Petitions.com
Browse Petitions Search Contact the petition author Contact Us Languages Manage your signatures Confirm your signature with a code Log in
Start a Petition

Report a petition

Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education

Petitions express opinions. Disagreeing with a petition, or thinking it is pointless, is not grounds for a report, and such reports are closed automatically. Report a petition only if it breaks the law or our Community Guidelines, for example hate speech, defamation of a person or organisation, publishing private information, or fraud. We do not check whether the claims in a petition are true; the author is responsible for them.

This report goes to the people who run this website, not to the petition author or to any authority. If you have a question or feedback for the author, send them a message.

Why are you reporting this?
What is wrong with the name?
Please tell us in the text field below what makes you think so.

Petitions express opinions. Disagreeing with a petition, or thinking it is pointless, is not grounds for a report, and we do not remove petitions because people oppose them.

If you send this, your disagreement is recorded and the report is closed automatically with no action; the decision is sent to your email address. If the content breaks the law or our Community Guidelines, choose that option above instead.

You can also start your own petition or contact the author.

Is the false claim about you, your organisation, or another identifiable person or organisation?

Which passage is false? You can click several sentences in the petition text, and tell us for each what is true. This is optional.

Sentences next to each other are joined into one claim. Click a sentence again to remove it.

Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education

This manifesto claims that critical thinking is highly needed in society. The development of critical thinking is therefore an important aim of higher education. The development of critical thinking needs devoted attention and specific educational interventions. This manifesto puts an educational protocol to the forefront, that can be used as a guide in fostering the development of critical thinking in higher education institutions at the course/module, programme and institutional level. The protocol does not adhere to a single definition of critical thinking. Such a definition is essential and context specific and therefore no definition is imposed. It is important that higher education institutions formulate and/or adapt a contextually appropriate definition of critical thinking for their own purposes.

Educational protocol on critical thinking education

This educational protocol reflects a historically situated, operational understanding of the theoretical and empirical research on critical thinking on the one hand, and actual experiences with developing critical thinking on the other. The educational protocol rests on two major claims:

students will develop their critical thinking by explicitly engaging in appropriate learning activities, and

becoming stronger in critical thinking requires repeated engagement in critical thinking processes. The educational protocol has three parts: goals, conditions and supportive interventions.

Goals

In order to support the development of critical thinking, critical thinking has to be a goal of education. This is shown by:

At the institutional level: A clear mission statement recognising critical thinking as an important goal and explaining how it can be accomplished.

At the teaching program level: A clear description of critical thinking as an important goal of the teaching program, detailing how it can be reached.

At the course level: A clear description of critical thinking as an important learning outcome, explaining how it can be realized.

In the above, ‘clear’ means that an explicit clarification (by referring to the relevant literature) of the meaning of critical thinking is provided. In other words, the goals are explicit and transparent; they can be read and understood by all those involved.

In the above, ‘important’ means that not reaching the goal would be considered a failure. At the institutional level, it means that the institution would not be accredited unless the goal was realized. At the teaching program level, it means that a student could not graduate unless the goal is realized. At the course level it means that a student could not progress unless evidence of critical thinking is provided. In other words, considering critical thinking as an important goal implies that it is part of assessment and evaluation. Given substantial conceptual and methodological differences between the fields and the disciplines, it is to be expected that clear descriptions of critical thinking as an important goal at the teaching program and/or course level will vary between the fields and between the disciplines.

Conditions

Critical thinking requires that at the institutional, the teaching program and course levels, critical thinking is continuously and congruently allowed and made possible.

“Continuously” implies that the development of critical thinking is not a one-shot operation. Critical thinking does not occur automatically or effortlessly. It needs continuous practice, reinforcement and support.

“Congruently” implies that all actions with respect to critical thinking are aligned to the goals.

Allowing critical thinking implies that critical thinking cannot have a negative consequence for the institution, its staff and its students. More specifically, it requires autonomy of the institution, the staff and the students who are enabled to think for themselves and with an authorial voice.

Making critical thinking possible implies that the resources needed for critical thinking are made available. It implies that students can flourish in an environment that is well-designed and offers them the time needed for development. It also implies that teaching programs can operate within a transparent and open structure, and institutions can work within clear legal frameworks.

Supportive interventions

Research suggests that with regard to the development of critical thinking (skills, dispositions or combinations of both), four categories of intervention (to model, to induce, to declare, to surveil) can be identified. For all supportive interventions the rule is that the support gradually withdraws.

