This article presents both practical tips for, and explores theoretical considerations related to, teaching the Enlightenment in the twenty-first century college classroom. It begins by reviewing some of the many resources instructors today can use as they guide their students through the Enlightenment. It then explores how scholars’ understanding of the period has changed over time, before examining what students learn about the Enlightenment before they come to college, and then considers the politics of teaching the Enlightenment today. The article then pivots back to the practical and explores the many things we can do with our students as we engage with the Enlightenment. However the Enlightenment may be conceived—whether as one or many, reformist or revolutionary, a movement or a series of debates—this article argues it is vital we keep teaching it in these times.

Until the late seventeenth-century, French women had limited access to education. This article explores the openings that the Enlightenment provided for reconceptualizing women’s education, and how women used their roles as salonnières and novelists to challenge gendered educational limits. Using the lenses of education and gender norms, we highlight women’s intellectual contributions to the French Enlightenment and the history of ideas and emphasize the role of critical thinking in creating gender equality. With this scholarship, we encourage students to reflect on the history of the Enlightenment and the importance of reading, writing, and critical thinking for tackling present issues of discrimination. Furthermore, for educators, we challenge them to see the benefits of centering marginalized voices in the history of the Enlightenment for what those voices offer, engaging students in critical thinking and education and addressing equity and social justice for both individuals and society at large.

Ideas about education and its power to transform people’s intellectual, social, political, and personal lives were central to Enlightenment thought. They were also central to the Enlightenment belief that new ways of thinking engendered new ways of living (and vice versa). Taken together, these points placed education at the heart of early modern debates over the constitution of society, the organization and administration of the polity, the nature and purpose of civil society, and the relations that govern everyday life. To understand this view of education and the Enlightenment debates to which it gave rise, this essay highlights the role of skepticism and uncertainty in Enlightenment thought, the philosophes’ interest in education as an instrument of moral and social improvement, and their commitment to the idea that both individual and collective progress stemmed from critical forms of social intercourse. As a result, we see that the Enlightenment’s educational legacy is not a particular platform or pedagogy, but an ongoing experiment in how the critical and collective pursuit of useful knowledge might reform or remake human society.

The eighteenth century French Enlightenment writers—Voltaire and Montesquieu especially—were cited in American textbooks as the thinkers who most influenced the founding generation of America until at least the 1970s. They still are, throughout much of the world. And rightly so, as studies of colonial periodicals and pamphlets have largely shown. When and why did they disappear from our high school textbooks? When Voltaire is mentioned at all, it is only as the author of Candide. This essay focuses on Voltaire as a sort of “missing link” in our understanding of American history and government. It includes discussions of his other works, considered far more consequential in his own day, and of his ubiquitous use of critical thinking. The case of Voltaire closely parallels the more recent efforts to erase Thomas Jefferson from U.S. schoolbooks: the author of the first bill for religious freedom and its leading champion in America.

In this paper I will defend a logical conception of refutations and fallacies against objections that are meant to show that a dialectical conception of refutations or fallacies is necessary. I will show that there is only one dialectical concept—not that of a thesis, as those favouring a dialectical analysis argue, but that of a concession—that may need to be added to a logical conception for such a conception to be adequate.

Using the perspective of those who have already successfully developed such skills, the aim of this article is to examine the types of seminars that may foster critical thinking. Professors and associate professors could be said to be among this group as they have progressed through the academic system to attain a certain level of achievement. Also under investigation is the extent to which such competencies lead to generic skills. In order to understand the context of this empirical study, a short account of a master’s program in pedagogy at the University of Southern Sweden will be outlined. The empirical investigation consists of open-ended informal and conversational interviews carried through as a dialogue. The result is analyzed by three different methods, with focus on two theoretical approaches, i.e. the development of logical traits and the encouragement of transformations. Fifteen of a total of twenty-two exercises are characterized as more suitable for developing logical traits, and nine are categorized as transformative. Perhaps a mix of these two types of seminars would be most effective in promoting generic skills. The results suggest that attitudes play an important role. Two of the keys to promoting generic skills are for lecturers, associate professors and professors to believe in the generic qualities of the exercises and to utilize them themselves.

In The Enigma of Reason, Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2017) defend the proposal that reason is a specialized module which produces intuitions about reasons. Reason serves two functions: for individuals to justify their own judgments and actions to themselves and others, and to persuade others. In this review, I briefly summarize the central claims of the book, critically examine Mercier and Sperber’s arguments that reason is not a general faculty underlying our inferential abilities, and explore the pedagogical implications of their work.

Virtually all faculty members agree that teaching their students the ability and disposition to think critically is fundamentally important, and most believe that their pedagogical approaches enhance both. Unfortunately, recent research has shown that college students often fail to substantively improve their critical thinking skills. Other research regarding the public’s perception of certain science topics reveals that a significant proportion of the American public rejects scientific information, i.e., information that is based on both critical thinking and empiricism. This state of affairs limits the ability of individuals and society to make rational decisions. This article describes the results of a novel general education science course designed specifically to address these issues. The six-year study, involving more than 1,400 students, showed that the pedagogical approaches used in the course were successful in enhancing students’ critical thinking, their disposition to think critically, and their willingness to use scientific information when making decisions

While much emphasis is placed on the need to improve critical thinking (CT) among college students (Abrami, Bernard, Borokhovski, Wade, Surkes, Tamim, & Zhang, 2008, p. 1102), few studies describe precise methodologies for doing so (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011, p. 36) and even fewer identify improvements in CT dispositions as a desired course outcome (Perkins, Tishman, Ritchhart, Donis, & Andrade, 2000, p. 288). This study attempts to fill a gap in the studies of CT methodologies aimed at improving CT dispositions. In this study, 78 community college students enrolled in a CT course that emphasized targeted CT interventional strategies. The students took the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) as a pre-test and as a post-test. Results indicate that the targeted instruction significantly influenced overall scores, as well as four of the seven subscale categories.

