Critical thinking: philosophy and pedagogy




critical thinking, critical pedagogy, gender epistemology, connected knowledge, informal logic, argumentation, formalization, context, evaluation


The paper explores two approaches to the understanding of critical thinking: philosophical and pedagogical, grounded on different orientations of critical thinking: truth or personality. The philosophical approach emphasizes critical thinking as a set of means of finding the truth and focuses on teaching the methods of rational reasoning. In turn, the pedagogical approach considers critical thinking as a manifestation of personality traits and insists on the teaching of appropriate characteristics. The philosophical context of critical thinking is aimed at the use of critical thinking, the success of which is the achievement of truth, whereas the pedagogical approach is directed to achieve more pragmatic goals, including criticality, awareness, ability to make good decisions, and generally be an adequate active citizen. Philosophical and pedagogical approaches to critical thinking actually outline its theoretical and empirical layers inherent in a particular scientific field. The differences between these approaches and the corresponding discussions can be divided into two groups. (1) Eclectic and therefore irrelevant to a productive discussion are grown out of mixing these areas, similar to the misunderstandings arising from mixing the empirical and theoretical levels of science: general and partial, deductive and inductive, and so on. (1) Significant and hopeful — those that justify the ways of interaction of philosophical and pedagogical approaches to critical thinking and show the directions of development of critical thinking. We argue that these approaches should not be opposed and developed separately from each other. Their combination will help to separate critical thinking into a more independent field of research. To substantiate our idea, we consider these approaches in more detail, analyze their characteristics and shortcomings, review these shortcomings for their authenticity for each approach, and finally conclude that they can be overcome or at least reduce the intensity of their manifestations based on interpenetration both of philosophical and pedagogical approaches.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...
Abstract views: 276 / PDF downloads: 596

Author Biography

Nadiia Kozachenko, Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University

Department of Philosophy


Baluta H. A. Krytychne myslennia i kohnityvni praktyky osvity. Aktualni problemy dukhovnosti. Kryvyi Rih, 2019. Vyp. 20. S. 72-85.

Kozachenko N. P. Krytychne myslennia v konteksti zminy naukovoho etosu. Naukove piznannia: metodolohiia ta tekhnolohiia. 2020. No 2(46). S. 38-46.

Kozachenko N. P. Yaka krytyka potribna krytychnomu myslenniu? Aktualni problemy dukhovnosti. Kryvyi Rih, 2019. Vyp. 20. S. 97-117.

Krouford A., Saul V., Metiuz S., Makinster D. Tekhnolohii rozvytku krytychnoho myslennia uchniv / per. z anhl., nauk. red., peredm. O. I. Pometun. Kyiv : Pleiady, 2006.

Pometun O. I., Sushchenko I. M. Putivnyk z rozvytku krytychnoho myslennia v uchniv pochatkovoi shkoly. Kyiv, 2017.

Al Tamimi K. A Gendered Analysis of the Role of Authority in Argumentation. Argumentation: Cognition and Community: proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 9), 8-21 May. 2011. Windsor, Ontario. archive 5.

Bailin S. Is critical thinking biased? Clarifications and implications. Educational Theory. 1995. Vol. 45, No 2. P. 191-197.

Dewey J. How we Think. New York : Heath & Co, 1910.

Ennis R. A Concept of Critical Thinking. Harvard Educational Review. 1962. Vol. 32 (1). P. 81-111.

Facione P. A. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Newark, DE : American Philosophical Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423), 1998.

Fischer A. H., Kret M. E., Broekens J. Gender differences in emotion perception and self-reported emotional intelligence: A test of the emotion sensitivity hypothesis. PloS one. 2018. Vol. 13 (1), e0190712.

Freire P. To the Coordinator of a Culture Circle. Convergence. 1971. Vol. 4 (1). P. 61-62.

Glaser E. M. An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York : Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941.

Hundleby C. E. Critical Thinking and the Adversary Paradigm. APA Newsletters. 2013. Vol. 13 (1). P. 2-8.

Khomenko I., Hample D. Comparative analysis of arguing in Ukraine and the USA. ISSA: proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam : Sic Sat, 2019. P. 628-639.

Lipman M. Critical thinking — What can it be? Educational Leadership. 1988. Vol. 46 (1). P. 38-43.

Moulton J. A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, Philosophy of Science. Boston : D. Reidel, 2004. P. 149-64.

Scriven M., Paul R. Critical thinking defined. Handout given at Critical Thinking Conference. Atlanta : GA, 1992.

Thayer-Bacon B. Transforming and Redescribing Critical Thinking: Constructive Thinking. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 1998. Vol. 17. P. 123-148.



How to Cite

Kozachenko, N. (2021). Critical thinking: philosophy and pedagogy. Actual Problems of Mind, (22), 251–271.