This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]

On: 21 December 2014, At: 14:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Teaching in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Distinguishing Features of
Critical Thinking Classrooms
M. Neil Browne & Kari Freeman
Published online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: M. Neil Browne & Kari Freeman (2000) Distinguishing Features
of Critical Thinking Classrooms, Teaching in Higher Education, 5:3, 301-309, DOI:
10.1080/713699143
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713699143

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2000

Distinguishing Features of Critical

Thinking Classrooms
M. NEIL BROWNE & KARI FREEMAN

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

Department of Economics, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green,

OH 43403, USA

ABSTRACT Critical thinking comes in many forms, but all possess a single core feature. They
presume that human arguments require evaluation if they are to be worthy of widespread
respect. Hence, critical thinking focuses on a set of skills and attitudes that enable a listener or
reader to apply rational criteria to the reasoning of speakers and writer. Those classrooms that
encourage critical thinking possess distinguishing features that assist programme evaluators and
teachers themselves to assess whether critical thinking is a regular occurrence in a particular
classroom. This article suggests that a critical thinking classroom commonly re ects the following
attributes: frequent questions, developmental tension, fascination with the contingency of
conclusions and active learning. These attributes reinforce one another to provide developmental
stimuli for enhanced critical thinking.

Curriculum proposals customarily contain predictions that critical thinking will be

enhanced should we be so wise as to embrace whatever is being proposed (Aarons,
1985). While this claim is not as broad as it appears at rst glance because of the
ambiguity of `critical thinking , nevertheless, this inclination is one of the few
contemporary attempts to create coherence in post-secondary education (Readings,
1996). Deference to critical thinking as an educational objective is certainly more
common than the actual encouragement of critical thinking in university classrooms.
In the interest of bridging the gap between aspiration and achievement in the area
of critical thinking, we want to suggest an aggregate of attributes that distinguish
classrooms that regularly encourage critical thinking from those that do not.
This list can have at least two developmental functions. First, it suggests a
formative avenue for determining whether a particular classroom is exhibiting
characteristics conducive to encouraging critical thinking. Additionally, the list can
stimulate re ection about how speci c classroom practices contribute toward particular purposes, while perhaps discouraging others.
Our interest in doing so is to provide encouragement for faculty members who
are trying to export more critical thinking into their practice. By enumerating and
discussing particular characteristics of critical thinking classrooms, we want to assist
both assessment teams and teachers themselves to pinpoint particular traits that
require improvement in the interest of a more critical populous. We need to point
ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/00/030301-09

2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

302

M. N. Browne & K. Freeman

out that these attributes reinforce one another; no single one of them will, by itself,
encourage critical thinking. However, as a package, they can transform the teachers
knowledge of critical thinking into a process learners will use to re ectively evaluate
arguments long after they have graduated.
Another introductory necessity is our explanation of what we mean by `critical
thinking . Critical thinking comes in many forms, but all possess a single core
feature. They presume that human arguments require evaluation if they are to be
worthy of widespread respect. Hence, critical thinking focuses on a set of skills and
attitudes that enable a listener or reader to apply rational criteria to the reasoning of
speakers and writer (Browne & Keeley, 1998). These attitudes and skills are the
substance of critical thinking texts and curriculum materials. However, the special
nature of critical thinking as an educational objective results in the necessity to
design classrooms to match the demands of a mental activity that is less than
welcome for many students. We now turn to a discussion of these design features.
Frequent Evaluative Questions
Critical thinking is very much a participant activity. The subtlety and psychological
complexity of systematic evaluation of arguments is unlikely to be acquired by
osmosis. However, what student activities are most likely to accelerate critical
thinking? A later section discusses active learning itself, but here we want to focus
on what seems to us the primary behavioral characteristic of critical thinking
classrooms, viz., the room is abuzz with questions. The teacher asks some of them
and students ask others, often of one another. Each declarative statement is welcomed as an opportunity for moving toward additional questions (Meyer, 1994).
While Meyers work is not directed to encouraging critical thinking explicitly, it does
indirectly highlight the conversational imperative of asking series of critical questions.
Certain questions have special signi cance for the critical thinking classroom.
Their signi cance stems from their importance as stepping stones toward the
evaluation of reasoning. To begin, critical thinking requires comprehension. To
evaluate reasoning, one must rst discover it. Consequently, questions that unearth
the conclusion and reasons in an argument are necessary starting points for critical
thinking (Shaw, 1996). Teachers can provide considerable bene t for their students
just by systematically asking `why? and reinforcing students when they too activate
the search for reasons in this manner.
After identi cation of the reasoning, the following questions, inter alia, move the
class directly to the evaluative focus of critical thinking:

What words or phrases are being used in an ambiguous fashion?

