Evaluate ends How can I test my hypothesis?
Was my course of action correct? What are the consequences of my choice? Has a tentative hypothesis been proven or disproved? What are my conclusions?
As one can see, the model attempts to characterize critical thinking as a set of procedures to be carried out. None of the steps directly raises the underlying normative questions. Even in asking, `Was my course of action correct?’ , the schema refers to what has been completedÐ a re¯ ection back. Thus, the fundamentally normative and ongoing nature of critical thinking is ignored or masked. Critical thinking is not simply a retrospective undertaking.
It might be suggested that amore appropriate description of the `decide direction’ step is `make an informed, fair-minded decision’ . We agree, but this no longer describes a procedure to be performed, rather it identi® es norms tobe ful® lled. As such, it is not characteristic of the procedure view. Although some educators may use the term s̀tep’ to refer toachievement of standards, the focus is overwhelmingly on strategies and heuristics. We do not wish to quibble over conceptual territory; rather we draw attention to the dominant (possibly, paradigmatic) use of the term s̀tep’ so as to expose the inadequacies of this view of critical thinking as following general procedures.