Critical thinking

What is critical thinking?

Structure: organising your thoughts and materials
Generating critical thinking
Critical questions – a linear model
Description, analysis and evaluation
Developing an argument

For further information and the full range of study guides go to:
http://www.learningdevelopment.plymouth.ac.uk

What is critical thinking?

This guide to critical thinking stresses the importance of asking
and answering questions. In everyday life the term „critical‟ is
often seen as negative or destructive. Being critical in academic
life, however, does not mean questioning things randomly, or for
the sake of „nit-picking‟. Instead, academic work aims to get as
near as possible to the truth. Critical thinking in any subject or
discipline is the way in which this is done, along with the more
specialised applications of theory, the methods and techniques,
which have been developed for the subject. Critical thinking then,
is the attempt to ask and answer questions systematically. This
means asking the most useful questions in the most productive
sequence in order to yield a coherent and credible „story‟

So thinking critically means asking questions. Instead of

accepting „at face value‟ what you read or hear, critical thinkers
look for evidence and for good reasons before believing
something to be true. This is at the heart of what it means to be a
scientist, researcher, scholar or professional in any field.
Whatever you are studying, critical thinking is the key to learning
and to making progress.

The common question words: what, who, where, when, how,

and why will help you to get started; along with the phrases:
what if, what next, and so what. Attempting to answer these
questions systematically helps fulfil three vital functions for any
serious study – description, analysis and evaluation. These
are the things you need to do:
Describe ... e.g. to define clearly what you are talking about, say
exactly what is involved, where it takes place, or under what
circumstances. Fulfilling this function helps you to introduce a
topic. More complex description will become analysis.

Analyse ... e.g. examine and explain how parts fit into a whole;
give reasons; compare and contrast different elements; show
 your understanding of relationships. In this way analysis forms
the main part of any in-depth study.

Evaluate ... e.g. judge the success or failure of something, its

implications and/ or value. Evaluations lead us to conclusions or
recommendations and are usually found at the end of a piece of
academic work, a paper, chapter or other text.

Structure: organising your thoughts and material

To summarise what we have said so far: the diagram below
shows how asking and answering questions helps to fulfil the
three key connected functions of description, analysis and
evaluation. This is a reliable basis for introducing, discussing and
drawing conclusions about your topic. Beginning with „what‟, this
systematic questioning will encourage you to consider every
aspect of your topic or question.

Figure 1:

Model to Generate Critical Thinking

Description

Who? Where? Why?

When?
What?
Analysis
Topic / Issue / Title
How?
What next?
So What?
What if?
Evaluation
John Hilsdon, Learning Development Advisor. University of Plymouth

You should aim to address most, but not necessarily all, of these
questions for your topic and subtopics. The crucial questions for
almost any topic are: „what’, which identifies the issue; „why‟,
which explores it in depth, addressing causes and using theory;
„how‟, which helps you look at the processes at work; and „so
what‟, which helps you make judgements or conclusions,
showing that you have reflected on implications.

The model can be used in a number of ways at different stages

of tackling an assignment. Use it before and during your reading;
for planning the structure of a whole assignment; and also to
structure each point within it.

„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)

Generating critical thinking:
1. Identify a topic. This can be your essay title, a subtopic, or a
point you might want to explore in a particular section or
paragraph. Write key words in the middle of a sheet of paper, or
a blank document screen. This is the „Topic or Issue‟ in the
diagram above. Or you could do it in a linear way and put these
keywords in the place of a title, with the questions that follow
spaced out in the margin, or as subheadings (see page 4 below).

2. Try to answer the questions on the diagram starting with

‘what’ questions. Your answers may become part of an
introduction, defining your terms or identifying issues.

3. Using the ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’ questions, generate

descriptive background information. This will provide context or
scene-setting material which is also useful for an introductory
section.

4. ‘How’ requires consideration of the ways that something

operates or works – e.g. processes or procedures. Attempting to
answer questions using „how‟ takes you from descriptive to more
analytical work.

5. ‘Why’ also moves you deeper into analytical territory. It gets

you to find reasons, explanations or causes. Think about all the
possible questions to do with „why‟ (see the model below for
some suggestions). Answers to such questions are likely to
emerge over time from your reading and use of specific theories
and findings reported in academic journals; published books and
research reports; or from other authoritative sources such as
policy documents.

6. Asking questions using ‘what if’ moves you into a more

evaluative phase of your thinking. It helps you to consider the
possible implications or results of a particular action. This
question is also useful for considering predictive work done by
others, or engaging in forecasting of your own.

7. ‘So what?’ is really the key question for an evaluation. It gets

you thinking about value or values, meaning and significance. It
is also about discriminating between more or less important
factors in any situation. It helps you to think through and justify
your own position, and discuss its implications.

8. ‘What next?’ might refer to recommendations and predictions

that your argument has brought to light. It leads you to consider
and plan for more specific actions that might be necessary in
certain kinds of assignment, such as a project or business report.

„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)

 Figure 2. Critical questions – a linear model

DESCRIPTION
WHAT? What is thi s about?

What is the contex t / situation?

What is the main point / proble m / topic to be e xplored?

WHERE? Wher e does it take place? Introductory and

background
Who i s thi s by? information to
Who i s invol ved? contextualise
WHO? problem / topic
Who i s affected?

Who might be inte rested?

WHEN? When doe s t his occur?

How did thi s occur?

How does it wo rk – in theory? - in p ractice / context?

HOW? How does one factor affect another? Or,
Exploration
How do t he part s fit into t he whole? of
relationship
ANALYSIS

Why d id t his occur? of parts to

whole
Why was that done?

WHY? Why this argumen t / theo ry / suggestion / solution?

Why not some thing el se?

What if thi s we re wrong? Possible si tuations

What are t he alternat ive s? and alternative
response s
What if the re were a proble m?
WHAT IF?
What if thi s or that factor were – adde d? – remo ved?

- altere d?
What does this mean?
Why i s thi s significant?

SO WHAT? Is th is convincing? W hy / why not?

What are the implications? Implications

Is it successful? Solutions
EVALUATION

How does it meet the c rite ria? Conclusions

Is it tran sferable? Recom mendations

WHAT NEXT?
How and whe re else can it be applied?
What can be learn t fro m it?
What need s doing now?

Developing an argument: from description to analysis and

evaluation
Notice how the three functions are not strictly separate but lead
into one another (see the dotted lines in the diagram above).
Here is a simple example of the model in action: imagine that an
archaeology student has discovered something at a Roman site.
As the dirt is cleaned away, the object is revealed. The
archaeologist asks herself questions to help clarify her
understanding:

„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)

 Description Description becoming analysis

What is A small bowl with a What was its Could have been
it? handle purpose? to contain liquid
Where At the site of a Roman
was it? villa (was this the How would it Bowl shape holds
kitchen or dining work? liquid and
room?) prevents spillage
When? Roman period – Why this size and Easy to drink from
approx 300 AD? shape?
Who Big house - maybe a
used wealthy family? Why the handle? Can be held and
it? carried

The archaeology student could develop her answers to these

questions in a written report or assignment by reference to
academic texts. This would help in building an „argument‟ – e.g.
to justify her view that what she has found is a drinking cup. In
one of her books she might find:

“Containers for food and drink are found in every part of the
world and have been used by humans over several millennia.
Cups and other drinking vessels have evolved from naturally
occurring structures such as seed pods and gourds (still used by
some tribal peoples) through to handmade ceramic and metal
objects and, more recently, industrially manufactured items. The
essential characteristics of drinking vessels are their ability to
hold liquid and to be held. Some may have handles and spouts,
or may be enclosed with stoppered tops … ”

Notice how this text functions to describe by answering mostly

what, who where and when type questions.

