what are general studies and critical thinking a levels

Would you like to explore a topic?

• LEARNING OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL

Or read some of our popular articles?

Free downloadable english gcse past papers with mark scheme.

• 19 May 2022

How Will GCSE Grade Boundaries Affect My Child’s Results?

• Akshat Biyani
• 13 December 2021

The Best Free Homeschooling Resources UK Parents Need to Start Using Today

• Joseph McCrossan
• 18 February 2022

General Studies A-Level: What Was it & What's Replaced it?

• April 25, 2022

When did General Studies A-Level finish?

What is general studies, what kinds of questions were on a general studies a-level past paper, is general studies a good a-level, what is taught in general studies, what replaced the general studies a-level, what are applied general qualifications.

The Department for Education and the exams regulator, Ofqual, decided to stop offering General Studies in 2017. As well as cancelling A-Level General Studies other subjects such as Citizenship Studies, Communication and Culture, Humanities, Leisure Studies, Pure Mathematics, Statistics, and World Development were also dropped . 

In 2010, 46,916 students sat the General Studies A-Level. By 2019 only 40 people were entered for the exam, a shocking decline of 99.9%! In 2020, the General Studies A-Level was no longer available. 🚫

Although General Studies was first introduced as an A-Level option way back in the 1950s, it was never really very well understood. In job interviews graduates with the qualification were often asked “So, what are General Studies A-Level?” or “What does General Studies mean?”. 

In a nutshell, A-Level General Studies was designed to give UK students a well-rounded education and a broad knowledge of how British society and politics worked. The idea was to produce better-informed citizens. Typical lessons involved debates and discussions about current events or other topics on the syllabus. Students were expected to learn critical thinking skills, develop arguments, analyse information and come up with conclusions.

The A-Level was made compulsory by some schools who wanted to boast that all their pupils did at least four A-Levels or as a way to fill in the timetable, adding extra unnecessary study to the already heavy workloads of their students. Other more sceptical schools saw the subject as fairly worthless and refused to offer it as an option. 🙅

It’s usually a hard task to predict what topics will be on any A-Level exam but with General Studies A-Level, it was almost impossible! You could get asked questions about road tax, GM crops, religious beliefs, or any number of other topics. One paper even started off by asking students to compare kitchens !

The important thing was that you had the thinking skills to analyse the given information and put forward good arguments. There were science and maths papers, but essay questions were the biggest part of most General Studies exams.

General Studies A-Level may have been meant to give students a broad education to prepare for life outside school, but unfortunately, many universities didn’t agree. They often didn’t see it as a worthwhile qualification. Either they only counted it as a fourth or fifth A-Level or refused to consider it worth any UCAS points at all like most of the 24 Russell group universities including Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh.

Universities weren’t the only ones sceptical about the value of the General Studies A-Level. While some students who chose the subject saw it as an easy way to get an extra A-Level, others were often disappointed at the lack of academic challenge and often wondered: "Is General Studies a waste of time?". ⌛

Hayley Molley, who went on to study at the University of Northampton, told the Guardian that she didn’t feel like she learned anything from General Studies. 

“I don’t think there was any point in the lessons – I never revised and I still passed,” she said.

According to Oliver Brown , 17, who studied at Wickersley school and sports college, all the universities he had applied to “specifically say they don’t accept General Studies as an A-Level”.

He complained that this made it “more of a hindrance – with a low grade – than a help to make a competitive application”.

Ryan Hamilton , who went on to become a pharmacist said he “would have found it more useful to have taken another A-Level”.

“At my college, we did the whole A-Level in one year, which shows how easy it is to pass. It would be better to replace it with a more useful subject such as English , Maths or one of the core sciences.” 

The list of A-Level General Studies subjects is quite varied. Students were introduced to ideas in topics from areas including Culture, Ethics, Literature, Language, Mathematics, Politics, Science, And Technology. Homework often involved reading newspapers, writing essays and preparing for debates. 

While the General Studies A-Level is no longer available, in many schools and colleges you can choose to do A-Level-equivalent Applied General qualifications instead. ♻

Applied General qualifications are advanced level qualifications that allow you to learn knowledge and skills that are valued by universities and companies. Unlike most A-Levels, they focus less on theory and more on practical knowledge and a wide range of skills useful for different careers, for example in Law, Creative and Media industries, and Business.

Applied General qualifications include:

• AQA Level 3 Extended Certificates
• CISI Level 3 Diplomas
• IFS Level 3 Certificates
• OCR Cambridge Technicals
• TLM Level 3 Certificate
• WJEC Level 3 Certificates and Diplomas

Available subjects differ depending on the exact qualification you choose but there is a wide choice, including:

• Agriculture
• Art and Design
• Business & Law
• Commercial Enterprise
• Construction
• Engineering
• Environmental Conservation & Animal Care
• Health & Social Care and Child Development & Wellbeing
• Horticulture
• Hospitality
• Information & Communication Technology
• Manufacturing Technologies & Transport Operations
• Mathematics
• Media & Publishing
• Performing Arts
• Planning & the Built Environment
• Sociology & Social Policy
• Travel & Tourism

The courses are planned with teachers, higher education institutions and professional associations working together. Companies such as  IBM, Jaguar Land Rover, Kings College Hospital, Siemens and Fujitsu, and UK Athletics have also helped design Applied General Qualifications.

Some Applied General qualifications can be used to apply for university or higher education courses at other institutions on their own and others can be used as a supplement to your A-Levels. The top grade in many Applied General qualifications is equivalent to an A* at A-Level or 56 UCAS points. 🎓

If you’re interested in Applied General qualifications, you can check out how many UCAS points a course is worth using this points calculator and look up the admissions requirements for different university courses here .

Applied General qualifications are also a good path toward employment and higher-level training, such as apprenticeships if you’re not necessarily focused on going to university .

Whether you’re doing straight A-Levels or choosing to take Applied General qualifications, GoStudent is here to help and support you throughout your studies. We have professional, patient and highly knowledgeable tutors available for one-to-one tuition in a wide range of subject areas. What’s more, if you click here now you can try out a trial tutoring session completely free!

Popular posts

• By Guy Doza

• By Akshat Biyani

• By Joseph McCrossan
• In LEARNING TRENDS

4 Surprising Disadvantages of Homeschooling

• By Andrea Butler

What are the Hardest GCSEs? Should You Avoid or Embrace Them?

• By Clarissa Joshua

More great reads:

Advice From a Teacher: How Can I Help My Child If They Fail Their Mock Exams?

• By Natalie Lever
• January 9, 2024

What Are Mock Exams and Why Are They Important?

• January 8, 2024

SQA Results Day 2023: Important Information About How to Get Scottish Exam Results

• By Sharlene Matharu
• August 3, 2023

Book a free trial session

Sign up for your free tutoring lesson..

Is General Studies a Good Major? Find Out If It’s Worth It for You!

Many students start college knowing exactly what they want to study and what they want their careers to be. However, there are just as many students who struggle with determining their major and future career.

Whether you have a variety of interests and passions, or simply want to explore multiple career paths, you (like many incoming students) might be considering a General Studies degree.

Yet, is a General Studies degree worth it? What is a General Studies degree good for really?

Below, we’ll answer both questions to discover why general studies is a worthy and worthwhile major.

What is a General Studies degree?

General studies is an area of study that embraces a broad-based education, covering general skills needed to be successful in any given career.

General Studies degree programs teach students how to think critically, communicate effectively, and gain knowledge from a variety of subjects, including the arts, sciences, psychology, human services, and humanities.

Common general education courses in these degree programs are:

• Computer Literacy: This course gives students the technological skills necessary to navigate the digital world. They learn essential applications like word processing, spreadsheets, and presentation software. Additionally, students explore topics like computer security and ethical use of technology.
• English: These courses develop and strengthen student’s writing and reading comprehension skills. Students learn how to analyze texts, craft clear arguments, and express themselves effectively in written and oral communication. Humanities: Humanities courses cover different cultures, historical periods, and philosophical ideas and teach critical thinking and analysis. Students also learn how to see the world from different and unique perspectives.
• Mathematics: Math courses develop problem-solving skills and analytical thinking. Depending on the program, students could encounter foundational courses in algebra, statistics, or calculus. These skills are valuable in scientific fields as well as in business, finance, and data analysis.
• Public Speaking: Public speaking courses help students gain the confidence and skills to speak in front of an audience. They learn how to structure their arguments, deliver presentations with clarity, and overcome stage fright. These skills help students no matter what career path they pursue.
• Science: General Studies degrees offer introductory science courses such as biology, chemistry, and physics. These courses provide a basic understanding of scientific concepts and methods.
• Social Science: Social science courses explore human behavior and how societies function. Students often take courses in psychology, sociology, economics, and political science. These courses teach students how to analyze social trends, understand human interactions, and think critically about current events.

Who is a General Studies degree best for?

General Studies degrees are not simply a collection of courses covering a variety of subjects. Instead, they are carefully curated, flexible programs that can be specifically tailored to each student.

These programs are often best suited for students looking to learn about many different disciplines and subjects. Or for students who want to take specific courses that align with their career goals.

Additional reasons to pursue a general studies major include:

• Launch your education and career: Students leave general studies programs with their associate degree, which can lead to many entry-level careers in business, advertising and marketing, law, sociology, library science, teaching, and more.
• Create a custom academic path: General Studies degrees can be customized to meet a student’s evolving needs. Many programs, like ours at Goodwin University, offer students a variety of elective credits so that they can explore whatever field interests them the most.

Download our General Studies degree info-sheet to learn more about how Goodwin can help you achieve your personal and professional goals!

What is a general studies degree good for.

What is a General Studies degree good for? We’re glad you asked.

General Studies degrees foster students’ skills in:

• Communication: Articulating your thoughts and ideas clearly and persuasively, both verbally and in writing.
• Critical thinking: Analyzing information, questioning assumptions, and forming independent conclusions.
• Leadership: Inspiring and motivating others to achieve common goals.
• Problem-solving: Approaching challenges creatively and devising effective solutions.
• Research: Gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information to support your ideas.

Furthermore, by majoring in general studies, students can pursue careers in a variety of industries and roles. Below are examples of career outcomes you can achieve with a General Studies degree, with median annual salaries as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

• Advertising sales agents – $58,450
• Human resource specialists – $64,240
• Public safety telecommunicators – $46,900
• Teaching and educational instruction – $57,490

General Studies degrees translate well across many industries, from healthcare and government work to hospitality and non-profit organizations. Students gain professional skills and knowledge that are valuable in a number of sectors.

Is a General Studies degree worth it for you?