To model: Critical thinking development is supported when the institute (through its management structures), the teaching program (through its representatives) and the course (through its teachers) show what it is to think critically. This can take various forms.

To induce: Critical thinking development is supported by inducing critical thinking. This implies that open questions are raised, ill-structured tasks are provided, complex problems are discussed and/or authentic, real-world issues remain at the core. What ‘inducing’ entails and how it can be done may vary for different fields and disciplines and may be done in different ways.

To declare: Critical thinking development is supported by declaring or making explicit what is at stake, what strategies can be used and what criteria are to be met. Declaring can be either spoken or written, but in all the cases it is both explicit and specific. What ‘declaring’ entails and how it can be done may also vary in different fields and disciplines.

To surveil: Critical thinking development is difficult. To increase the probability that sustained action is taken, surveillance may help. Surveillance monitors the ongoing efforts and activities, provides feedback on those efforts and activities and helps to keep the efforts and activities oriented towards the (development of) critical thinking. While differing in its concrete content and form among fields and disciplines, surveillance will always entail monitoring, feedback and orientation.

Herewith I sign the “Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education”. By signing it, I declare that I endorse the protocol and that I will promote the actualisation in my own context to the full of my capabilities.

The protocol was developed in the context of the Erasmus+ project CRITHINKEDU. The text in italics is the Executive summary of the output 4 of the project: Elen et al. 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an educational protocol, p. v-viii; (accessed May 7, 2019).

We do not check whether the claims in a petition are true; the author is responsible for them. If you send this, it is recorded and the report is closed automatically with no action; the decision is sent to your email address.

You can start your own petition with the information you believe is correct, or contact the author.

A false claim about an identifiable person or organisation is defamation, and we do act on that.

Continue: report defamation

Who is the content about?
Is the person the content is about a politician, a decision-maker or another public figure?
What does the content criticise?

Public criticism of how a politician or decision-maker acts in a public role is allowed, also when the events are old. That a matter is old is not in itself a ground for removal. We can still act on a false claim about the person or on otherwise unlawful content.

If the matter is old or no longer current, it is best to contact the petition author directly. The author can remove the petition for any reason; we cannot.

Is the person the content is about a politician, a decision-maker or another public figure?
What does the content criticise?

Public criticism of how a politician or decision-maker acts in a public role is allowed, also when the events are old. That a matter is old is not in itself a ground for removal. We can still act on a false claim about the person or on otherwise unlawful content.

If the matter is old or no longer current, it is best to contact the petition author directly. The author can remove the petition for any reason; we cannot.

We do not check whether the claims in a petition are true; the author is responsible for them. We act on a false claim when it concerns an identifiable person or organisation. If you simply disagree with the claim, you can start your own petition or contact the author.

Click the false sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly is hate speech? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly calls for violence? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly glorifies or incites terrorism? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly harasses or bullies someone? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly reveals private information? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly accuses someone of a crime? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly calls for the death penalty or torture? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Sentences next to each other are joined into one claim. Click a sentence again to remove it.

Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education

This manifesto claims that critical thinking is highly needed in society. The development of critical thinking is therefore an important aim of higher education. The development of critical thinking needs devoted attention and specific educational interventions. This manifesto puts an educational protocol to the forefront, that can be used as a guide in fostering the development of critical thinking in higher education institutions at the course/module, programme and institutional level. The protocol does not adhere to a single definition of critical thinking. Such a definition is essential and context specific and therefore no definition is imposed. It is important that higher education institutions formulate and/or adapt a contextually appropriate definition of critical thinking for their own purposes.

Educational protocol on critical thinking education

This educational protocol reflects a historically situated, operational understanding of the theoretical and empirical research on critical thinking on the one hand, and actual experiences with developing critical thinking on the other. The educational protocol rests on two major claims:

students will develop their critical thinking by explicitly engaging in appropriate learning activities, and

becoming stronger in critical thinking requires repeated engagement in critical thinking processes. The educational protocol has three parts: goals, conditions and supportive interventions.

Goals

In order to support the development of critical thinking, critical thinking has to be a goal of education. This is shown by:

At the institutional level: A clear mission statement recognising critical thinking as an important goal and explaining how it can be accomplished.

At the teaching program level: A clear description of critical thinking as an important goal of the teaching program, detailing how it can be reached.