Now let‟s see how the student might also use the critical thinking
model for analysis and evaluation of her find:

Analysis Analysis becoming evaluation

How is it Rings are evidence What next? Need to compare the

made? it was made on a design and decoration
wheel with similar objects to
How was it Burnished verify its age
decorated? (polished) with wavy
lines typical of
Roman period?
Why is it Kitchen or dining So what? Very rare to find intact
here? area? pot – highly significant
Why intact? Preserved in soft soil. and valuable find!
Durable

In building her argument, the student might use her own

reasoning prompted by the model, in combination with material
she has read. She might find the following extract useful:
„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)
 “Romano-British Pottery: AD43 410. Most (but not all) pottery
was wheelmade and very standardised. Locally made
coarseware jars and bowls were used for cooking, food
preparation and storage. Finewares, mainly used for dining,
included bowls, dishes, cups and beakers. During the late
Roman period numerous British industries produced finewares.
Decoration was varied and included burnished zones, wavy lines
or lattice patterns.

Reference: Harris, J. (2008) Pottery Identification Sheet ONLINE:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3888712/Pottery-identification-sheet
accessed 30.05.2010

Using her notes from a variety of sources, she might then

produce a text like this:

th
A small, intact pottery vessel was uncovered at the site of a Roman Villa in Worcester on 12 June 2009.
The vessel is a „fineware‟ cup which would have been used for drinking at table (Harris, 2004). It has a
handle and is decorated by burnishing with a motif of six parallel wavy lines scored into the outside
surface. It is thought that the cup may have been used by occupants of the villa, who were likely to have
been members of a wealthy merchant family. Other evidence suggests that the villa was occupied
between 100 and 300 AD (Smith, 2008)

There are regular symmetrical ridged rings visible on the inside of the cup, suggesting that the
construction of the vessel was by turning on a pottery wheel. It is known that this method for producing
pots was common throughout Gaul and Britain from the middle of the Roman period. The decoration is
also typical of the period and confirms it as „fineware‟ as opposed to „coarseware‟ (Harris, 2008; Smith,
2004). The location of the find is not surprising since it is an item which would have been in common
domestic use. The precise spot, in the corner of a ground floor room, could possibly suggest that this was
a dining or a pottery storage area; although without further information from the surroundings it is not
possible to be sure of this. Recent investigations of the site have resulted in an outline plan and findings
(Diggings and Tinker, 2008) which speculate that this part of the villa with its mosaic floor could have
been an area used for dining.

Although this vessel is not a particularly unusual pot in terms of its size and pattern, it is nonetheless a
significant find because it was found intact. It is also valuable in that there is only a slight amount of
damage to the patterned surface. This is rare because of the fragility of pottery and the likelihood of it
being crushed under the weight of falling masonry or being trodden upon by human or animals. This pot
seems to have survived whole because of the soft earth which surrounded it. It was further protected at
some later stage when, luckily, an arched piece of stone fell or was placed above the pot, enclosing it
within the space below the arch. In order to discover more about the vessel it will be necessary to make
comparisons between it and others found from similar sites and periods. From a comparison of the
decoration, style and construction of the vessel it may be possible to be more precise about its age,
where it was produced and its use.

References

Diggings, I. and Tinker, B. 2008 “Findings from recent examinations at the site of a Roman Villa near
Worcester”. Journal of Imaginary Archaeology, Vol 26. 3. 34-50

Harris, J. 2008 Pottery Identification Sheet ONLINE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3888712/Pottery-

identification-sheet accessed 30.05.2010

Smith, D. 2004 Comparing Roman Pottery. London: Shovel Press

Try going through the example above and deciding what the
function of each sentence is. Ask yourself: is it description,
analysis or evaluation – or is it a combination of one or more
function? If you go through, sentence by sentence, you will
„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)
 probably find it easy to see that most of the description happens
in the first paragraph; the analysis in the second; and the
evaluation in the third. There will always be instances where it is
hard to say whether part of a text fulfils one or another function –
and often two or more functions are being undertaken together.
This is because using language and writing is not an exact or
purely mathematical activity. People use words in different
combinations and attempt to do things in various ways and for
various reasons.

