This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 10 October 2014, At: 04:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Religious &Theological InformationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wrti20

Information Literacy, CriticalThinking, and TheologicalEducationRobert Phillips aa Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary , FortWorth , TX , USAPublished online: 13 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Robert Phillips (2004) Information Literacy, Critical Thinking, andTheological Education, Journal of Religious & Theological Information, 6:3-4, 5-12,DOI: 10.1300/J112v06n03_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J112v06n03_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Information Literacy, Critical Thinking,and Theological Education

Robert Phillips

INTRODUCTION

Critical thinking has found a home in education even though it has itsroots in both philosophy and psychology. Public school standards extolit; some schools have sought to introduce it “across the curriculum”(along with writing, reading, and speaking).1 Librarians also make useof the ideas to move bibliographic instruction beyond the traditional,and often necessary, orientation to a library building and tool-based in-struction. In the shift from bibliographic instruction to information liter-acy, developing critical thinking skills has taken a prominent placeamong the cluster of survival skills necessary for contemporary learnersand other workers in our information rich society.2

The claims about critical thinking’s value for education range fromprotecting democracy3 to unmasking cultural stereotypes.4 Few advo-cates of critical thinking would disagree with William Hughes’s fourreasons to include critical thinking in the educational process: (1) to

Robert Phillips is Assistant Library Director, Southwestern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, Fort Worth, TX.

Journal of Religious & Theological Information, Vol. 6(3/4) 2004Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JRTI

2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J112v06n03_03 5

BIBLIOGRAPHICINSTRUCTION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

avoid being mislead by incomplete arguments; (2) to avoid acceptingconclusions students would otherwise not accept; (3) to develop intel-lectual self-respect by thinking for oneself; and (4) to develop persua-sive skills without relying on emotion.5

Today, critical thinking has achieved buzz word status, being used todescribe a generally agreed upon cluster of ideas without giving carefuldefinition. This article reviews some of the literature about criticalthinking, describes ways it has been applied in libraries’ instruction, andmuses about what this has do with theological librarianship and theo-logical education.

WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

Not all thinking is “critical thinking.” Ordinary thinking involves be-coming aware of thoughts or ideas as they come to mind through thesenses or the sub-conscious.6 One can have thoughts while reading orlistening, without thinking critically about what one reads or hears. Crit-ical thinking, then, is a special process that must be consciously appliedto specific situations. The word “critical,” as used in the phrase, carriesthe idea of discerning or making judgments, from the Greek wordkrinein.7 Both philosophers and psychologists have used the phrase,which has lead to different approaches for the further defining, study,and teaching of critical thinking.

Philosophers emphasize the role of logic in the critical thinking pro-cess. For them, critical thinking follows the rules of logic to analyze therelationships of statements and the development of conclusions accord-ing to established patterns.8 Psychologists do not, of course, reject thisapproach but also consider critical thinking as a human activity em-ployed to reach specific goals. Hence, critical thinking is practical, notjust theoretical. Robert Ennis’s brief definition encapsulates this ap-proach: “[critical thinking is] reasonable reflective thinking that is fo-cused on deciding what to believe or do.”9 The two approaches become“both-and” instead of “either-or.” In addition to following the rules oflogic, the critical thinker must also be aware of attitudes and disposi-tions that affect one’s judgment.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CRITICAL THINKING

These definitions suggest four general characteristics that affect allcritical thinking.10 First, it is not idle thinking; it has a purpose related to

6 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

belief and actions. Critical thinking is somewhat like problem solvingor decision making, (or is problem solving or decision making some-what like critical thinking?).11 Some states’ curricular guidelines placecritical thinking within the context of problem solving or decision mak-ing.12 Second, one must be able to evaluate the results of critical think-ing according to specific criteria; it is a measurable process. Thisreflects the concept’s roots in cognitive psychology, although measure-ment may prove difficult when critical thinking is defined to includecreative thinking. Third, critical thinking is a teachable process, not aninnate quality inherited by a few. If it were not, there would be no needto discuss the concept in relation to instruction. Fourth, it includes bothdispositions and abilities as the objects of that instruction.

