp 14–15) and on the web
site, www.criticalthinking.net. I recommend them to
teachers who are trying to promote critical thinking. The
use of various ones of these twenty-one strategies and
tactics is supported by my experience, testimony from my
colleagues, and by considerable research, including that by
Lehman et al. (1988), Nisbett (1992), and Kosonen and
Winne (1995).
7 Assessment
Assessment must be addressed early and continuously. It
will be needed to help plan for the future by determining
such things as students needs, interests, and abilities, etc.
(formative assessment), and by helping us learn students’
accomplishments at the end of a class, week, course pro-
gram, etc. (summative assessment) to help decide how to
do it better next time.
The CTAC program in my vision for Alpha College
calls for Alpha-wide assessment of critical thinking at the
beginning (formative) and end of the first year, and at the
end of the final year (summative). Faculty with the help of
the critical thinking assessment specialist will arrange for
quizzes, mid-terms, and final exams. The critical thinking
assessment specialist will be attached to the CT Office
(described later); will well understand the Alpha Concep-
tion of Critical Thinking and the goals of the program; and
will encourage and give guidance for all.
Critical thinking assessment is discussed by Ennis
(1984, 2003, 2008, 2009), who considers various problems
of critical thinking assessment; Ennis and Norris (1990),
who give a general discussion of critical thinking assess-
ment, as do Fisher and Scriven (1997), Norris and Ennis
(1989), Groarke (2009), Possin (2008, 2013a, b, c, 2014),
who evaluate a number of currently-popular critical
thinking tests; and Sobocan and Groarke (2009), who
include in their edited book a number of discussions of
different aspects of critical thinking assessment. The
reviews of and my experience with some leading tests give
me pause, so I urge caution. An annotated list of English-
language critical thinking tests is available on the internet
at www.criticalthinking.net (Ennis and Chattin 2015).
8 Coordination and Support
Considerable coordination among, and support for, the
elements of this CTAC program are needed, as are strong
commitments to critical thinking by faculty,
administrators, and students. But there are many different
possibilities for coordination and support. I shall briefly
suggest some main features of a possible coordination and
support structure that fits the rest of this proposal, though
local circumstances might call for others. Many other
organizational details will need to be suggested or sup-
plied by specialists in educational leadership, who will be
invited to contribute when the time comes. But the needs
addressed by my suggestions must be handled in some
fashion.
8.1 Critical Thinking (CT) Office and Director
In the Alpha program there will be a central CT Office
responsible for coordination and supervision activities.
Depending on the size of the institution, the CT Office
will be run by a Director and an Associate Director, and
will include the Supervisor of the first-year course, all
three of whom will have a critical thinking teaching
responsibility to keep them in touch with what is hap-
pening. There will be an assessment specialist and an
information-technology specialist, both well versed in
critical thinking and familiar with the first-year course
materials and the total program, as well as their own
fields of psychometrics and information technology. They
will be full time or part time in the CT Office, depending
n the size of the total operation. There will also be sec-
retarial help. The CT Office personnel will be under the
supervision of an institution-wide Steering Committee
working though the Director.
8.2 The Faculty Critical Thinking Steering
Committee
To oversee the total operation, there will be a Faculty
Critical Thinking Steering Committee of approximately
ten members (representing and chosen by the teaching
departments in the institution). It shall meet monthly,
chaired by one of its members. The CT Office will pro-
vide administrative services for the Steering Committee,
and the Steering Committee will be responsible to the
total Alpha College Faculty, to whom it will present an
annual report, and from whom it will seek feedback. With
the help of the Director, the Steering Committee will
monitor the teaching of the required first-year course and
the critical thinking incorporation plan for each subject-
matter department and group of departments (and imple-
mentation thereof), including the culminating Thesis/
Project. It will be informed about, and take account of,
formative and summative assessments and feedback, and
will in return provide encouragement, appraisal, sugges-
tions, and guidance.
123

8.3 Departmental Location of the Field, Critical
Thinking
Critical thinking as an academic field will be a subdivision
of an academic department, possibly philosophy, or will be
its own department (to be determined on negotiation with
the Steering Committee and other college authorities). If,
as a subdivision of an established department, full support
is not committed and provided for critical thinking, critical
thinking should be established as its own department, or
move to a different department, all under supervision of the
Steering Committee.
Instructors, including the Supervisor, in the first-year
course in critical thinking and instructors in higher-level
courses in critical thinking, as well as the Director and
Associate Director of the CT Office, will have primary
appointments in the critical thinking department or sub-
department as determined above, and possibly joint
appointments in other departments. However, the instruc-
tors for the case studies will have a primary appointment in
the department associated with the subject matter of the
case study, and probably a joint appointment in the critical
thinking department or sub-department. The specialists in
critical thinking assessment and information technology
will also have at least a joint appointment in the department
housing critical thinking and in departments focused on
psychometrics and information technology respectively.
8.4 Faculty Interaction and Support
All faculty will have full access to the content of the first-
year critical thinking course, so that those not teaching the
first year course will know what to expect of their students
and what critical thinking skills will be available for rein-
forcement. Each faculty member of the entire college will be
given a complimentary copy of the course materials and the
textbook, assuming one is used, and will receive newsletters
and a glossary (described later). Faculty research in critical
thinking and its instruction will be encouraged.
There will be faculty seminars dealing with critical
thinking and the teaching and assessment of it, so that fac-
ulty can help, and receive support from, each other, as well
as individualized consulting and advice from the assess-
ment, information technology, and critical thinking spe-
cialists. Confidential student feedback will also be provided.
Released time for special projects, extra pay for summer
work, and various other incentives will be operating,
including treating critical thinking work as a significant
contribution in the tenure, pay, and promotion system.
In order to keep the entire Alpha community aware of
what is going on regarding critical thinking, a newsletter
should be instituted for all members of the community and
include information from the assessment and information
123
R. H. Ennis
technology specialists. It will be under the direction of the
Associate Director, and should be released twice each
semester during the academic year.
8.5 Unified Glossary
To avoid confusion on the part of students and faculty, a
common set of definitions of critical thinking terms must
be agreed on and made available to all. Such terms as
‘argumentation’, ‘denotation’, ‘connotation’, ‘logic’, and
‘valid’ (all of which most philosophers use in a different
sense than the one used by specialists in communications
and some other fields), ‘reliable’ (which most people use in
a sense different from that used by psychometricians), as
well as ‘hypothesis’, ‘best-explanation inference’, ‘induc-
tion’, ‘significant’, ‘straw person’, and ‘genus-differentia’
require agreed-upon definitions, or alternative definitions
with stipulated informative labels. If agreement cannot be
reached for a term used in critical thinking, then the
glossary must be sensitive to the meanings that might be
assumed for the term and clarify any ambiguity by stipu-
lative labeling (e.g., ‘‘the philosophy sense of
‘connotation’’’).
