what is acquisition of critical thinking skills

Tim van Gelder

Epistemology is everywhere.

Argument Mapping , Critical Thinking , Education , Expertise , Reasoning , Teaching , Thinking

How are critical thinking skills acquired? Five perspectives

Almost everyone agrees that critical thinking skills are important.  Almost everyone agrees that it is worth investing effort (in education, or in workplace training) to improve these skills.   And so it is rather surprising to find that there is, in the academic literature, little clarity, and even less consensus, about one of the most basic  questions you’d need answered if you wanted to generate any sort of gains in critical thinking skills (let alone generate those gains cost-effectively); viz., how are critical thinking skills acquired?

Theories on this matter come in five main kinds:

• Formal Training. CT skills are simply the exercise of generic thinking power which can be strengthened by intensive training, much as general fitness can be enhanced by running, swimming or weightlifting.  This approach recommends working out in some formal ‘mental gym’ such as chess, mathematics or symbolic logic as the most convenient and effective way to build these mental muscles.
• Theoretical Instruction. CT skills are acquired by learning the relevant theory (logic, statistics, scientific method, etc.).  This perspective assumes that mastering skills is a matter of gaining the relevant  theory .  People with poor CT poor skills lack only a theoretical understanding; if they are taught the theory in sufficient detail, they will automatically be able to exhibit the skills, since exhibiting skills is just a matter of following explicit (or explicable) rules.
• Situated Cognition. CT is deeply tied to particular domains and can only be acquired through properly “situated” activity in each domain.  Extreme versions deny outright that there are any generic CT skills (e.g. McPeck).  Moderate versions claim, more plausibly, that increasingly general skills are acquired through engaging in domain-specific CT activities.  According to the moderate version general CT skills emerge gradually in a process of consolidation and abstraction from particular, concrete deployments, much as general sporting skills (e.g., hand-eye coordination) are acquired by playing a variety of particular sports in which those general skills are exercised in ways peculiar to those sports.
• Practice sees CT skills as acquired by directly practicing the general skills themselves, applying them to many particular problems within a wide selection of specific domains and contexts.  The Practice perspective differs from Formal Training in that it is general CT skills themselves which are being practiced rather than formal substitutes, and the practice takes place in non-formal domains.  It differs from Situated Cognition in that it is practice of general skills aimed at improving those general capacities, rather than embedded deployment of skills aimed at meeting some specific challenge within that domain.
• Evolutionary Psychology views the mind as constituted by an idiosyncratic set of universal, innate, hard-wired cognitive capacities bequeathed by natural selection due to the advantages conferred by those capacities in the particular physical and social environments in which we evolved.  The mind does not possess and cannot attain general-purpose CT skills; rather, it can consolidate strengths in those particular forms or patterns of thinking for which evolution has provided dedicated apparatus.  Cultivating CT is a matter of identifying and nurturing those forms.

Formal training is the oldest and most thoroughly discredited of the perspectives.   It seems now so obvious that teaching latin, chess, music or even formal logic will have little or no impact on general critical thinking skills that it is hard to understand now how this idea could ever have been embraced.   And we also know why it fails: it founders on the rock of transfer .  Skills acquired in playing chess do not transfer to, say, evaluating political debates.  Period.

Theoretical Instruction has almost as old a philosophical pedigree as Formal Training.  It has been implemented in countless college critical thinking classes whose pedagogical modus operandi is to teach students “what they need to know” to be better critical thinkers, by lecturing at them and having them read slabs out of textbooks.   Token homework exercises are assigned primarily as a way of assessing whether they have acquired the relevant knowledge; if they can’t do the exercises, what they need is more rehearsing of theory.   As you can probably tell from the tone of this paragraph, I believe this approach is deeply misguided.  The in-depth explanation was provided by philosophers such as Ryle and Heidegger who established the primacy of knowledge-how over knowledge-that, of skills over theory.

Current educational practice subscribes overwhelmingly (and for the most part unwittingly) to the moderate version of Situated Cognition.  That is, we typically hope and expect that students’ general CT skills will emerge as a consequence of their engaging in learning and thinking as they proceed through secondary and especially tertiary education studying a range of particular subjects.  However, students generally do not reach levels of skill regarded as both desirable and achievable.  As Deanna Kuhn put it, “Seldom has there been such widespread agreement about a significant social issue as there is reflected in the view that education is failing in its most central mission—to teach students to think.”  In my view the weakness of students’ critical thinking skills, after 12 or even 16 years of schooling, is powerful evidence of the inadequacy of the Situated Cognition perspective.

There may be some truth to the Evolutionary Psychology perspective.  However in my view the best argument against it is the fact that another perspective – Practice – actually seems quite promising.   The basic idea behind it is very simple and plausible.   It is a truism that, in general, skills are acquired through practice.   The Practice perspective simply says that generic critical thinking skills are really just like most other skills (that is, most other skills that are acquired, like music or chess or trampolining, rather than skills that are innate and develop naturally, like suckling or walking).

In our work in the Reason Project at the University of Melbourne we refined the Practice perspective into what we called the Quality (or Deliberate) Practice Hypothesis.   This was based on the foundational work of Ericsson and others who have shown that skill acquisition in general depends on extensive quality practice.  We conjectured that this would also be true of critical thinking; i.e. critical thinking skills would be (best) acquired by doing lots and lots of good-quality practice on a wide range of real (or realistic) critical thinking problems.   To improve the quality of practice we developed a training program based around the use of argument mapping, resulting in what has been called the LAMP (Lots of Argument Mapping) approach.   In a series of rigorous (or rather, as-rigorous-as-possible-under-the-circumstances) studies involving pre-, post- and follow-up testing using a variety of tests, and setting our results in the context of a meta-analysis of hundreds of other studies of critical thinking gains, we were able to establish that critical thinking skills gains could be dramatically accelerated, with students reliably improving 7-8 times faster, over one semester, than they would otherwise have done just as university students.   (For some of the detail on the Quality Practice hypothesis and our studies, see this paper , and this chapter .)

So if I had to choose one theory out of the five on offer, I’d choose Practice.  Fortunately however we are not in a forced-choice situation. Practice is enhanced by carefully-placed Theoretical Instruction.  And Practice can be reinforced by Situated Cognition, i.e. by engaging in domain-specific critical thinking activities, even when not framed as deliberate practice of general CT skills.   As one of the greatest critical thinkers said in one of the greatest texts on critical thinking :

“Popular opinions, on subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part, but exaggerated, distorted, and disjoined from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited.”

5 thoughts on “ How are critical thinking skills acquired? Five perspectives ”

Add Comment

• Pingback: Critical Thinking Skills | Knowledge Management and Communication in the Life Sciences
• Pingback: How are critical thinking skills acquired?

I credit LEGOs, the game of MasterMind, and Brit-Com’s. Good parenting, and encouragement and a natural interest in puzzles of all kinds and card games, also helped. Took a while to successfully apply the knowledge to people/social, though; much less black-and-white.

• Pingback: CL Project 2: Critical Thinking | On Language
• Pingback: How are critical thinking skills acquired? | The Thinker

Leave a comment

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Rasmussen University
• Transferable Skills
• Critical Thinking

Step 3: Acquisition of Information

Critical Thinking: Step 3: Acquisition of Information

• Steps 1 & 2: Reflection and Analysis
• Step 4: Creativity
• Step 5: Structuring Arguments
• Step 6: Decision Making
• Steps 7 & 8: Commitment and Debate
• In the Classroom
• In the Workplace

Acquiring Information

Critical thinking varies based on the underlying motivating factors and the ability to rise to a higher level of thinking to reach the "idealism" of oneself. In addition, critical thinking is based on self-discipline, self-corrective, and self-directed thinking. A well-developed critical thinker will analyze issues as crucial problems and questions arise, and gather and interpret information to draw conclusions to gauge standards and outcomes. One who is open-minded can assess an assumption, implication, and plausible outcomes of an argument or topic debate.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2008).  The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools . Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrieved from  https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf

Cuzzle #2 of 5 (Critical Thinking Puzzle)

"I know that you can be overwhelmed, and I know you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?"

Now, in the movie, this question was just for comedic effect. But let's think about this: Can someone be whelmed? How? And how would we know? 

We can also think of other words we often use, though we rarely use their roots. For example, we often use the word uncanny , but we rarely use the word canny. Antithesis is another example. Outside of research papers, how often do we use the word thesis? Not very often.

Can you think of words we use often, even though we rarely use their roots? Moreover, why do you think we do this?

Critical Thinking: Spectrum of Authority

University of British Columbia. (2011, May 4).  Critical thinking 101: Spectrum of authority  [Video file]. Retrieved from https://yo utu.be/9G5xooMN2_c

Watch the video and think about these questions:

What are the differences between visionary and practical arguments?

Which kind of argument do you typically use? 

Where on the spectrum do your opinions generally fall? 

Acquisition of Information

Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. The Critical Thinking Community. (2013). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved on June 7, 2015, from, https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.

This graphic illustrates that it's not enough to simply understand how critical thinking works. We must use it in our studies and our daily lives, and be willing to accept the results its processes create. We must embrace it from start to finish. Let's think about the popular television show Undercover Boss . In that show, CEOs of highly successful companies are trained at creating profitable business models. They understand supply and demand as it relates to their offerings, whether that's fast food, retail, or waste removal. So, they use critical thinking on a daily basis. However, when they go undercover and witness first-hand what their front-line employees experience, they gain a new understanding of their companies from different perspectives. Often, the things they learn aren't pretty. In response, they think critically and create new training approaches, new accommodations, and new quality measures to ensure their employees—at all levels—will have more rewarding experiences working at their companies. THAT is thinking critically and embracing its results.

• << Previous: Steps 1 & 2: Reflection and Analysis
• Next: Step 4: Creativity >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 8:30 AM
• URL: https://guides.rasmussen.edu/criticalthinking

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

• Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
• Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
• Has the information received any direct criticism ?
• Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
• Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
• Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Book Insights

Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It

James Kouzes and Barry Posner

Project Team Development

Understanding Phases of Team Development Can Help Them Attain Peak Performance Quickly

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

Great teams begin with empowered leaders. Our tools and resources offer the support to let you flourish into leadership. Join today!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Starting a New Job

The Role of a Facilitator

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Decision-making mistakes and how to avoid them.

Explore some common decision-making mistakes and how to avoid them with this Skillbook

Using Decision Trees

What decision trees are, and how to use them to weigh up your options

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

The program management team.

How a Program Management Organization is Formed and What is Involved in the Key Roles

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples

• Homework Help
• Private School
• College Admissions
• College Life
• Graduate School
• Business School
• Distance Learning

• Indiana University, Bloomington
• State University of New York at Oneonta

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions. Employers prioritize the ability to think critically—find out why, plus see how you can demonstrate that you have this ability throughout the job application process. 

Why Do Employers Value Critical Thinking Skills?

Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.

 Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant handholding.

Hiring a critical thinker means that micromanaging won't be required. Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace. You can demonstrate critical thinking by using related keywords in your resume and cover letter, and during your interview.

Examples of Critical Thinking

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

• A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
• A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
• An attorney reviews evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
• A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

Promote Your Skills in Your Job Search

If critical thinking is a key phrase in the job listings you are applying for, be sure to emphasize your critical thinking skills throughout your job search.

Add Keywords to Your Resume

You can use critical thinking keywords (analytical, problem solving, creativity, etc.) in your resume. When describing your  work history , include top critical thinking skills that accurately describe you. You can also include them in your  resume summary , if you have one.

For example, your summary might read, “Marketing Associate with five years of experience in project management. Skilled in conducting thorough market research and competitor analysis to assess market trends and client needs, and to develop appropriate acquisition tactics.”

Mention Skills in Your Cover Letter

Include these critical thinking skills in your cover letter. In the body of your letter, mention one or two of these skills, and give specific examples of times when you have demonstrated them at work. Think about times when you had to analyze or evaluate materials to solve a problem.

Show the Interviewer Your Skills

You can use these skill words in an interview. Discuss a time when you were faced with a particular problem or challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking to solve it.

Some interviewers will give you a hypothetical scenario or problem, and ask you to use critical thinking skills to solve it. In this case, explain your thought process thoroughly to the interviewer. He or she is typically more focused on how you arrive at your solution rather than the solution itself. The interviewer wants to see you analyze and evaluate (key parts of critical thinking) the given scenario or problem.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Top Critical Thinking Skills

Keep these in-demand critical thinking skills in mind as you update your resume and write your cover letter. As you've seen, you can also emphasize them at other points throughout the application process, such as your interview. 

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with  analytical skills  can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

• Asking Thoughtful Questions
• Data Analysis
• Interpretation
• Questioning Evidence
• Recognizing Patterns

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of colleagues. You need to be able to  communicate with others  to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage in critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

• Active Listening
• Collaboration
• Explanation
• Interpersonal
• Presentation
• Verbal Communication
• Written Communication

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

• Flexibility
• Conceptualization
• Imagination
• Drawing Connections
• Synthesizing

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyze the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

• Objectivity
• Observation

Problem Solving

Problem-solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analyzing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

• Attention to Detail
• Clarification
• Decision Making
• Groundedness
• Identifying Patterns

More Critical Thinking Skills

• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Noticing Outliers
• Adaptability
• Emotional Intelligence
• Brainstorming
• Optimization
• Restructuring
• Integration
• Strategic Planning
• Project Management
• Ongoing Improvement
• Causal Relationships
• Case Analysis
• Diagnostics
• SWOT Analysis
• Business Intelligence
• Quantitative Data Management
• Qualitative Data Management
• Risk Management
• Scientific Method
• Consumer Behavior

Key Takeaways

• Demonstrate that you have critical thinking skills by adding relevant keywords to your resume.
• Mention pertinent critical thinking skills in your cover letter, too, and include an example of a time when you demonstrated them at work.
• Finally, highlight critical thinking skills during your interview. For instance, you might discuss a time when you were faced with a challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking skills to solve it.

University of Louisville. " What is Critical Thinking ."

American Management Association. " AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century ."

• Questions for Each Level of Bloom's Taxonomy
• Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition
• Bloom's Taxonomy in the Classroom
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• How To Become an Effective Problem Solver
• Creativity & Creative Thinking
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• 2020-21 Common Application Essay Option 4—Solving a Problem
• 6 Skills Students Need to Succeed in Social Studies Classes
• College Interview Tips: "Tell Me About a Challenge You Overcame"
• Types of Medical School Interviews and What to Expect
• The Horse Problem: A Math Challenge
• What to Do When the Technology Fails in Class
• What Are Your Strengths and Weaknesses? Interview Tips for Teachers
• A Guide to Business Letters Types
• How to Practice Critical Thinking in 4 Steps

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

• Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
• Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
• Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

How to develop critical thinking skills

Jump to section

What are critical thinking skills?

How to develop critical thinking skills: 12 tips, how to practice critical thinking skills at work, become your own best critic.

A client requests a tight deadline on an intense project. Your childcare provider calls in sick on a day full of meetings. Payment from a contract gig is a month behind. 

Your day-to-day will always have challenges, big and small. And no matter the size and urgency, they all ask you to use critical thinking to analyze the situation and arrive at the right solution. 

Critical thinking includes a wide set of soft skills that encourage continuous learning, resilience , and self-reflection. The more you add to your professional toolbelt, the more equipped you’ll be to tackle whatever challenge presents itself. Here’s how to develop critical thinking, with examples explaining how to use it.

Critical thinking skills are the skills you use to analyze information, imagine scenarios holistically, and create rational solutions. It’s a type of emotional intelligence that stimulates effective problem-solving and decision-making . 

When you fine-tune your critical thinking skills, you seek beyond face-value observations and knee-jerk reactions. Instead, you harvest deeper insights and string together ideas and concepts in logical, sometimes out-of-the-box , ways. 