This three part understanding of critical thinking suggests that whilethere are general characteristics (rooted in logic) that identify criticalthinking, the actual skills needed (rooted in psychology) will be af-fected by a person’s background, situation, or dispositions. This has im-plications for teaching critical thinking skills within the context ofbibliographic instruction and theological education, discussed below.

THE CRITICAL THINKING PROCESS

Critical thinking is not “negative thinking.” Instead it is evaluativethinking–judging new information or others’ writings based on the na-ture of the evidence used to support an idea, theory, or position.13 Thisrequires both dispositions and skills.14 To want to engage in criticalthinking, one must first be disposed toward the activity and desire to re-main focused on the basic issues, which includes knowing the impor-tance of understanding the questions involved. Furthermore, criticalthinking requires a receptivity to new or alternative ideas. This implies apassion for credible sources, not just any source. Third, critical thinkingrequires one to work precisely with the most important aspects of the is-sue, including the underlying rationale and interrelationships. Finally,since the goal of critical thinking is to make a decision, one must bewilling to take a position, or change a position, when evidence and rea-son suggest it.15

Ennis divides the skills into five categories: making initial clarifica-tion of the issue under study, making judgments about the facts used inthe issue under study, drawing inferences about the statements and ar-guments offered, further clarifying the issues, and, as the final category,taking action based on the fruit of one’s thinking.16 To make the initial

Bibliographic Instruction 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

clarification, one must first understand the issues by identifying andsummarizing a writer’s conclusions, reasoning, and structure; to do this,requires knowing how to ask basic, relevant questions about the issue.Making judgments about the facts includes evaluating a writer’s skills,credibility, and objectivity based on generally accepted criteria, such asthe reputation and expertise of the writer, possible conflicts of interest,and use of established procedures.17

These first two categories, making initial clarifications and judg-ments, lay the foundation for the other three categories: all of which areadvanced skills requiring more interaction with the ideas themselves,rather than its metadata. To draw inferences, to judge the logical consis-tency of the arguments (whether implicit or explicit), or to make valuejudgments about the arguments presented, one must have a basic under-standing of “informal logic.” Do the arguments meet standard criteriafor determining whether or not the conclusion explains the evidence,are they consistent with known facts, and are there other possible con-clusions that better explain the known facts?18

Completing this process, the critical thinker can make “advanced”clarifications of the issues and arguments by showing how terms areused (or misused) and by identifying assumptions made to support thearguments, even to the point that one can reconstruct the writer’s argu-ment. The final category of skills relates to the outcome of the criticalthinking process, namely, making a decision based on the new under-standing of the issues or situation (akin to problem solving) and thenusing words to present one’s own ideas to others in a convincing fash-ion.19

Critical thinking is itself a complicated concept–an umbrella termthat covers a variety of attitudes and skills.20 It lends itself well to theidea of information literacy.21 But what does it say to the more commonpractice of bibliographic instruction, especially within the context oftheological education?

CRITICAL THINKING AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INSTRUCTIONWITHIN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

An emphasis on critical thinking has at least three implications forbibliographic instruction within theological education. First, it placesthe efforts of those who do bibliographic instruction within a larger con-text. Few librarians have opportunity to incorporate all aspects ofEnnis’s critical thinking taxonomy into their instruction. However, they

8 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

can do their part. Penaskovic observes that the ability to find informa-tion in a library constitutes “strategic knowledge . . . skills required toaccomplish specific tasks.” Professors often fail to teach such skills be-cause for them, these function as “tacit knowledge.”22 Unless criticalthinking is to be based on experience, observation, or conversation, stu-dents will need to find relevant published information and judge itscredibility and relevance for the task at hand. To incorporate the use ofinference and advance clarification within coursework, without havingan ability to find the resources necessary to apply these abilities, buildson a foundation of sand. Other faculty can offer students suggestionsbased on their experiences with library research, but librarians canteach others how to do find these resources. They can include the basicguidelines for making preliminary judgments about a source, such asexplaining the concept of “peer review,” providing information aboutpublishers’ perspectives, and drawing conclusions about books basedon examining the table of contents, index, and bibliography, while read-ing only the introduction and key parts of chapters. In this informationage, librarians can also help students find current resources by introduc-ing them to content alert services available from online aggregators. Atthe stage of elementary clarification, finding basic information in ency-clopedic sources helps the student focus on a question and discover thebasic issues raised by others who have also studied the question. Ofcourse, these sources also often provide a list of the best sources to useto begin a study. Such abilities are not just strategic; they are also funda-mental for learning.

Some have reflected on the role of critical thinking in religious stud-ies.23 Critical thinking is a product of the modern age in the West, yetthe major religions, including Christianity, have their roots in the East.24

For centuries, religious knowledge has been taught by priests, rabbis,pastors, master teachers, and imams. Religions have placed more valueon what students could recite than what they could understand or ex-plain. Critical thinking, if done at all, was a skill reserved for the mas-ters. Theological education today preserves remnants of this approachto education. Although it is a product of Western culture, it must teachstudents to think as well as to recite. Faculty are valued as much for theirabilities to communicate and explain the mysteries of faith as they arefor their ability to design courses that challenge students to engage incritical thinking. In part this reflects differences among the cluster ofdisciplines subsumed under theological education. Penaskovic sug-gests that there are two different ways to use reasoning which can varyby discipline. The “analysis and evaluation of arguments” is important

Bibliographic Instruction 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

in theology, biblical studies, and theological ethics. However, other dis-ciplines, including religious education, pastoral ministries, and thepsychology of religion, emphasize the “generation of alternatives.”25

Theological education aims to produce religious leaders who must notonly be able to engage in critical thinking, but must also have the practi-cal skills to communicate, teach, organize, and lead. Critical thinkingmust find its own place within this larger context. Fortunately, biblio-graphic instruction that emphasizes the basic levels of critical thinkingcan also support this wider range of disciplines, not just those that em-ploy analysis and evaluation of arguments.

The second implication for theological education is that it re-en-forces the theological librarian’s role as educator. A librarian’s value toan institution increases in direct proportion to the institution’s commit-ment to learning. Because much of a librarian’s teaching is tied to refer-ence books and databases, it is too easy to teach in ways that do notencourage the student to think about the larger process. As educators, li-brarians must be prepared to choose from a variety of teaching methodsthat will engage the student as active, not passive, learners by linking to-gether skills and concepts.26 Fortunately, the Association of Collegeand Research Libraries’ Instruction Committee has prepared a “Stan-dards Toolkit” to provide ideas for engaging students in the differentphases of information literacy, including accessing and evaluating in-formation sources.27

This leads to the third implication for bibliographic instruction cre-ated by an emphasis on critical thinking: the opportunity to think innew ways about how to think about the library. Gerald Nosich, an au-thority on critical thinking across the curriculum, has coined the word“libraryly.” Just as students can think about a topic theologically, histor-ically, or sociologically, they can also think about a topic “libraryly.”28

What does it mean to think “libraryly” when one approaches a topic orresearch question? The obvious answer is to ask what sources are avail-able for study. This implies other factors to consider. How does thetopic fit into an information hierarchy, e.g., what are the broader, nar-rower, or related terms and concepts? What kinds of sources are mostlikely to have the needed information–books, journals, microform,Internet resource? Why? How much information does one need to studyin order to answer the research question? What terms should one use todescribe the topic in ways that link to the library’s resources? Whatsearch strategy should one employ when they approach this topic? Howcan one be selective in the sources used? To answer these questions reg-ularly requires acquired abilities that librarians can teach. The disposi-

10 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

tions necessary to think “libraryly” include the willingness to make aneffort to locate resources, a desire to learn, and a willingness to ask forhelp. Librarians themselves can re-enforce and model these disposi-tions. The process entails more than what this short list includes, but onewill not find what they are without thinking critically about his or herrole or tasks.