There is a glossary in Ennis (1996, pp 394–399).
8.6 Coordination with Writing Specialists
The end product of critical thinking often appears in
writing, as in each student’s Thesis/Project, the brief
position papers at the end of each 3-week case-study issue,
other position paper written in students’ experience at
Alpha, as well as writing done elsewhere and later, such as
letters to the editor, job-related proposals, and academic
articles. Therefore, coordination with, and help from,
writing experts is desirable. One can think critically but
produce unintelligible or weak written support for one’s
position.
If there is a writing-across-the-curriculum program at
Alpha, then cooperation with it is appropriate. If not, then
cooperation with the instructors of whatever writing pro-
gram does exist should be implemented.
9 Major Expressed Apprehensions and Responses
At various presentations of these ideas, and in conversation
with colleagues who teach subject matter, apprehensions
have been expressed. I shall discuss some prominent ones.
9.1 Is Critical Thinking Currently Being Taught?
The apprehension here is that since critical thinking is
allegedly already being taught, we do not need to teach it.
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
Before presenting research that is relevant, I shall explain a
research term, ‘‘Cohen’s d’’, which is heavily used in
reporting results of critical thinking assessment.
9.1.1 Cohen’s d
Typically critical thinking research is reported by non-
statisticians in terms of Cohen’s d (1988, pp 24–27).
Current statisticians tend to use Cohen’s d with minor
modifications, resulting in what they call ‘‘effect size’’, a
term that has the advantage of describing what the term
‘‘Cohen’s d’’ represents. The terms are often used inter-
changeably though ‘‘effect size’’ as interpreted by statisti-
cians is deemed by statisticians to be less biased. I shall
generally use ‘‘Cohen’s d’’ because it is more familiar to
people interested in critical thinking.
Basically each is the ratio of a difference in averages to a
measure of variability (the standard deviation). If the dif-
ference in averages is 2 score points and the standard devi-
ation is 4 score points, then the Cohen’s d is 2 divided by 4,
that is, 1/2, or 0.5. Cohen’s d’s have the advantage over
simple statistical significance of giving an idea of the mag-
nitude of the difference rather than just determining whether
the difference could have occurred by chance, which is the
focus of statistical significance. Statistical significance can
be found for even trivial practical differences if the number
of subjects is large. Although both Cohen’s d and effect size
have problems, for example their dependence on varying
variabilities among different studies, they are gener-
ally more useful in this context than statistical significance.
9.1.2 One Meaning of the Challenge
A possible meaning of the challenge that critical thinking is
currently being taught is that critical thinking improvement
already occurs over a 3 or 4-year period in higher education
institutions, so we do not need to teach it. There have been
a large number of studies showing that pre-test/post-test
differences for 4-year college programs (plus whatever else
students experience during that period) tend to yield a
positive Cohen’s d averaging roughly around 0.55 for
critical thinking improvement (Pascarella and Terenzini
2005). Virtually all studies at the 0.55 level are statistically
significant. The issues are whether they are practically
significant, and whether the improvement is enough.
In their widely-known meta-analysis of 24 studies using the
CLA (Council for Aid to Education, n.d.), Arum and Roksa
(2011) obtained a Cohen’s d of 0.47, a result they deemed
insufficient. Huber and Kuncel (2015) in a meta-analysis of 71
studies obtained an effect size of 0.59, which they deemed
‘‘substantial’’. Are either of these enough? One must go
beyond simple statistics to answer this question. But first let us
address a problem with simple pretest–posttest statistics.
9.1.3 A Problem with Pre-Post Statistics
Most critical-thinking-improvement studies are not control
group studies, but rather are only pretest–posttest studies.
Campbell and Stanley in their classic work (1963) sneer at
them by calling them ‘‘pre-experimental’’. Cook and
Campbell (1979) in another classic also are severely criti-
cal of pre-test/post-test only designs. There are almost
always numerous other possible explanations of pre-post
improvement in scores. For example, maturation, social
interaction at college (of all sorts), dropping out by less
able students (assuming that less able students are more
likely to drop out), familiarity with the test or test type
acquired from the pre-test, desire to self-improve, etc., are
all possible alternatives to the explanation that the differ-
ence found is an effect of college education.
The drop-out problem is worse for pre-post cross-sec-
tional studies, which are cheaper and easier to do, than pre-
post longitudinal studies. Effect-of-college cross-sectional
studies test seniors and the freshmen in the same year, and
the difference is deemed to show the amount of improve-
ment over students’ college careers, but the pre-test students
are not the same people as the post-test students. Eventual
dropouts contribute to the average scores for the freshmen,
but in the group of seniors tested, dropouts are not included,
so they do not contribute to the average scores for seniors.
This inflates the improvement as measured, assuming that
dropouts are generally the weaker students. In longitudinal
studies the same students are tested when they are freshmen
and again when they are seniors, and the differences are
calculated, so the dropouts do not ever get into the pre-post
results. The dropouts’ pre-tests do not have corresponding
post-tests in the senior group, so what would have been their
improvement is ignored. But even with longitudinal studies,
there are other possible explanations of improvement than
their college courses, or total college experience, such as
maturation, familiarity with the test or test type, and non-
college experiences.
So the Cohen’s d results for improvement while in
college are likely to be inflated to some extent as a result of
the inclusion of pre-test/post-test results, especially if they
are cross-sectional. The basic question is whether, ignoring
this inflation, the apparent improvement in critical thinking
arising from taking a college program is enough.
Answering this question requires that we go beyond the
statistics, though continuing to use them, and consider our
informed experience. I shall suggest that the Cohen’s d has
some intuitive meaning even if pre-post studies are used
and have somewhat inflated results, but the extent of
improvement is much more clear with control group
studies, of which there are many fewer studies. Unfortu-
nately meta-analyses (summaries of studies) usually do not
report the proportions of pre-post testing in their results.
123

9.1.4 An Intuitive Approach to the Meaning of Cohen’s d
Here is a rough approach suggested by Hatcher (2013) to
the meaning of a Cohen’s d in critical thinking: We look at
the number of test items the Cohen’s d represents on a
critical thinking test with which we are very familiar. Then
we decide whether we think that number of items is a
satisfactory result for 4 years in college (or whatever time
period we are investigating). This calls for experience with
people in general, with college students, and with the items
on the test. Here is an example, using a test with which I
am quite familiar.