At the course level: A clear description of critical thinking as an important learning outcome, explaining how it can be realized.

In the above, ‘clear’ means that an explicit clarification (by referring to the relevant literature) of the meaning of critical thinking is provided. In other words, the goals are explicit and transparent; they can be read and understood by all those involved.

In the above, ‘important’ means that not reaching the goal would be considered a failure. At the institutional level, it means that the institution would not be accredited unless the goal was realized. At the teaching program level, it means that a student could not graduate unless the goal is realized. At the course level it means that a student could not progress unless evidence of critical thinking is provided. In other words, considering critical thinking as an important goal implies that it is part of assessment and evaluation. Given substantial conceptual and methodological differences between the fields and the disciplines, it is to be expected that clear descriptions of critical thinking as an important goal at the teaching program and/or course level will vary between the fields and between the disciplines.

Conditions

Critical thinking requires that at the institutional, the teaching program and course levels, critical thinking is continuously and congruently allowed and made possible.

“Continuously” implies that the development of critical thinking is not a one-shot operation. Critical thinking does not occur automatically or effortlessly. It needs continuous practice, reinforcement and support.

“Congruently” implies that all actions with respect to critical thinking are aligned to the goals.

Allowing critical thinking implies that critical thinking cannot have a negative consequence for the institution, its staff and its students. More specifically, it requires autonomy of the institution, the staff and the students who are enabled to think for themselves and with an authorial voice.

Making critical thinking possible implies that the resources needed for critical thinking are made available. It implies that students can flourish in an environment that is well-designed and offers them the time needed for development. It also implies that teaching programs can operate within a transparent and open structure, and institutions can work within clear legal frameworks.

Supportive interventions

Research suggests that with regard to the development of critical thinking (skills, dispositions or combinations of both), four categories of intervention (to model, to induce, to declare, to surveil) can be identified. For all supportive interventions the rule is that the support gradually withdraws.

To model: Critical thinking development is supported when the institute (through its management structures), the teaching program (through its representatives) and the course (through its teachers) show what it is to think critically. This can take various forms.

To induce: Critical thinking development is supported by inducing critical thinking. This implies that open questions are raised, ill-structured tasks are provided, complex problems are discussed and/or authentic, real-world issues remain at the core. What ‘inducing’ entails and how it can be done may vary for different fields and disciplines and may be done in different ways.

To declare: Critical thinking development is supported by declaring or making explicit what is at stake, what strategies can be used and what criteria are to be met. Declaring can be either spoken or written, but in all the cases it is both explicit and specific. What ‘declaring’ entails and how it can be done may also vary in different fields and disciplines.

To surveil: Critical thinking development is difficult. To increase the probability that sustained action is taken, surveillance may help. Surveillance monitors the ongoing efforts and activities, provides feedback on those efforts and activities and helps to keep the efforts and activities oriented towards the (development of) critical thinking. While differing in its concrete content and form among fields and disciplines, surveillance will always entail monitoring, feedback and orientation.

Herewith I sign the “Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education”. By signing it, I declare that I endorse the protocol and that I will promote the actualisation in my own context to the full of my capabilities.

The protocol was developed in the context of the Erasmus+ project CRITHINKEDU. The text in italics is the Executive summary of the output 4 of the project: Elen et al. 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an educational protocol, p. v-viii; (accessed May 7, 2019).

Click the false sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly is hate speech? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly reveals private information? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly is terrorist or extremist content? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Sentences next to each other are joined into one claim. Click a sentence again to remove it.

Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education

This manifesto claims that critical thinking is highly needed in society. The development of critical thinking is therefore an important aim of higher education. The development of critical thinking needs devoted attention and specific educational interventions. This manifesto puts an educational protocol to the forefront, that can be used as a guide in fostering the development of critical thinking in higher education institutions at the course/module, programme and institutional level. The protocol does not adhere to a single definition of critical thinking. Such a definition is essential and context specific and therefore no definition is imposed. It is important that higher education institutions formulate and/or adapt a contextually appropriate definition of critical thinking for their own purposes.

Educational protocol on critical thinking education

This educational protocol reflects a historically situated, operational understanding of the theoretical and empirical research on critical thinking on the one hand, and actual experiences with developing critical thinking on the other. The educational protocol rests on two major claims:

students will develop their critical thinking by explicitly engaging in appropriate learning activities, and

becoming stronger in critical thinking requires repeated engagement in critical thinking processes. The educational protocol has three parts: goals, conditions and supportive interventions.

