Critical Thinking And Abstract Thinking

Educators have long been aware of the importance of critical thinking skills as an outcome of student learning. More recently, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has identified critical thinking as one of several learning and innovation skills necessary to prepare students for post-secondary education and the workforce. In addition, the newly created Common Core State Standards reflect critical thinking as a cross-disciplinary skill vital for college and employment. Despite widespread recognition of its importance, there is a notable lack of consensus regarding the definition of critical thinking. The purposes of this literature review are to (a) explore the ways in which critical thinking has been defined by researchers, (b) investigate

Critical thinking and abstract thinking are very different but at the same time very connected, and in Albania they are being paid little attention or not at all. Despite the curricula, or syllabus of educational institutions programs, students need not only to acquire that information but to develop the necessary skills to think critically, creatively and interactively where all of them lead to the next level of thinking, which is abstract thinking.

Literature Review

The literature on critical thinking has roots in two primary academic disciplines: philosophy and psychology (Lewis & Smith, 1993). Sternberg (1986) has also noted a third critical thinking strand within the field of education. These separate academic strands have developed different approaches to defining critical thinking that reflect their respective concerns. Each of these approaches is explored more fully below.

The philosophical approach. The writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and more recently, Matthew Lipman and Richard Paul, exemplify the philosophical approach. This approach focuses on the hypothetical critical thinker, enumerating the qualities and characteristics of this person rather than the behaviors or actions the critical thinker can perform (Thayer-Bacon,

8); “reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985, p. 45); “skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it 1) relies upon criteria, 2) is self-correcting, and 3) is sensitive to context” (Lipman, 1988, p. 39); “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or conceptual considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 3); “disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought” (Paul, 1992, p. 9); thinking that is goal-directed and purposive, “thinking aimed at forming a judgment,” where the thinking itself meets standards of adequacy and accuracy (Bailin et al., 1999b, p. 287); and “judging in a reflective way what to do or what to believe” (Facione, 2000, p.