Imagine a team working on a marketing strategy for a new set of services. That team might use critical thinking to balance goals and key performance indicators , like new customer acquisition costs, average monthly sales, and net profit margins. They understand the connections between overlapping factors to build a strategy that stays within budget and attracts new sales. 

Looking for ways to improve critical thinking skills? Start by brushing up on the following soft skills that fall under this umbrella: 

• Analytical thinking: Approaching problems with an analytical eye includes breaking down complex issues into small chunks and examining their significance. An example could be organizing customer feedback to identify trends and improve your product offerings. 
• Open-mindedness: Push past cognitive biases and be receptive to different points of view and constructive feedback . Managers and team members who keep an open mind position themselves to hear new ideas that foster innovation . 
• Creative thinking: With creative thinking , you can develop several ideas to address a single problem, like brainstorming more efficient workflow best practices to boost productivity and employee morale . 
• Self-reflection: Self-reflection lets you examine your thinking and assumptions to stimulate healthier collaboration and thought processes. Maybe a bad first impression created a negative anchoring bias with a new coworker. Reflecting on your own behavior stirs up empathy and improves the relationship. 
• Evaluation: With evaluation skills, you tackle the pros and cons of a situation based on logic rather than emotion. When prioritizing tasks , you might be tempted to do the fun or easy ones first, but evaluating their urgency and importance can help you make better decisions. 

There’s no magic method to change your thinking processes. Improvement happens with small, intentional changes to your everyday habits until a more critical approach to thinking is automatic. 

Here are 12 tips for building stronger self-awareness and learning how to improve critical thinking: 

1. Be cautious

There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of skepticism. One of the core principles of critical thinking is asking questions and dissecting the available information. You might surprise yourself at what you find when you stop to think before taking action. 

Before making a decision, use evidence, logic, and deductive reasoning to support your own opinions or challenge ideas. It helps you and your team avoid falling prey to bad information or resistance to change .

2. Ask open-ended questions

“Yes” or “no” questions invite agreement rather than reflection. Instead, ask open-ended questions that force you to engage in analysis and rumination. Digging deeper can help you identify potential biases, uncover assumptions, and arrive at new hypotheses and possible solutions. 

3. Do your research

No matter your proficiency, you can always learn more. Turning to different points of view and information is a great way to develop a comprehensive understanding of a topic and make informed decisions. You’ll prioritize reliable information rather than fall into emotional or automatic decision-making. 

4. Consider several opinions

You might spend so much time on your work that it’s easy to get stuck in your own perspective, especially if you work independently on a remote team . Make an effort to reach out to colleagues to hear different ideas and thought patterns. Their input might surprise you.

If or when you disagree, remember that you and your team share a common goal. Divergent opinions are constructive, so shift the focus to finding solutions rather than defending disagreements. 

5. Learn to be quiet

Active listening is the intentional practice of concentrating on a conversation partner instead of your own thoughts. It’s about paying attention to detail and letting people know you value their opinions, which can open your mind to new perspectives and thought processes.

If you’re brainstorming with your team or having a 1:1 with a coworker , listen, ask clarifying questions, and work to understand other peoples’ viewpoints. Listening to your team will help you find fallacies in arguments to improve possible solutions.

6. Schedule reflection

Whether waking up at 5 am or using a procrastination hack, scheduling time to think puts you in a growth mindset . Your mind has natural cognitive biases to help you simplify decision-making, but squashing them is key to thinking critically and finding new solutions besides the ones you might gravitate toward. Creating time and calm space in your day gives you the chance to step back and visualize the biases that impact your decision-making. 

7. Cultivate curiosity

With so many demands and job responsibilities, it’s easy to seek solace in routine. But getting out of your comfort zone helps spark critical thinking and find more solutions than you usually might.

If curiosity doesn’t come naturally to you, cultivate a thirst for knowledge by reskilling and upskilling . Not only will you add a new skill to your resume , but expanding the limits of your professional knowledge might motivate you to ask more questions. 

You don’t have to develop critical thinking skills exclusively in the office. Whether on your break or finding a hobby to do after work, playing strategic games or filling out crosswords can prime your brain for problem-solving. 

9. Write it down

Recording your thoughts with pen and paper can lead to stronger brain activity than typing them out on a keyboard. If you’re stuck and want to think more critically about a problem, writing your ideas can help you process information more deeply.

The act of recording ideas on paper can also improve your memory . Ideas are more likely to linger in the background of your mind, leading to deeper thinking that informs your decision-making process. 

10. Speak up

Take opportunities to share your opinion, even if it intimidates you. Whether at a networking event with new people or a meeting with close colleagues, try to engage with people who challenge or help you develop your ideas. Having conversations that force you to support your position encourages you to refine your argument and think critically. 

11. Stay humble

Ideas and concepts aren’t the same as real-life actions. There may be such a thing as negative outcomes, but there’s no such thing as a bad idea. At the brainstorming stage , don’t be afraid to make mistakes.

Sometimes the best solutions come from off-the-wall, unorthodox decisions. Sit in your creativity , let ideas flow, and don’t be afraid to share them with your colleagues. Putting yourself in a creative mindset helps you see situations from new perspectives and arrive at innovative conclusions. 

12. Embrace discomfort

Get comfortable feeling uncomfortable . It isn’t easy when others challenge your ideas, but sometimes, it’s the only way to see new perspectives and think critically.