CONCLUSION

The learner thinks critically by asking questions. Too often they askthe wrong questions or not enough questions. Librarians alone cannotsolve this issue, but they can contribute to the solution. Some may haveopportunity to become advocates for “critical thinking across the curric-ulum.” All who aspire to teach should help students think criticallyabout their use of the library and its resources.

NOTES

1. Robert H. Ennis, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abili-ties,” in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, ed. Joan Boykoff Baron andRobert J. Sternberg (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1987), 25; a Google search for thephrase “critical thinking across the curriculum,” limited to .edu sites, yielded about 775results.

2. Kathleen Schrock, “Producing Information Consumers: Critical Evaluation andCritical Thinking,” Book Report 17, no. 4 (Jan/Feb 1999): PG.

3. Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Construc-tively (New York, 2000), 1.

4. Rhoda Harris and Lotsee Patterson Taylor, “Using Information Literacy to Pro-mote Critical Thinking,” Teacher Librarian 28, no. 2 (December 2000): PG.

5. William Hughes, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills (Peterborough,Ontario: Broadview Pr., 2000), 23-24.

6. Hughes, Critical Thinking, 15-16.7. Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., s.v. “critic”; H. M. F. Buchsel, “Krino: A.

Linguistic,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “krino: A. Linguis-tic” by H. M. F. Büchsel; Oxford Latin Dictionary (1982), s.v. “cerno.”

8. Craig Gibson, “Critical Thinking: Implications for Instruction,” RQ 35, no. 1(Fall 1995): 28.

9. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 10.10. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 25.11. Gibson, “Critical Thinking,” 28.12. Edys S. Quellmalz, “Developing Reasoning Skills,” in Teaching Thinking

Skills: Theory and Practice, ed. Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (NewYork: W. H. Freeman, 1986), 92.

Bibliographic Instruction 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4

13. William B. Badke, Beyond the Answer Sheet: Academic Success for Interna-tional Students (New York: iUniverse, 2003), 11.

14. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 12-5, lists fourteen dispositions and thirteen abilities, orskills, which can be summarize. For brevity, I have condensed his list; he discusses theabilities in more detail on pp. 16-23.

15. Badke, Answer Sheet, 24, observes that critical thinking is based on evidence,not opinion or feelings.

16. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 12-25.17. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 13.18. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 14.19. Ennis, “Taxonomy,” 15.20. Richard Penaskovic, Critical Thinking and the Academic Study of Religion,

Scholars Press Studies in Humanities (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 6-7.21. Information Literacy, 2003, Association of College and Research Libraries

<http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/informationliteracy.htm>. Accessed26 August 2004.

22. Penaskovic, Critical Thinking, 39.23. See for example Don Cupitt, “Religion and Critical Thinking–I,” Theology 86

(1983): 243-49, 328-35; Kenneth J. Collins, “Spirituality and Critical Thinking: AreThey Really So Different?” Evangelical Journal 16, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 30-43; DavidJasper, “From Theology to Critical Thinking: The Development of Critical Thoughtand Its Consequences for Theology,” Literature and Theology 9 (1995): 293-305; Wil-liam Reinsmith, “Religious Life and Critical Thought: Do They Need Each Other?” In-quiry (College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Montclair State University), May1996 <http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/summ95/!reinsmi.html>. Accessed 26August 2004.

24. Badke, Answer Sheet, 7-15.25. Penaskovic, Critical Thinking, 4.26. Gibson, “Critical Thinking,” 31.27. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/informationliteracy.htm. Ac-

cessed 26 August 2004.28. Gerald Nosich, “Beyond the F1 Key: Thinking and Teaching the Internet

Within the Curriculum.” An Address Given at the ACRL/BIS Annual Conference, Mi-ami Beach, FL, June 27, 1994” (1994); cited in Gibson, “Critical Thinking,” 33; I havenot been able to find the address text.

12 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

4:04

10

Oct

ober

201

4