Redefining Critical Thinking: Teaching Students to Think like Scientists

From primary to post-secondary school, critical thinking (CT) is an oft cited focus or key competency (e.g., DeAngelo et al., 2009; California Department of Education, 2014; Alberta Education, 2015; Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d.). Unfortunately, the definition of CT has become so broad that it can encompass nearly anything and everything (e.g., Hatcher, 2000; Johnson and Hamby, 2015). From discussion of Foucault, critique and the self (Foucault, 1984) to Lawson’s (1999) definition of CT as the ability to evaluate claims using psychological science, the term critical thinking has come to refer to an ever-widening range of skills and abilities. We propose that educators need to clearly define CT, and that in addition to teaching CT, a strong focus should be placed on teaching students how to think like scientists. Scientific thinking is the ability to generate, test, and evaluate claims, data, and theories (e.g., Bullock et al., 2009; Koerber et al., 2015). Simply stated, the basic tenets of scientific thinking provide students with the tools to distinguish good information from bad. Students have access to nearly limitless information, and the skills to understand what is misinformation or a questionable scientific claim is crucially important (Smith, 2011), and these skills may not necessarily be included in the general teaching of critical thinking (Wright, 2001). This is an issue of more than semantics. While some definitions of CT include key elements of the scientificmethod (e.g., Lawson, 1999; Lawson et al., 2015), this emphasis is not consistent across all interpretations of CT (Huber and Kuncel, 2016). In an attempt to provide a comprehensive, detailed definition of CT, the American Philosophical Association (APA), outlined six CT skills, 16 subskills, and 19 dispositions (Facione, 1990). Skills include interpretation, analysis, and inference; dispositions include inquisitiveness and open-mindedness.1From our perspective, definitions of CT such as those provided by the APA or operationally defined by researchers in the context of a scholarly article (e.g., Forawi, 2016) are not problematic—the authors clearly define what they are referring to as CT. Potential problems arise when educators are using different definitions of CT, or when the banner of CT is applied to nearly any topic or pedagogical activity. Definitions such as those provided by the APA provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of CT, however the definition is complex andmay be difficult to work with at a policy level for educators, especially those who work primarily with younger students. The need to develop scientific thinking skills is evident in studies showing that 55% of undergraduate students believe that a full moon causes people to behave oddly, and an estimated 67% of students believe creatures such as Bigfoot and Chupacabra exist, despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting these claims (Lobato et al., 2014). Additionally, despite overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of anthropogenic climate change, and the dire need to mitigate