When determining which major to pursue, students often beg the question, “Is a General Studies degree right for me?” To answer this best, you must think about your needs, interests, and goals. Consider the following to determine if a General Studies degree is worth the time and effort:

• Interests and Goals: Does a general studies program allow you to explore your options while also equipping you with valuable skills.
• Multidisciplinary Approach: Do you thrive in an environment that allows you to study a variety of disciplines? If so, a general studies program can provide a stimulating and enriching academic experience.
• Skillset Development: Are you looking to develop a broad range of transferable skills applicable to diverse careers?

Additionally, General Studies is a great choice for anyone who wants to earn a college degree and show employers they are disciplined and committed to their success. Plus, these programs are a great fit for someone looking to build versatility and explore different career paths, as they are not limited to a specialized education or program right away.

Explore Goodwin University’s General Studies Major

By now, we hope you’ll answer the questions: “Is general studies a good major?” and “Is a General Studies degree worth it?” with a resounding YES!

However, if you have more questions about General Studies degrees, especially our flexible program at Goodwin University , our admissions team and comprehensive support services would love to offer support.

Contact us today for more information about our associate degree in General Studies.

What Is A-Level General Studies?

A-Level General Studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many different areas of study.

It’s a challenging, yet rewarding subject that can help students gain insight into the world around them.

With its emphasis on critical thinking and analysis, A-Level General Studies allows students to explore topics in depth while gaining real life skills they can use throughout their studies and beyond.

A-Level General Studies encourages students to think outside the box and ask questions about the world we live in – something that’s increasingly important as global challenges become more complex and interconnected.

Through this subject, learners develop key transferable skills such as communication, problem solving, research and evaluation which will serve them well both now and in future careers.

• 1 Overview Of A-Level General Studies
• 2 Benefits Of Studying A-Level General Studies
• 3 Areas Of Study Covered By A-Level General Studies
• 4 Critical Thinking And Analysis Skills Developed
• 5.1 Critical Thinking
• 5.2 Research Skills
• 5.3 Communication Skills
• 6 Career Opportunities After Completing A-Level General Studies
• 7 Conclusion

Overview Of A-Level General Studies

A-Level General Studies is a post-16 course that provides students with preparation for university entrance, and an introduction to various academic disciplines. It focuses on essential study skills such as critical thinking and essay writing which are vital in the pursuit of higher education.

The course also offers assistance in subject selection, equipping learners with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions when it comes to their studies. This qualification encourages students to develop broader interests outside of traditional A-level subjects; fostering an appreciation of global issues and ideas from different perspectives.

Through its open nature, this programme can be tailored to suit individual needs – allowing learners to explore topics they consider important while testing their research and analysis abilities. In addition, A-Level General Studies helps learners prioritise their time efficiently through effective exam preparation techniques, helping them reach their full potentials.

The course stands out amongst other qualifications due to its unique approach – combining elements of both humanities and sciences into one comprehensive package. By taking part in this challenge, learners gain a better understanding of themselves and prepare for future challenges by honing valuable problem solving skills.

For those looking for more than just traditional academia, A-Level General Studies is the perfect option!

Benefits Of Studying A-Level General Studies

Overall, A-Level General Studies is a great way to expand your knowledge and hone in on specific topics. It provides an opportunity for students to gain a better understanding of the world around them, become more socially aware, and even contribute to public policy debates.

Studying this subject can open up doors that weren’t previously available. You’ll develop useful skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and time management which will help you throughout college and beyond.

Additionally, it gives you the chance to learn about different cultures and their perspectives on important issues like politics or religion – something many courses don’t offer.

Ultimately, studying A-Level General Studies equips students with the necessary tools they need to succeed in any field they choose.

Areas Of Study Covered By A-Level General Studies

A-Level General Studies is an incredibly expansive field of knowledge, with a seemingly endless array of learning opportunities! From developing the skills to think critically about global perspectives and issues, to taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding complex topics – A-Level General Studies offers it all.

At its core, A-Level General Studies is a wide ranging course that covers:

This multifaceted course has been designed to give students the most comprehensive education in order for them to become well rounded citizens who can make informed decisions on important matters.

It provides invaluable learning experiences where students learn how their studies relate to society as a whole and helps promote critical thinking through engaging activities such as debates and essays.

Students will also gain valuable experience by evaluating sources from different angles as they look at various evidence within their chosen fields of study.

Finally, this type of education gives pupils the opportunity to appreciate diverse cultures and foster international cooperation – making sure that everyone has access to quality education regardless of their background or nationality.

Critical Thinking And Analysis Skills Developed

A-Level General Studies provides students with the opportunity to develop critical thinking and analysis skills.

Through an in-depth exploration of various topics, a wide array of problem solving strategies, research methods and analytical tools are introduced.

Students acquire knowledge that they can apply beyond their studies – be it in employment or higher education settings.

The course encourages students to understand complex issues from different perspectives; developing their own opinion based on reasoned arguments as opposed to relying solely on factual information.

This helps them form balanced judgement and analyse situations objectively.

The range of activities such as debates, discussions and essay writing help hone these skills further by providing challenging yet constructive opportunities for creative thinking.

Though not all students may enjoy this process initially, the rewards are evident when they begin to appreciate the outcomes of their efforts more holistically.

Transferable Skills Gained Through A-Level General Studies

A-Level General Studies equips students with a wealth of transferable skills, such as critical thinking, research skills, and communication skills. Developing these skills can help students in their future studies and career.

Critical thinking enables students to analyse information objectively and make informed judgments.

Research skills allow for the gathering and interpreting of information, and the ability to draw conclusions.

Communication skills promote the ability to communicate effectively and efficiently, both orally and in written form. With these skills, students are able to engage more confidently in the world around them.

A-Level General Studies provides a great foundation for equipping students with the skills they need to excel.

Critical Thinking

A-level General Studies is an important course that provides students with transferable skills.

Critical thinking, in particular, is a valuable skill developed through A-Level General Studies as it helps learners to develop their inquiry based learning and ethical decision making abilities.

Through engaging discussions and tasks such as problem solving activities, students are able to explore the nuances of critical thinking in depth; this allows them to come up with creative solutions while considering all necessary factors involved in the situation at hand.

This type of inquisitive approach encourages students to think outside the box when examining various ethical dilemmas or complex problems.

It teaches them how to identify biases, weigh evidence objectively and draw informed conclusions from data presented – all invaluable life skills for anyone looking to succeed after graduating from college or university.

Learning these techniques ensures that graduates can make logical decisions even under time pressure or challenging circumstances, empowering them to take control of their own lives and futures.

Research Skills

Research skills are another set of invaluable transferable skills that A-Level General Studies can provide. By utilizing social media, students can strengthen their ability to research topics quickly and effectively.

With this newfound knowledge, they’ll be better equipped to solve any problems they might encounter in the future. Not only will they have access to a variety of information at their fingertips but also an understanding of how to properly evaluate its viability in relation to the project at hand.

Additionally, problem solving activities such as debates or essays allow learners to apply their newly acquired research skills by forming arguments based on evidence collected from reliable sources. This encourages them to think critically and consider solutions from different perspectives while making connections between various ideas presented – all essential qualities for success after graduating college or university!

Communication Skills

Communication skills are a vital part of success in the modern world, and A-Level General Studies can provide learners with the necessary tools to hone these abilities.

From interview techniques such as active listening and expressing empathy to public speaking which requires confidence and clarity of thought – both sets of skills help build an individual’s interpersonal acumen.

Furthermore, by delving into debates or essay writing, students have the chance to practice their communication skills in a safe environment that encourages constructive feedback from peers. This not only helps them become better communicators but also more open-minded individuals who understand how to engage with others in a respectful manner.

It’s an invaluable lesson for anyone looking to make their mark on the world!

With its emphasis on research, problem solving and communication, A-Level General Studies equips young adults with essential transferable skills that will serve them well throughout life.

Be it finding facts quickly online or articulating ideas clearly during interviews, graduates will be ready to take up any challenge they come across after leaving school.

And with freedom at its core, this subject provides students with the knowledge needed to tackle whatever obstacles await them head on!

Career Opportunities After Completing A-Level General Studies

As the saying goes, ‘knowledge is power,’ and A-Level General Studies provides students with an invaluable opportunity to develop their knowledge base. Students who undertake a course of study in this area can open themselves up to a world of career opportunities through professional development and volunteer work.

The possibilities for graduates are endless; from teaching English abroad to providing support services for young people, those with an A Level qualification in General Studies have access to a wide variety of professions:

Professional Development Opportunities:

Business consultancy

Human resource management

Volunteer Work:

Charity work

Environmental conservation projects

No matter what path they choose, graduates will be well-equipped with the skills necessary to make meaningful contributions in their chosen field. With specialised training and guidance, along with dedication and hard work, former A Level General Studies students are sure to find success in whatever venture they pursue.

Completing an A-Level General Studies course is a great choice for those looking to develop their critical thinking and analysis skills, as well as gain transferable skills that can be applied in many different job roles.

Not only does it provide students with the opportunity to learn about various topics of interest but also gives them the knowledge necessary to thrive in the modern working world.

Despite this fact, some may argue that studying A-level general studies is not worth their time or money. However, when considering the benefits outlined above, one can see that taking such a course is invaluable.

It helps broaden your understanding of current affairs and provides you with the tools needed to succeed professionally – making it more than worthwhile.

Combined Science vs Triple Science at GCSE

What Is A Degree With Honours In The UK?

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Reach out to us for career and sponsorship opportunities.

© 2024 Acrosophy Excellence in Application

A Medical MBA Company The Medical MBA Ltd Company number: 13561401 86-90 Paul Street, London, England, United Kingdom, EC2A 4NE

Which A-level subjects should I choose?

• General Studies (for all courses)
• Critical Thinking and Thinking Skills (for Biomedical Sciences and Medicine)
• Global Perspectives and Research (for any course)
• Cambridge Assessment International Education A-levels in either Global Perspectives or Research and Thinking Skills

Is this answer helpful?

What is A-Level General Studies?

In A-Level by Think Student Editor February 28, 2022 Leave a Comment

Choosing a route to take post-16 can be a daunting prospect for any teenager. There are so many options available. Specifically looking at A-Levels, there’s such a wide range of subjects to pick from and one of the lesser known is General Studies. Whether you’re looking to stick with your familiar GCSE subjects or want to branch out into a whole new area of study, it’s vitally important that you learn more about what every subject entails, general studies included, before making your final decisions.

A-Level General Studies was originally introduced to broaden the social, cultural, and scientific knowledge of students. You are tested on these three aspects throughout the exam, giving you an overview of what the government views as the most notable features of society. However, the entries to A-Level General Studies have decreased exponentially over the last few years.

By continuing to read, you will learn more about what was offered in the general studies course, how it has changed over the last few years and whether the course is worth taking in terms of university applications.

Table of Contents

What Does A-Level General Studies Test?

When it was first introduced as an A-Level in the 1950s, A-Level General Studies tested students on their knowledge in three main categories.