Standard deviations (which are measures of variability)
on the 52-item Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z
(Ennis and Millman 2005b), a test that was used in several
studies referenced above, averaged about 5 in an exami-
nation of research reports over a 20-year period (Ennis
et al. (2005, p 14). So a Cohen’s d of 0.55 (Pascarella and
Terenzini 2005) would roughly represent a difference of
about 2.75 (0.55 9 5) average number of items of
improvement on this test. Using this approach, the average
number of items of improvement on the Cornell test,
making appropriate simplifying assumptions, would have
been 2.35 (0.47 9 5) for Arum and Roksa’s result and 2.95
(0.59 9 5) for the Huber and Kuncel result. Given my
familiarity with the Cornell Level Z test, I think that even
the 2.95-item average number of items of improvement on
that test over one’s whole college career, though it is the
highest of the three, is not enough, given the importance of
critical thinking. A gain of 2.95 represents less than one
item per year. This conclusion is consistent with the pop-
ular complaints mentioned at the beginning of this essay.
Readers might find it useful to perform a similar thought
experiment with a college-level critical thinking test with
which they are familiar and of which they approve, using
Cohen’s d’s of 0.59 (Huber and Kuncel) and 0.47 (Arum
and Roksa), divide the result by 4 (for 4 years of college)
and judge whether the resulting amount of improvement
would be a satisfactory improvement in average number of
items on the test for each year in a college student’s car-
eer. But remember that other factors are also involved
(such as maturation and non-classroom experiences).
9.1.5 A Second Meaning
A second interpretation of the challenge that critical
thinking is currently being taught is the claim that specific
courses (perhaps including one or more taught by the
challenger) are currently successfully teaching critical
thinking, so no change is needed. On this interpretation, the
appropriate response, given my experience with people
who say this, is to ask how the challenger knows that
critical thinking is being taught, and to ask for evidence,
123
R. H. Ennis
perhaps in the form of a pre-post study, but better, a control
group study. If none exists, then one might invite the
claimer to do, or share in the doing of, such a study.
Citations of a test list and a number of critical thinking
test reviews appeared earlier in Sect. 7. These might be
useful to someone searching for a critical thinking test to
use. See also the current Buros’ Mental Measurement
Yearbook and Buros’ Tests in Print.
9.2 Is Critical Thinking Teachable?
Taking into account the evidence for the first interpretation
of the previous concern, one might still object, as some do,
that although students do improve in critical thinking while
in college, actual courses intending to improve students’
general critical thinking do not succeed, i.e., critical
thinking is not teachable.
My basic response to the complaint that critical thinking
is not teachable is that, although individual critical thinking
courses do not teach as much critical thinking as I would
like, most do on average teach some critical thinking, with
the result being more than would come just from being in
college. I shall elaborate.
Improvement in Cohen’s d’s of 0.5 for one semester are
considered average (Hatcher 2009, p 237). Hitchcock
(2015, p 285) deemed 0.5 to be a ‘‘medium’’ effect size.
But results do vary widely. Abrami et al. (2008, p 1112)
report a range of -1.0 to ?2.75 in their meta-analysis of
117 studies, with an average effect size of 0.34. In a pre-
post study of one critical thinking course, Solon (2003)
obtained an effect size of 1.5. In a control group study
Solon (2001) compared a critical-thinking-in-psychology
course with a straight humanities course using the Cornell
Level Z and obtained a Cohen’s d of 1.1 favoring the
critical-thinking-in-psychology course. Interestingly this
course (in a hint of what is coming) is a CTAC-like course
because it combined critical thinking with a subject matter
area (psychology). Its being a control group study, making
it a better quality comparison, is important too.
In a large and recent meta-analysis, Abrami et al. (2015)
examined 684 studies and found an average effect size of
0.39. So it varies, but averages being what they are, the
variation shows that a large number of courses have results
well above 0.39; all of this establishes the proposition that
critical thinking can be taught. But, even assuming Hatcher’s
estimate of the average (0.5) for a critical thinking course,
that still is only 2.5 items (5 9 0.5) on the Cornell Level Z.
So there is strong support for an affirmative answer to
the question about whether critical thinking can be taught
in a critical thinking course, and a negative answer to the
question about whether this is enough. Improving an
average of only 2.5 items is better than nothing, though I
think not enough, given the importance of critical thinking
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
and given my familiarity with the test. But as we shall see,
the average effect size for courses that combine critical
thinking with subject matter, one of which (1.1) I have
noted already [comparing critical thinking instruction in a
psychology course to a straight humanities course (Solon
2001)], is considerably higher.
9.3 Concerns with Combining Critical Thinking
and Subject Matter Instruction
Mixing critical thinking and subject-matter instruction and
infusing critical thinking into subject-matter instruction
(which I shall for convenience group together under the
description, ‘‘combining critical thinking and subject-mat-
ter instruction’’) make things (including coordination)
more complicated than having them totally separated. Do
the results warrant the effort?
9.3.1 Impact on Critical Thinking
Does combining critical thinking and subject-matter
instruction help us to master critical thinking abilities?
Seemingly so, on the face of it, if critical thinking is used in
dealing with subject-matter issues. Being used and useful
in a variety of contexts is reinforcing, and adapting a
critical thinking ability to a variety of different subject-
matter situations helps students to practice and appreciate
the critical thinking. We learn what we use and find useful.
Solon’s (2007) subsequent comparison of two psychol-
ogy courses, one of which incorporated critical thinking,
favored the psychology course with critical thinking with a
Cohen’s d of 0.66 for critical thinking improvement, but in
this case, although the control group was supposedly a
straight psychology course, it did also provide some critical
thinking instruction because of the sharing of some mate-
rials that involved critical thinking, a fact that might
account for the lower Cohen’s d (lower than the 1.1
obtained in comparing critical thinking in psychology with
a straight humanities course). Allegretti (2005) did two
control-group studies, each with a large number of students
(321 and 188), on critical thinking incorporation in great
books courses using the Cornell Level Z and found that the
experimental groups improved significantly more on criti-
cal thinking than the control groups.
Hatcher’s (2009) meta-analysis of 6 1-year courses that
are combinations of critical thinking and writing calling for
teaching critical thinking and using critical thinking in
taking and defending a position about five specific issues,
produced an average critical thinking pre-post improve-
ment Cohen’s d of 0.97 for all six combined courses, using
the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis and
Weir 1985). Comparably, a meta-analysis by Abrami et al.
(2008) of 22 ‘‘mixed-course’’ studies (studies in which
general critical thinking instruction is combined with sub-
ject-matter instruction) produced an average effect size of
0.94 for critical thinking improvement. Hitchcock (2015)
deemed 0.8 to be a ‘‘large’’ effect size.
Rowe et al. (2015) compared six straight general educa-
tion science course sections at the university level with six
similar courses in which critical thinking was combined
with the science instruction. They pooled the posttest results
for both sets, producing significant (statistical and practical)
results favoring the combined science and critical thinking
group on the CAT (Center for Assessment & Improvement
of Learning, n.d.). More specifically the difference between
post test means had a p \ 0.001 (probability of no differ-
ence) and a Cohen’s d of 0.89 (p 6 of 17), favoring the
combined science and critical thinking pooled results.
Comparably, using pretest–posttest improvements there
was a p \ 0.001 and a Cohen’s d of 0.76 for the
science/critical thinking combination on the CAT, but there
basically was no difference (p = 0.43) between the pre and
posttests on the CAT for the straight science group (p. 6 of
17).
In sum, combining critical thinking and subject-matter
instruction seems to provide increased use of, reinforce-
ment of, and retention of critical thinking. It understand-
ably seems to be a more effective way to teach critical
thinking than a stand-alone critical thinking course.
9.3.2 Does Including General Critical Thinking Hurt
Subject-Matter?
This is a serious concern of a number of subject-matter
teachers. There are two areas to consider here: whether
general critical thinking is of help (or harm) in dealing with
subject-matter issues, and whether combining critical
thinking and subject-matter instruction helps or interferes
with subject-matter retention.
One important non-statistical answer to the first part of
this challenge is that critical thinking abilities and dispo-
sitions and their principles and criteria, both general and
subject- specific, are helpful when dealing with subject-
matter issues. For example, operating in the field of
experimental educational psychology, as I have been doing
in this part of my essay, I have expressed a preference for
control group studies over pre-post studies on the ground
that control group studies rule out many more alternative
possible explanations than pre-post studies. That it is
desirable to rule out alternative possible explanations is a
principle of inference to best explanation, the skilled using
of which is critical thinking Ability #9b in Table 1. My
using Ability #9b helps me to deal with experimental
issues, e.g., the issue about the desirability of using control
groups versus using pre-post studies about the teaching of
critical thinking.
123

I realize that #9b in Table 1 does not mention ruling out
alternative possible explanations. In order to keep down the
length of this article, principles and criteria are not men-
tioned in Table 1, but are mentioned in the elaborations of
Table 1 to be found in Ennis (1991, 1996, 2011b, 2015a),
and in www.criticalthinking.net (Ennis 2015b).
However, colleagues in subject-matter specialties have
expressed concern that combining critical thinking and
subject-matter instruction will reduce subject-matter cov-
erage. But retention is what matters, not coverage. So let us
focus on retention.
There is not much research on this topic, but the
research I have found gives results favorable to CTAC. In
Solon’s (2007) control group study of two psychology
courses, in one of which critical thinking and subject-
matter instruction were combined (mentioned earlier to
support the claim that critical thinking is teachable in
subject-matter courses—with a Cohen’s d of 0.66 for
critical thinking improvement) the experimental group
also improved slightly more in psychology subject matter
than the straight-psychology control group, but the dif-
ference was not significant. So in this study, including
critical thinking did not interfere with subject-matter
retention or significantly improve it more than in the
control group, though it effectively improved critical
thinking.
Winocur’s (1981) control group study of 730 remedial
reading students in grades 7, 8, and 9 found a statistically-
significant improvement in critical thinking using the
Cornell Level X (Ennis and Millman 2005a), but no dif-
ference in reading improvement. Again critical thinking
instruction did not interfere with reading improvement.
Lumpken’s (1990) control group study of including
critical thinking in social studies instruction for 80 5th and
6th grade students found that the experimental group
actually improved in social studies content significantly
more than the control group, though critical thinking did
not improve.
In rigorous control group studies that also involved
random assignment to experimental and control groups
(very rare in significant educational research) Kuhn and
associates studied the impact of PBL on subject-matter
learning, as mentioned earlier. PBL (problem-based
learning) calls for critical thinking among other things, at
least providing opportunities for reinforcement. Capon and
Kuhn (2004) taught the concept of value to MBA graduate
students; Pease and Kuhn (2011) the concepts of group-
think and memory to 6th and 7th grade students; and
Wirkala and Kuhn (2011) the concepts of electromagnetic
field and gravitational field to students in elementary col-
lege physics. They all found that students taught using PBL
retained significantly more subject-matter content than the
control group students.
123
R. H. Ennis
Since the Solon (2007) and Winocur (1981) studies
found no difference between experimental and control
groups in subject-matter retention, and the Lumken study
found that the experimental group learned significantly
more subject matter than the control group, these six
studies suggest that subject matter will at least not suffer
when critical thinking is mixed or infused and might well
improve (as it did in 4 out of the 6 studies). If research
indicates even the possibility that combining critical
thinking instruction in some manner with subject-matter
instruction improves or maintains subject-matter retention,
that is certainly important. But more research is needed.
Although what we have is encouraging for CTAC, there are
many unexplored variables.
9.4 Further Objections by Subject-Matter
Specialists
9.4.1 Students Insufficiently Well Informed to Think
Critically
A concern that some colleagues have expressed is that
beginning students do not know enough advanced subject
matter to think critically about advanced issues in the field.
I agree. But this difficulty does not hold for elementary
issues and introductory subject matter as is seen in my
experience with Newton’s First Law, in the Kuhn and
associates PBL research (see above), and by consideration
of the examples provided earlier for possible case studies.
There is absolutely no doubt that background subject-
matter knowledge in an area calling for critical thinking is
essential for doing high-quality critical thinking in the area.
But this does not justify not learning to think critically
about subject-matter issues that use levels of subject matter
that students can understand.
9.4.2 Faculty Unwilling to Change
This objection holds that established subject-matter faculty
members are unwilling to abandon or revise course outli-
nes, syllabi, and other notes that they have developed over
the years with large time commitments and effort. I rec-
ognize the importance of this concern to busy people, but
urge such objectors to consider some factors that call for
more flexibility:
These days higher education academia is being chal-
lenged by more directly-practical learning (including pro-
fessional and vocational) as well as instruction using the
internet. Students choosing to pay for a college education
have an expectation that they will graduate prepared for a
good job, which generally will call for critical thinking. If
as a group they do not get good jobs, they will seriously
consider alternatives. If fear of failure is part of the
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
problem for the unwilling faculty member, faculty training
and support are a significant component of the Alpha
vision.
Many course organization plans, syllabi, and lecture
notes get out of date and need to be revised anyway, which
would be a good opportunity to incorporate more PBL, as
feasible, to support the learning of critical thinking and
subject matter, as research has shown. Helping students
acquire and reinforce general critical thinking will help the
students to be more effective in their own disciplines,
because general critical thinking is used in working in a
discipline—in writing articles, giving keynote addresses,
judging research approaches (like Campbell and Stanley’s
judging pre-post test designs) as well as interpreting what
students and colleagues say in disciplinary contexts.
Helping students with the Thesis/Project will help them
acquire the associated subject matter and reinforce both
their general and subject-specific critical thinking but lec-
ture notes and syllabi are unlikely to be of help here.
Furthermore evidence I mentioned earlier suggests that
combining critical thinking and subject-matter instruction
might well result in more subject-matter retention than in
straight subject-matter courses, and clearly results in more
critical thinking learning than separate critical thinking
courses.
Lastly faculty would do well also to consider what
students need in their civic and personal lives. Critical
thinking is needed everywhere and I believe that graduates
will highly value the help they get in this area from their
undergraduate experience. If we do not help at this level,
who will?
9.5 Expensive and Difficult to Arrange
9.5.1 A Less Expensive Approach
One persistent expressed concern is that it will be too
expensive to provide expert critical thinking faculty for the
entire first-year critical thinking course and subject-matter
faculty for the 9 weeks of case-study sessions, adjusting
the curriculum by combining critical thinking with subject
matter, and supervising the Thesis/Projects.
One possible way to deal with this concern is to develop
and provide two online faculty presentations per week for
the entire first-year course. These would be made by a
charismatic high-quality critical thinking faculty member
(21 weeks of course time) and charismatic high-quality
subject-matter faculty members (3 weeks of course time
apiece) who have spent considerable time planning and
preparing these online presentations (which would be
available for re-use, and for use and rental by other insti-
tutions). These online presentations would employ both
PBL and LDT as appropriate, would be coordinated with
text materials, and would invite discussion in discussion
groups.
In the first 20 weeks the online presentations would be
complemented by a weekly discussion meeting (with a
maximum group size of 20 students) led by a critical
thinking expert (either faculty or a supervised grad student,
if available) in which discussions and presentations by
students would occur. The discussions for the case studies
for the next 9 weeks would be led by a subject-matter
specialist selected by the appropriate department in coor-
dination and/or consultation with the critical thinking dis-
cussion leaders.
There would be assessment and feedback to the students
and leaders. Coordination of the timing of online presen-
tations, discussion meetings, and assessment will require
special attention so that they can be spread out over each
week.
This approach might well reduce expenses, given the
possibilities for economies of scale, but monitoring must be
done to assure that little loss in learning of critical thinking
or subject matter results. More research is required.
9.5.2 Even Less Expensive
Hitchcock (2004, 2015) has explored what could develop
into an even less expensive alternative in the first-year
critical thinking course.
In addition to two standard lecture sessions per week,
he used a text book accompanied by computer-assisted
instruction designed to fit the text book instead of the
20 discussion sections per week (at 20 students per
section for his approximately 400 students) that would
have otherwise been needed. He invited e-mail consul-
tation by two grad assistants and himself, but this con-
sultation was rarely requested so he did not need a
large staff.
The e-mail consultations required much less time by
human instructors than the weekly 20 member expert-led
discussion groups I have envisioned. With a pre-post
design (no control group) the Cohen’s d Hitchcock
obtained for improvement over the period of that one
course was 0.49 (Hitchcock 2004, p 187), which he deemed
‘‘a moderate effect’’ (2004, p 210).
If the lectures were online too, as they could have been,
then even less human instructor time would have been
involved if they were used for many thousands of students,
making lecture preparation cost per student quite low. Thus
the least expensive alternative I have considered consists of
two widely-used, online, involving, charismatic lectures
per week, coordinated with online text-book-based
instruction like that used by Hitchcock.
But the question must be faced, ‘‘Is 0.49 enough?’’ I think
not. Complaints about the critical thinking ability of our
123

college graduates combined with the expressed need for
critical thinking these days, together with reported signifi-
cantly better results for courses combining critical thinking
and subject matter suggest that CTAC should be explored.
(I realize that Hitchcock adjusted his result downward
from 0.49 to 0.44 in order to make up for what he estimates
would have been gained if the course had not been taught.
Accordingly I could ask whether 0.44 is enough. But since
his result will generally be compared to results not so
adjusted, I continue to report 0.49.)
Although online assessment can also be an important
benefit of online learning because of the immediacy of the
feedback, I am uneasy about computer assessment of essay
tests and other written responses. But more broadly, it is
with great trepidation that I mention these online-based
alternatives to the heavily human-interaction based program
I have proposed. I feel much better about human interaction.
This is an issue that extends beyond the current proposal to
all higher education. It is essential that the computer-based
and human-interaction-based alternatives to CTAC be
compared in control group studies, using Cohen’s d’s for
critical thinking improvement on multiple-choice tests as
well as essay tests and other open-ended assessments. The
exploration of what the lack of human interaction does to
students as people needs to be explored as well.
9.5.3 Faculty Time for the Senior Thesis/Project
The Thesis/Project requirement is an essential part of a
CTAC experience (just as a Ph.D thesis is an essential part
of Ph.D programs). However, advising and supervising a
Senior Project can be very time consuming on an indi-
vidual basis. Possibilities for group meetings, and for
reducing the magnitude of the Project can be explored, but
with caution. I see no way to provide computer-based
supervision for the Thesis/Project. To save money by
eliminating the Thesis/Project would severely limit the
effectiveness of the program here envisioned. The Thesis/
Project is crucial.
9.6 Getting Started
Some say that this program as described for Alpha College
probably requires too many changes to be adopted outright
by an operating institution. I agree. I deliberately described
an ideal program to put in our minds a possibility toward
which we might move. But there are many possible ways to
start. I shall suggest a few.
9.6.1 A Large Benefactor
A source of a large amount of funding could provide
support to start with nothing except a large area of unused
123
R. H. Ennis
land, a vision, and some deeply committed faculty and
administrators, and soon thereafter some flexible commit-
ted students. Or the benefactor could start with an institu-
tion that is failing and has facilities but little else, or an
institution that has an administration, faculty, and student
body ready for this kind of a new venture.
9.6.2 Starting with Only A Small Unit in a Larger
Institution
As an alternative, a group of approximately 150 committed
students per year and an appropriate number of committed
faculty and administrators could be identified as a small
unit at a larger thriving institution to explore the imple-
mentation of the Alpha approach. Perhaps this would
expand into a larger unit at that institution or become a
model for all of this and/or other institutions.
9.6.3 An Initially-Simplified Program
Another alternative consists of a step-by-step sequential
implementation of a simplified program that ultimately
develops into the full program. The simplified program
would begin by introducing a required one-semester stand-
alone general critical thinking course without subject-matter
case studies, taken in either the first or second freshman
semester. Both PBL and LDT would be used. Subject-matter
departments’ courses would then become involved, perhaps
developing over a 3-year period, gradually introducing,
infusing, and reinforcing general and subject-specific criti-
cal thinking in subject-matter courses where this is deemed
feasible and appropriate. The final Thesis/Project, which
will be as described in the full CTAC proposal, would be
introduced in the fourth year. Assessment, coordination, and
support as described in the full program, would be included.
If all this works, the first year course could then transition
into the full-year first-year course, including subject-matter
case studies. Full support by faculty, administrators, and
students would again be essential.
9.6.4 A 2-Year-College Adaptation
The simplified start could be adapted to a 2-year college,
though, because the program would run only 2 years, it
could not develop into the full program. The 2-year pro-
gram would consist of three main stages, introduced
sequentially: (1) a required one-semester freshman general
critical thinking course, (2) plans for, and implementation
of, the combining of critical thinking and some subject-
matter courses, and (3) perhaps before the second stage is
complete, beginning a reduced Thesis/Project calling for a
3-to-6-h course commitment in the final semester (assum-
ing 15 h is a full-time commitment).
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
The 1-h weekly class meetings for presentation and
discussion of each student’s Thesis/Project work would
occur only in the final semester. The written part of the
Thesis/Projects should not be over 20–40 pages plus ref-
erences. At least one first draft would be considered by a
student’s faculty advisor before final submission, and stu-
dents’ reading of each other’s drafts before they are seen by
a faculty member could occur. All other features of the
original Thesis/Project would apply.
All the suggestions for assessment, coordination and
support made earlier for the full 4-year CTAC would also
apply.
9.6.5 Starting with Voluntary Critical Thinking Subject
Matter Seminars with the Thought That If They
Become Sufficiently Popular, A Transition to Being
Required will be Easy to Make
Clemson University (2016a, b) has instituted a promising
program of voluntary critical thinking sophomore semi-
nars, dealing with various issues, including subject-matter
issues and promoting critical thinking and subject matter in
dealing with these issues. It uses (Clemson University
2016b, p 27) the Scriven and Paul (1987) mainstream
concept of critical thinking, quoted above in Sect. 2, which
together with Clemson’s conception of critical thinking
(Clemson University 2016b, pp 27–28 and presented in
Table 2), constitute a viable mainstream concept/concep-
tion of critical thinking.
These eight items in Table 2 could be elaborated at a
very high level of general critical thinking sophistication,
but it is not clear from what we see whether this is so. But
the Clemson concept/conception when further elaborated
will probably go well beyond the critical thinking skills of
many people we know—with its heavy emphasis on cau-
sation and hypothesis-testing, but also on evaluating and
using information, consistency, recognizing argument
flaws, salience, interpretation, and the evaluation of inter-
pretation. Depending on where students start and the flex-
ibility of the institution, this Clemson concept/conception
might be at just the right level, variety, and comprehen-
siveness for the Clemson situation.
One very important advantage possessed by the Clem-
son program is that it is actually being implemented, partly
because it is now voluntary and it does not require large
changes in the university structure. The Alpha approach is
a vision of what might be; the Clemson approach is
available now. Furthermore the Clemson approach is
flexible in that a shift to being required depends on how
things work out.
Its being voluntary has the further advantage that stu-
dents would be involved because they choose to be. Faculty
volunteer to offer the courses and students volunteer to take
them. But disadvantages are that many students will totally
miss the critical thinking instruction, and that faculty of
subsequent classes will not know in advance how much
competence in critical thinking they can expect of each
student in a given class. This advantage and disadvantage
situation will be reversed when and if the Clemson pro-
gram becomes required.
Another advantage that the Clemson program shares
with the Alpha College CTAC program is that, as sug-
gested by the research reported in Sect. 9.3, combining
critical thinking instruction with subject matter instruction,
which tends to use versions of PBL (problem-based
learning), seems to be more effective than stand-alone
critical thinking courses.
This program and the Alpha proposal illustrate the
important fact that there are various levels of mainstream
conceptions and that they can suit various situations. I look
forward to seeing how the Clemson program develops, how
successful it is at various stages, and what it ultimately
becomes. It might well be that being voluntary is best,
either as a transition or as permanent, but it might not be
best. The involving-type teaching and approaches of the
Alpha program might well make up for its not being
voluntary.
If not already part of the Clemson program, the avail-
ability of a comprehensive rigorous critical thinking text at
least for reference purposes—and a glossary—would be
helpful. A required or optional Senior Thesis/Project would
also be helpful, though this would require more staff—and
would be a significant requirement.
Perhaps someday Clemson will have a fully imple-
mented CTAC program, possibly like the Alpha program,
possibly not at all like the Alpha program. In any case it
will be a model from which we all can learn.
9.6.6 Other
Many different possibilities will occur to people, but we
must always remember that critical thinking, both general
and subject-specific, and subject-matter learning are both
important and can help each other, and that full support of
faculty, administration, and students is necessary.
10 Concluding Remarks
The definition of critical thinking as ‘‘reasonable reflective
thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do’’ is one
among a number of popular definitions that provide various
ways of cutting the conceptual pie, which is the main-
stream concept of critical thinking. But conceptions of
critical thinking are needed to guide teaching, and have
different emphases, depth, and detail. This essay promotes
123
 R. H. Ennis

Table 2 Clemson’s conception

Determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion
of critical thinking
Recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument
Evaluate competing causal explanations
Evaluate hypotheses for consistency with established facts
Determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported by evidence contained in a work
Recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art
Evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for investigating a question of causation
Evaluate data for consistency with established facts, hypotheses, or methods

the incorporation of a comprehensive, detailed, and rigor-
ous conception of critical thinking, The Alpha Conception
of Critical Thinking, in a program that provides critical
thinking across the curriculum (CTAC).