Goals

In order to support the development of critical thinking, critical thinking has to be a goal of education. This is shown by:

At the institutional level: A clear mission statement recognising critical thinking as an important goal and explaining how it can be accomplished.

At the teaching program level: A clear description of critical thinking as an important goal of the teaching program, detailing how it can be reached.

At the course level: A clear description of critical thinking as an important learning outcome, explaining how it can be realized.

In the above, ‘clear’ means that an explicit clarification (by referring to the relevant literature) of the meaning of critical thinking is provided. In other words, the goals are explicit and transparent; they can be read and understood by all those involved.

In the above, ‘important’ means that not reaching the goal would be considered a failure. At the institutional level, it means that the institution would not be accredited unless the goal was realized. At the teaching program level, it means that a student could not graduate unless the goal is realized. At the course level it means that a student could not progress unless evidence of critical thinking is provided. In other words, considering critical thinking as an important goal implies that it is part of assessment and evaluation. Given substantial conceptual and methodological differences between the fields and the disciplines, it is to be expected that clear descriptions of critical thinking as an important goal at the teaching program and/or course level will vary between the fields and between the disciplines.

Conditions

Critical thinking requires that at the institutional, the teaching program and course levels, critical thinking is continuously and congruently allowed and made possible.

“Continuously” implies that the development of critical thinking is not a one-shot operation. Critical thinking does not occur automatically or effortlessly. It needs continuous practice, reinforcement and support.

“Congruently” implies that all actions with respect to critical thinking are aligned to the goals.

Allowing critical thinking implies that critical thinking cannot have a negative consequence for the institution, its staff and its students. More specifically, it requires autonomy of the institution, the staff and the students who are enabled to think for themselves and with an authorial voice.

Making critical thinking possible implies that the resources needed for critical thinking are made available. It implies that students can flourish in an environment that is well-designed and offers them the time needed for development. It also implies that teaching programs can operate within a transparent and open structure, and institutions can work within clear legal frameworks.

Supportive interventions

Research suggests that with regard to the development of critical thinking (skills, dispositions or combinations of both), four categories of intervention (to model, to induce, to declare, to surveil) can be identified. For all supportive interventions the rule is that the support gradually withdraws.

To model: Critical thinking development is supported when the institute (through its management structures), the teaching program (through its representatives) and the course (through its teachers) show what it is to think critically. This can take various forms.

To induce: Critical thinking development is supported by inducing critical thinking. This implies that open questions are raised, ill-structured tasks are provided, complex problems are discussed and/or authentic, real-world issues remain at the core. What ‘inducing’ entails and how it can be done may vary for different fields and disciplines and may be done in different ways.

To declare: Critical thinking development is supported by declaring or making explicit what is at stake, what strategies can be used and what criteria are to be met. Declaring can be either spoken or written, but in all the cases it is both explicit and specific. What ‘declaring’ entails and how it can be done may also vary in different fields and disciplines.

To surveil: Critical thinking development is difficult. To increase the probability that sustained action is taken, surveillance may help. Surveillance monitors the ongoing efforts and activities, provides feedback on those efforts and activities and helps to keep the efforts and activities oriented towards the (development of) critical thinking. While differing in its concrete content and form among fields and disciplines, surveillance will always entail monitoring, feedback and orientation.

Herewith I sign the “Manifesto on Critical Thinking Education”. By signing it, I declare that I endorse the protocol and that I will promote the actualisation in my own context to the full of my capabilities.

The protocol was developed in the context of the Erasmus+ project CRITHINKEDU. The text in italics is the Executive summary of the output 4 of the project: Elen et al. 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an educational protocol, p. v-viii; (accessed May 7, 2019).

We use this to acknowledge your report and to tell you the outcome.
I am reporting
What are you asking for? You can choose more than one.
May we forward your request to the petition author? The author can remove the petition for any reason, and may respond to the request sooner than our moderators.
May we forward your request to the petition author? The author can remove the petition for any reason, and may respond to the request sooner than our moderators.
May we forward your request to the petition author? The author can remove the petition for any reason, and may respond to the request sooner than our moderators.

Reported petitions are reviewed by our team to determine if they violate our Terms of Service or Community Guidelines.