Critical Thinking (CT) has been loudly proclaimed by many in Europe and America as an educational ideal for several decades now. However, despite extensive investigation, there are still serious problems connected with two aspects of the concept. The first is whether CT should be seen as a single universally applicable set of skills, or as something context-based and relative. The second is whether CT can in fact be taught/learned, and if it can, what might be the most effective ways of doing so. This paper (which forms part of a broader empirical investigation into Chinese university students' use of CT) attempts to synthesize what we know from a broad range of published sources.literature survey According to Dam and Volman (2004), in recent years, many theorists have begun to accept the following solution to the issue of the generalizability of CT: that there exist general principles of CT; these skills can be acquired effectively in one domain-specific area, but can be transferred to other areas. Facione (1990) notes that most of the theorists in the Delphi Report agree on the generalizability of CT skills and dispositions, but acknowledge the important role that subject knowledge plays in the application and promotion of these skills and dispositions.The review of the literature on the CT teaching strategies suggests that CT is teachable, and training on CT is important since students do not always develop CT without support. Most theorists or researchers acknowledge the importance of interaction and writing in the facilitation of CT in students. Moreover, most of them advocate teaching CT within a subject area rather than using a specific CT program. This indicates that in CT training, students' familiarity with the context will facilitate the employment of CT skills. However, the characteristics of instructional methods and specific teaching strategies or techniques need to be tested in terms of their effectiveness in the facilitation of CT in the future.The discussions in the literature about CT assessment have focused on the general approaches to assessment, as well as the specific issues of reliability and validity. Generally, CT assessment can be divided into two approaches: quantitative and qualitative. There is consensus among experts that any single way of assessing CT has its strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, a reasonable combination of several ways might generate more reliable results. In addition, no matter what assessment approaches or instruments are adopted, content validity, construct validity, reliability, and fairness should be taken into account. Albert, R. T., Albert, R. E., and Radsma, J. (2002) Relationships among bilingualism, critical thinking ability, and critical thinking disposition, Journal of Professional Nursing, 18 (4), 220-229. Atkinson, D. (1997) A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL, TESOL Quarterly, 31 (1), 71-94. Bensley, D. A. & Haynes, C. (1995) The Acquisition of general purpose strategic knowledge for argumentation, Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 41-45.Bissell, A. N. and Lemons, P. P. (2006) A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom, BioScience, 56 (1), 66-72. Byrne, M. (1994) Learning to be Critical. Newcastle: MARCET (Material and Resources Centre for Enterprising Teaching). Dam, G. T. and Volman, M. (2004) Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies, Learning and Instruction, 14 (4), 359-379. Ennis, R. H. (1992) The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: clarification and needed research. In S. P. Norris (eds.) The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspectives on an Educational Ideal (pp. 21-37). New York: Teachers College Press. Facione, P. A. (1990) Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/DEXadobe.PDF (5 March 2006) Facione, P. A. (1990) The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: College Level Technical Report #2 - Factors Predictive of CT Skills. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. http://www.insightassessment.com/articles3.html. (20 January 2007) Facione, P. A. (2006) Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf (4 March 2006) Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995) The disposition toward critical thinking, Journal of General Education, 44 (1), 1-25. Hare, W. (1999) Critical thinking as an aim of education. In R. Marples (eds.) The Aims of Education. London: Routledge. Joiner, R. & Jones, S. (2003) The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking, International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (8), 861-871. Lipman, M. (2003) Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Loo, R. and Thorpe, K. (2005) Relationships between critical thinking and attitudes toward women's roles in society, The Journal of Psychology, 139 (1), 47-55. Mangena, A. & Chabeli, M. M. (2005) Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education, Nurse Education Today, 25 (4), 291-298. McPeck, J. E. (1981) Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company.Paul, P. W. (1993) Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Rohnert Park, CA: The Center for Critical Thinking & Moral Critique, Sonoma State University. Perkins, C. & Murphy, E. (2006) Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: an exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), 298-307. Phillips, C. R., Chesnut, R. J. & Rospond, R. M. (2004) The California critical thinking instruments for benchmarking, programme assessment, and directing curricular change, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68 (4), Article: 101. Reichenbach, B. R. (2001) Introduction to Critical Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L. & Gass, R. H. (1994) Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports, 7 (1), 27-35.Siegel, H. (1992) The generalizability of critical thinking skills, dispositions, and epistemology. In S. P. Norris (eds.) The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspectives on an Educational Ideal (pp. 97-108). New York: Teachers College Press. Stapleton, P. (2001) Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students, Written Communication, 18 (4), 506-548. Swartz, E. (2004) Casing the self: a study of pedagogy and critical thinking, Teacher Development, 8 (1), 45-65. Tiwari, A., Avery, A., & Lai, P. (2003) Critical thinking disposition of Hong Kong Chinese and Australian nursing students, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44 (3), 298-307. Torff, B. (2005) Developmental changes in teachers' beliefs about critical-thinking activities, Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 13-22. Tsui, L. (2002) Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: evidence from four institutional case studies, The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (6), 740-763. Vanderburgh P. M. (2005) Open-book and student-authored exam questions as useful tools to increase critical thinking, Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 183-184. Yeh, M-L. (2002) Assessing the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39 (2), 123-132. Yeh, M-L. & Chen, H-H. (2005) Effects of an educational programme with interactive videodisc systems in improving critical thinking dispositions for RN-BSN students in Taiwan, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42 (3), 333-340.It doesn't matter if it is national, European or international. ABSTRACTCritical Thinking (CT) has been loudly proclaimed by many in Europe and America as an educational ideal for several decades now. However, despite extensive investigation, there are still serious problems connected with two aspects of the concept. The first is whether CT should be seen as a single universally applicable set of skills, or as something context-based and relative. The second is whether CT can in fact be taught/learned, and if it can, what might be the most effective ways of doing so. This paper (which forms part of a broader empirical investigation into Chinese university students' use of CT) attempts to synthesize what we know from a broad range of published sources. The following tentative conclusions concerning these three aspects of teaching CT are drawn from the contemporary literature on CT. According to Dam and Volman (2004), in recent years, many theorists have begun to accept the following solution to the issue of the generalizability of CT: that there exist general principles of CT; these skills can be acquired effectively in one domain-specific area, but can be transferred to other areas. Facione (1990) notes that most of the theorists in the Delphi Report agree on the generalizability of CT skills and dispositions, but acknowledge the important role that subject knowledge plays in the application and promotion of these skills and dispositions.The review of the literature on the CT teaching strategies suggests that CT is teachable, and training on CT is important since students do not always develop CT without support. Most theorists or researchers acknowledge the importance of interaction and writing in the facilitation of CT in students. Moreover, most of them advocate teaching CT within a subject area rather than using a specific CT program. This indicates that in CT training, students' familiarity with the context will facilitate the employment of CT skills. However, the characteristics of instructional methods and specific teaching strategies or techniques need to be tested in terms of their effectiveness in the facilitation of CT in the future.The discussions in the literature about CT assessment have focused on the general approaches to assessment, as well as the specific issues of reliability and validity. Generally, CT assessment can be divided into two approaches: quantitative and qualitative. There is consensus among experts that any single way of assessing CT has its strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, a reasonable combination of several ways might generate more reliable results. In addition, no matter what assessment approaches or instruments are adopted, content validity, construct validity, reliability, and fairness should be taken into account.