Universal Intellectual Standards.

When the quality of students' thinking is evaluated, certain standards of thinking must be applied. These standards speak volumes about the quality of thinking of their thinking. In order to do this, Universal Intellectual Standards must be applied as the evaluation of the quality of thinking. 

In order for students to learn them, teachers, tutors or lecturers must pose questions that ; probe students' thinking, questions that hold students accountable for their thinking, questions that when are consistently asked become internalised in the students' minds to become the questions they will need to ask themselves for their thinking.

The ultimate goal of these questions is to become infused into the students' thinking processes; to become part of their internal voice; guiding them further and further into higher quality thinking.

The most essential of these standards are;

        1. Clarity

        2. Accuracy

        3. Precision

        4. Relevance

        5. Depth

        6. Breadth

        7. Logic

        8. Fairness

1. Clarity: Clarity stands out as the gateway standard for gauging the standard of thinking. When a question is posed, that question must be clear in its intention of what it wants answered. Questions that do not clearly what is to answered will create doubts as to what is being asked. Students or any respondents cannot answer questions that are unclear. They will not be able to determine the accuracy and relevancy of the question and will not b able to answer accurately. Questions must be clear and concise and not vague. Some questions that can be asked for clarity can be such as; Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you give express that point in an another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?

2. Accuracy: A question statement or a declarative sentence must be both clear and accurate. Sometimes a question or a statement can be clear but not accurate such as ; "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight.". Or "What can be done to reduce traffic pollution?" Questions that can be asked to get accuracy could be such as; Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?  

3. Precision: A statement or a question while can be both clear and accurate, is not precise. Such as: Jack is overweight. The statement is both clear and accurate, but not precise. It does not tell us how much overweight Jack is. Is he 200 pounds , or 500 pounds overweight? Questions that can be raised in order to obtain precision could be such as; Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?

4. Relevance: A statement or a question while it can be clear, accurate, and precise, but it is not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning; and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade. we must ask these questions about relevancy: How is that connected to the issue? How does that bear on the issue?

 5. Depth: A statement or a question can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement, "Don't drink and drive!" which is often used to discourage drinking and driving, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drunk driving use among a section of society, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.

The following relevant questions can be asked to get more depth to a question:How does your 

answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in 

the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? 

6.Breadth:  A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from various political parties' standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)

The following relevant questions can be asked to get more breadth to a question: Do we need to 

consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look 

like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .? 

7. Logic: When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When these thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.Some questions such as the following can ask for the logic in a question: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? 

8.Fairness:  Human thinking is often biased in the direction of the thinker - in what are the perceived interests of the thinker.  Humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others on the same plane with their own rights and needs. We therefore must actively work to make sure we are applying the intellectual standard of fairness to our thinking. Since we naturally see ourselves as fair even when we are unfair, this can be very difficult.  A commitment to fairmindedness is a starting place.Questions such as the following can be raised: Do I have a vested interest in this issue?  Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?