• The first of these topics, called “The Social Domain”, investigates the basics of politics, economics, social sciences, and law.
• The second, “Culture, Arts and Humanities”, delves into beliefs, morals, and religion, as well as creativity, media, and the importance of culture.
• The final sub-section, “Science, Mathematics and Technology”, teaches the application of science and maths in the real world. It shows the importance of bridging the gap between theory and practice, not just in science but in every subject that involves the application of theoretical knowledge to real-life situations.

Although the sub-topics may have varied since the ‘50s, the main principle of general studies, and therefore the broad specification, has more or less stayed the same. By clicking here , you can view the OCR General Studies A-Level Specification from 2013, providing all the information you could need to know about the content of the qualification.

Why was General Studies Created in the First Place?

The syllabus was originally introduced claiming to “broaden the minds” of students. Whilst this was a valid point to make, the course was more commonly taken to increase the number of UCAS points a person had.

When applying to university, you have to reach a certain threshold number of points to be considered. Unless you can present the right number of points, your application will not even be considered, no matter how many interesting and impressive achievements you can list.

Therefore, lots of schools made the subject compulsory, as it was one of the easier ways to make sure every student in the school achieved the right number of points. However, many schools have since realised that offering more opportunities to earn points in areas relevant to an individual student’s preferred field of study will be far more beneficial.

Click here to view nineteen legitimate ways to earn UCAS points other than through general studies.

However, there are some pupils who are genuinely interested in gaining a deeper understanding of a range of topics. These are the people general studies was originally designed for before it became a mass slog to grab as many points as possible.

Do You Need GCSE General Studies to be Allowed to Take the A-Level?

Technically speaking, you can take any A-Level, whether you have the pre-requisites of the GCSE equivalent or not. In other words, no exam board will refuse to let you take an exam because you haven’t done it before. However, most schools will advise that some subjects, such as languages, should be studied previously because the course will mainly build on previous knowledge.

Fortunately, general studies isn’t one of these subjects. You can take the qualification whether you’ve learnt the information before or not, meaning it’s open to everyone.

That said, exam boards will recommend that students obtain at least a C grade or equivalent in GCSE English and Maths. This guidance isn’t specific to general studies and is given to any A-Level student aiming to gain a top grade . It is equally as advisable to have achieved decent grades in subjects such as sciences, as they are a vital part of the general studies specification.

However, again, there are theoretically no requirements to take the A-Level General Studies course other than motivation and a willingness to learn.

Is A-Level General Studies Mandatory?

Firstly, it is important to note that it has never been legally required to take any A-Level subject. At this level, students are given the independence to find and choose the subject areas they wish to pursue in the future. Therefore, if you are told that a subject is mandatory at A-Level at any point, this will be down to a decision made by the sixth form college itself.

In the past, lots of schools opted to enter their students for the general studies qualification for the reasons noted in the previous section. However, in recent years, the A-Level has become much less popular and the value of studying it has been questioned.

There are very few schools which still list general studies as a compulsory subject, so the most likely outcome is that you will not be required to take it.

What are Universities’ Opinions on General Studies?

Whether a university will accept general studies as a subject completely depends on which school you are looking to apply to. Generally speaking, most Russell Group universities will not consider general studies with the same weight as other A-Level subjects.

Nottingham and Exeter refuse to acknowledge general studies as a qualification altogether and will only focus on your other subjects. Nottingham Trent will even exclude any UCAS points made through the general studies qualification. That said, Portsmouth University does accept A-Level General Studies as a subject, as long as it is taken as a fourth or fifth .

If you are relying on General Studies for a university place, you should definitely check the requirements listed by wherever you plan to apply . It may turn out that you’ll need to gather UCAS points in a different way.

Click here to read a more detailed description of the opinions specific universities have on General Studies as an A-Level, and whether taking the subject is a worthwhile endeavour.

Was A-Level General Studies Scrapped?

Whilst it did have some benefits, the government made the executive decision in 2015 to scrap General Studies. They claimed that it was a lot of extra work for a qualification which wasn’t even recognized by most universities. And on top of this, teachers and students alike questioned the level of academic difficulty in what was being tested.

Lots of students who took general studies have given their opinions on whether the subject was worthwhile and how it could be improved in the Guardian article here.

After this announcement, what had already been a declining number of examinees rapidly decreased. In 2020, not a single student entered for A-Level General Studies, hammering the final nail into the coffin of this dying subject.

The article shown here weighs up the arguments both for and against scrapping the general studies course.

What are Applied General Qualifications?

Despite the general consensus being that general studies wasn’t worth the effort, there were a select few learners who declared that, should the subject contain more difficult content, they would opt to take it in the new format. Based on this, a new programme of study has been created including the suggested improvements.

On Results Day in August 2016, the first Applied General qualifications were awarded to students who had opted to take them. They are equivalent to one A-Level, and work in the same way as general studies A-Level in that their main purpose is to teach transferrable skills for the workplace.

However, the new syllabus means that students can opt for the applied general programme in one specific area of study. For example, AQA offers Applied General courses in both business and science. The specifications for these can be found here .

On top of providing an extra layer of detail that General Studies A-Level couldn’t, all Applied General Qualifications are accepted by universities for UCAS points and grade offers.

By reading this document released by the department for education   here , you can see every applied general qualification offered in the UK and the exam boards which are currently running each.

So, whilst General Studies isn’t technically offered as an A-Level anymore, this mainly seems to be positive. Not only does the qualification technically still exist, but it’s been put into a new format providing much better detail and many more benefits the students being examined.

• Current Students
• News & Press
• Research Excellence
• Teaching & Student Experience
• Graduate Employability
• UK Rankings
• World Rankings
• Single Topic Rankings
• Research Excellence Framework
• Higher Education Awards
• Ageing and Health
• Cities and Place
• Culture and Creative Arts
• Social Justice
• Discover Festival
• Engagement and Place Awards 2024
• Faculty of Science, Agriculture & Engineering
• Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences
• Faculty of Medical Sciences
• Central and South Asia
• Latin America
• Middle East and North Africa
• North America
• Small Island Developing States
• South East Asia and Oceania
• Sub-Saharan Africa
• Transparency
• Office for Students Transparency Data
• Access & Participation
• Support for our Community
• UN Sustainable Development Goals
• https://www.ncl.ac.uk/who-we-are/equality/race-equality/black-history-month/
• Faith, Religion & Belief
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender
• Let Us Know
• Workplace Adjustments
• Useful Resources
• Equality Analysis
• Social Justice Stories
• Voluntary & Community Groups
• Santander Universities
• Regional Partnerships
• Widening Participation
• Newcastle Helix
• Art on Campus
• History of Newcastle University
• Education Strategy
• Find a Degree
• Subject Areas
• Step-by-Step Guide for UK Students
• Step-by-Step Guide for International and EU Students
• Applying through UCAS
• A and AS Levels
• Application Decisions
• Access Schemes and Pathway Programmes
• Policies and Procedures
• Applicants with Disabilities
• Mature Applicants
• Deferred Entry
• Undergraduate Application Advice
• Subject Scholarships
• Sports Scholarships
• Opportunity Scholarships
• VC's Excellence Scholarships
• VC's Global Scholarships
• VC's International Scholarships
• International Foundation Scholarships
• St Nicholas’ Educational Trust Scholarship
• NU Sanctuary Scholarships
• Undergraduate Norway Scholarship
• International Family Discounts
• VC’s EU Scholarships – Undergraduate
• VC's Excellence Scholarships - Europe
• VC's Business Excellence Scholarships - Europe
• Additional Costs
• Student Loans
• International Student Finance
• Undergraduate Open Days
• Sign up and Discover
• School and College Outreach
• Information for Parents and Supporters
• Why Choose Newcastle?
• Your Study Options
• Qualifications Explained
• Postgraduate Research Programmes
• Search for Funding
• Guide to Funding
• Postgraduate Tuition Fees
• Application Help
• Advice & Resources
• Your Offer Guide
• Postgraduate Open Days
• Doctoral College
• Distance Learning
• Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
• Study Support
• Campus Tours
• Life in Newcastle
• Get Involved
• Cost of Living
• Health & Wellbeing
• Mature Students
• Childcare Support
• Care Leavers
• Asylum Seekers
• Teaching & Learning
• Student Blog - Belong
• Types of Rooms
• Accessibility and Individual Requirements
• Castle Leazes
• Bedrooms we offer
• Accommodation Guides
• New Student Guarantee
• Advanced Booking
• Submit an Application
• Part Year Student Accommodation
• What Happens Next?
• Safety and Security
• Returning Next Year
• Extending Your Stay
• Room Changes
• Parking & Bicycle Storage
• Post and Parcels
• Guest Visitors and Going Away
• Energy & Recycling
• ResLife Find a Flatmate
• Your ResLife Team
• Student Support
• Payment Methods
• Payment Schedules
• Managed Partnerships
• Rent Adjustments
• Student Village Receptions
• Your Accommodation Team
• Report a Fault
• Feedback and Complaints
• Internet Connection
• Work Placements
• About the Careers Service
• Careers Service News
• Careers Service Events
• Work for Yourself
• Career Planning
• Careers Modules
• Making Applications
• Interviews, Tests & Assessment Centres
• Internships, Placements & Shadowing
• Finding Jobs
• Handling Job Offers
• Researching Employers
• Making Contacts
• Further Study
• Awards, Competitions & Project Funding
• Volunteering
• Boost Your CV
• Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS)
• Getting Here
• Self-Guided Campus Tours
• Undergraduate Offer Holder Days
• Postgraduate Schools & Supervisors
• Tier 4 Visa from Inside UK
• Tier 4 Visa from Outside UK
• Short-Term Visa from Outside UK
• International Study Blog
• Our Pathway Courses
• English Language Courses
• Fees, Costs and Scholarships
• INTO Newcastle University
• Student Exchange and Study Abroad
• Request a Prospectus
• Chat to a Student
• Your Academic Experience
• Research Impact
• Research Strengths
• Centres of Research Excellence
• Research Culture Action Plan
• Working Together on Research Culture
• Policy Notes
• Global Partnerships
• Let's Work Together
• Sustainable Water
• Food Security
• Sustainable Livelihoods
• Global Impact
• Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021
• Code of Good Practice in Research
• University Research Committee
• Animal Research Policy
• Declaration on Openness on Animal Research
• Animal Procedures
• Helping Human Health
• Animal Research News
• Ethics at Newcastle
• Research Data and Open Access
• Research Strategy & Development
• Policy and Information Team
• Grants & Contracts (HaSS and SAgE)
• NJRO (inc Grants & Contracts FMS)
• Research Funding Development
• Biomedical Facilities
• Chemistry Facilities
• Clinical Facilities
• Engineering Facilities
• Marine & Agricultural Facilities
• More Facilities
• Facilities A to Z
• Research Funding
• Research News
• Case Studies
• CPD Courses
• Collaborative Research
• Company Creation
• Consultancy
• Corporate Partnerships
• DA Power Engineering
• DA MSc Digital Technology Solutions
• DA Executive Education Snr. Leader Apprenticeships
• Facilities and Equipment
• Intensive Industrial Innovation Programme
• Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
• Technology Transfer and Licensing
• Clinical Trials & Research
• Working with Newcastle
• Tender Opportunities
• Submitting an Invoice
• Sustainable Procurement
• Code of Conduct & Terms and Conditions
• Health & Social Challenges
• Creative Collaborations
• Connect with alumni
• Develop your career
• Discover lifelong learning opportunities
• Support future generations

A Levels and AS Levels

Find out more about what we're looking for from your A and AS levels, and what this means for your application.

