Essay Sample on 8 Questions to Sharpen Thinking and Improve Critical Thinking

According to Paul and Elder (2006), it is the natural obligation of every person to think (Paul & Elder, 2006). But individuals require standards of excellence to skillfully improve their thinking by taking charge of the structures of thinking. As a result, they developed a framework consisting of elements of thoughts, intellectual standards, and traits to assist people in sharpening their thinking. The aspects of thoughts or reasoning comprise of eight questions that people should ask themselves when approaching any scenario that requires in-depth analysis or solving a problem. Similarly, asking the right questions facilitates success in the process of thinking since questions act as the forces behind people’s thinking. On that basis, Browne and Keeley formulated a model often critical questions to assist people in approaching persuasive pieces critically (Browne & Keeley, 2007). As a result, this essay provides an insight into the similarities and differences between the models of "elements of thoughts” and "asking the right questions” in the process of enhancing critical thinking. Furthermore, the analysis identifies a better approach to critical thinking between the two frameworks.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The two models share some features based on the ideologies they present to the thinker or reader. For instance, the first right question, according to Brown and Keeley's framework, is "what are the issues and the conclusions” (Browne & Keeley, 2007). A critical thinker must practice the skills to identify the issues raised by the writer and draw conclusions from the piece. Despite sounding simple, identifying the problem can be hectic sometimes, primarily when the author does not address it directly but hide it within the work’s body. The question on the issue and conclusion directly relates to three elements of thoughts, as indicated by Elder and Paul. The first similar element of reasoning requires thinkers to ask themselves the most fundamental purpose or concept in the context (Paul & Elder, 2006). In doing so, the thinker will be able to identify the issue addressed by the writer of the material. Secondly, like Brown and Keeley’s approach, the framework suggests that readers should ask themselves the most fundamental inferences or conclusions made by the author based on the listed assumptions. Lastly, the elements of reasoning include the question on the critical issue one is trying to answer (Paul & Elder, 2006). The item requires the thinker to identify the main themes addressed in the piece. In doing so, one will be able to discover the issues at hand and as well draw the possible conclusions.

Also, the similarities between the two frameworks of critical thinking appear on the second question of “asking the right questions,” which requires the thinker to determine the reasons behind the authors to write the material. Reasons provide solutions to human curiosity concerning why a person holds a particular opinion or makes a certain decision (Browne & Keeley, 2007). The concept is similar to the first two questions from the elements of reasoning, that is, “what is the purpose, goal or objective of the author?” and “what is the author's point of view concerning the issue?” (Paul & Elder, 2006). The similarities of these concepts lie in the type of answers that they can generate and the other objectives of asking the questions. In both cases, the questions will reveal the purpose of writing a specific material and generate the main ideas that the authors wanted to communicate to the readers.

Despite the vast similarities between the two frameworks, they also possess some notable differences in their approach to critical thinking. For instance, the elements of reasoning require the reader to identify and state the evidence provided by the author. On the other end, Browne and Keeley's model expects the thinker not only to identify the evidence but also to determine how good and reliable the pieces of evidence are. Furthermore, the latter provides a follow question about the evidence presented in the form of, “Are the statistics deceptive?” (Browne & Keeney, 2007). Elsewhere, the two models differ from one another in their approaches to close or end the process of critical thinking. For Paul and Elder’s method, the process closes by asking about the conclusions and implications from the author’s point of view. However, the other model places the question on outcomes and problems as the first step to critical thinking.

Conclusion

After analyzing the two frameworks of critical thinking, it is clear that both of them offer similar ideologies to some level and also bring different but necessary guidelines. For instance, unlike the elements of thought approach, the model on asking the right questions is direct to the point and sets the tone instantly from the first step. Also, the model has specific questions about the evidence provided, that are crucial in the separation of rumors from facts. On the other end, Paul and Elder’s approach assists the thinkers to develop critical thinking skills through providing guidelines that solicit their opinions. The feature is not present in the Browne and Keeley’s model since they prefer leaving the readers to develop the mindset and skillset by themselves. Therefore, I think that these differences should be addressed, blend the positive ideas, and develop a more concrete framework for critical thinking.

References

Brown, M.N., & Keeley, S.M. (2007). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. https://dl.uswr.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/131112/1/Browne%2CKeeley%20-%20Asking%20the%20Right%20Questions%2C%20A%20Guide%20to%20Critical%20Thinking%2C%208th%20Ed.pdf

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools.

Foundation of Critical Thinking, 4-22. https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf