Critical Thinking Portfolio

Ed. 4391, University of Lethbridge, Lance

Grigg
Ashton Healy : 001149469

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

Ed. 4391: Critical Thinking Portfolio

Ashton Healy
Three accurate definitions of critical thinking:
[One must be the students, personal definition of critical thinking]
1. As defined by Scriven and Paul in Our Concept of Critical Thinking, critical
thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered
from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based
on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions; clarity,
accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth,
breadth, and fairness (2008).
2. As defined by Paul and Elder in The Miniature Guide to Critically Thinking,
critical thinking is that mode of thinkingabout any subject, content, or problem
in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully
analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, selfdisciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to
rigorous standards of excellence and a mindful command of their use. It entails
effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment
to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism (2008).
3. Critical thinking is the process by which a person draws conclusions through the
active decomposition and analysis of compiled information that has been gathered
and/or provided to themi.e. it is the process by which knowledge is gained and
through which it evolves. By actively decomposing and analyzing information our
thinking process becomes multi-dimensional rather than linear. That is, one does
not travel simply from point A to point B when drawing a conclusion; rather, one
considers all points of view, biases, facts, statistics, etc. to arrive at an informed
conclusion that has required a more complex metacognitive thinking process.
Critical thinking requires one to consider all biases, remain open and fair-minded,
and hold themselves fallible with the desire to make an informed decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The elements of reasoning (each element)
o Purpose:
Purpose is the goal or objective of one's reasoning. When considering the purpose of one's
argument they need to take the time to state their purpose clearly, distinguish their main
purpose from other related purposes, check periodically to be sure their reasoning remains
linked to their purpose, and choose significant and realistic purposes.
o Question-at-issue:
The question-at-issue is the main question that our reasoning is addressing. Our reasoning
is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem, or to
resolve some issue. When laying out ones argument, they must state the question-at-issue

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

clearly and precisely, express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning, break the
question into sub-questions, distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those
that are a matter of opinion or that require multiple viewpoints, and state a clear answer,
conclusion, solution, etc.
Information:
Information is the facts and data we need to use as evidence to address questions, solve
problems, and/or pose questions/problems. The information we use needs to be accurate
with the requisite amount of precision and all our reasoning needs to be based on data,
information and evidence. We must restrict our claims to those supported by the data we
use, search for information that supports and opposes our position, and make sure
information used is clear, accurate, relevant and sufficient.
o

o Conclusions and Interpretations:

Conclusions and interpretations are the reasoned judgments our reasoning strives to
establish. They are grounded in supporting reasons that, in turn, are supported with
evidence. Conclusions and interpretations should flow logically from evidence, making
them sound, and they should avoid fallacies. Conclusions and interpretations should be
consistent with each other.

Concepts:
Concepts are the powerful ideas, theories, laws, principles or hypotheses that we use to
think about things and make meaning out of our experiences. Concepts help organize data,
experiences, and fields of study. They need to be clearly, precisely and accurately
explained.
o

o Assumptions:
Assumptions are beliefs we take for granted, the positions we bring to situations,
discussions, arguments, etc. Assumptions usually operate subconsciously and often direct
conscious thinking.

Implications and Consequences:

Implications and consequences are the claims or truths that logically follow from our
reasoning. Reasoning leads us towards implications and consequences and what we
commit to when we believe a specific theory, concept, or idea to be true.
o

o Point of View:
A point of view is the perspective or place from which we view or reason through
something. A point of view includes both the focus of one's attention (i.e. object, idea,
person, etc.) and the way in which one sees things.
o Alternatives:
Alternatives constitute the myriad possibilities that exist for our reasoning, this could be
alternative questions one could ask, alternative perspectives one could take on a given
issue, alternative concepts one could apply, etc.