By willingly stepping into unfamiliar territory, you foster the resilience and flexibility you need to become a better thinker. You’ll learn how to pick yourself up from failure and approach problems from fresh angles. 

Thinking critically is easier said than done. To help you understand its impact (and how to use it), here are two scenarios that require critical thinking skills and provide teachable moments. 

Scenario #1: Unexpected delays and budget

Imagine your team is working on producing an event. Unexpectedly, a vendor explains they’ll be a week behind on delivering materials. Then another vendor sends a quote that’s more than you can afford. Unless you develop a creative solution, the team will have to push back deadlines and go over budget, potentially costing the client’s trust. 

Here’s how you could approach the situation with creative thinking:

• Analyze the situation holistically: Determine how the delayed materials and over-budget quote will impact the rest of your timeline and financial resources . That way, you can identify whether you need to build an entirely new plan with new vendors, or if it’s worth it to readjust time and resources. 
• Identify your alternative options: With careful assessment, your team decides that another vendor can’t provide the same materials in a quicker time frame. You’ll need to rearrange assignment schedules to complete everything on time. 
• Collaborate and adapt: Your team has an emergency meeting to rearrange your project schedule. You write down each deliverable and determine which ones you can and can’t complete by the deadline. To compensate for lost time, you rearrange your task schedule to complete everything that doesn’t need the delayed materials first, then advance as far as you can on the tasks that do. 
• Check different resources: In the meantime, you scour through your contact sheet to find alternative vendors that fit your budget. Accounting helps by providing old invoices to determine which vendors have quoted less for previous jobs. After pulling all your sources, you find a vendor that fits your budget. 
• Maintain open communication: You create a special Slack channel to keep everyone up to date on changes, challenges, and additional delays. Keeping an open line encourages transparency on the team’s progress and boosts everyone’s confidence. 

Scenario #2: Differing opinions 

A conflict arises between two team members on the best approach for a new strategy for a gaming app. One believes that small tweaks to the current content are necessary to maintain user engagement and stay within budget. The other believes a bold revamp is needed to encourage new followers and stronger sales revenue. 

Here’s how critical thinking could help this conflict:

• Listen actively: Give both team members the opportunity to present their ideas free of interruption. Encourage the entire team to ask open-ended questions to more fully understand and develop each argument. 
• Flex your analytical skills: After learning more about both ideas, everyone should objectively assess the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. Analyze each idea's risk, merits, and feasibility based on available data and the app’s goals and objectives. 
• Identify common ground: The team discusses similarities between each approach and brainstorms ways to integrate both idea s, like making small but eye-catching modifications to existing content or using the same visual design in new media formats. 
• Test new strategy: To test out the potential of a bolder strategy, the team decides to A/B test both approaches. You create a set of criteria to evenly distribute users by different demographics to analyze engagement, revenue, and customer turnover. 
• Monitor and adapt: After implementing the A/B test, the team closely monitors the results of each strategy. You regroup and optimize the changes that provide stronger results after the testing. That way, all team members understand why you’re making the changes you decide to make.

You can’t think your problems away. But you can equip yourself with skills that help you move through your biggest challenges and find innovative solutions. Learning how to develop critical thinking is the start of honing an adaptable growth mindset. 

Now that you have resources to increase critical thinking skills in your professional development, you can identify whether you embrace change or routine, are open or resistant to feedback, or turn to research or emotion will build self-awareness. From there, tweak and incorporate techniques to be a critical thinker when life presents you with a problem.

Cultivate your creativity

Foster creativity and continuous learning with guidance from our certified Coaches.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

How to improve your creative skills for effective problem-solving

How divergent thinking can drive your creativity, can dreams help you solve problems 6 ways to try, what is lateral thinking 7 techniques to encourage creative ideas, 6 ways to leverage ai for hyper-personalized corporate learning, what’s convergent thinking how to be a better problem-solver, critical thinking is the one skillset you can't afford not to master, thinking outside the box: 8 ways to become a creative problem solver, 8 creative solutions to your most challenging problems, similar articles, what is creative thinking and why does it matter, discover the 7 essential types of life skills you need, 6 big picture thinking strategies that you'll actually use, what are analytical skills examples and how to level up, the most critical skills for leaders are fundamentally human, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care™
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Defining Critical Thinking

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in higher education.

• 1 Departamento de Psicología Básica, Psicobiología y Metodología de CC, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
• 2 Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Facultad de Educación y Humanidades, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Sede Chillán, Chile

More and more often, we hear that higher education should foment critical thinking. The new skills focus for university teaching grants a central role to critical thinking in new study plans; however, using these skills well requires a certain degree of conscientiousness and its regulation. Metacognition therefore plays a crucial role in developing critical thinking and consists of a person being aware of their own thinking processes in order to improve them for better knowledge acquisition. Critical thinking depends on these metacognitive mechanisms functioning well, being conscious of the processes, actions, and emotions in play, and thereby having the chance to understand what has not been done well and correcting it. Even when there is evidence of the relation between metacognitive processes and critical thinking, there are still few initiatives which seek to clarify which process determines which other one, or whether there is interdependence between both. What we present in this study is therefore an intervention proposal to develop critical thinking and meta knowledge skills. In this context, Problem-Based Learning is a useful tool to develop these skills in higher education. The ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program seeks to foment critical thinking via metacognition and Problem-Based Learning methodology. It is known that learning quality improves when students apply metacognition; it is also known that effective problem-solving depends not only on critical thinking, but also on the skill of realization, and of cognitive and non-cognitive regulation. The study presented hereinafter therefore has the fundamental objective of showing whether instruction in critical thinking (ARDESOS-DIAPROVE) influences students’ metacognitive processes. One consequence of this is that critical thinking improves with the use of metacognition. The sample was comprised of first-year psychology students at Public University of the North of Spain who were undergoing the aforementioned program; PENCRISAL was used to evaluate critical thinking skills and the Metacognitive Activities Inventory (MAI) for evaluating metacognition. We expected an increase in critical thinking scores and metacognition following this intervention. As a conclusion, we indicate actions to incentivize metacognitive work among participants, both individually via reflective questions and decision diagrams, and at the interactional level with dialogues and reflective debates which strengthen critical thinking.

Introduction

One of the principal objectives which education must cover is helping our students become autonomous and effective. Students’ ability to use strategies which help them direct their motivation toward action in the direction of the meta-proposal is a central aspect to keep at the front of our minds when considering education. This is where metacognition comes into play—knowledge about knowledge itself, a component which is in charge of directing, monitoring, regulating, organizing, and planning our skills in a helpful way, once these have come into operation. Metacognition helps form autonomous students, increasing consciousness about their own cognitive processes and their self-regulation so that they can regulate their own learning and transfer it to any area of their lives. As we see, it is a conscious activity of high-level thinking which allows us to look into and reflect upon how we learn and to control our own strategies and learning processes. We must therefore approach a problem which is increasing in our time, that of learning and knowledge from the perspective of active participation by students. To achieve these objectives of “learning to learn” we must use adequate cognitive learning strategies, among which we can highlight those oriented toward self-learning, developing metacognitive strategies, and critical thinking.

Metacognition is one of the research areas, which has contributed the most to the formation of the new conceptions of learning and teaching. In this sense, it has advanced within the constructivist conceptions of learning, which have attributed an increasing role to student consciousness and to the regulation which they exercise over their own learning ( Glaser, 1994 ).

Metacognition was initially introduced by John Flavell in the early 1970s. He affirmed that metacognition, on one side, refers to “the knowledge which one has about his own cognitive processes products, or any other matter related with them” and on the other, “to the active supervision and consequent regulation and organization of these processes in relation with the objects or cognitive data upon which they act” ( Flavell, 1976 ; p. 232). Based on this, we can differentiate two components of metacognition: one of a declarative nature, which is metacognitive knowledge, referring to knowledge of the person and the task, and another of a procedural nature, which is metacognitive control or self-regulated learning, which is always directed toward a goal and controlled by the learner.

Different authors have pointed out that metacognition presents these areas of thought or skills, aimed knowledge or toward the regulation of thought and action, mainly proposing a binary organization in which attentional processes are oriented, on occasions, toward an object or subject, and the other hand, toward to interact with objects and/or subjects ( Drigas and Mitsea, 2021 ). However, it is possible to understand metacognition from another approach that establishes more levels of use of metacognitive thinking to promote knowledge, awareness, and intelligence, known as the eight pillars of metacognition model ( Drigas and Mitsea, 2020 ). These pillars allow thought to promote the use of deep knowledge, cognitive processes, self-regulation, functional adaptation to society, pattern recognition and operations, and even meaningful memorization ( Drigas and Mitsea, 2020 ).

In addition to the above, Drigas and Mitsea’s model establishes different levels where metacognition could be used, in a complex sequence from stimuli to transcendental ideas, in which each of the pillars could manifest a different facet of the process metacognitive, thus establishing a dialectical and integrative approach to learning and knowledge, allowing it to be understood as an evolutionary and complex process in stages ( Drigas and Mitsea, 2021 ).

All this clarifies the importance of and need for metacognition, not only in education but also in our modern society, since this need to “teach how to learn” and the capacity to “learn how to learn” in order to achieve autonomous learning and transfer it to any area of our lives will let us face problems more successfully. This becomes a relevant challenge, especially today where it is required to have a broad view regarding reflection and consciousness, and to transcend simplistic and reductionist models that seek to center the problem of knowledge only around the neurobiological or the phenomenological scope ( Sattin et al., 2021 ).

Critical thinking depends largely on these mechanisms functioning well and being conscious of the processes used, since this gives us the opportunity to understand what has not been done well and correct it in the future. Consciousness for critical thinking would imply a continuous process of reuse of thought, in escalations that allow thinking to be oriented both toward the objects of the world and toward the subjective interior, allowing to determine the ideas that give greater security to the person, and in that perspective, the metacognitive process, represents this use of Awareness, also allowing the generation of an identity of knowing being ( Drigas and Mitsea, 2021 ).

We know that thinking critically involves reasoning and deciding to effectively solve a problem or reach goals. However, effective use of these skills requires a certain degree of consciousness and regulation of them. The ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program seeks precisely to foment critical thinking, in part, via metacognition ( Saiz and Rivas, 2011 , 2012 , 2016 ).

However, it is not only centered on developing cognitive components, as this would be an important limitation. Since the 1990s, it has been known that non-cognitive components play a crucial role in developing critical thinking. However, there are few studies focusing on this relation. This intervention therefore considers both dimensions, where metacognitive processes play an essential role by providing evaluation and control mechanisms over the cognitive dimension.