What descriptive and value assumptions provide the foundation for the reasoning?
What evidence was provided for the claims in the reasoning?
What is the quality of the proffered evidence?
Are the analogical components of the argument persuasive?

Distinguished Features of Critical Thinking Classrooms

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

303

What important omitted information is omitted from the reasoning?

What rival causes might explain the conclusion?
What alternative inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence?

Critical thinking can be usefully conceptualised as understanding the use of these

questions, knowing how to seek answers to them and enjoying the process of asking
them at appropriate times.
None of these questions can be effectively asked nor answered without the
guidance of a trained teacher. Knowledge about when and how to ask these critical
questions must be complemented by creation of an emotional climate consistent
with a search for stronger beliefs. The lecturer who reveals the power and joy of
these questions in her or his scholarly life is exhibiting leadership that strengthens
the likelihood that critical thinking will be internalised by learners.
The power of these questions is dif cult to deny. Yet, they are classroom
rarities. When researchers have entered higher education classrooms, they often
encounter a number of questions, but almost none of them rise to the level of critical
thinking (Braxton & Nordvall, 1985). In fact, so desperate were Braxton and his
colleagues to nd critical thinking in their sample classrooms that they con ated all
higher-order cognitive skills under the rubric of `critical thinking . This depressing
evidence provokes us by revealing how far we have to go to encourage critical
thinking in our classrooms.
The Encouragement of Active Learning
Encouraging the asking and answering of critical questions is just one aspect of a
larger body of educational practices called `active learning that can under certain
circumstances identify a classroom as one where critical thinking is being encouraged. However, active learning comes in many variants, only some of which are
consistent with critical thinking, as we are using the term. When the activity
witnessed in a classroom has as its telos, the evaluation of arguments according to
certain speci c standards, that active learning is fertilising critical thinking.
Teachers in higher education often have a single clear model of their instructional role. They are the experts about a body of knowledge; the students are seeking
that knowledge. Thus, the one with the knowledge speaks; the one seeking the
knowledge listens. The clarity of this model, however, should not be confused with
its effectiveness. Lectures, even at their most eloquent and persuasive, possess a
major inadequacy, viz., they fail to provide the learner with the opportunity to
practice using the knowledge under the guidance of a skilled mentor.
The lecturer, however, can provide a special kind of mentorship by modelling
critical thinking and by providing assignments that require critical thinking. A false
dichotomy between those who lecture and those who do not can prevent us from
recognising that active learning has listening components that can be enhanced by
any lecturer whose words require re ection and integration.
However, for the lecturer to enhance active learning and critical thinking
requires awareness of the fragility of oral communication. The presumption of a

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

304

M. N. Browne & K. Freeman

lecturer that whatever is spoken is internalised in the mind of the learner is

grandiose. The assumption seems to be that these learners are using the energy
being conserved physically and expressively to process the ideas and arguments
presented by their professor.
Yet many educators seeking to teach critical thinking prefer a different approach. Mayer (1986) states, `The key to developing critical thinking lies in creating
conditions for participation rather than passivity, and in providing opportunities for
emotional engagement with the materials (cited in Garside 1996). As Mayer further
notes, passive spectators are not especially prone to creative social criticism (1986).
Although Mayer fails to note that active learners are not themselves all that eager to
embrace social criticism, he is properly observing that the psychological components
that encourage passivity in a learner are probably going to impede critical thinking
as well.
Providing learners with frequent opportunities for direct practice of evaluation
skills and attitudes allows them to experiment with critical thought. Mayer further
supports using active learning techniques by claiming that stimulating students to
move from passive to active maximises the impact of the material upon the learners
(1986). The strength of the active classroom is that it facilitates personal involvement with the material, thereby provoking students into discussion and evaluation.
Furthermore, when students are expected to articulate and apply course material, they begin to develop a conglomerate of associations that become attached to
the material being discussed. Ideas become more meaningful as more connections
are synthesised. As ideas become more meaningful, they develop richness and
complexity. Awareness of the complexity of even the simplest idea is absolutely
necessary to one who wishes to think critically.
In the absence of the con icting perspectives that arise from discussion, and the
subsequent awareness of complexity, students fasten upon arguments that support
their current beliefs (Nickerson et al., 1985; Mynatt et al., 1977). Our proclivity to
seek only information that supports our views (called `con rmation bias by psychologists), in addition to the human tendency to hold rmly to our beliefs, provide a
sizable obstacle to developing the critical thinking abilities of students. Yet proponents of active learning emphasise that involvement with course material and verbal
attention to key arguments and issues can enable students to rise above this obstacle.
As students recognise that new ideas and a richer understanding of material arise
naturally from active participation in class, they will become increasingly motivated
to pursue the skills of critical thinking.
Developing an aptitude for critical evaluation is dependent upon such motivation on the part of the learner (Keeley et al., 1995). Active learning is not merely
a matter of the instructors provoking students to engage with the material. A
student experiencing active learning impels herself to consider and carefully evaluate
the arguments of both her teacher and her peers, and eventually, the arguments of
her own construction. As she learns, she is rewarded by the joy of discovery (Browne
et al., 1995) that accompanies the awareness that there are many more options than
one originally thought and that none, without exploration, can or should be
accepted.