Context:
Reasoning always occurs within a specific context, this could be personal, professional,
scientific, socio-economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural, etc.
o

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Intellectual Standards

o Clarity:
Clarity, fundamental to critical thinking, evaluates the clearness of a statement, argument,
conclusions, etc. If a statement is not clear, it is hard to determine whether it is relevant or
accurate. Assessing the clarity of a statement, argument, or conclusion can help one focus
in on an argument in an effort to better understand the problem being considered.
Questions one may ask in an effort to increase clarity: Could you elaborate further on the
point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration?
Could you give me an example?
o Accuracy:
The accuracy of a statement ensures that ones statements correspond with their referents.
A statement can be clear but it may not be accurate. Therefore some of the questions one
may ask to promote accuracy are: Is that really true? How could we check that? How
could we find out if that is true?

Precision:
Precision is essential to critical thinking because it involves being exact in ones required
level of detail. A statement can be both clear and accurate, therefore in an effort to
promote precision, questions one may ask are: Could you give more details? Could you be
more specific?
o

Relevance:
To determine if a statement is relevant, one must think critically about the matter or topic
at hand. A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, therefore, in an effort to promote
relevance, one may ask the following questions: How is that connected to the questions?
How does that bear on the issue?
o

o Depth:
As a standard of critical thinking, depth refers to the complexity, thoughtful exploration,
and the presence of detailed and relevant interrelationships. A common mistake that occurs
with critical thinking is the lack of depth in exploration when considering an extremely
complex issue. Questions that one may ask to promote depth are the following: What
factors make this a difficult problem? What are some of the complexities of this question?
What are some difficulties we need to deal with in this issue?

Breadth:
When an argument has breadth, it considers the insights of more than one side of an
argument. A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but may
lack breadth. Therefore, one may ask the following questions to promote breadth in their
critical thinking: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to
look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What
would this look like from the point of view of?
o

Fairness:

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

As a standard of critical thinking, fairness requires one position to be justifiable and not
entirely self-serving, one-sided, or unduly biased. In an effort to foster fairness, one may
ask the following questions: Do I have any vested interest in this issue? Am I
sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? Is self-interest clouding my
judgment in this case?
o Logic:
As a standard of critical thinking, logic requires the combination of thoughts to be
mutually supporting and make sense in combination with each other. When the
combination of thoughts are contradicting, not mutually supporting, or do not make sense;
we say they are illogical. Questions one may ask to deepen their logic are: Does this really
make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you
implied this and now you are saying that; how can they both be true? What kind of logic
are you using? Is it appropriate in this case? If so, why? If not, then why not?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o Critical inquiry

Critical inquiry is the process by which we carefully examine an issue in an effort to come
to a reasoned and informed judgment. It is the means by which knowledge advances and
fosters a curiosity and concern for the truth; although, we never know if we have found it.
It is imperative that within the discourse of critical inquiry one approaches these issues
with an open and fair mind, as well as an awareness of bias and fallacies. The end goal of
critical inquiry is to find out the best view or position to hold an issue; it is not merely to
find faults in others arguments.
o A reasoned judgment
A reasoned judgment is a conclusion one has come to based on the assessment of various
criteria and the balancing of various considerations and/or arguments. Essentially, it is the
informed decision or position one comes to after they have inquired about an issue in
sufficient depth and taken all relevant criteria into consideration.
o An issue
An issue is a challenge, controversy, or difference in point of view that can be the focus
for inquiry. When critically inquiring about an issue, it is crucial that you are focused in on
a specific issue so that you avoid broadly characterizing something and consequently not
dealing with your issue in sufficient depth.
o Criteria
Criteria identify the relevant considerations, which provide the basis for making ones
judgment. These criteria must refer to considerations that are publicly available for one to
consider, that is, personal preferences cannot supply the criteria to make a reasoned
judgment. The criteria for making a judgment is often specific to the type of judgment one
is trying to make as well as the criteria for assessing reasoningrelevance of reasoning to
conclusions, absences of logical errors, fallacies, etc.which apples in most areas of
reasoning.
o Sound argument