Metacognition and Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking is a concept without a firm consensus, as there have been and still are varying conceptions regarding it. Its nature is so complex that it is hard to synthesize all its aspects in a single definition. While there are numerous conceptions about critical thinking, it is necessary to be precise about which definition we will use. We understand that “ critical thinking is a knowledge-seeking process via reasoning skills to solve problems and make decisions which allows us to more effectively achieve our desired results” ( Saiz and Rivas, 2008 , p. 131). Thinking effectively is desirable in all areas of individual and collective action. Currently, the background of the present field of critical thinking is also based in argumentation. Reasoning is used as the fundamental basis for all activities labeled as thinking. In a way, thinking cannot easily be decoupled from reasoning, at least if our understanding of it is “deriving something from another thing.” Inference or judgment is what we essentially find behind the concept of thinking. The question, though, is whether it can be affirmed that thinking is only reasoning. Some defend this concept ( Johnson, 2008 ), while others believe the opposite, that solving problems and making decisions are activities which also form part of thinking processes ( Halpern, 2003 ; Halpern and Dunn, 2021 , 2022 ). To move forward in this sense, we will return to our previous definition. In that definition, we have specified intellectual activity with a goal intrinsic to all mental processes, namely, seeking knowledge. Achieving our ends depends not only on the intellectual dimension, as we may need our motor or perceptive activities, so it contributes little to affirm that critical thinking allows us to achieve our objectives as we can also achieve them by doing other activities. It is important for us to make an effort to identify the mental processes responsible for thinking and distinguish them from other things.

Normally, we think to solve our problems. This is the second important activity of thought. A problem can be solved by reasoning, but also by planning course of action or selecting the best strategy for the situation. Apart from reasoning, we must therefore also make decisions to resolve difficulties. Choosing is one of the most frequent and important activities which we do. Because of this, we prefer to give it the leading role it deserves in a definition of thinking. Solving problems demands multiple intellectual activities, including reasoning, deciding, planning, etc. The final characteristic goes beyond the mechanisms peculiar to inference. What can be seen at the moment of delineating what it means to think effectively is that concepts are grouped together which go beyond the nuclear ideas of what has to do with inferring or reasoning. The majority of theoreticians in the field ( APA, 1990 ; Ennis, 1996 ; Halpern, 1998 , 2003 ; Paul and Elder, 2001 ; Facione, 2011 ; Halpern and Dunn, 2021 , 2022 ) consider that, in order to carry out this type of thinking effectively, apart from having this skill set, the intervention of other types of components is necessary, such as metacognition and motivation. This is why we consider it necessary to speak about the components of critical thinking, as we can see in Figure 1 :

Figure 1 . Components of critical thinking ( Saiz, 2020 ).

In the nature of thinking, there are two types of components: the cognitive and the non-cognitive. The former include perception, learning, and memory processes. Learning is any knowledge acquisition mechanism, the most important of which is thinking. The latter refer to motivation and interests (attitudes tend to be understood as dispositions, inclinations…something close to motives); with metacognition remaining as a process which shares cognitive and non-cognitive aspects as it incorporates aspects of both judgment (evaluation) and disposition (control/efficiency) about thoughts ( Azevedo, 2020 ; Shekhar and Rahnev, 2021 ). Both the cognitive and non-cognitive components are essential to improve critical thinking, as one component is incomplete without the other, that is, neither cognitive skills nor dispositions on their own suffice to train a person to think critically. In general, relations are bidirectional, although for didactic reasons only unidirectional relations appear in Figure 1 ( Rivas et al., 2017 ). This is because learning is a dynamic process which is subject to all types of influence. For instance, if a student is motivated, they will work more and better—or at least, this is what is hoped for. If they can achieve good test scores as well, it can be supposed that motivation is reinforced, so that they will continue existing behaviors in the same direction that is, working hard and well on their studies. This latter point appears to arise at least because of an adjustment between expectations and reality which the student achieves thanks to metacognition, which allows them to effectively attribute their achievements to their efforts ( Ugartetxea, 2001 ).

Metacognition, which is our interest in this paper, should also have bidirectional relations with critical thinking. Metacognition tends to be understood as the degree of consciousness which we have about our own mental processes and similar to the capacity for self-regulation, that is, planning and organization ( Mayor et al., 1993 ). We observe that these two ideas have very different natures. The former is simpler, being the degree of consciousness which we reach about an internal mechanism or process. The latter is a less precise idea, since everything which has to do with self-regulation is hard to differentiate from a way of understanding motivation, such as the entire tradition of intrinsic motivation and self-determination from Deci, his collaborators, and other authors of this focus (see, e.g., Deci and Ryan, 1985 ; Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). The important thing is to emphasize the executive dimension of metacognition, more than the degree of consciousness, for practical reasons. It can be expected that this dimension has a greater influence on the learning process than that of consciousness, although there is little doubt that we have to establish both as necessary and sufficient conditions. However, the data must speak in this regard. Due to all of this, and as we shall see hereinafter, the intervention designed incorporates both components to improve critical thinking skills.

