While studying geography at school, I was taught how oxbow lakes were formed. We had to copy diagrams from the blackboard into our exercise books about the stages of oxbow lake formation. We were expected to understand and remember the information and regurgitate it from memory in an exam. We weren’t told how we know that’s how oxbow lakes are formed. We weren’t told who first proved how they are formed, or what evidence that person used to demonstrate it. We weren’t told how confident geographers are that this is really how they are formed, or whether there are any alternative theories. In other words, we weren’t expected to think critically about it. We were just expected to believe it and remember it.

It’s very different at degree level. You aren’t just told a set of facts. You aren’t expected to believe everything you are told without question. You’ll notice that you’re also told HOW we know the things we know; who did the research, what studies they did, what results they got, and whether there are any competing theories. You are expected to engage with all this information, not just skip to the “answer”. That’s what we mean by “critical thinking”.

Here is a list of statements that a student might write in an essay, arranged from “least critical thinking” to “most critical thinking”. See if you can identify the important changes between each statement:

• Aggressive, competitive, driven people (known as Type A) are more likely to have a heart attack than laid-back, easy-going people (Type B).
• Aggressive, competitive, driven people (known as Type A) are more likely to have a heart attack than laid-back, easy-going people (Type B) (Friedman and Rosenman, 1959).
• Friedman and Rosenman (1959) compared rates of coronary heart disease among over 200 men, and found that those with an aggressive, competitive, driven personality (known as Type A) were seven times more likely to have coronary heart disease than men with a laid-back, easy-going personality (Type B).
• Friedman and Rosenman (1959) compared rates of coronary heart disease among over 200 men, and found that those with an aggressive, competitive, driven personality (known as Type A) were seven times more likely to have coronary heart disease than men with a laid-back, easy-going personality (Type B). However, a systematic review of the evidence found that only a small proportion of studies replicated the finding, and far more studies found no evidence of a relationship between personality type and coronary heart disease (Petticrew, Lee, and McKee, 2012).

The first statement presents a claim as though it is a simple, unarguable fact.

The second statement at least says where the claim comes from i.e. it contains a reference.

The third statement briefly describes the research evidence supporting the claim.

The fourth statement briefly describes the research and then identifies a more recent study that contradicts it. This is the only statement on the list that I would award marks for critical thinking in an undergraduate essay.

You won’t always be able to find a study that contradicts the one you need to write about. So how else can you demonstrate critical thinking?

• a study that supports the one you’re writing about can also demonstrate critical thinking, especially if you can talk about how the second study adds extra information, insight, or nuance.
• if someone else has criticised the study you’re writing about, including this information demonstrates critical thinking.
• identifying any weaknesses or limitations in the study counts as critical thinking. For example, is the sample size very small, or unrepresentative? Were the measurements valid? Were they reliable? Were confounding variables accounted for? Can you think of an alternative explanation for the results? And so on.
• developing a nuanced answer to the essay question, based on the evidence discussed in your essay, can demonstrate critical thinking. For example, if the question was “Is the relationship with the mother the most important in a child’s life”?, then “In conclusion, the mother is the most important relationship in a child’s life” is not a very nuanced answer. But the following is; “In conclusion, research evidence shows that although a child will have many important relationships in its life, the relationship with the primary caregiver is the most important. This is very often the mother, but any person who gives consistent care can fulfill this role, regardless of gender or biological relationship to the infant. Additionally, not all primary caregivers, including mothers, have a beneficial relationship. Sadly, some are neglectful, abusive, or expose their dependents to harm. In such cases, the relationship can still be categorised as the most important, but for ill rather than for good”. This is because it addresses such questions as “to what extent”? “Under what circumstances”? And “What do we mean by important”?

You can demonstrate critical thinking by discussing and analysing the research methods and evidence, not just the headline results of research.

References

Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R.H., 1959. Association of specific overt behavior pattern with blood and cardiovascular findings: blood cholesterol level, blood clotting time, incidence of arcus senilis, and clinical coronary artery disease. Journal of the American medical association, 169(12), pp.1286-1296.

Petticrew, M.P., Lee, K. and McKee, M., 2012. Type A behavior pattern and coronary heart disease: Philip Morris’s “crown jewel”. American journal of public health, 102(11), pp.2018-2025.

If this article didn’t answer your question, click here