Distinguished Features of Critical Thinking Classrooms

305

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

Developmental Tension
The kinds of classrooms typi ed by active learning focusing on critical questioning
are quite different in tone and effect from a visit to an amusement park. A classroom
with critical thinking as a major objective is encouraging change of a particular kind;
amusement parks pander to the current self of the visitor. The move toward critical
thinking will come at a price, just as does any growth we seek.
Anyone suggesting improved pedagogical practice needs, we believe, to consider initially the bene ts associated with current practice. One logical inference
from this paper so far would be that we believe current pedagogical habits are not
optimal for the development of critical thinking. But current practice has its own
logic. To the extent that a simpli ed consumer metaphor is used to guide teaching
behaviour, the lecturer who does not encourage critical questioning may be right on
target (Browne, et al., 1995).
However, as attering as it might be to our disciplines for us to portray them as
collections of verities, we know that such a picture distorts their reality. Were
academic disciplines comprised of unarguable facts and derived truths, critical
thinking would lose much of its mandate. However, all disciplines contain openended questions about which reasonable people disagree, possess knowledge used in
controversial ways and report con icting evidence. These controversies represent
the organic aspects of our disciplines.
For controversy or any other tactic to encourage critical thinking it must
enhance the likelihood that one would either desire or know how to evaluate
contentions. Controversy, unlike several other stimuli to active learning, has the
special merit of increasing the probability that evaluative behavior will occur. One
facet of this comparative advantage is that controversy creates a state of discomfort
for the reader. This discomfort can cause a healthy intellectual uneasiness among
those learners who have brought to classrooms an epistemology that sees their task
as absorbing the wisdom of experts. This sponge model of learning is terminally
disrupted when the learner encounters multiple experts, each of whom answers the
same question in a unique and seemingly reasonable fashion.
Thinking begins only when a state of doubt about what to do or believe
exists; all conscious thought has its genesis in uncertainty (Baron, 1985). Doubt
motivates thinking to occur and controversy presents situations in which doubt
naturally arises. This same insight is fundamental to Rokeach s model of value
transformation. Rokeach spent much of his proli c career seeking greater understanding about the process of moral development. He concluded nally that the
process of value change depends on learners awareness of contradictions, tension
and confusion in their current belief system (Rokeach 1968, p. 167, 1973, p. 286).
His insight is one that pervades the atmosphere of classrooms that encourage critical
thinking.
However, inserting controversy into classrooms does much more than create
cognitive dissonance. Our thoughts tend to ow in a limited number of channels or
conceptual ruts (Wicker, 1985). When students read or view con icting perspectives, their conceptual ruts are over-run. Something new enters their purview. Just