Visit the 2023 Academic Experience page for information about the 2023-24 academic year.

• Newcastle University
• Undergraduate
• Applications and Offers
• Entry Requirements

Entry grades

We specify typical entry levels in terms of three grades (unless otherwise indicated, the grades refer to A level, including double awards). We do not normally require applicants to have achieved more than three single-award A levels, or equivalent, for entry. 

In most cases, we make conditional offers on achievement at the end of Year 13 or the final year at college.

Fourth A Level

If you are studying for a fourth A Level, we will take it into account as part of your overall application profile. Most admissions tutors are happy for this to be either a contrasting or complementary subject. If admissions tutors wish to recognise the additional achievement of a fourth A Level within a conditional offer, they may adjust their level of typical offer to make allowances for this.

If you have not taken four A Levels, however, you will not be disadvantaged in your application.

General Studies and Critical Thinking

Different degrees have varying attitudes towards the inclusion of General Studies and Critical Thinking as a subject at A or AS level. Some exclude General Studies and Critical Thinking from conditional offers. Please check specific requirements for your chosen degree.

University undergraduate General Studies requirement

Undergraduate programs.

Select Section

In addition to preparing students for careers and advanced study, a baccalaureate education should prepare students for satisfying personal, social and civic lives. Students should both acquire a depth of knowledge in a particular academic or professional discipline and also be broadly educated, with knowledge of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to address an array of questions. They should develop the general intellectual skills required to continue learning throughout their lives. The ASU general studies requirements complement the undergraduate major by developing critical learning skills, investigating the traditional branches of knowledge, and introducing students to approaches applicable to addressing contemporary challenges.

Students in a 2024-2025 catalog year and beyond - General Studies Gold

Effective fall 2024, ASU undergraduate students are required to complete the General Studies Gold requirements. Students who began their degree at ASU before fall 2024 and are in a catalog year previous to 2024-2025, are required to complete the General Studies Maroon requirements. More information about what these changes mean and answers to some frequently asked questions are available on the Provost general studies page.

The degree requirements applicable for a student's catalog year are displayed on their major map. For more information on the determination of catalog year, students should reference the undergraduate graduation requirements .

General Studies Gold includes courses in nine required categories. Courses fulfilling each category are noted in the course catalog . General studies courses are regularly reviewed and are occasionally added to and deleted from the list. A student receives the general studies credit that a course carries during the semester in which the course is taken. Students should consult the course catalog each semester to determine which courses meet general studies requirements.

General Studies Gold requirements

Humanities, Arts and Design (six credit hours - two courses)

The humanities explore questions of human existence and meaning, the nature of thinking and knowing, and moral and aesthetic experience. Humanities reflect on values of all kinds and seek to make the human mind more analytical, contemplative and expansive. They are often concerned with the study of textual and artistic practices of cultures, such as traditions in literature, philosophy, religion, ethics, history and aesthetics; the humanities also explore human thought and action and its application to human environments. They deepen awareness of the breadth of human heritages, traditions and histories; build literacy and critical thinking skills in evidence analysis and argumentation; and implicitly or explicitly promote the application of this knowledge to contemporary societies.

The study of arts and design deepens our awareness of human societies and cultures. The arts have as a primary purpose the creation and study of objects, installations, performances and other means of expressing or conveying aesthetic concepts and ideas. Design study concerns itself with material objects, images and spaces; their historical development; and their significance in society and culture. Disciplines in the arts and design often employ nonverbal modes of thought and communication, and courses in these areas tend to focus on sounds, objects, images and structures, or on the practical techniques and historical development of, and innovation in, artistic and design traditions.

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of a course in Humanities, Arts and Design, students will be able to complete all outcomes in one of the two following groups.

• analyze cultural creations or practices in historical or contemporary context
• interpret the formal, aesthetic and creative elements in literary, visual or cultural texts
• articulate relationships among tradition, innovation, individual creativity and communal expression in cultural creations or practices
• communicate narratives, ideas or arguments using such elements as evidence, creativity and critical thinking
• analyze cultural, political or social practices, texts or discourses in historical or contemporary context
• communicate coherent arguments or narratives using evidence drawn from qualitative or quantitative sources
• identify perspectives or values as manifested in a given philosophical or religious framework or a given historical or cultural context

Social and Behavioral Sciences (three credit hours)

Courses in social sciences and behavioral sciences expose students to the systematic investigation of human institutions, relationships, social structures, behavior, emotions, communication and health. Students learn about evidence, methods and approaches that social and behavioral scientists use to analyze, understand and describe human activities, experiences and systems. They learn how social scientists and behavioral scientists conduct research, how they disseminate their findings, and how the findings from social and behavioral science can be used in the pursuit of individual, societal and policy goals.

Upon completion of a course in Social and Behavioral Sciences, students will be able to do the following:

• utilize behavioral or social science approaches, qualitative or quantitative, to examine aspects of human experiences or explain social or behavioral phenomena
• describe the strengths and limitations of behavioral or social science methods in predicting or understanding human behavior
• communicate coherent arguments using evidence drawn from qualitative or quantitative sources

Scientific Thinking in Natural Sciences (eight credit hours - two courses)

Courses in scientific thinking in natural sciences promote public scientific literacy, which is critical for sound decisions about scientifically infused issues such as climate change. Scientific thinking in natural sciences includes understanding basic science concepts, such as the fundamental behavior of matter and energy, as well as understanding that science is not an encyclopedic collection of facts. Science is a process of exploration that embraces curiosity, inquiry, testing and communication to reduce uncertainty about nature. In Scientific Thinking in the Natural Sciences courses, students engage in the scientific process through lab experiences.

Upon completion of a course in Scientific Thinking in the Natural Sciences, students will be able to do the following:

• obtain and interpret qualitative or quantitative data and communicate the findings
• employ evidence to construct and test scientific hypotheses
• assess the validity of scientific claims using evidence from biological or physical science
• create models to explain observable phenomena and understand biological or physical processes in the natural world

Quantitative Reasoning (three credit hours)

Quantitative and computational reasoning is essential for success in modern careers, for critically evaluating information in the age of "big data," for assessing the quality of arguments conveyed through digital media, for informed participation in community and social life, and for contributing to the formulation of effective solutions for achieving a sustainable and just future. Quantitative reasoning enables students to apply relevant mathematical, statistical, computational and visualization methods in academic, social and personal settings.

In a Quantitative Reasoning course, students learn about data, data management, data summaries, data visualization, and the use of computational tools with data. Data can take many forms, including numerical data, textual data and images. Students also learn about how quantitative reasoning can be used to make arguments clear, precise and verifiable. Finally, they learn to build quantitative models, make predictions, and communicate their findings based on available data. This may include some combination of mathematical, statistical, computational or network models, or visualizations.

Upon completion of a course in Quantitative Reasoning, students will be able to do the following:

• understand variables, measurement and data, including how they can be used to pose and answer questions about society and nature, and to manipulate, organize, classify and visualize quantitative data
• evaluate arguments from everyday life or academic fields of study that are represented mathematically, statistically, computationally or in visualizations
• formulate hypotheses, mathematical models or narratives that are consistent with quantitative data
• communicate how quantitative data, interpretations or models are connected to outcomes, predictions, decisions, explanations or future states
• employ one or more digital tools effectively to accomplish these outcomes

Mathematics (three credit hours)

The Mathematics studies requirement is intended to ensure that students have skill in basic mathematics and can use mathematical analysis in their chosen field of study. The mathematics requirement requires the student to complete a course in college mathematics, college algebra, or precalculus, or demonstrate a higher level of skill by completing a mathematics course for which a course in the above three categories is a prerequisite. A course in mathematics will include the application of mathematical skills in the solution of real-life problems and introduces or makes significant use of fundamental mathematical skills and concepts.

Upon completion of a course in Mathematics, students will be able to do the following:

• demonstrate an understanding of mathematical relationships from multiple perspectives, such as functions from graphical, numerical and analytic points of view
• apply mathematical skills in the solution of real-life problems

American Institutions (three credit hours)

In each American Institutions course, students discuss people, ideas, institutions, movements and structural forces that have created and transformed the United States. Students will analyze struggles over the meaning of America’s constitutional democracy. Throughout the course, students analyze a wide range of sources drawn from both past and present and contemplate American history, ideals, and institutions in global as well as national contexts. In doing so, students refine their ability to make and evaluate reasoned arguments, engage in civil debate, and participate constructively in civic life.

Upon completion of a course in American Institutions, students will be able to do the following:

• demonstrate how ideas and groups have historically shaped the creation of and change in U.S. institutions
• identify key institutions in U.S. politics and their impacts on social, economic or political outcomes. This will include differential impacts on disparate communities.
• describe the impact of key ideas, people, events, institutions or movements on the nature, history and boundaries of American citizenship and the various forms of civic participation in a self-governing society

To achieve these goals, students must be exposed to the following knowledge or sources:

• principles of American constitutional democracy and how they are applied under a republican form of government
• the U.S. Constitution and major American constitutional debates
• founding documents that have shaped American institutions
• landmark policy achievements and Supreme Court cases
• economic knowledge necessary to assess policy options affecting both the public and private sectors
• international context of American institutions and the evolution of America's role in international affairs

Governance and Civic Engagement (three credit hours)

Courses in the Governance and Civic Engagement category explore ways in which humans confront the dilemmas and opportunities of community life and develop skills of civic communication.

Governance and Civic Engagement courses analyze principles and practices of decision-making in historical and contemporary contexts, and will explore ways in which people have defined and pursued justice and the common good. Courses in the Governance and Civic Engagement category broaden students' understanding of how collective decisions are made, how they impact communities positively or negatively, and how various groups are included, or excluded, from the decision-making process. Students will have the opportunity to explore dynamics between governance and civic engagement, which can include perceived inequality or marginalization related to a variety of factors including race, class, citizenship, gender and disability. This category also develops students' skills in civic communication, including listening, deliberation, negotiation, consensus building, and productive use of conflict, which are essential to participating more fully in their communities. Courses in this category may be entirely focused on developing skills in civic communication.