Six primary features of this program are (1) its required
freshman full-year course, teaching general critical think-
ing and incorporating it, together with subject matter and
subject-specific critical thinking, in subject-matter-ori-
ented/critical thinking case studies; (2) its incorporation
and reinforcement of general and subject-specific critical
thinking in subject-matter instruction; (3) its culminating,
senior-year, written Thesis/Project that uses critical think-
ing and subject matter; (4) its employment of problem-
based learning (PBL), lecture-discussion teaching (LDT),
the reinforcement of general critical thinking through its
use in subject-matter teaching, making critical thinking
principles explicit, and appropriate use of assessment; (5)
its institutional accompaniments; and (6) its learning from
and respect for research, the results of which are encour-
aging for CTAC.
Institutional accompaniments include a college-wide
Steering Committee; a staff for critical thinking teaching,
for administration, and for information technology; provi-
sions for wide sharing of understanding of the Alpha
Conception of Critical Thinking; seminars for instructors
dealing with the nature of and teaching of critical thinking;
cooperation with specialists in writing; a newsletter; and a
unified glossary. Strong widespread faculty, administrative,
and student support are essential.
Research results have shown that critical thinking can be
taught, though the amounts currently taught are arguably
disappointing, and that combining critical thinking
instruction and subject-matter instruction has positive
results for critical thinking and very possibly for subject-
matter learning and retention. Given the importance of
critical thinking, these results point in the direction of
combining critical thinking and subject matter in this
visionary CTAC program.
Acknowledgments This is the final version of a practical proposal
that has been developing over the past 3 years. It assumes my pre-
vious work in critical thinking and my faculty and some adminis-
trative experiences over many years. Earlier versions of this proposal
were presented at the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation,
Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 24, 2013; in Inquiry (Ennis 2013); at
the conference on Reasoning, Argumentation, and Critical Thinking
Instruction, Lund, Sweden, February 26, 2015; and at the II Interna-
tional Seminar on Critical Thinking, University of Tras-os-Montes e
Alto Douro, Villa Real, Portugal, May 8, 2015. I have profited from
the many suggestions and challenges made in response to these pre-
sentations. The comments by Jennie Berg, Frank Fair, Derek Allen,
Mark Battersby, Don Hatcher, Michael Scriven, Frank Zenker, and
anonymous reviewers were very helpful.
References
Abrami et al (2008) Instructional interventions affecting critical
thinking skills and dispositions: stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev Ed
Res 78(4):1102–1134
Abrami PC et al (2015) Strategies for teaching students to think
critically: a meta-analysis. Rev Ed Res 85:275–314
Allegretti C (2005) Thinking critically: instruction and assessment.
Best practices in teaching critical across the psychology
curriculum conference. Atlanta, GA, Oct 1
Arum R, Roksa J (2011) Academically adrift. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago
Bailin S, Battersby M (2010) Reason in the balance: an inquiry
approach to critical thinking. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Canada
Belkin D (2015) Skills gap found in college students. Wall Street J
Jan 17–18:A5
Bok D (2006) Our underachieving colleges: a candid look at how
much students learn and why they should be learning more.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Campbell D, Stanley J (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Rand-McNally, Chicago
Capon N, Kuhn D (2004) What’s so good about problem-based
learning? Cogn Instr 22(1):61–79
Casserly M (2012) The 10 skills that will get you hired in 2013.
Forbes, 10 Dec
Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning (n.d.). CAT.
Center for Assessment & Learning, Tennessee Technological
Institute, Cookeville, TN
Clemson University (2016a) Clemson thinks2. http://www.clemson.
edu/academics/programs/thinks2/
Clemson University (2016b) Clemson QEP report. http://www.
clemson.edu/academics/programs/thinks2/QEP-report.pdf
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences,
2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Commission on the Humanities (1980) The humanities in American
life. University of California Press, Berkeley
Conant J (ed) (1948–1954, a series) Harvard case histories in
experimental science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
Cook T, Campbell D (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and
analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

123
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision
Council for Aid to Education (n.d.). CLA. Council for Aid to
Education, New York
De Vise D (2012) Colleges face their own test anxiety. Sarasota
Herald Tribune (from The Washington Post) March 15: 2A 7A
DeAngelo I et al (2009) National norms for the 2007–2008 HERI
faculty survey. Higher Education Research Institute, Los
Angeles
Dewey J (1933) How we think. D C Heath, Boston
Ennis R (1961) Assumption-finding. In: Smith B, Ennis R (eds)
Language and concepts in education. Rand McNally, Chicago.
Reprinted (1971) La identificacion de supestos. In: Smith B,
Ennis R (eds) Lenguaje y conceptos en la educacion. El Ateneo,
Buenos Aires
Ennis R (1964) Operational definitions. Am Educ Res J 1:183–201
(Reprinted in: Krimerman L (ed) (1969) The nature and scope of
social science: a critical anthology. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
New York (Title as reprinted: Operationism can and should be
divorced from covering law assumptions)
Ennis R (1968) Enumerative induction and best explanation. J Philos
65:523–530
Ennis R (1973) On causality. Educ Res 2(6):4–11
Ennis R (1982) Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51:61–86
Ennis R (1984) Problems in testing informal logic, critical thinking,
reasoning ability. Inf Logic 6:3–9
Ennis R (1987a) A conception of critical thinking—with some
curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philoso-
phy Summer:1–5
Ennis R (1987b) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and
abilities. In: Baron J, Sternberg R (eds) Teaching thinking skills:
Theory and practice. W.H. Freeman, New York
Ennis R (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification
and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10
Ennis R (1990) The extent to which critical thinking is subject-
specific: further clarification. Educ Res 19(4):13–16
Ennis R (1991) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach
Philos 14(1):5–25
Ennis R (1996) Critical thinking. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
Ennis R (2001) Argument appraisal strategy: a comprehensive
approach. Inf Logic 21.2(2):97–140
Ennis R (2003) Critical thinking assessment. In: Fasko D (ed) Critical
thinking and reasoning: current theories, research, and practice.
Hampton, Cresskill
Ennis R (2004) Applying soundness standards to qualified reasoning.
Inf Logic 24(1):23–39
Ennis R (2005) Pensamiento critico: un punto de vista racional.