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

An argument is sound if it is a valid deductive argument with true premises.

o Valid argument
When the conclusion follows from the argument in a deductive argument, we call it a valid
argument. It must be noted that it does not matter what the premises and the conclusions
actually say, as validity is a property of the arguments form.
o Deductive argument
An argument where the premises (supporting arguments) can provide a guarantee of the
truth of the conclusion is called a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the
premises are intended to provide support for the conclusions that is so strong that, if the
premises were true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An example of a
deductive argument is as follows:
(1)
All humans are mortal.
(2)
Socrates is human.
(C)
Socrates is mortal.
o Valid deductive argument
An argument is deductively valid when the conclusion logically follows from the premises
(some logicians use the terms to entail here). It is important to note that a valid argument
does not require the premises or conclusions to be true.
o Inductive argument
An inductive argument is one that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain
conclusions. In a deductive argument the premises provide some degree of support for the
conclusion where the truth of the premises indicate with some degree of strength that the
conclusion is true. An example of an inductive argument is as follows:
Every swan in a random sample of 3200 swans is white. This strongly supports the
hypothesis that all swans are white
o Strong, inductive argument
An inductive argument is considered strong when the premises strongly support the
conclusion. In comparison, when the premises do not support the conclusion, we call this
an inductively strong argument.
o A fallacy
A fallacy is a type of weak argument that often has persuasive power. Fallacies are very
common and thus, it is extremely important that we are conscious of them. Often these
fallacies may be irrelevant to the issue one is inquiring about, yet the argument itself is
meant to sway your reasoning and will consequently, weaken your final argument or
judgment.
o Three fallacies
a) Red Herring (Changing the Focus): An arguer commits the fallacy or red
herring when they introduce an irrelevant issue or argument in the effort of
distracting, or shifting the focus away from the question at hand. This is often used
to distract ones opponent from a weak part of their argument. The logical error lies

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

in fact that the reasons and arguments given are for a different issue, and therefore,
they cannot be applied to the original issue.
Example:
Reporter: What has your government done to deal with the pending
financial disaster?
Politician: Well, as you know the previous government ignored this
problem, and that is why we are in the mess we face now. Had they taken
appropriate measures at the right time, we would all be better off.
Fortunately, they have been defeated and we are now in charge.
b) Straw Person: An arguer commits the straw dog fallacy when they attack a misdescribed argument or position by attributing to a proponent a view that they do
not hold. They then pretend to refute the view the proponent holds by attacking the
misrepresented position. This is often achieved when an arguer summarizes or
makes an inference from their opponents view such that they make it sound
ludacrist. The logical error lies in criticizing a claim or argument that is not real
to the issue and provides no basis for rejecting what is actually being claimed.
Example: The Netherlands has very tolerant drug policies. The Dutch
clearly feel that child drug use is of no significance and that the
widespread use of heroin will only benefit the country.
The above description of the Dutch attitudes towards heroin based on
their stated policy towards soft drugs is a typical example of a straw
person: the informant accuses a proponent of holding a ridiculous
position by making an unwarranted extrapolation from a position that the
proponent holds.
c) Irrelevant Standard: An arguer commits the fallacy of irrelevant standard when
they criticize a policy or program for not achieving goals, which were never
expected of the program or policy to achieve. This is an extension of the straw
person fallacy, as you are ascribing standards to a proponent, which the
proponent does not hold. This is an attempt to undermine the acceptance of the
policy on the basis that it cannot achieve some clearly impossible goal. The
logical error that occurs with the irrelevant standard fallacy is that the objection
is irrelevant since standard proposed is not the goal claimed by the policy and is
often an exaggerated one.
Example: There is no point in studying philosophyit will never solve all
of lifes problems. (But of course, no one said it would)
o Fallacy of affirming the consequent
The fallacy of affirming the consequence occurs within deductive arguments--i.e. If A then
B, B, therefore A--when even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false.
In general, B could be a consequence of something other than A. An example of this
would be to say:
A:
If the car runs, then it has gas.
B:
It has gas.
Conclusion: Therefore, the car runs.
We can see this argument is not valid because there are many contributing factors to a car
running then just having gas.