Upon completion of a course in Governance and Civic Engagement, students will be able to complete all outcomes in one of the two following groups.

• analyze the context and consequences of one or more collective decision-making theories or practices
• define an element of the common good and propose a way to pursue it within a specific contemporary context
• articulate diverse perspectives on the common or collective good
• demonstrate the ability to collaborate effectively in the presence of dissenting opinions and experiences
• communicate arguments, narratives or information using qualitative or quantitative evidence

Global Communities, Societies and Individuals (three credit hours)

Courses in the Global Communities, Societies and Individuals knowledge area explore the world from multiple vantage points. They consider historical, ongoing or transforming global issues across multiple scales and types of human experiences. Students will analyze ways that geographical and historical contexts influence communities, societies and individuals. In addition to courses focused entirely on non-U.S. American issues, courses structured to include comparative or transnational connections between the United States and other countries, i.e., courses that consider a global issue in multiple locations one of which is the United States, fall into this knowledge area. Courses focused mostly or only on U.S. American issues or populations, however, even across diverse communities, are not included in this knowledge area. This knowledge area develops students' skills in global awareness, and the analysis of social, political, economic or cultural systems, skills essential to participating more fully in communities.

Upon completion of a course in Global Communities, Societies and Individuals, students will be able to do the following:

• describe historical, contemporary or transforming global issues through the perspective of specific individuals, communities or societies
• analyze the interactions among social, political, economic or cultural systems across local, regional and global scales or spaces
• articulate ways in which dimensions of difference such as race, gender, socio-economic status, religion, language or citizenship separately and together affect individuals and communities

Sustainability (three credit hours)

The Sustainability requirement provides students with an interdisciplinary understanding of socio-ecological systems in relation to global challenges and opportunities. The learning objectives emphasize systems thinking, where human and non-human systems are understood as intimately connected, with human actions affecting all life on a planet with limits and boundaries. Students should also become familiar with how cultural, political, economic, social and ethical beliefs, practices and systems are related to and impact planetary systems. Students will use course concepts and systems and futures thinking to address contemporary questions or challenges.

Upon completion of a course in Sustainability, students will be able to do the following:

• demonstrate an understanding of the earth and its ecosphere, including the measures that indicate their capacities and limits
• trace historical impacts of a range of socio-economic, political or cultural choices on integrated human-environmental well-being
• envision pathways toward futures characterized by integrated human-environmental well-being
• articulate an approach to addressing contemporary questions or challenges that employs concepts or practices of sustainability

Meeting the general studies requirement

All students enrolled in a baccalaureate or associate degree program must successfully complete a minimum of 35 credit hours of approved general studies courses.

There is no limit to the number of Advanced Placement credits that can be used to meet the general studies requirement. Credits earned through College-Level Examination Program may be applied to General Studies Gold requirements with the exception of scientific thinking in natural sciences. A student may earn no more than 60 hours of credit by examination, including ASU comprehensive and proficiency exams, for any or all programs.

Transfer credit

Completion of general studies and composition requirements, as documented on an official transcript, from regionally accredited institutions of higher education within the United States will fulfill ASU's General Studies Gold and first-year composition requirements. Certification of completed general studies includes completion of a general education package recognized by ASU, an associate of arts degree, bachelor's degree or comparable. General studies packages and recognized degrees do not waive program requirements and prerequisites within major and minor areas of study.

Transfer students without completed and documented general education packages or degrees will receive credit for general studies based on course-by-course equivalency. Students transferring from Arizona community colleges should see the Arizona General Education Curriculum page for more information.

University requirements - First Year Composition

In addition to the 35 credit hours of General Studies coursework, university graduation requirements also require completion of both ENG 101 and ENG 102, or ENG 105 with a grade of "C" (2.00) or higher for graduation from ASU in any baccalaureate or associate degree program. Students for whom English is not a native language may meet the first-year composition requirement by completing ENG 107 and 108 with a grade of "C" (2.00) or higher.

Students who are required to take first year composition must enroll in their first required composition course within the first year and continue to enroll in required composition courses every term until composition requirements are met.

College or school and major requirements

In addition to the general studies requirement, students must also complete college or school and major requirements. Students are encouraged to work with their academic advisors to develop a program of study that efficiently meets all graduation requirements. A well-planned program should enable a student to satisfy concurrently requirements at the university, college or school levels, and within their major.

Students in catalog years prior to Fall 2024 - General Studies Maroon

In effect for students who began their degree at ASU before fall 2024 and are in a catalog year previous to 2024-2025, the General Studies Maroon requirements include courses in five core areas and three awareness areas. Relevant courses are noted in the course catalog . Effective fall 2024, new General Studies Maroon courses will no longer be added to the course catalog. General Studies Maroon courses will retain their general studies designations to ensure students may complete their degree requirements. A student receives the general studies credit that a course carries during the semester in which the course is taken. Students should consult the course catalog each semester to determine which courses meet general studies requirements.

Five core areas (General Studies Maroon)

L: literacy and critical inquiry (three credit hours).

Literacy is competence in written and oral discourse. Critical inquiry is the gathering, interpretation and evaluation of evidence. The literacy and critical inquiry requirement helps students sustain and extend their ability to reason critically and communicate clearly through language.

Students must complete three credit hours from courses designated as L. Students must have completed ENG 101, ENG 105 or ENG 107 to take an L course.

The three credit hours required to meet the general studies L requirement are in addition to the upper-division L university graduation requirement. Students should review the university baccalaureate graduation requirements for more information.

MA and CS: Mathematical Studies (combined six credit hours)

This core area has two categories. Mathematics (MA) is the acquisition of essential skills in basic mathematics. Computer/statistics/quantitative applications (CS) applies mathematical reasoning and requires students to complete a course in either the use of statistics and quantitative analysis or the use of a computer to assist in serious analytical math work.

This requirement has two parts: At least three credit hours must be selected from courses designated MA and at least three credit hours must be selected from courses designated CS, and all students are expected to fulfill the MA requirement by the time they accumulate 30 credit hours in residence at ASU. Any student who has more than 30 hours of resident ASU credit and has not fulfilled the MA requirement must enroll in an MA course or an appropriate prerequisite and continue to do so every semester until the mathematics requirement is met. College officers may grant waivers to the immediate and continual enrollment requirement only when there are scheduling conflicts detrimental to the student's academic progress.

HU: Humanities, Arts and Design and

Sb: social-behavioral sciences (combined 12 credit hours).

The study of the humanities and the disciplines of art and design deepen awareness of the complexities of the human condition and its diverse histories and cultures. Courses in the humanities are devoted to the productions of human thought and imagination, particularly in philosophical, historical, religious and artistic traditions. Courses with an emphasis in arts and design comprise the study of aesthetic experiences and the processes of artistic creation. They also may feature a design emphasis in which material culture is studied as a product of human thought and imagination.

The social-behavioral sciences provide scientific methods of inquiry and empirical knowledge about human behavior, within society and individually. The forms of study may be cultural, economic, geographic, historical, linguistic, political, psychological or social. The courses in this area address the challenge of understanding the diverse natures of individuals and cultural groups who live together in a world of diminishing economic, linguistic, military, political and social distance.

Twelve credit hours must be completed in the following two core areas: humanities, arts and design (HU) and social-behavioral sciences (SB). At least six credit hours must be taken in each of these two core areas.

The 12 credit hours required to meet the General Studies HU/SB requirement are in addition to the upper-division HU/SB university graduation requirement. Students should review the university baccalaureate graduation requirements for more information.

SQ and SG: Natural Sciences (combined eight credit hours)

The natural sciences help students appreciate the scope and limitations of science and its contributions to society. Natural science areas of study include anthropology, astronomy, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, experimental psychology, geology, microbiology, physical geography, physics and plant biology. Knowledge of the methods of scientific inquiry and mastery of basic scientific principles and concepts are stressed, specifically those that relate to matter and energy in living and nonliving systems. Firsthand exposure to scientific phenomena in the laboratory is important for developing and understanding the concepts, principles and vocabulary of science.

General studies courses that satisfy the natural science requirement are given one of two classifications: quantitative (SQ) and general (SG).

• quantitative (SQ): These laboratory courses include a substantial introduction to the fundamental behavior of matter and energy in physical and biological systems.
• general (SG): These laboratory courses cover aspects of scientific inquiry that lend themselves to more qualitative or descriptive discussions of science.

Eight credit hours of courses designated SQ or SG must be selected. Of these, at least four credit hours must be taken from the SQ category.

Three awareness areas (general studies)

Students must complete courses that satisfy three awareness areas. Courses that are listed for a core area and one or more awareness areas may satisfy requirements concurrently, up to a maximum of two of the awareness areas listed for that course. These awareness areas promote appreciation of cultural diversity within the contemporary U.S., the development of an international perspective and an understanding of current human events through study of the past.

1. Cultural Diversity in the United States (C)

The objective of the cultural diversity (C) requirement is to promote awareness and appreciation of cultural diversity within the contemporary U.S. This is accomplished through the study of the cultural, social or scientific contributions of women and minority groups, examination of their experiences in the U.S., or exploration of successful or unsuccessful interactions between and among cultural groups. Awareness of cultural diversity and its multiple sources can illuminate the collective past, present and future and also help students achieve greater mutual understanding and respect.

2. Global Awareness (G)

The objective of the global awareness (G) requirement is to help students recognize the need for an understanding of the values, elements and social processes of cultures other than those of the U.S. The global awareness area includes courses that recognize other contemporary cultures and the relationship of the American cultural system to generic human goals and welfare.

3. Historical Awareness (H)

The objective of the historical awareness (H) requirement is to help students develop knowledge of the past, which can be useful in shaping the present and future. History is present in languages, art, music, literature, philosophy, religion and the natural sciences as well as in the social science traditionally called history.

All students enrolled in a baccalaureate or associate degree program must successfully complete a minimum of 29 credit hours of approved general studies courses. Many general studies courses are approved as satisfying more than one requirement. The following conditions govern the application of courses toward the general studies requirements:

• A single course may be used to satisfy one core area and a maximum of two awareness area requirements.
• A single course may be used to satisfy a maximum of two awareness area requirements.
• A single course cannot be used to satisfy two core area requirements, even if it is approved for more than one core area.

There is no limit to the number of Advanced Placement or College-Level Examination Program credits that can be used to meet the general studies requirement. However, CLEP credits do not satisfy the natural sciences (SQ and SG) and literacy and critical inquiry (L) portions of the General Studies Maroon requirements.

