Critical Thinking in STEM Disciplines

doi:10.1017/9781108684354.014

Chapter 13 - Critical Thinking in STEM Disciplines

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019

Robert J. Sternberg

Edited by

Robert J. Sternberg and

Diane F. Halpern

Show author details

Robert J. Sternberg: Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Diane F. Halpern: Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, California

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Critical thinking in science and many other disciplines should encompass creative, analytical, practical, and wise thinking. Underlying it are both cognitive processes and dispositions–that is, what a person can do and what a person chooses to do. Critical thinking is both domain-general and domain-specific. The domain-specific elements of it cannot be well captured by general tests of critical thinking. We have found that critical thinking in STEM disciplines involves skills that are quite different from those involved in taking tests of cognitive and academic skills. Some of these skills are generating hypotheses, generating experiments, and drawing conclusions. In our tests of these skills, which we have administered to students at Cornell University, scores on the tests correlated not at all or even negatively with tests of academic preparation, such as the SAT and the ACT. Thus, universities that select future scientists and engineers on the basis of such standardized tests may be choosing the wrong people unless they can assure that those people are good scientific reasoners, not just good takers of analytically-oriented tests.

Keywords

availability critical thinking analytical thinking creative thinking practical thinking domain-general skills domain-specific skills

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Critical Thinking in Psychology , pp. 309 - 327

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684354.014 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37(3), 165–178.Google Scholar

Baron, J. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (1987). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355–429. DOI:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Butler, A. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 1118–1133.Google Scholar

Carr, P. B., & Dweck, C. S. (in press). Intelligence and motivation. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Detterman, D. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–186.CrossRef Google Scholar

Furst, E. J. (1950). Relationship between tests of intelligence and tests of critical thinking and of knowledge. The Journal of Educational Research, 43(8), 614–625.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.Google Scholar

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.Google Scholar

Hedlund, J. (in press). Practical intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Janis, I. L., & Frick, F. (1943). The relationships between attitudes toward conclusions and errors in judging logical validity of syllogisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 73–77.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Glăvenau, V. P. (2019). A review of creativity theories: What questions are we trying to answer? In, R. J. Sternberg & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2011). Intelligence and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 771–783). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (in press). Social intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lubinski, D. (2018). Individual differences at the top: Mapping the outer envelope of intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of human intelligence (pp. 230–255). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25, 2217–2232.Google Scholar

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed.). (pp. 156–182). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

O’Hare, L., & McGuinness, C. (2012). Measuring critical thinking, intelligence, and academic performance in psychology undergraduates. Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(3), 123–131.Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A. (2004). Generalization of creativity across domains: Examination of the method effect hypothesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 1–12.CrossRef Google Scholar

Plucker, J. A. (2005). The (relatively) generalist view of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 307–312). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (2010). Education based on a parsimonious theory of creativity. In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 235–251). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (2013). Divergent thinking and creative potential. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Runco, M. A. (2018). Authentic creativity: Mechanisms, definitions, and empirical efforts. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 246–263). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sackett, P. R., Shewach, O. R., & Dahlke, J. A. (in press). The predictive value of general intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Human intelligence: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. E. (1904). ‘General intelligence’, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (in press). Intelligence and rationality. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. In Link, F. R. (Ed.), Essays on the intellect (pp. 45–65). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of intelligence. New York: Viking.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: A new theory of intelligence. New York: Plume.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Styles of thinking. In Fasko, D. (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current theories, research, and practice (pp. 67–87). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Critical thinking in psychology: It really is critical. In Sternberg, R. J., Roediger, III H. L., & Halpern, D. F. (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 289–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Preparing for college and graduate school: What do tests like the SAT, ACT, and GRE tell us? In Good, T. L. (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 473–480). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (2011). The theory of successful intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 504–527). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (in press-a). The augmented theory of successful intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (in press-b). Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Castejón, J. L., Prieto, M. D., Hautamäki, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sternberg triarchic abilities test in three international samples: An empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1) 1–16.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1995). The triarchic model applied to identifying, teaching, and assessing gifted children. Roeper Review, 17(4), 255–260.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (Eds.). (2002). The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ferrari, M., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1999). A triarchic analysis of an aptitude–treatment interaction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 1–11.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2018). The nature of human creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Nokes, K., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in Kenya. Intelligence, 29, 401–418.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & The Rainbow Project Collaborators (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321–350.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Roediger, III, H. L., & Halpern, D. F. (Eds.). (2007). Critical thinking in psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 2, 168–192.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. Journal of Intelligence, 5(3). DOI:10.3390/jintelligence5030029Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Sternberg, K., & Todhunter, R. J. E. (2017). Measuring reasoning about teaching for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. Journal of Intelligence, 5(4). DOI:10.3390/jintelligence5040034Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Does the Graduate Record Examination predict meaningful success in the graduate training of psychologists? A case study. American Psychologist, 52, 630–641.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., Wong, C. H., & Sternberg, K. (in press). The relation of tests of scientific reasoning to each other and to tests of fluid intelligence. Journal of Intelligence.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1962). A tentative description of the creative individual. In Parnes, S. J. & Harding, H. F. (Eds.), A sourcebook for creative thinking (pp. 169–184). New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. W. (2018). Reflections on a personal journey studying the psychology of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 351–373). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.