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

o Fallacy of denying the antecedent

The fallacy of denying the antecedent occurs from the following invalid argument: If A
then B, not B, therefore, not A. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion may still
be false--i.e. the consequence B may occur even though A does not occur. An example of
this would be the following argument.
A:
If an baby experiences SIDs, they will die as an infant.
B:
The baby did not get SIDS.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the baby would not die as an infant.
We can see this argument is invalid because there are many factors contributing to the life
of any infant.
o Loaded language
Loaded language is one that uses dialect that will conjure up particular images or emotions
based on ones associations connected to words--often stereotypes. Because of the differing
emotional connotations of words or expressions, the choice of language used to frame
issues and arguments can affect and even slant the directions of inquiry. Thus, it is often
possible to use different words with different connotations to describe the same
phenomenon, therefore evoking different reactions.
Example: The philosopher Bertrand Russell famously states, I am firm;
you are stubborn; he is a pig-headed fool.
o Factual judgment
One makes a factual judgment when they make a judgment which focus on describing or
explaining some aspect of the way the world isit describes states of affairs. By stating a
claim is a fact, is to say it is true, and thus the term factual may conjure up the idea of
claims which are certain and beyond dispute, however, all judgments are fallible and
subject of revision. Factual judgments can often be broken into descriptive judgments and
explanatory judgments.
The assertion that the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 160,000
people is an example of a descriptive judgment.
The claims sugar causes hyperactivity or Playing violent video games
causes violent behavior in children are examples of explanatory
judgments.
o Evaluative judgment
An evaluative judgment expresses an evaluation or assessment of an object, action, or
phenomenon. Evaluative judgments occur in various areas and can be broken into the
following types: moral or ethical judgments, aesthetic judgments, instrumental judgments,
and comparative judgments of value.
You should give more to charity or The situation of the refugees are
unjust are examples of evaluative judgment.
Darius Ruckers recording of Wagon Wheel will not make as much
money as Old Crow Medicine Shows recording, is an example of aesthetic
judgments.
Taking the number 2 highway is the fastest way to Lethbridge is an
example of an instrumental judgment.

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

A judgment regarding whether the risks of developing the bomb out ways
any possible benefits is an example of a comparative judgments of value.
o Interpretive judgment
An interpretive judgment deals with questions of meaning in an effort to make sense of
data or phenomena within a particular framework. One may offer interpretations of art,
interpret the results of a scientific experiment, or interpret the motives of a friend in an
effort to standardize an argument.
Picassos Guernica reflects the horrors of the war is an example of an
interpretive judgment.
o Naturalistic fallacy
A naturalistic fallacy is committed when one attempts to come to a judgment on an issue,
which has an evaluative dimension purely on the basis of factual considerations. When
dealing with ethical judgments one cannot simply describe facts in an effort to tell us what
to do, or what the ethically right action is.
o Dialectic
Dialect is the argumentative exchange between various sides on an issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------List the Guidelines for reaching a reasoned judgment
1. Ensure the relevant arguments, objections, and responses have been identified.
Evaluate the individual arguments.
2. Establish, if possible, which view bears the burden of proof.
3. Assess the possibilities in light of the alternatives.
4. Consider differences in how the issues and arguments are framed.
5. Recognize points that may be valid in various views.
6. Synthesize the strengths of different views into the judgment.
7. Weigh and balance different considerations, values, and arguments.
8. Consider whether your own personal convictions and experiences may be coloring
your judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Identify and describe three critical thinking activities for classroom use
Below are three activities intended to aid teachers in incorporating curiosity, evidence, and
critical thinking in their classroom from Education Dive (www.educationdrive. com). I
chose these activities to present here because they can build on each other, they require
students to think metacognitively about their thinking process and reasoning, require
students to critically examine each others critically thinking process, and can be easily
adapted according to culture, age, subject, curriculum outcomes, etc.
1. Gap Fill In