Completion of general studies and composition requirements, as documented on an official transcript, from regionally accredited institutions of higher education within the United States will fulfill ASU's lower-division General Studies Maroon and first year composition requirements. Certification of completed general studies includes completion of a general education package recognized by ASU, an associate of arts degree, bachelor's degree or comparable. General studies packages and recognized degrees do not waive lower-division program requirements and prerequisites within major and minor areas of study. Additionally, students still must take six upper-division credit hours (three for L and three for SB or HU) to complete the ASU university-level graduation requirements.

University requirements

In addition to the 29 credit hours of lower-division general education coursework, university baccalaureate graduation requirements also require students to take six additional upper-division credit hours. Three hours with a literacy (L) designation are required to be chosen from approved upper-division courses, preferably in the major. Three hours with either a humanities, arts and design (HU) or social-behavioral sciences (SB) designation should also be chosen from approved upper-division courses, preferably in the major. Additionally, students must complete the First year Composition requirement.

In addition to the general studies requirement, students also must complete college or school and major requirements. Students are encouraged to work with their academic advisors to develop a program of study that efficiently meets all graduation requirements. A well-planned program should enable a student to satisfy concurrently requirements at the university, college or school levels, and within their major.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

alevel general study 和 critical thinking是什么科目?

General studies（一般研究）与critical thinking（批判性思考）

英国政府认为General studies不能满足教育的高要求A-level教育体系。从2017年开始就不能选择这个科目，2018年将是General studies最后一次考试。

在国际课程中，并不意味着删除，但对国际学生影响不大。毕竟，很少有人选择这门课程。

许多大学不接受General studies和critical thinking

牛津大学： 不接受的申请科目：General Studies牛津大学表示只要满足了特定专业要求，所有A-level科目都可以用于申请，除了General Studies。

伦敦政治经济学院： LSE不接受的申请科目：General Studies、Critical Thinking、Thinking Skills、Knowledge and Enquiry、Global Perspectives and Research、Project Work

但凡事总有例外，毕竟这门课最初设计的目的是四门 AS-level或3门A-level辅助课程。

选择是你自己的，但你不能否认这门课的价值。General studies和critical从政治、时事、文化、技术到科学，课程内容广泛。

还能提高essay写作能力，解决问题的能力，分析问题的能力。

所以这门综合课程真的很好，但单独作为三门课程A-Level申请大学还是不行的。

其实英国之前有一门名叫General Studies and Critical Thinking的课程，它其实就属于general study 和 critical thinking课程，它已经被取消了。

现在大学录取要求中所说的general study 和 critical thinking科目不同的大学定义不一样，以 伦敦大学学院 来说：

虽然UCL也明确表示General Sudies和Critical Thinking是不被接受的，但它的A-level列表里又有中文科目。

并且网上不少网友都反馈说，自己选修的A-level选修的中文，也顺利申请到UCL。

所以大家最好就自己想申请的专业，给大学招生办发邮件问问。

以上，希望可以帮助到大家！

Description描述 ▲概念和作用 ▲应用领域 ▲特点和优势 ▲技巧和方法 ▲有效性和效果评价 ▲影响发展趋势和前景

Analysis分析 ◆概述 ◆目标和意义 ◆方法和选择 ◆数据的收集与整理 ◆分析结果的呈现 ◆结论的总结与展望

Evaluation评估

做出判断和考虑相关性的问题；影响；事物的意义和价值。

是否有任何想法或概念与你的世界观相矛盾？

这与你的任务有什么关系？

这与你读过的其他研究相比如何？

你喜欢和不喜欢这件作品的哪些方面？

做出此类判断将引导得出合理的结论、解决方案或建议。

宝子们不管是essay还是paper 和dissertation都可以轻松拿下

各位宝记得标记一下！随时在线，希望能帮到大家~

Beyond feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking

"People calculate too much and think too little" “人们总是算计太多而思考太少” Charlie Munger 查理 芒格

Critical Thinking

中文语境里面一般被翻译成 “批判性思维”

个人更喜欢用 “独立思考” 这个翻译。

本书作者在本书第二章给 Critical Thinking 做了一个详细的定义：

The essence of Critical Thinking is evaluation . Critical thinking, therefore, may be defined as the process by which we test claims and arguments and determine which have merit and which do not. In other words, critical thinking is a search for answers, a quest .

通俗讲， 批判性思维中最重要的技术之一是提出探索性的问题。

这个能力显然是非常重要的。

那问题来了，为什么老师一般不喜欢教学生独立思考呢？

经过调查研究，听说一般有几个原因：

• 起步阶段教育要盲从，不要问那多为什么，按老师说的去做就可以了。
• 授课老师会第一个受到质疑，烦不胜烦，老师干脆就不教了。

中西方教育界都差不多。

基础教育这么课程不教不学问题也不大，但高等教育阶段还是忽视就不行了，那就失去了思考能力，任人摆布了。

学校既然不教，那就得自己学。

我们为什么要学习 critical thinking ？

书中的前言是这么说的：

• First we live in an age of manipulation. Armies of hucksters and demagogues stand ready with the rich resources of psychology to play upon our emotions and subconscious needs to persuade us that superficial is profound, harmful is beneficial, evil is virtuous.
• Secondly, because in virtually every important area of modern life- law, medicine, government, education, science, business and community affairs - we are beset with serious problems and complex issues that demand careful gathering and weighing of facts and informed opinions, thoughtful consideration of various conclusions or actions, and judicious selection of the best conclusion or most appropriate action….
• It is no exaggeration to say that critical thinking is one of the most important subjects you will study in college regardless of your academic major.Because the quality of your schoolwork, your efforts in your career, your contributions to community life, your conduct of personal affairs- all will depend on your ability to solve problems and make decisions.
• 首先，我们生活在一个操纵的时代。大批的骗子和野心家，随时准备用丰富的心理学知识，利用我们的情绪和潜意识来说服我们，肤浅是深刻的，有害的是有益的，邪恶是良性的。
• 其次，现代生活的几乎每一个重要领域：法律、医学、政府、教育、科学、商业和社区事务——我们都被严重的问题和复杂的事务所困扰，需要仔细收集和权衡事实和各种信息，深思熟虑各种结论或行动，以及明智地选择最佳结论或最合适的行动……。
• 最后，毫不夸张地说，不管你是什么专业，批判性思维是你在大学学习的最重要的科目之一。因为你的学业质量、你在职业生涯中的努力、你对社区生活的贡献、你的个人行为事务——一切都取决于你解决问题和做出决策的能力。

我这个翻译实在是蹩脚，读起来怪怪的，因此建议一定要读原版。对了，一定要读好书，好书的标志之一是不断推出新版次的书，目前阅读的这本书是第九版了，听说已经有第 11 版了。

按我的理解，人类知识大致可分为以下两类。

• 一种是知道了就知道了。比如汉高祖姓甚名谁等；
• 另外一种是能创造知识的知识。比如1+1=2；牛顿定律等，这些知识我们掌握了，可以发现和学会新的知识。

这本书，很明显是后一种知识，书本系统介绍了，如何成为一个 Critical Thinker 。这是一辈子的事情。

【创业的故事，记得「何Ta说」！全网同号，欢迎交流，XuZi1897。】

这两个科目我今天刚好看到lse有些专业是不接受的，如果要学这两个科目的话， 建议先看好对应的学校想报的专业接不接受

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Pupils confused by 'preferred' A-levels

'O nly a few months ago, I had no idea what I wanted to do in life," says Jade Campbell, 15, as she describes filling in her A-level choices form. "But I had to decide my plans for my whole life really quickly when I picked my A-levels . I know universities are getting more selective about the subjects you study, so I had to think about which subjects would give me the best chance of a place."

Jade's classmates at Bethnal Green Technology College in east London are all feeling the pressure of important choices. "I'm only 16, but I feel so much stress to make the right decision," says Amanda Cozer, who joined the college two years ago after moving from Brazil. "Once you've picked A-levels you can't go back, your decision is made." Across the classroom, Sufayan Deta and Tommy Vu, both 15, sound panicked. "I didn't know that some unis say you have to do certain A-levels," says Sufayan, who wants to study either accounting or business studies at university. "I'm really worried now."

With record demand for undergraduate courses, universities have tightened their admissions policies. Some have started disregarding subjects such as general studies, while others publish lists of "preferred" or "less preferred" A-levels. Year 11s who are intending to apply to university need to research qualification requirements now – but there are growing complaints that the information they need isn't easily available.

"It's hard to know exactly what universities want from us," says Amanda, who wants to study journalism or languages. "I tried to research what A-levels would give me the best chances of getting on to those courses, but it wasn't easy to find. I spent ages on the websites of Cambridge, Oxford, Leeds, Liverpool and Bristol. Cambridge was the clearest, but on many of the others I just found lots of links, with the information all over the place, or not there at all. Because there was often no clear list, I ended up looking up lots of individual courses, even though I'm not yet sure exactly what I'd like to do."

Admissions tutors say the information students need – whether they are at the Ucas application stage or just choosing their A-level subjects – is readily available in prospectuses and on websites. But Ofqual, the qualifications watchdog, says there's a lack of transparency. At the publication of its chief regulator's report last month, the chief executive, Isabel Nisbet, said: "Students are not clairvoyants. They need clear information on which qualifications they need for their chosen university courses."

Teachers, too, say their jobs have been made tougher by uncertainty surrounding university requirements. Sarah Snaydon, deputy head of sixth form at Dane Court grammar school in Kent, says teachers feel as if there are "shifting goal posts" in higher education. "I wish we knew what admission tutors want," she says. "Universities are getting ever so picky with their requirements, but worse than that is that those requirements are constantly changing and tough to find out. This year, for example, for the first time on some courses we've seen year 12s being asked for a B at GCSE maths, but that requirement wasn't in place when they actually studied GCSEs."

The Ucas Apply website lists qualification requirements for individual courses, but that's not always helpful for year 11s, Snaydon adds. "At that stage, students tend not to know exactly what they want to do where, but they need guidance from universities about the kind of A-levels they need for subject areas. If the information was all in one place, it would be a lot more transparent. And the students hit hardest are those who don't come from an 'educationally aware' background."

In part, it's not an easy task for universities – their myriad courses will, of course, have different requirements and most don't rule out particular A-levels, but say some are acceptable only in certain combinations. For example, medicine courses will demand at least two science A-levels (or equivalent). However, not every English course will insist on candidates having English A-level, and in fact, for arts courses, many admissions tutors say they prefer applicants with a range of subjects.

The most helpful universities have a list of A-levels they "prefer" over others. The less "preferred" are usually non-traditional subjects such as business studies or art and design. The University of Sheffield, for example, names 28 subjects – including engineering, music technology, applied science and applied business – that it will accept only if students have two other A-levels not on that list. The London School of Economics has a "non-preferred" list including accounting, communication studies, home economics, law and travel and tourism, but accepts candidates with one of those A-levels if the others are from its "preferred" list.

