Nicole Perl 1

Critical Thinking Portfolio Assignment

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this assignment is to allow students to:
 identify relevant terms, concepts and activities basic to critical thinking theory
and pedagogy,
 synthesize required items into a coherent product that is readily accessible on-
site,
 demonstrate to the instructor knowledge of course material,
 apply course materials to professional contexts.

The portfolio must contain the following items:

 Three, accurate definitions of critical thinking
o one must be the student’s, personal definition of critical thinking

My definition: Critical thinking is the ability and challenge of examining

knowledge, ideas, and facts and weighing options to think about conclusions and
make informed decisions.

Definition: “Critical thinking is thinking that produces reasoned judgments

through the formation of reflective insights from within a differentiated unit of
consciousness.” (Grigg, L. 1992, 2009, 2013)

Definition: “In its most basic expression, critical thinking occurs when students
are analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing information and applying
creative thought to form an argument, solve a problem, or reach a conclusion.”
https://www.edglossary.org/critical-thinking/

Definition: “Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject,

content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her
thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking
is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It
presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of
their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well
as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-and-definition-of-critical-
thinking/411
Nicole Perl 2

 Descriptions of:
 Inquiry:
o Inquiry is a process where an issue is examined so that a reasoned
judgement can be made. There must either be opposing points of view
in regards to the issue, controversy surrounding it, or a challenge to
the current reasoned judgement.

 Guidelines for inquiry (a description for each guiding question, page

37)
o What is the issue? It is important to make sure that the clarity of the
issue is taken into the upmost consideration. If there is more than one
issue, care should be taken to develop an understanding about the
relationship between issues. It can be helpful to focus on only one
issue at a time to keep the inquiry focused to lead to one relevant
conclusion.
Ex. The topic of Abortion has many different and controversial issues
surrounding it. Care must be taken to isolate and focus on only one
issue at a time such as “Is there a time limit in which abortions can no
longer be legally completed?”

 What kind of claims or judgements are at issue? Clarity

surrounding types of judgement include whether the judgement is
appropriate and can be evaluated against relevant criteria. This
means that the criteria for inquiry need to be relevant and the types
of judgements must also be relevant to the criteria itself.

 What are the relevant reasons and arguments on various sides

of the issue? All of the differing views regarding the issue should
be researched to provide reasoning and arguments. The reasoning
and the arguments should include both supportive as well as
oppositional information in order to support the concept of fair-
mindedness.

 What is the context of the issue? Context is crucial to

formulating an inquiry and reasoned judgement. Most inquiries
have background information that creates controversy or makes
them relevant to inquire about. Understanding the issue to
Nicole Perl 3

eventually making a reasoned judgement requires knowledge of

the background and history of the issue.

 How do we comparatively evaluate the various reasons and

arguments to reach a reasoned judgement? To reach the final
step in the guided inquiry and create a reasoned judgement requires
careful evaluation and weighing of the reasons surrounding the
judgement. A reasoned judgement should be made by weighing the
strengths and weaknesses of the reasoning and by creating
comparisons of reasons.

 A reasoned judgment (and an example): Reasoned judgments are not

simply created by gathering random information and facts. Reasoned
judgements occur where information has been collected for the purpose
of trying to create an informed and reasonable judgement about a
particular issue.

Example: Gun Violence controversy in the USA. Should guns be

available for purchase to everyone? To come up with a reasoned
judgement for this, information and perhaps statistics should be examined
carefully in regards to who is committing gun violence and how they
purchased their firearm etc. All of the information on both sides of the
argument should be taken into consideration.

 An issue (and an example): An issue is the focal point of an inquiry. An

issue must include opposing points of view, controversy, or a challenge
to the current opinion or reasoned judgement.
Example: Should Alberta Schools inform parents if their child joins a school-run
QSA/GSA club?

 Key characteristics of an issue:

o Focus: Focus of an issue ensures that the question is clear. If an issue
is too vague, broad, or involves multiple issues then the risk of
answering the question incorrectly. If there is more than one issue,
they should be separated into multiple inquiries in order to increase
focus and clarity.

o Phrased as a question: Issues should be phrased as questions because

it needs a reasoned judgement to conclude. An issue differs from a
Nicole Perl 4

topic because topics can be discussed but not analyzed or brought to a

conclusion.

o Precision: There must be precise language without ambiguity present

in regard to an issue so that there is enough clarity that a reasoned
judgement can be made. Common definitions should be agreed about
where there could be more than one possible interpretation to avoid
misinterpretation.

o Controversy: Issues usually include an element of controversy to

them. This means that there is different points of view and opinions
about them. This is required in order to formulate an inquiry question
and begin the process of determining criteria and gathering
information. Controversial issues often contain no consensus of values
or beliefs and are frequently publicly sensitive.

o Neutrality: Neutral language should be utilized in order to inquire

into an issue in order to avoid conflict. People posing alternative
views should avoid loaded language and disrespectful behavior.
Participants in inquiry should commit to being open minded.