Revisita de Psicologia y educacion 1 1:47–64. A Spanish reprint
and translation of ‘‘Critical thinking: a streamlined conception’’
(1991)
Ennis R (2006) ‘Probably’. In: Hitchcock D Verheij B (eds) Arguing
on the toulmin model. Springer, Dordrecht
Ennis R (2007) ‘Probable’ and its equivalents. In: Hansen H, Pinto
RC (eds) Reason reclaimed: essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair
and Ralph H. Johnson. Vale Press, Newport News, VA
Ennis R (2008) Nationwide testing of critical thinking for higher
education: vigilance required. Teach Philos 31(1):1–26
Ennis R (2009) Investigating and assessing multiple-choice critical
thinking tests. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical thinking
education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?.
Althouse, London Ontario
Ennis R (2011a) Reflection and perspective. Part II Inquiry
26(2):5–20
Ennis R (2011b) Reflection and perspective. Part I Inquiry 26(1):4–18
Ennis R (2013) Critical thinking across the curriculum: the wisdom
CTAC program. Inquiry 28(2):25–45
Ennis R (2015a) Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In:
Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical
thinking in higher education. Palgrave, New York
Ennis R (2015b) The nature of critical thinking. http://criticalthinking.
net/longdefinition.html. Cited 1 March 2016
Ennis R, Weir E (1985) The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test.
Midwest Publications, Pacific Grove, CA
Ennis R, Norris S (1990) Critical thinking assessment: status, issues,
needs. In: Legg S, Algina J (eds) Cognitive assessment of
language and math outcomes. Ablex, Norwood
Ennis R, Millman J (2005a) Cornell critical thinking test, Level X.
The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CA
Ennis R, Millman J (2005b) Cornell critical thinking test, Level Z.
The Critical Thinking Co, Seaside, CA
Ennis R, Chattin G (2015) An annotated list of English-language
critical thinking tests. http://criticalthinking.net/testing.html.
Cited 1 March 2016
Ennis R, Millman J, Tomko T (2005) Administration manual: cornell
critical thinking tests: level X and level Z. The Critical Thinking
Co, Seaside, CA
Facione P (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus
for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Execu-
tive summary: the delphi report Table 1. California Academic
Press, Millbrae, CA
Fisher A, Scriven M (1997) Critical thinking: its definition and
assessment. Edgepress, Point Reyes
Groarke L (2009) What’s wrong with the California critical thinking
skills test? CT testing and accountability. In: Sobocan J, Groarke
L (eds) Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher
order thinking be tested? Althouse Press, Aylmer
Hart H (1961) The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford,
pp 155–159
Hatcher D (2009) The institutional assessment of critical thinking: a
fifteen-year perspective. In: Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) Critical
thinking education and assessment: can high order thinking be
tested?. Althouse Press, Aylmer
Hatcher D (2013) Is critical thinking across the curriculum a plausible
goal? OSSA conference Archive. Paper 69. http://scholar.
uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/69.
Cited 1 March 2016
Hitchcock D (1985) Enthymematic arguments. Inf Log 7(2, 3):83–97
Hitchcock D (2004) The effectiveness of computer assisted instruc-
tion in critical thinking. Inf Log 24(3):183–217
Hitchcock D (2015) The effectiveness of instruction in critical
thinking. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook
of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave, New York
Huber C, Kuncel N (2015) Does college teach critical thinking? A
meta-analysis. Review of educational research. Prepublished 16
Sept 2015. doi:10.3102/0034654315605917
Kosonen P, Winne P (1995) Effects of teaching statistical laws on
reasoning about everyday problems. J Educ Psychol 87:33–46
Kuhn D (2015) Thinking together and alone. Educ Res 44(1):46–53
Lehman D, Lempert R, Nisbett R (1988) The effects of graduate
training on reasoning: formal discipline and thinking about
everyday-life events. Am Psychol 43(6):431–442
Lumpken C (1990) Effects of teaching critical thinking skills on the
critical thinking ability, achievement, and retention of social
studies content by fifth and sixth graders. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
McPeck J (1981) Critical thinking and education. St Martin’s Press,
New York
McPeck J (1990) Critical thinking and subject specificity: a reply to
Ennis. Educ Res 19(4):10–12
Mead M (1928) Coming of age in Samoa. Morrow, Oxford
123

Nisbett R (1992) Rules for reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Norris S, Ennis R (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. Midwest
Publications, Pacific Grove
Pascarella E, Terenzini P (2005) How college affects students:
findings and insights from twenty years of research, vol 2: a third
decade of research. Jossey Bass, San Francico
Pease M, Kuhn D (2011) Experimental analysis of the effective
components of problem-based learning. Sci Educ 95:57–86
Possin K (2008) A field guide to critical thinking assessment. Teach
Philos 31(3):201–228
Possin K (2013a) A serious flaw in the collegiate learning assessment
[CLA] test. Inf Log 33(3):390–405. Also posted in Italian at
http://unibec.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/un-grave-difetto-del-test-
colligiate-learning-assessment-cla/
Possin K (2013b) Some problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking
Assessment [HCTA] test. Inquiry 28(3):4–12
Possin K (2013c) A fatal flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment
test. Assess Update 25(1):8–11
Possin K (2014) Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal test: the more you know, the lower your score. Inf Log
34(4):393–416
Rawls J (1971) Theory of justice. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA
Rowe M, Gillespie R, Harris K, Koether S, Shannon L, Rose L (2015)
Redesigning a general education science course to promote
123
R. H. Ennis
critical thinking. CBE Life Sci Educ 14(3):ar30. Examined 19
April, 2016. http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/3/ar30.short
Scriven M, Paul R (1987) Presentation. 8th Annual international
conference on critical thinking and education reform. http://
www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.
Cited 1 March 2016
Siegel H (1988) Educating reason. Routledge, New York
Sobocan J, Groarke L (eds) (2009) Critical thinking education and
assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?. Althouse,
London Ontario
Solon T (2001) Improving critical thinking in an introductory
psychology course. Mich Commun Coll J 7(2):73–80
Solon T (2003) Teaching critical thinking: the more the better.
Commun College Enterp 9(2):25–38
Solon T (2007) Critical thinking infusion and course content learning
in introductory psychology. J Instr Psychol 34(2):95–109
U. S. Office of Education (1991) America 2000: an education
strategy. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington
Winocur SLM (1981) The impact of a program of critical thinking on
reading comprehension remediation and critical thinking of
middle and high school students. Diss Abstr Int 42:996A
Wirkala C, Kuhn D (2011) Problem-based learning in K-12 educa-
tion: is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? Am Educ
Res J 48:1157–1186