Likewise, at Cambridge University, Geoff Parks, director of admissions, says: "No applicant would be rejected because they were taking one particular A-level. However, their A-level combination might rule them out for some, or even all, of our courses." Cambridge recommends chemistry, English literature, history, languages, maths, physics, further maths and biology for year 11s who "want to keep their options open". For wannabe arts undergraduates, it flags up English literature, history, languages and maths, while scientists "are advised to take at least two, and ideally three, of biology, chemistry, maths and physics".

It's a similar story at University College London, which says candidates must have at least two A-levels from their "preferred" list of 76 subjects, which includes history, maths and Biblical Hebrew. The university adds: "If you are unable to offer a minimum of two A-level subjects from the list, this does not prevent you from applying to UCL, but it will be at the discretion of the admissions selector to determine whether your application is sufficiently strong to warrant further consideration."

However, students say these lists are confusing. "I want to study psychology or Oriental studies at university, so I started looking up what A-levels I'd need for those," says Campbell. "I looked at the websites for Oxford, Cambridge and Soas [School of Oriental and African Studies], but instead of having a list of what they want, they say "we prefer this" or "these A-levels are less favoured". They should clearly put what the requirements are so we don't keep wasting our time searching, or theirs applying for a course with the wrong A-levels."

To avoid knocking out a whole spectrum of the UK's HE institutions, year 11s should avoid picking similar A-levels. "Subjects with significantly overlapping curricula, for example economics and business studies, should be avoided," says Peter Dunn, spokesman for Warwick University. "And in general terms, subjects with a higher proportion of assessed written work are likely to provide a better preparation than more practical subjects for studying a degree at Warwick."

The other decision many year 11s face is whether to study general studies to boost chances of a place at university. Alongside critical thinking, general studies is the A-level universities most often rule out. City University London, Warwick, Reading, Oxford and Exeter are among the many institutions that do not accept general studies for any of their undergraduate courses. Cambridge accepts general studies and critical thinking A-levels only as a fourth, extra subject – but adds confusingly that it sometimes includes critical thinking in students' conditional offers.

Staffordshire University, meanwhile, says: "General studies is accepted for all of our courses – no A-levels are looked upon less favourably here," and the universities of Bedfordshire, Liverpool, Lincoln, Cumbria, Westminster and Wolverhampton are among others with the same stance. But some institutions are less clear: the University of Bolton, for example, says: "We look at academic subjects first, but we do consider general studies in that context." The University of Sussex says it "welcomes applications from students taking the full spread of A-levels, including general studies." But its spokesman adds: "When setting offers, we would rather 'protect' key subjects than exclude particular A-levels. For example, if an applicant applied for international relations and was taking A-levels in history, art, maths and general studies, we would normally ask them to achieve AAB, including history."

Other qualifications are up for debate, too. While all universities accept qualifications other than A-levels, such as the International Baccalaureate and Scottish Highers, they don't all take every qualification. City University, for example, is typical in saying BTecs are "generally more vocational … so may be equally good preparation for professional courses, though not so for purer academic ones."

It says there is "not usually sufficient maths in any of the BTecs for one to gain sufficient preparation for a maths degree, but most of the BTec IT courses would be fine for a computing course." By contrast, Canterbury Christ Church, Bolton, Staffordshire and Sheffield Hallam are among the institutions that welcome BTecs as well as other qualifications.

With such a minefield to negotiate, it's no surprise that year 11s, their parents and teachers are left feeling confused. For now, the best way for students to tackle their A-level choices is by talking to teachers and careers advisers, and trying to work out the kinds of courses and universities they might want to apply to. From there, someone keen to study a popular course such as medicine, for example, should check requirements of courses at a range of institutions to see which A-levels are obligatory, and whether any, like general studies, would block their chances.

For those considering less popular courses or universities, the issue may be less pressing. But those students most likely to be left behind are those who, coming from disadvantaged backgrounds or with unaware parents, don't know that their university options are being whipped out of reach as early as year 11. That issue is leading to a growing campaign for universities to be clearer about their requirements. At the moment, as Ofqual's Nesbit puts it: "Some students, who are able to get really sophisticated advice and guidance against other disadvantaged pupils, have a competitive edge. That's unfair."

Education Guardian asked over 150 HE institutions for clear advice on which A-level subjects they view favourably and which they rule out. xx responded, and we thank those that did. See their responses in detail at EducationGuardian.co.uk

• Higher education

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Edexcel A Level General Studies Past Papers

Course Name: General Studies Course Code:6GS01

Specifications (current): General Studies 6GS01 Course Specification (current) Sample Assessment : General Studies Sample Assessment

6GS01 : Question Paper Solution: Mark Scheme

6GS02 : Question Paper Solution: Mark Scheme

6GS03 : Question Paper Solution: Mark Scheme

6GS04 : Question Paper Solution: Mark Scheme

January 2013

January 2012, january 2011, january 2010, january 2009.

6GS01 : Question Paper Solution Unit 1 & 2: Mark Scheme

6GS02 : Question Paper

• Entry requirements

An overview of the entry requirements and policies for our undergraduate programmes.

UCL receives a large number of applications – for 2022 entry we received more than 73,000 applications for our undergraduate programmes.

To be considered, you must meet (or be predicted to meet) the minimum requirements for the programme you are interested in. Given the competition for places, we recommend you only apply to programmes where you meet these requirements.

Please note

For entry to our undergraduate degree programmes, UCL does not use UCAS tariff points to assess applications. Instead, we use specific qualification and grade requirements to assess your eligibility.

We welcome applications from students offering A Levels and other equivalent qualifications.

Our entrance requirements are based on three A Levels. Depending on the degree programme, we make standard offers in the range A*A*A–ABB.

See the Undergraduate prospectus for your programme’s specific entry requirements, and equivalent requirements for other qualifications.

Engineering Foundation Year

The Engineering Foundation Year programme is for students who are traditionally underrepresented at UCL. The entry requirements for this programme are 100 UCAS tariff points from level 3 academic qualifications.

Contextual offers

You may be eligible for a contextual offer as part of the Access UCL scheme. These are lower than our standard offers and listed on each programme’s page in the Undergraduate prospectus.

For more information and eligibility criteria, visit our Access UCL Scheme page.

Access UCL Scheme

UCL is committed to widening access to higher education and seeks to recruit and retain the brightest students who will thrive in our rigorous teaching and learning environment.

International qualifications

Country-specific information is available for international students. To see the equivalent entry requirements for your country, you can use the international applications drop-down menu on your programme’s page in the prospectus.

Further information is also available on our Guidance for International Applicants page.

A Levels (including International A Levels)

Our entrance requirements are based on three A Levels. If you are studying more than three A Levels, we will consider your three highest grades. We will include any required or preferred subjects as appropriate. Any offer will only consist of three A Level grades.

You should offer at least two A Levels taken from the preferred A Level subjects list below. Your third A Level can be in any other subject. If you do not have two preferred subjects, please contact the admissions team to check if we can consider your application.

Arts and Humanities

• Art and Design
• Art and Design: 3D Design
• Art and Design: Critical and Contextual Studies
• Art and Design: Fine Art
• Art and Design: Graphic Design
• Art and Design: Photography
• Art and Design: Textiles
• Biblical Hebrew
• Business Studies
• Classical Civilisation
• Classical Greek
• Drama (WJEC specification)
• Drama and Theatre Studies
• English Language
• English Language and Literature
• English Literature
• English Literature (specifications A or B where applicable)
• Film Studies
• History of Art
• History of Art and Design
• Information and Communication Technology
• Media Studies
• Modern Greek
• Modern Hebrew
• Moving Image Art (CCEA specification)
• Religious Studies
• Welsh (Second Language)

Social sciences

• Ancient History
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Economics and Business 
• Economics and Business (Nuffield)
• Environmental Science
• Environmental Studies
• Geography A
• Geography B
• Government and Politics
• Psychology A
• Psychology B
• Biology (Salters-Nuffield)
• Biology (Human)
• Chemistry (Nuffield)
• Chemistry (Salters)
• Computer Science
• Design and Technology (for 2025 entry)
• Further Mathematics
• Mathematics
• Mathematics (MEI)
• Physics (Advancing Physics)
• Physics (Salters-Horners)
• Pure Mathematics

General Studies, Critical Thinking or Global Perspectives and Research are not accepted for admission. We will not count these subjects towards our entry requirements.

If you are studying Biology, Chemistry or Physics A Levels in England, a pass in the practical endorsement is required.

If you are a self-studying student and cannot take the practical science component, you must provide a reason for this. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

If you have studied A Levels at an accelerated rate, and completed some of your A level study alongside your GCSEs, we may stipulate the A Levels you are currently studying in any offer conditions.

Exceptionally, UCL will consider an early sitting where this is a subject requirement for your degree programme.

Native language A levels will be considered, however selection may be based on the three most relevant subjects for your degree choice.

If you have studied A levels at an accelerated rate, and you have therefore completed this study alongside your GCSE level study, we may stipulate the A levels you are currently studying in your offer conditions.

The Extended Project Qualification does not form part of our standard entrance requirements.

UCL recognises the value of EPQs as preparation for independent study, which is key to university-level study. If your EPQ topic is related to the UCL programme you are applying to, you may wish to discuss this in your personal statement.

In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, reforms to AS and A Levels and GCSEs began in September 2015, with different subjects being phased in over the subsequent two years. For universities, one of the key challenges is the mixture of qualifications that an applicant may present. Not only are the constituent countries of the UK providing different styles of existing qualifications, but as subjects are phased in, we are seeing applicants offering a mixture of both old and new style GCSEs and A Levels.

We look at each applicant on an individual basis, but the reference is key in explaining the teaching within the school to the admissions selector. We ask referees to provide a clear explanation of any restrictions or difficulties the applicants may have faced in terms of funding and subject availability, along with an explanation of the styles of GCSE/A levels they have taken.

Predictions and AS modules

With the introduction of curriculum reforms, we understand that it will be more difficult for teachers to predict final grades in the initial year of study. In the past, AS modules have been useful as an indication of a student's level of achievement and likelihood to achieve their prediction. As this information will no longer be available, we will be more reliant on applicants' past academic history and references. We would also encourage referees to comment on an applicant's level of achievement in the end of year 12 examinations where these have been held, and to provide a picture of the applicant's progress through both GCSE and A Level study.

Core Mathematics

The Core Mathematics qualification does not form part of our standard entrance requirements, but UCL welcomes the opportunity for students to be able to continue their mathematics studies. For programmes where GCSE Mathematics is required at grade 6 (or grade B), Core Mathematics will be accepted as a supplement to grade 5 (or grade C) at GCSE.