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

1
0

Students are shown a picture as a class (ideally projected on Smart Board), which they
will be required to think critically about. At the top of their page, students will write:
What is happening in this picture? and at the bottom of the page they should answer
(very simply, number of sentences can be adjusted accordingly) with what they believe to
be happening.
In the middle of the page, students will write down the steps that they took to arrive at
their answer, the evidence they see that will encourage their conclusion, and the prior
knowledge they used to arrive at this conclusion. Hence, why it is called Gap Fill In.
The goal of this activity is to not only use evidence, but support meta cognitive skills by
asking them to assess their own thinking process, the strength of their evidence, and the
prior knowledge they brought to their conclusion.
Here is an example image that could be used for this Gap Fill In activity. Images can be
modified according to grade level, subject, culture, current events, etc.

U.S. Army soldiers and medical professionals assist at a survivor camp in Port-au-Prince,
Haiti, following a 2010 earthquake.
Credit: The U.S. Army.
2. Fishbowl
While students are sitting in their regular classroom seats, set up a fishbowl--inner circle-and a surrounding circle in your classroom. Next present your students with a question or
statement and allow them a few minutes to reflect individually on it. When first
introducing this activity, you will need to help your students identify what sorts of
considerations, opinions, evidence, arguments, etc. that they should be compiling in their
mind.
While students are reflecting, number them off into small groups of 3s, 4s, or 5s. After
reflection, transition students into the fishbowl setup. According to group number, have
one group of students facilitate a conversation in the fishbowl, while others observe
outside without comment.

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

1
1

Once the inner group has discussed the issue to the required extent have the outer groups
evaluate two things: The inner groups process (did they listen to one another?) and their
content (did they provide evidence or just opinions?).
The goal of this activity is to help students understand how and if they use evidence as
well as hear the difference between giving an opinion and backing up an opinion with
evidence.

5th graders engaged in a fishbowl discussion: To shoot a photo or help. A student,

curious about the photographers role in the previous Gap Fill In image, created the
question.
Credit: Jenny Lee
3. Debate
Introduce a statement to the class by posting it at the front of the room, or in a clearly
visible location. Give the students a minute or two to individually reflect on it. In each
corner of your room, label: strongly agree, strongly disagree, somewhat agree, somewhat
disagree. After students have had a minute to reflect on the statement (ex: Prisons are
effective in stopping crime.), have them move to whichever corner best represents how
they feel about the statement.
Students should then move into self-facilitated discussion centers where students are to
discuss why they have selected their positions. During this time, the teacher should
transcribe the speech of the participants and if possible this should be done in real-time
with the transcription projected onto the board during the debate.
After a designated amount of time (around 5-7 minutes average, but can be adjusted
according to grade, topic, etc.) the debate will conclude and students will return to their
seat to debrief, during which the class should evaluate the debate using the transcription as
evidence.

CRITICAL THINKING PORTFOLIO

1
2

Discuss with the class whether the debate was good or bad--according to pre-described
standards that the class has brainstormed--using evidence from the transcriptions to
support your analysis.
It is recommended that the teacher conduct the first debate without rules--so students can
have a comparison for what works and what doesnt work--after which the teacher and
class can come up with rules for their debates.
Rules for debate:
A. Seek first to understand the statement, EVERY WORD.
B. PROJECT your voice; dont yell.
C. Your PERSONAL experience is NOT the rule. Connect it to a bigger example.
D. RESTATE the previous point made, make your point, and move on.
E. General example, ok to start; SPECIFIC EVIDENCE, this kids SMART!
The goal of this activity is to allow students not only debate a point, but analyze their
communication skills--which are very important to the process of critical thinking.
Additionally, students can document their growth by analyzing the transcription logs from
their debates.