164	Frameworks for Thinking

Classification by:		Values:		Practical illustrations
•	lower or	•	reasonableness	for teachers:
	higher-order	•	democracy	• resources available in a
	thinking	•	education as the	series of separate
•	modes of thinking		communal pursuit	narrative-based
•	types of disposition		of the classical	age-related
			virtues of truth, beauty	resources and
			and goodness	teacher handbooks

Paul’s model of critical thinking

Description and intended use

Richard Paul’s model of critical thinking has evolved over a number of years and remains a work in progress. His definition of critical thinking gives an insight into his underpinning philosophy of education and contains a valuable distinction between two kinds of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is disciplined self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking. It comes in two forms. If the thinking is disciplined to serve the interests of a particular individual or group, to the exclusion of other relevant persons and groups, I call it sophistic or weak sense critical thinking. If the thinking is disciplined to take into account the interests of diverse people or groups, I call it fair-minded or strong sense critical thinking. (Paul, 1993, p. 33).

Paul’s 1993 model has four parts: elements of reasoning (sometimes referred to as ‘elements of thought’); standards of critical thinking; intellectual abilities; and intellectual traits. The first three categories focus on what is essential to critical thinking, while the last dimension focuses on what it is to be a critical thinker.

Elements of reasoning

This is what Paul refers to as the ‘parts’ of thinking or the fundamental structures of human thought. He maintains that these eight elements are always present in human thinking and that the ability to recognise these elements of reasoning is essential to critical thinking. Paul and

Productive thinking	165

Elder (2001, p. 53) summarise this interrelated set of elements in the following statement:

Whenever you are reasoning, you are trying to accomplish some purpose, within a point of view, using concepts or ideas. You are focused on some question, issue or problem, using information to come to conclusions, based on assumptions, all of which has implications.

Standards of critical thinking

The 12 standards in Paul’s model are an attempt to identify what constitutes the quality component of critical thinking. Unlike the elements of reasoning which Paul claims to be universal, the following list of standards seeks to encompass those that are the most fundamental:

•	clarity	•	logic
•	precision	•	depth
•	specificity	•	completeness
•	accuracy	•	significance
•	relevance	•	adequacy (for purpose)
•	consistency	•	fairness.

In order to learn to reason well, it is necessary to gain mastery of both the elements of reasoning and the standards of critical thinking.

Intellectual abilities

According to Paul, an ability is composed of a process, plus an object, plus a standard. Someone can have the ability to drive (process) a truck (object) safely (standard). Nosich (2000) proposes that an intellectual ability would be the ability, for instance, to identify (process) a conclusion (object) accurately (standard). In Paul’s model, abilities (higherorder thinking skills) rest on a prior understanding of the elements and standards of critical thinking.

Although the lists of macroand micro-cognitive strategies do not appear in Paul’s most recent 1993 model of critical thinking, they are shown in table 4.5, since they are rich in detail compared with those of other authors. They are intended as an aid for redesigning lessons, to ensure that critical thinking is required.

166 Frameworks for Thinking

Table 4.5. Cognitive strategies (formerly ‘elements of critical thinking’)

Macro-abilities		Micro-abilities
•	Refining generalisations and	•	Comparing and contrasting
	avoiding over-simplifications		ideals with actual practice
•	Comparing analogous situations:	•	Thinking precisely about
	transferring insights to new contexts		thinking: using critical
•	Developing one’s perspective:		vocabulary
	creating or exploring beliefs,	•	Noting significant similarities
	arguments or theories		and differences
•	Clarifying issues, conclusions, or	•	Examining or evaluating
	beliefs		assumptions
•	Clarifying and analysing the	•	Distinguishing relevant from
	meanings of words or phrases		irrelevant facts
•	Developing criteria for evaluation:	•	Making plausible inferences,
	clarifying values and standards		predictions or interpretations
•	Evaluating the credibility of sources	•	Giving reasons and evaluating
	of information		evidence and alleged facts
•	Questioning deeply: raising or	•	Recognising contradictions
	pursuing root or significant questions	•	Exploring implications and
•	Analysing or evaluating arguments,		consequences
	interpretations, beliefs, or theories

•Generating or assessing solutions

•Analysing or evaluating actions or policies

•Reading critically: clarifying or critiquing texts

•Listening critically: the art of silent dialogue

•Making interdisciplinary connections

•Practising Socratic discussion: clarifying and questioning beliefs, theories, or perspectives

•Reasoning dialogically: comparing perspectives, interpretations, or theories

•Reasoning dialectically: comparing perspectives, interpretations, or theories