Course 4: Critical Thinking & Analysis

Course Aim

This session focuses on developing the essential academic skill of critical thinking, which underpins success in UK higher education. Students will learn how to go beyond description by evaluating information, linking theory to evidence, and constructing logical, coherent arguments. These skills are vital for academic writing, seminar discussions, and future research or professional practice.

Introduction

Critical thinking is a core expectation within UK academic culture and is consistently referenced in university assessment criteria and graduate attributes frameworks. Students are required not only to demonstrate knowledge but also to analyse, question, and evaluate evidence, arguments, and assumptions. Unlike descriptive writing, which simply recounts facts, critical thinking involves reflection, critique, and the construction of reasoned arguments. This session explores how to move from surface-level description to deeper analysis, how to support arguments using theory and evidence, and how to present ideas logically and persuasively in written work.

How to Evaluate, Not Just Describe

Many students entering UK higher education initially rely on descriptive writing, which involves summarising facts, theories, or events. While description is useful as a foundation, academic writing at degree level demands evaluation—an informed judgement about the relevance, quality, or implications of what is being presented.

Evaluation means questioning the validity of information, identifying strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and considering alternative perspectives. For example, a descriptive statement might say: “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that individuals are motivated by a series of hierarchical needs.” A critical evaluation would go further: “While Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is widely referenced in healthcare and education, it has been criticised for lacking empirical support and for assuming a universal order of needs (Kenrick et al., 2010).”

According to the QAA (2021), higher education should enable students to “make reasoned judgments and assess the credibility of sources, arguments, and evidence.” To do this effectively, students should engage with academic literature critically, looking for bias, methodological limitations, context, and theoretical alignment.

Useful strategies include:

• Asking critical questions: What is the author’s main argument? Is there evidence to support it? Are there any assumptions?
• Comparing sources: Do different authors agree or disagree? Why?
• Using cautious language: Phrases such as “it could be argued,” or “this may suggest” demonstrate critical engagement rather than unqualified claims.

Developing critical thinking also involves challenging one’s own assumptions and remaining open to alternative viewpoints, even when they conflict with personal beliefs or prior knowledge.

Linking Theory to Evidence

A common requirement in UK academic writing is the ability to apply theoretical frameworks to real-life situations or empirical evidence. This practice demonstrates higher-level thinking and helps bridge the gap between conceptual understanding and practical relevance.

Theory provides a lens through which to interpret events, behaviours, or phenomena. For example, a student studying health inequalities may apply the social determinants of health model to understand why certain communities experience poorer outcomes. The ability to link this theory to data from national health reports or peer-reviewed studies strengthens the argument and meets academic expectations.

When writing analytically, students should aim to:

• Introduce the relevant theory clearly and succinctly.
• Select appropriate and current evidence (e.g., from journal articles, government reports, case studies).
• Discuss how the evidence supports or challenges the theory.
• Acknowledge any limitations in applying the theory to specific contexts.

As noted by Cottrell (2017), theory and evidence are two sides of academic reasoning: theory explains phenomena, while evidence demonstrates or contests that explanation. Good academic work shows awareness of the dynamic relationship between theory and practice.

For instance: “Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy is supported by recent studies in nursing education, which demonstrate that students with higher confidence in clinical skills perform more competently in practice assessments (Chan et al., 2021).”

Such integration of theory and evidence signals a mature academic voice and is highly valued in UK coursework, particularly at postgraduate level.

Building Logical Arguments

An essential component of critical analysis is the construction of logical and coherent arguments. A strong argument is one that is built on credible evidence, structured clearly, and developed through reasoning.

Academic arguments typically follow a linear progression: introducing a claim, supporting it with evidence, considering counterarguments, and leading to a reasoned conclusion. This approach mirrors the PEEL paragraph structure, where each paragraph builds upon the previous one to develop the overarching thesis of the essay.

To ensure logical flow:

• Begin each paragraph with a clear topic sentence.
• Ensure each claim is supported by evidence.
• Use signposting language (e.g., “however,” “in contrast,” “this suggests that”) to guide the reader through the discussion.
• Avoid logical fallacies or unsupported generalisations.
• Link each paragraph back to the essay question and the main argument.

The University of Manchester Academic Phrasebank (2022) offers useful templates for building arguments, such as:

• “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that…”
• “A key strength of this perspective is…”
• “However, this approach has been criticised for…”

Counterarguments are also important. A well-developed argument anticipates objections and addresses them respectfully. This not only strengthens the credibility of the writer but also shows depth of understanding.

Ultimately, strong academic writing does not simply state opinions; it constructs arguments that are reasoned, balanced, and substantiated.

Conclusion

Critical thinking and analysis are foundational skills for academic success in UK universities. By moving beyond descriptive writing, linking theory to evidence, and constructing logical arguments, students can demonstrate intellectual rigour and meet the expectations of higher education. These skills also enhance independence, decision-making, and reflective practice—attributes highly valued in both academic and professional settings. Through practice, peer feedback, and engagement with academic sources, students can continue to develop their critical faculties and confidence as analytical thinkers.

References

Cottrell, S. (2017) Critical Thinking Skills: Effective Analysis, Argument and Reflection. 3rd edn. London: Red Globe Press.

Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S.L. and Schaller, M. (2010) ‘Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), pp.292–314.

QAA (2021) UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk

University of Manchester (2022) Academic Phrasebank. Available at: https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk

Chan, R., Wong, T. and Hoi, K. (2021) ‘The influence of self-efficacy on clinical performance among undergraduate nursing students’, Nurse Education Today, 98, 104744.