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

306

M. N. Browne & K. Freeman

as the rst half of `Divorce Court or any legal proceeding is threatened by the
revelations in the second half, con icting academic perspectives challenge the
learner to reconcile or evaluate (Makau, 1985). By stimulating controversy intentionally, a professor can engage in a form of intellectual af rmative action whereby
minority positions are conscientiously given fair treatment (Brod, 1986).
An additional advantage of controversy as a stimulus for critical thinking
deserves mention. Experiencing disagreement, even when the encounter is vicarious,
gives the learner permission to enter the rough and tumble of evaluation. Students
are much more willing to challenge and test when they can see that experts
habitually question formulations of other experts (Resnick, 1987, p. 41).
Suggesting that the tension associated with controversy in the classroom is an
effective strategy for developing critical thinking skills raises a serious concern for
many teachers. Will controversy prove so potent a fuel that some learners will choke
on its fumes? In short, can tension become antagonistic to learning? Of course it
might. However, all such paternalistic protection of learners from robust conversation fails to explain how students will ever grow to be participants in that
conversation, unless they are encouraged to practice a critical engagement with
serious discourse.
If controversy is such an exciting pedagogical vehicle, why is it not a standard
inclusion in every course? To expand on the fear voiced in the previous paragraph,
controversy clearly makes some people uncomfortable. Con ict may be viewed as
divisive, creating resentment and thus alienating students.
These sources of resistance to classroom controversy deserve a response.
Will controversy create discomfort? Certainly! However, this discomfort arises
from challenging students and, perhaps, professors fundamental beliefs and
values. Frequently, as a result of encountering critical thinking in this mode
we learn that we do not have reasons for our beliefs. They are shot full
of ambiguities, questionable assumptions and signi cant omitted information.
This awareness that our beliefs may not be awless makes us uncomfortable,
while at the same time it provides us with an incredible stage for building critical
thinking skills. By evaluating controversies brought into the classroom, we
are promoting an atmosphere of re ection that can result in acceptance or
rejection through reasoned judgment, not through blind acceptance, osmosis or
`sponging .

Fascination with the Contingency of Conclusions

The developmental tension associated with critical thinking can be made more
palatable by the lecturer s sharing with students the excitement of accepting the
contingency of conclusions. When learners see our open bewilderment and
our sifting through contextual variables as a rewarding response to bemusement,
they are much more likely to tolerate the discomfort associated with a loss of
certainty.
Upon being diagnosed with a serious illness, a man asks his doctor what the

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

Distinguished Features of Critical Thinking Classrooms

307

best option is for treatment. The doctor explains that even the best treatment would
allow the man to live for only a few months. Understandably shaken, the man seeks
a second opinion, a common practice among the seriously ill. This second consultant tells him of a treatment that will allow him to live for up to 10 years, but involves
some painful side effects. A third consultant advises him to use a new and experimental treatment that promises even better result than the other two possibilities.
Although the man may not know which treatment to choose, most of us would agree
that he was wise to seek a second and third opinion.
Seeking multiple perspectives before making a cognitive commitment is equally
judicious. It is easy to commit to a particular argument when we have only
approached the issue from one direction. However, becoming a more discriminate
consumer of information, one who is able to protect herself from coercion and
construct well-informed decisions (Gilbert, 1979; Rudinow & Barry, 1994; Damer,
1995) requires that arguments and ideas be approached from multiple points of
view.
Critical thinking can widen one s intellectual horizons if approached with a
`spirit of openness (Browne & Kubasek, 1993; Taube, 1997) that includes willingness to consider novel approaches to an issue. Such an approach to ideas forces
learners to appreciate contextual subtlety and gain a richer understanding of the
position to which they may eventually commit. Understanding the importance of
multiple perspectives and of context is obligatory for critical thinkers because it
prevents premature commitment.
A `controlled sense of skepticism aimed at nding suf cient reasoning and
evidence in support of an idea is a key component of critical thinking (Garside,
1996) because it enables the learner to confront alternative possibilities of meaning.
When searching for substantiation of a claim, the learner will come into contact with
contrary evidence, some of which may be stronger than that supporting her original
conclusion. In this manner, a skeptical approach to argument fosters the valuable
search for multiple perspectives. Learning to approach all intellectual commitments
with such skepticism requires students to accept the contingency of personal
conclusions and to allow further information to continually shape their opinions.
Browne & Kubasek (1993) note that it is quite natural for individuals to hold tightly
to their personal beliefs as cognitive maps that must be protected from contrary
claims.
However, critical thinking requires that we evaluate arguments without infatuation with our prior beliefs (Stanovich & West, 1997), a requirement that proves
quite dif cult in practice. Sir Francis Galton noted that our thoughts ow in a
limited number of channels (Wicker, 1985), which Browne refers to as `conceptual
ruts (1996a,b). They serve as mental impediments to the tone of skepticism
required to determine an arguments worth.
Although it may be dif cult for the learner to change existing mental commitments (Keeley et al., 1995), the achievement of such a goal is essential to critical
thinking. Classrooms alive with critical thinking encourage commitment, but also
urge the wisdom of frequent reexamination of those commitments as learners
encounter fresh logic, evidence, metaphors and narratives.

