An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking: Complementary Metacognitive Processes or Strange Bedfellows?

Christopher P Dwyer, Deagl��n Campbell, Niall Seery
Author Information
  1. Christopher P Dwyer: Technology Education Research Group (TERG), Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, N37 HD68 Westmeath, Ireland. ORCID
  2. Deagl��n Campbell: Technology Education Research Group (TERG), Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, N37 HD68 Westmeath, Ireland.
  3. Niall Seery: Technology Education Research Group (TERG), Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, N37 HD68 Westmeath, Ireland.

Abstract

Though both critical thinking and creative thinking are often cited and promoted as important cognitive processes in personal, academic and professional settings, common misconceptualisation of both often leads to confusion for non-experts; for example, with respect to lumping them together erroneously as much the same thing, completely confusing them for one another or, on the other hand, distinguishing them to such an extent that all genuine overlap is ignored. Given the importance of these processes in real-world scenarios, quality education and 'metaeducation' is necessary to ensure their appropriate translation to students and educators, alike. Thus, the aim of the current review is to discuss various perspectives on both critical and creative thinking with particular focus paid to addressing such common misconceptualisation. Detailed discussion is provided with respect to important ways in which they are distinct and overlap. Recommendations for what contexts application of each are appropriate are also provided. Furthermore, implications for such enhanced understanding are discussed, in light of both theory and research.

Keywords

References

  1. Sleep. 2010 Oct;33(10):1305-13 [PMID: 21061852]
  2. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Feb;49(4):397-405 [PMID: 15701154]
  3. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 May;94(5):883-98 [PMID: 18444745]
  4. Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Dec 15;70(12):1159-68 [PMID: 21861986]
  5. Hum Factors. 2008 Jun;50(3):456-60 [PMID: 18689053]
  6. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31 [PMID: 17835457]
  7. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34 [PMID: 10626367]
  8. PLoS One. 2010 Nov 30;5(11):e14150 [PMID: 21152391]
  9. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65; discussion 665-726 [PMID: 11301544]
  10. Am Psychol. 1950 Sep;5(9):444-54 [PMID: 14771441]
  11. J Neurosci. 2006 Feb 15;26(7):2072-9 [PMID: 16481440]
  12. J Intell. 2023 May 31;11(6): [PMID: 37367507]
  13. Psychol Bull. 2004 Mar;130(2):261-88 [PMID: 14979772]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0thinkingcriticalcreativeoftenimportantprocessescommonmisconceptualisationrespectoverlapappropriateprovidedThoughcitedpromotedcognitivepersonalacademicprofessionalsettingsleadsconfusionnon-expertsexamplelumpingtogethererroneouslymuchthingcompletelyconfusingoneanotherhanddistinguishingextentgenuineignoredGivenimportancereal-worldscenariosqualityeducation'metaeducation'necessaryensuretranslationstudentseducatorsalikeThusaimcurrentreviewdiscussvariousperspectivesparticularfocuspaidaddressingDetaileddiscussionwaysdistinctRecommendationscontextsapplicationalsoFurthermoreimplicationsenhancedunderstandingdiscussedlighttheoryresearchEvaluationRelationshipCriticalThinkingCreativeThinking:ComplementaryMetacognitiveProcessesStrangeBedfellows?creativeheuristicsmetacognitionproblem-solvingreflectivejudgment

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.