The goal of this paper is to understand how common aversions to critical thinking, and, in particular, critical thinking related to deliberation about ethics, is arguably akin to math anxiety (MA). However, unlike ethical-critical thinking anxiety (ECTA), MA has a body of literature and neuroscientific findings supporting it and correlating thoughts about math with neurobiology of pain and fear activation. The crux of the paper lies in the answer to the following question: how is ECTA like and unlike MA? Is there a history—educational and otherwise—similar to MA—that leads to ECTA? In this paper, I argue that there are myriad factors contributing to ECTA but that, ultimately, the result is likely the same: a neurobiology of fear/pain response that inhibits ethical thought and judgment, largely given its dependence on critical thinking. My thesis statement, therefore, is that critical thinking engenders the angst engendered by MA and for similar reasons, and I surmise that current models of teaching applied clinical ethics to health care practitioners would benefit from approaches framing the lack of ethical thinking in our field of health and human services as an ego-defense mechanism or neurobiological constraint. This leads to the question of how workshops aimed at teaching ethics take into account the realities of avoidance, promote critical thinking, and avoid the pitfalls of ECTA.

This essay reviews five articles from Part VII in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (Davies & Barnett, 2015) entitled “Social Perspectives on Critical Thinking.” In this section, the authors explore critical citizenship, critical pedagogy, and knowledge practices of critical thinking. It is a diverse collection of essays ranging from broad discussions on the topics included to specific applications and particular examples demonstrating criticality in higher education classrooms.

Beginning in his PhD program, and over a period of years in the 1960s, Richard Paul thoughtfully examined and deliberately critiqued existing theories of logic and reasoning. He took what was a very narrow conception of reasoning and broadened it to more accurately represent human thinking when people reason. He captured the idea of universal intellectual standards by exploring standards typically used by skilled reasoners, and assembled these standards into a constellation of ideas that is easily understandable. Following the tradition of Socrates, Paul continually emphasized the importance of developing conceptual understandings based in foundational ideas and principles of analysis, and tested through life experience. His work laid the groundwork for what may be termed first principles in critical thinking and for a legitimate field of critical thinking studies.

Richard Paul changed the face and the practice of critical thinking for hundreds of thousands of educators, professionals, and reflective persons across the world. In this paper I describe Paul’s goals and, briefly, some of his achievements in articulating his robust approach to critical thinking. I focus primarily on its direct orientation to practicality; its comprehensiveness, its applicability in any domain; and its systematicity, its coherent, interlocking way of laying out all the significant dimensions of critical thinking consistent with use in practice. I also describe some implications of Paul’s work: its relation to other models or approaches that are more limited in their comprehensiveness, systematicity, and/or practicality; the contrast between Paul’s maximally flexible account and accounts or teaching practices based on specific directives; and the capacity Paul’s articulation carries with it of being able to enhance any approach to thinking things through.

This article, written in response to a kind invitation by Linda Elder, Gerald Nosich, and Frank Fair to contribute a reflective piece honoring the life, work, and intellectual contributions of Dr. Richard Paul, focuses on the ways in which his conception of critical thinking fosters fairminded, authentic, ethical reasoning and research. Richard Paul’s framework for critical thinking emphasizes and cultivates Socratic, “strong-sense,” fairminded thinking and intellectual humility, enabling students to understand the implications of fairminded research and providing them with valuable strategies to combat egocentrism and confirmation bias. This article explains not only why the Paul/Elder conception of critical thinking fosters fairmindedness and ethical reasoning in both students and teachers, but it outlines how the application of this framework for critical thinking can transform classroom teaching and research paper assignments in order to encourage and cultivate metacognitive analysis and authentic research in student writers.

Richard Paul originally developed and disseminated his approach principally through venues targeting K-12 and university education. Together with Linda Elder he sought to ground a culture of critical thinking. Paul and Elder, in collaboration with this author, then extended their approach into the professional practice of engineering. The Engineering Reasoning Thinker’s Guide contextualized the model for engineers. Though intended for engineering students, it resonated with engineers in industry practice, providing a pattern for other guides, such as Clinical Reasoning. Presuming familiarity with the components of Paul and Elder’s approach, this article demonstrates their approach’s applicability to and utility in domains of professional practice, whether engineering, medicine, law, or business. Their approach provides a framework for conceptualizing, synthesizing, and applying material from disparate domains in popular business literature. Organizations that embrace Paul and Elder’s vocabulary will improve the collective thinking skills of their entire work-force. Paul and Elder’s approach provides ideas that integrate.

The late Richard Paul was arguably the most well-known and influential person in the history of the critical thinking movement. This reflection on and tribute to his work focuses on Paul’s genius in applying his knowledge of important works in the history of philosophy to the development of a robust conception of critical thinking, one that has wide appeal, not only to philosophers, but to faculties across academe. I also discuss the debt so many of us who teach critical thinking owe to his amazing scholarly and organizational skills, e.g., the 36 years of the Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform, his in-service work for hundreds of faculties, his distribution of over one million “Thinkers Guides,” and his successful efforts to make critical thinking the core concept in education.