International Baccalaureate Diploma

We accept the full International Baccalaureate Diploma (IBDP) for entry to our programmes. This typically includes:

• Three Higher Level subjects
• Three Standard Level subjects
• Theory of Knowledge (ToK)
• Creativity, Action, Service (CAS)
• Extended Essay

We require at least three subjects at Higher Level. If you are studying more than three Higher Level subjects, we will consider your three highest grades. We will also include any required or preferred subjects as appropriate.

We do not accept individual International Baccalaureate certificates.

When we assess your application, we equate your IBDP to our A Level requirements. We consider your score in three Higher Level subjects and total point score.

For all equivalencies at least 5 points is required in each Higher Level subject. A grade of at least 5 points is not required in the Standard Level subjects.

Where a programme has a required A Level subject, this must be taken at Higher Level.

Where a programme has a preferred A Level subject, this must also be taken at Higher Level to be considered.

If a programme's entry requirements are AAB at A Level including an A in Chemistry, you need:

• 36 points overall, with 17 in three Higher Level subjects
• Grade 6 in Higher Level Chemistry
• No Higher Level subject score below 5

Where a programme has an A Level subject requirement, the equivalent subject is required at Higher Level. Please see the table below for grade equivalencies.

Where A Level Mathematics is a subject requirement, either Mathematics: Analysis and Approaches or Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation at Higher Level is accepted.

Where A Level Further Mathematics is a subject requirement, only Mathematics: Analysis and Approaches at Higher Level is accepted.

Where A Level French is a subject requirement, only French B at Higher Level is accepted.

We include bonus points (a maximum of three) awarded for your Theory of Knowledge and Extended Essay as part of your overall points score out of 45.

UCL does not accept the IBCP for entry to its programmes. 

Applicants may however meet our requirements if they are studying a BTEC Extended Diploma as part of their course. Please see our BTEC requirements for each programme for further information.

Other UK qualifications

UCL also accepts the following UK qualifications. Use the drop-down box on each programme’s page to find equivalent grade requirements. Select the relevant qualification and the equivalent grades will appear.

Please check these pages carefully as some programmes require specific subject knowledge. In these cases, the equivalent subject will be required as part of the qualifications you are studying.

Access to HE Diploma

In general, we can consider Access to HE Diploma’s for entry to our programmes. We require 60 credits overall with at least 45 at level 3.

Please be aware that not all programmes accept Access to HE Diplomas. Please check the relevant programme’s page in the Undergraduate prospectus for further information including entry requirements before you apply.

Where subject-specific requirements are stipulated at A Level, we may review your Access to HE syllabus to ensure you meet the subject-specific requirements before a final decision is sent.

Please note applicants taking the Access to HE Diploma are still expected to meet the GCSE requirements of the programme.

BTEC Level 3 Extended Diploma

In general, only the following BTEC Extended Diplomas are accepted for entry to UCL.

• Pre-2010: Edexcel level 3 BTEC National Extended Diploma (NQF)
• Pre-2016: Edexcel level 3 BTEC Extended Diploma (QCF)
• Post 2016: BTEC Level 3 National Extended Diploma (RQF)

However, some programmes do not consider BTEC Extended Diplomas. Please check the programme’s page in our prospectus for further information including entry requirements before you apply.

Cambridge Pre-U Principal Subjects

Our entrance requirements are based on three Pre-U principal subjects. If you are studying more than three Pre-U principal subjects, we will consider your three highest grades. We will also include any required or preferred subjects as appropriate. Any offer will only consist of three Pre-U principal subject grades.

We also accept the Cambridge Pre-U Diploma including three Pre-U principal subjects.

When we assess your application, we equate your Pre-U principal subjects to our A Level requirements using the equivalencies below.

Scottish Highers and Advanced Highers

We require either three Advanced Highers OR two Advanced Highers and three Highers in five distinct subjects.

Highers on their own are not acceptable for admission to any of our programmes.

Where a programme has an A Level subject requirement, the equivalent subject is required as an Advanced Higher. Please see the table below for grade equivalencies.

When we assess your application, we equate your Advanced Highers and Highers to our A Level requirements using the equivalencies below.

As grade bands (e.g. A1) cannot be indicated in UCAS applications, we will contact you or your referee for further clarification.

Welsh Baccalaureate

We consider the WBQ Advanced Skills Challenge Certificate plus two A Level grades as meeting our requirements. Your grade in the WBQ Advanced Skills Challenge Certificate is considered as directly equivalent to an A Level grade.

Please note, where a programme has an A Level subject requirement, you must sit this subject as one of your two A Levels.

WJEC Applied Generals

The WJEC Level 3 Applied Diploma in Criminology is only accepted for entry to the BSc Crime and Security Science programme, and the Engineering Foundation Year programmes. This qualification is not accepted for any other programme at UCL.

All other WJEC Applied Generals are not accepted for any UCL Undergraduate programme, except for the Engineering Foundation Year programmes.

UCL considers select T Levels for the degree programmes listed below only:

• BA Communications:  T Levels in Digital Business Services; Digital Production; Design and Development; Digital Support Services; Management and Administration, with an overall mark of Distinction (for 2025 entry).
• BA Education Studies : T Level in Education and Childcare Level 3 (NCFE), with an overall mark of Distinction.
• BSc Information in Society : Digital Production, Design, and Development T Level (Pearson) and Digital Business Services T Level (NCFE) with an overall mark of Distinction.
• BA Youth, Society and Sustainable Future: T Level in Health; Healthcare Science; Science; Education and Childcare, with an overall mark of Distinction (for 2025 entry).
• Engineering Foundation Year : T Level in any subject to the value of 100 UCAS points (must be completed at a UK state school, see the prospectus  for more information). 

UAL Level 3 Extended Diploma

UCL considers the UAL Level 3 Extended Diploma in Art and Design, with the final overall mark of Distinction, to meet the entry requirements for the Fine Art (BA and BFA) and Architecture programmes only. 

The UAL Level 3 Extended Diploma in Creative Media Production and Technology with the final overall mark of Distinction is considered to meet the entry requriements for the BA Media programme only. 

The UAL Level 3 Extended Diploma in Creative Practice: Art, Design and Communications with the final overall mark of Distinction is considered to meet the entry requirements for Fine Art (BA and BFA) and Architecture programmes (for 2025 entry).

No other UCL undergraduate programmes consider these qualifications, except for the Engineering Foundation Year programmes.

Mixed qualifications

We usually look for all qualifications to be from one suite (e.g., three A Levels, or an IB Diploma). However, we understand that some applicants may offer a combination of level 3 qualifications. We accept a mix of A Levels and Cambridge Pre-U or a mix of A Levels and Advanced Highers for all programmes.

Some programmes are willing to consider a mix of other acceptable qualifications on a case-by case basis. Please contact us for further advice before you apply, stating your qualifications and the programme you are interested in.

If you are interested in the Engineering Foundation Year Programmes, please see further information about the qualifications considered.

UCL Undergraduate Preparatory Certificates

Undergraduate Preparatory Certificates (UPC) prepare international students for undergraduate study, when they do not have the qualifications to enter directly.

UCL guarantees an offer of an undergraduate place for UPC students who meet the entry requirements and have a clearly relevant personal statement, for 161 UCL undergraduate programmes.

GCSE and equivalent qualifications

All programmes require a grade 5 or higher in English Language and Mathematics at GCSE or equivalent. Some programmes require higher grades or additional GCSE passes. Please check the requirements of each individual programme carefully.

If you haven’t met the GCSE requirements for the programme you are interested in, please contact us for further advice.

Please note – you do not need a Modern Foreign Language at GCSE and are not required to take further language study whilst at UCL.

We use the following equivalencies:

• 8 and 9 = A*

For 2025 entry, UCL will consider grade 4 as equivalent to grade C.

UCL considers the following qualifications to be equivalent to GCSEs:

• IGCSE at grade C or higher
• O level at grade C or higher
• Scottish Credit Standard Grade/Intermediate 2
• Hong Kong Certificate of Education (HKCEE) at grade C or higher
• IB Middle Years Programme (MYP) at grades 4 to 7
• Malaysia Sijil Pelejaran (SPM) at grades 1 to 6
• Singapore/Cambridge GCE Ordinary level at grades 1 to 6.

Applications from 'fast-track' students

Some schools, both in the UK and overseas, fast-track their students and limit the number of examinations they take. As a result, you may not be sitting some GCSE or equivalent qualifications. We will be pleased to consider your application on its individual merits.

• English language requirements

All applicants are required to meet UCL’s English language proficiency requirements.

English language proficiency

The following information gives English language requirement guidance for undergraduate applicants.

Additional information

Resits are generally considered for most of our programmes. Any programmes that do not consider resits will outline this on their department webpages. Where resits have been attempted more than once, this may put you at a disadvantage.

Mitigating circumstances

We would advise applicants to speak with their school or exam centre about any mitigating circumstances that may affect their results, so that Exam Boards can apply any special consideration.

We do not have a mitigating circumstances form. UCL's policy is that such mitigating factors are a matter for the Exam Boards and should be considered at the time of the exams rather than retrospectively by the university.

We do not make changes to programme entry requirements in response to mitigating circumstances.

Further information

Prospective students undergraduate.

• Undergraduate courses
• Why choose UCL?
• A history of disruptive thinking
• Research-based education
• Cutting-edge facilities
• A sustainable space
• Careers and employability
• Your global alumni community
• Entrepreneurship
• Volunteering and community at UCL
• A vibrant social life
• Support and well-being
• Your life in London
• Accommodation
• Tour the neighbourhood
• Funding your studies
• Fees and funding
• How to apply
• UCAS explained
• Guidance for international applicants
• Access and participation
• Applicants with a disability
• After you apply
• How we assess your application
• Admissions enquiries
• Stay in touch
• Download the prospectus

Programmes & Qualifications

Cambridge international as & a level thinking skills (9694).

• Past papers, examiner reports and specimen papers

You can download one or more papers for a previous session. Please note that these papers may not reflect the content of the current syllabus.

Unlock more content

This is only a selection of our papers. Registered Cambridge International Schools can access the full catalogue of teaching and learning materials including papers from 2018 through our School Support Hub .

Past papers

• -->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 11 (PDF, 249KB)
• -->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 21 (PDF, 399KB)
• -->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 31 (PDF, 246KB)
• -->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 41 (PDF, 314KB)

Examiner reports

• -->June 2022 Examiner Report (PDF, 3MB)

Specimen papers

• -->2020 Specimen Paper 1 Mark Scheme (PDF, 973KB)
• -->2020 Specimen Paper 2 Mark Scheme (PDF, 985KB)
• -->2020 Specimen Paper 3 Mark Scheme (PDF, 994KB)
• -->2020 Specimen Paper 4 Mark Scheme (PDF, 180KB)

Stay up to date

Sign up for updates about changes to the syllabuses you teach

• Syllabus overview
• Published resources