308

M. N. Browne & K. Freeman

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

Conclusion: critical thinking can be taught with the active assistance of our
students
Suppose we enter a classroom where all the incidents of critical thinking are on
active display? Does it follow that critical thinking will result? Not necessarily!
Learning is always a partnership; this nexus is especially necessary for critical
thinking because there is so much about it that is unnatural. First it is very hard
work. Inter alia, it demands careful reading and listening. Discovering what has been
written or stated is a prerequisite for any fair-minded critical evaluation. Secondly,
critical thinking threatens the calm of assumed amiability that governs much of our
interactions with one another. Very rare is the individual who is eager to have his or
her reasoning placed under the bright light of critical questions.
However, when teachers and students are aligned in pursuit of improved critical
thinking, cognitive magic is possible. Reasoning improves without the encumbrance
of the automatic animosity that can ruin the atmosphere for prospective critical
thinking. Each attribute of a critical thinking classroom discussed herein plays a
facilitative role in the fragile potential for a broad community of critical thinkers.
However, their function is linked to the willingness of both teacher and student to
engage in the hard work necessary to realise that exciting aspiration.
REFERENCES
AARONS, A.B. (1985) `CT and the Baccalaureate Curriculum, Liberal Education, 71, 141 153.
BARON, J. (1985) Rationality and Intelligence (New York, Cambridge University Press).
BRAXTON, J.M. & NORDVALL, R.C. (1985) Selective liberal arts colleges: higher quality as well as
higher prestige? Journal of Higher Education, 56, pp. 538 553.
BROD, H. (1986) Philosophy teaching as intellectual af rmative action, Teaching Philosophy, 9, pp.
1 10.
BROWNE, M.N. & KEELEY, S.M. (1998) Asking the Right Questions: a guide to critical thinking, 5th
edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).
BROWNE, M.N. (1996a) The tensions between critical thinking and democracy: implications for
our teaching, Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 6, pp. 20 28.
BROWNE, M.N. (1996b) Transcending the limited educational vision implied by the consumer
metaphor, Journal of General Education, 44, pp. 201 221.
BROWNE, M.N., HOAG, J.H. & BERILA, B. (1995) Critical thinking in graduate programs: faculty
perceptions and classroom behavior, College Student Journal, 29, pp. 37 43.
BROWNE, M.N. & KUBASEK, N.K. (1993) Overcoming student resistance to critical thinking,
Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 3, pp. 38 46.
DAMER, T.E. (1995) Attacking Faulty Reasoning: a practical guide to fallacy-free arguments. 3rd edn
(Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Company).
GARSIDE, C. (1996) Look whos talking: a comparison of lecturing and group discussion teaching
strategies in developing critical thinking skills, Communication Education, 45, pp. 212 227.
GILBERT, M.A. (1979) How to Win an Argument (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company).
KEELEY, S.M., SHEMBERG, K.M., COWELL, B.S. & ZINNBAUER, B.J. (1995) Coping with student
resistance to critical thinking: what the psychotherapy literature can tell us, College Teaching,
43, pp. 140 145.
MAKAU, J.M. (1985) Adapting the judicial model of reasoning to the basic argumentation and
debate course, Communication Education, 34, pp. 52 59.
MAYER, J. (1986) Teaching critical awareness in an introductory course, Teaching Sociology, 14,
pp. 249 256.

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:18 21 December 2014

Distinguished Features of Critical Thinking Classrooms

309

MEYER, M. (1994) Rhetoric, Language, and Reason (University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State
University Press).
MYNATT, C., DOHERTY, M. & TWEENY, R. (1977) Con rmation bias in a simulated research
environment, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, pp. 85 95.
NICKERSON, R.S., PERKINS, D.N. & SMITH, E.E. (1985) The Teaching of Thinking (Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum).
READINGS, B. (1996) The University in Ruins (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
RESNICK , L.B. (1987) Education and Learning to Think (Washington, D.C., National Academy
Press).
ROKEACH, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values (New York, Free Press).
ROKEACH, M. (1968) Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: a theory of organization and change (San
Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
RUDINOW, J. & BARRY, V.E. (1994) Invitation to Critical Thinking, 3rd edn (Fort Worth, TX, Holt,
Reinhart and Winston, Inc.).
SHAW, V.F. (1996) The cognitive processes in informal reasoning, Thinking and Reasoning, 2, pp.
51 80.
STANOVICH, K.E. & WEST , R.F. (1997) Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual
differences in actively open-minded thinking, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, pp.
342 357.
TAUBE, K.T. (1997) Critical thinking ability and disposition as factors of performance on a written
critical thinking test, Journal of General Education, 46, pp. 129 164.
WICKER, A.W. (1985) Getting out of our conceptual ruts: strategies for expanding conceptual
frameworks, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 1094 1103.