In order to be considered sufficiently „critical‟, (academic)

university level writing must go beyond being merely descriptive.
Use the following table to compare the functions of writing in
terms of being descriptive on the one hand, or analytical and
evaluative on the other.

Descriptive writing Analytical and evaluative writing (mostly „a‟ and „e‟)
(mostly „d‟)
States what happened (d) Identifies the significance (e)
States what something is like Judge strengths and weaknesses (e)
(d and a)
Gives the story so far (d) Weighs one piece of information against another (a and e)
States the order in which Makes reasoned judgments (a and e)
things happened (d)
Says how to do something Argues a case according to evidence (a and e)
(d and a)
Explains what a theory says Shows why something is relevant or suitable (a)
(d)
Explains how something works Indicates why something will work (best) (a and e)
(d and a)
Notes the method used (d) Indicates whether something is appropriate or suitable (a)
Says when something Identifies why the timing is important (a)
occurred (d)
States the different Weighs up the importance of component parts (a and e)
components (d)
States options (d and a) Gives reasons for selecting each option (a)
Lists details (d) Evaluates the relative significance of details (e)
Lists in any order (d) Structures information in order of importance [etc.] (a and
e)
States links between items Shows relevance of links between pieces of information (a)
(d and a)
Gives information (d) Draws conclusions (e)

(Adapted from Cottrell, 2005)

The way academic writing follows this pattern, from description,

to analysis, to evaluation‟, tells us something important about
academic work – whether it is in the sciences, arts or humanities.
All subjects, when studied at advanced levels, require these
three things (description, analysis and evaluation) to be done,

„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)

 and in largely that order, to tell a coherent story which is
supported by critical reasoning and evidence.

Academic work is intended to be „scholarly‟. This means it should

be of a high standard and appropriate to the particular level of
study it represents. It is usually assessed by a lecturer – who will
be a critical reader. So far we have used the critical questions
model to think about generating material; but it can equally be
used to ask questions about, and assess other people‟s writing.
You could try asking questions about a text to see how scholarly
or scientific it is. What does it claim to be true? Can you believe
its claims? Does it provide you with good reasons, evidence, or
both to support its claims? And how „good‟ are the reasons, or is
it „good‟ evidence? An important way to demonstrate the quality
of your arguments, or evidence in your academic writing is by
referring to work by others. The status of this work depends on
how authoritative it is. If you are a critical reader, you look for
„authority‟ in the form of references to relevant supporting work
which has been published in academic journals, or text books. In
these kinds of publications the content has been „peer-reviewed‟.
This means that it should have been independently evaluated by
another qualified academic who will have read it critically to
ensure that the material it contains is factually accurate and that
the reasoning behind it is sound. This is unlike the material which
may often be found in newspapers, magazines or from many
online sources, where the content may not have been checked
by anyone else, or where the work simply puts forward one
person‟s opinion.

We are always keen to hear from students and staff about

whether or not you have found our study guides useful. If you
have any comments, questions or suggestions, please do
respond to our surveys using the links below or contact us by
email at [email protected].

Staff survey link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SFBBDSV

Student survey link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M9DTCPL

References
Cottrell, S. (2005) Critical thinking skills. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Cottrell, S. (2008) The study skills handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2000) Critical Thinking for Students. Oxford: How To Books

Tutorials
www.plymouth.ac.uk/learn Drop-in Zone
[email protected] Taught sessions
Learning Gateway, RLB 011 Peer Assisted Learning Scheme
01752 587676 Online support

„Critical Thinking‟, Learning Development, Plymouth University (2010)