 Criteria (and an example): Criteria used in critical evaluation is focused

on matching the inquiry with considerations that are relevant.
Example: In the question posed above: “Should Alberta Schools inform
parents if their child joins a school-run QSA/GSA club?” relevant criteria
will include agreeing upon when and how the parents are being informed
of their child’s participation, research about the school-run clubs,
information in relation if students are informed of participation in other
clubs, etc.

 Sound argument (and an example): A Sound argument is a valid

deductive argument with true premises.
Example: Continuing with the GSA example above, if the premises that
students benefit from time with peers in school with like-minded
interests, and the premise that it is harmful to out students to their parents
are true, then the reasoned judgement and sound argument would be
concluded that parents should not be informed by the schools of their
child’s participation in GSA clubs.
Nicole Perl 5

 Valid deductive argument (and an example): The premises haven’t yet

been proven true in a valid deductive argument (and thus need to be
deduced). But if the premises are proven true, the conclusion must also
be true.
Example: All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is
mortal. It is assumed that the premises that “All men are mortal” and
“Harold is a man” are true.

 Inductive argument (and an example): This occurs where the premises,

even if true, cannot guarantee that the conclusion is true.
Example: The coin I pulled from the bag was a penny. The second coin
was also a penny. Therefore, all of the coins in the bag are pennies.

 Analogical argument (and an example): There are two types of

analogical argument: Precedent and Casual analogies.
Precedent Analogical Arguments are based on the assertion that if a
similar issue has a conclusion that is accepted then the argument being
put forward must reach the same conclusion.
Example: If one parent heard from another parent that their child received
extra time on an exam and it helped their child get a better education,
then the first parent can argue that their child should also receive the
same lengthened exam time.
Causal Analogical Arguments are based on the assertion that if we took
a specific action in a previous incident and we took the same action now,
the results would be the same.
Example: I studied for a science test once and received an A, therefore
studying for a science test means you will always get an A grade on the
test.

 A fallacy (and an example): An argument based on a fallacy creates an

argument where the persuasive power of the premise far outweighs the
evidential worth. It is a weak argument that has substantial persuasive
power.
Example: Dogs are good pets. Wolves are dogs. Therefore, wolves are
good pets.

 Ideological fixity (and an example): Ideological fixity occurs where

someone is extremely and irrationally committed to a political, social or
Nicole Perl 6

philosophical position. It is different from holding a position on an issue

in that, even in light of evidence, the person refuses to consider or believe
the evidence or change their position. This is the opposite of open-
mindedness.
Example: People who drink should be able to quit. It’s easy. If they can’t
then they are weak. I quit so everyone should be able to.

 Groupthink (and an example): This occurs when a member or multiple

members of a group are closed-minded and put pressure on the remaining
group members by using social or psychological pressure. Often, if one
person is outspoken and confident in their view, then any agreement by
other members reinforces their position and it can also make it difficult
for other members to be heard.
Example: If a group is discussing the issue of the legality of abortion,
people can hold very strong, emotional views based on religious or other
beliefs. Loud minorities can sometimes influence the group by using
provocative language and angry or loud behavior, or graphic imagery to
overpower opposing views.

 Confirmation bias (and an example): This occurs when people have a

tendency to only look for evidence that supports their position.
Example: If I believe that vaccines cause autism, I may only search for
evidence that concludes there are links between the two without looking
for evidence that states the link it not there.

 Loaded language (and an example): Loaded language is when phrases

or words that have literal meanings (denotation) but also have
connotative meanings that can evoke emotions or images. Loaded
language often has positive or negative words connected to it.
Example: Do you really want to associate with those people?

 Factual judgment (and an example): In the context of critical thinking,

factual judgements are simply descriptions or explanations however they
are not necessarily true or empirically true. These judgements are also
based on observations of the way the world works.
Example: It was 20 degrees yesterday.
Nicole Perl 7

 Evaluative judgment (and an example): These judgements evaluate

either an object, action, or phenomenon. They include three important
types: moral/ethical (right/wrong), aesthetic (sensory, perceptual and
formal properties of objects and experiences) and instrumental (a means
to an end).
Example: The causalities associated with drunk driving, outweigh the
euphoria associated with drinking.

 Interpretive judgment (and an example): This type of judgement is

primarily used in the context of arts but can also be about interpreting
human behavior. Within a particular framework, interpretive judgement
is about making sense of data or phenomenon. The three criteria for
evaluation are:
-Correspondence with evidence within the interpretive framework of the
discipline.
-Inclusiveness where the judgement accounts for all of the evidence.
-Coherence which examines whether the judgement makes sense as a
whole.
Example: Christopher’s short documentary on his family heritage is a
wonderful representation of culture and community for his classmates to
view.