Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for ...

1 Executive Summary The Delphi Report ByDr. Peter A. Facione,Dean of the College of Arts and SciencesSanta Clara UniversityThe Complete American Philosophical Association Delphi Research Reportis available as ERIC Doc. No.: ED 315 423(c) 1990, The California Academic Press, 217 La Cruz Ave., Millbrae, CA 94030. All rights Reserved. Permission to duplicate for noncommercial uses may be purchased for $ per copy from The California Academic Press. Phone or Fax 650-697-5628 The 1988-90 APA Delphi Research Project was funded in part by California State University, FullertonCritical Thinking: A Statement ofExpert Consensus for Purposes ofEducational Assessment and Instruction1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCRITICAL THINKING: A Statement OF Expert Consensus FOR PURPOSES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND INSTRUCTIONI ncluding all Tables, Findings and RecommendationsPeter A.

2 FacioneSanta Clara UniversityI -- The Critical Thinking Movement and CT AssessmentThe eighties witnessed a growing accord that the heart of education lies exactly where traditionaladvocates of a liberal education always said it was -- in the processes of inquiry, learning and thinking ratherthan in the accumulation of disjointed skills and senescent information. By the decade's end the movementto infuse the K-12 and post-secondary curricula with Critical thinking (CT) had gained remarkable success also raised vexing questions: What exactly are those skills and dispositions whichcharacterize CT? What are some effective ways to teach CT? And how can CT, particularly if it becomesa campus-wide, district-wide or statewide requirement, be assessed? When asked by the individualprofessor or teacher seeking to introduce CT into her own classroom, such questions are difficult they take on social, fiscal, and political dimensions when asked by campus curriculum committees,school district offices, boards of education, and the educational testing and publishing industries.

3 Given the central role played by philosophers in articulating the value, both individual and social,of CT, in analyzing the concept of CT, in designing college level academic programs in CT, and in assistingwith efforts to introduce CT into the K-12 curriculum, it is little wonder that the American PhilosophicalAssociation, through its Committee on Pre-College Philosophy, took great interest in the CT movement andits impact on the profession. In December of 1987 that committee asked this investigator to make asystematic inquiry into the current state of CT and CT assessment.(c) 1990 Peter A. Facione and The California Academic Press [1998 printing] (Copies and Permissions to Duplicate Available) (650) 697-56282 TABLE 1 Consensus Statement REGARDING CRITICALTHINKING AND THE IDEAL Critical THINKERWe understand Critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment whichresults in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanationof the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextualconsiderations upon which that judgment is based.

4 CT is essential as a tool ofinquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource inone's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is apervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal Critical thinker ishabitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in makingjudgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters,diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria,focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as thesubject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good criticalthinkers means working toward this ideal.

5 It combines developing CT skills withnurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which arethe basis of a rational and democratic society. As Table 1 suggests, a key result of inquiry is the articulation by a panel of CT experts of aconceptualization of CT it terms of two dimensions: cognitive skills and affective dispositions. Section II ofthis report describes the Delphi research methodology. Section III address the skill dimension of CT, andSection IV the dispositional dimension of CT. Fifteen recommendations pertaining to CT instruction andassessment are presented. II -- Research Methodology and PurposeThis research employed the powerful qualitative research methodology known as the Delphi Delphi Method requires the formation of an interactive panel of experts.

6 These persons must be willingto share their expertise and work toward a Consensus resolution of matters of opinion. In all forty-sixpersons, widely recognized by their professional colleagues to have special experience and expertise in CTinstruction, assessment or theory, made the commitment to participate in this Delphi project. (See Table7.) Beginning in Feb. 1988 and ending in November 1989, the Delphi panel participated in six roundsof questions which called for thoughtful and detailed responses. The panelists worked toward Consensus bysharing their reasoned opinions and being willing to reconsider them in the light of the comments, objectionsand arguments offered by other experts. To circumvent undue influence arising from any given Expert 'sprofessional status, each round of questions was initiated by the project director and all responses werecoordinated through that person.

7 The project director circulated to the entire panel direct quotations andsynthesized responses, with the names of their authors removed. However, the panelists themselves,through the thoughtfulness and persuasiveness of their written responses, shaped the line of inquiry. (SeeTable 2.)(c) 1990 Peter A. Facione and The California Academic Press [1998 printing] (Copies and Permissions to Duplicate Available) (650) 697-56283 Roughly half the panelists were affiliated with Philosophy (52%), the others were with Education(22%), the Social Sciences (20%), or the Physical Sciences (6%). Participation in this research project doesnot imply that a person agrees with all the findings. Where Consensus is reported a minority of panelists holddivergent views. Where near unanimity is reported a some panelists may not be in full accord with how thespecifics are expressed.

8 One Expert asked to be excluded from supporting the findings, even though listedas a participant. TABLE 2 PROJECT HISTORYR ound 1 (Feb. 11, 1988) and Round 2 (Mar. 14, 1988) initiated the Delphi process. Inboth rounds panelists were invited to nominate other CT experts to join in thisresearch project. The experts reached Consensus on the working assumption that"the concept of CT could be made operational to the extent that important parts ofCT could be assessed validly and reliably." The experts agreed to begin theiranalysis of CT by "identifying the core elements of CT which might reasonably beexpected at the freshman and sophomore general education college level." Therationale for this decision was that the college level theoretical construct of CT couldreasonably be used to guide what might be said about CT at the K-12 level.

9 Also thepanelists noted that most of the participating experts had greater experience at thecollege level than in K-12 education. Round 3 (May 4, 1988) was an open-ended invitation for experts to write their own listof the operations which they conceived of as central to CT. The first synthesis ofthis input was presented for Expert review in Round 4 (Sept. 23, 1988). Thissynthesis focused on the skill dimension of CT. Round 4 invited responsesregarding each skill and sub-skill identified, a proposed [and ultimately rejected]input/output model of CT operations, a list of closely related cognitive operationswhich might or might not be distinguished from CT, a general Statement regardingwhat a skill is and how one is taught, and a list of caveats and cautions regarding CTinstruction and assessment.

10 Round 5A (Feb. 28, 1989) reviewed the definitions and classification of CT cognitiveskills in the light of Expert responses to Round 4. Round 5B (also Feb. 28, 1989)proposed statements regarding the dispositional dimension of CT and about itspossible normative connotations. Round 5C (Mar. 10, 1989) asked for specificrecommendations regarding CT instruction and assessment, and offered a revisionof the general Statement on teaching and assessing a cognitive skill. Round 5included several quotations culled from the panelists' earlier responses and invitedcomments and reactions. The experts' comments regarding the various quotations included in each roundadded greatly to the project director's understanding of the experts' overall these and the responses to specific Round 5A, 5B and 5C questions, theproject director assembled a draft report of all Delphi findings, includingrecommendations.