We can observe, though, that the basic core of critical thinking continues to be topics related to skills, in our case, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. The fact that we incorporate concepts of another nature, such as motivation, in a description of critical thinking is justified because it has been proven that, when speaking about critical thinking, the fact of centering solely on skills does not allow for fully gathering its complexity. The purpose of the schematic in Figure 2 is to provide conceptual clarity to the adjective “critical” in the expression critical thinking . If we understand critical to refer to effective , we should also consider that effectiveness is not, as previously mentioned, solely achieved with skills. They must be joined together with other mechanisms during different moments. Intellectual skills alone cannot achieve the effectiveness assumed within the term “critical.” First, for said skills to get underway, we must want to do so. Motivation therefore comes into play before skills and puts them into operation. For its part, metacognition allows us to take advantage of directing, organizing, and planning our skills and act once they have begun to work. Motivation thus activates our abilities, while metacognition lets them be more effective. The final objective should always be to gain proper knowledge of reality to resolve our problems.

Figure 2 . Purpose of critical thinking ( Saiz, 2020 , p.27).

We consider that the fact of referring to components of critical thinking while differentiating the skills of motivation and metacognition aids with the conceptual clarification we seek. On one side, we specify the skills which we discuss, and on another, we mention which other components are related to, and even overlap with them. We must be conscious of how difficult it is to find “pure” mental processes. Planning a course of action, an essential trait of metacognition, demands reflection, prediction, choice, comparison, and evaluation… And this, evidently, is thinking. The different levels or dimensions of our mental activity must be related and integrated. Our aim is to be able to identify what is substantial in thinking to know what we are able to improve and evaluate.

It is widely known that for our personal and professional functioning, thinking is necessary and useful. When we want to change a situation or gain something, all our mental mechanisms go into motion. We perceive the situation, identify relevant aspects of the problem, analyze all the available information, and appraise everything we analyze. We make judgments about the most relevant matters, decide about the options or pathways for resolution, execute the plan, obtain results, evaluate the results, estimate whether we have achieved our purpose and, according to the level of satisfaction following this estimation, consider our course of action good, or not.

The topic we must pose now is what things are teachable. It is useful to specify that what is acquired is clearly cognitive and some of the non-cognitive, because motivation can be stimulated or promoted, but not taught. The concepts of knowledge and wisdom are its basis. Mental representation and knowledge only become wisdom when we can apply it to reality, when we take it out of our mind and adequately situate it in the world. For our teaching purposes, we only have to take a position about whether knowledge is what makes critical thinking develop, or vice versa. For us, skills must be directly taught, and dominion is secondary. Up to now, we have established the components of critical thinking, but these elements still have to be interrelated properly. What we normally find are skills or components placed side by side or overlapping, but not the ways in which they influence each other. Lipman (2003) may have developed the most complete theory of critical and creative thinking, along Paul and his group, in second place, with their universal thought structures ( Paul and Elder, 2006 ). However, a proposal for the relation between the elements is lacking.

To try to explain the relation between the components of thought, we will use Figure 2 as an aid.

The ultimate goal of critical thinking is change that is, passing from one state of wellbeing into a better state. This change is only the fruit of results, which must be the best. Effectiveness is simple achieving our goals in the best way possible. There are many possible results, but for our ends, there are always some which are better than others. Our position must be for effectiveness, the best response, the best solution. Reaching a goal is resolving or achieving something, and for this, we have mechanisms available which tell us which are the best course of action. Making decisions and solving problems are fundamental skills which are mutually interrelated. Decision strategies come before a solution. Choosing a course of action always comes before its execution, so it is easy to understand that decisions contribute to solutions.

Decisions must not come before reflection, although this often can and does happen. As we have already mentioned, the fundamental skills of critical thinking, in most cases, have been reduced to reasoning, and to a certain degree, this is justified. There is an entire important epistemological current behind this, within which the theory of argumentation makes no distinction, at least syntactically, between argumentation and explanation. However, for us this distinction is essential, especially in practice ( Saiz, 2020 ). We will only center on an essential difference for our purpose. Argumentation may have to do with values and realities, but explanation only has to do with the latter. We can argue about beliefs, convictions, and facts, but we can only explain realities. Faced with an explanation of reality, any argumentation would be secondary. Thus, explanation will always be the central skill in critical thinking.

The change which is sought is always expressed in reality. Problems always are manifested and resolved with actions, and these are always a reality. An argument about realities aids in explaining them. An argument about values upholds a belief or a conviction. However, beliefs always influence behavior; thus, indirectly, the argument winds up being about realities. One may argue, for example, only for or against the death penalty, and reach the conviction that it is good or bad and ultimately take a position for or against allowing it. This is why we say that deciding always comes before resolving; furthermore, resolution always means deciding about something in a particular direction—it always means choosing and taking an option; furthermore, deciding is often only from two possibilities, the better or that which is not better, or which is not as good. Decisions are made based on the best option possible of all those which can be presented. Resolution is a dichotomy. Since our basic end lies within reality, explanation must be constituted as the basic pillar to produce change. Argumentation must therefore be at the service of causality (explanation), and both must be in the service of solid decisions leading us to the best solution or change of situation. We now believe that the relation established in Figure 2 can be better understood. From this relation, we propose that thinking critically means reaching the best explanation for an event, phenomenon, or problem in order to know how to effectively resolve it ( Saiz, 2017 , p.19). This idea, to our judgment, is the best summary of the nature of critical thinking. It clarifies details and makes explicit the components of critical thinking.

Classroom Activities to Develop Metacognition

We will present a set of strategies to promote metacognitive work in the classroom in this section, aimed at improving critical thinking skills. These strategies can be applied both at the university level and the secondary school level; we will thus focus on these two levels, although metacognitive strategies can be worked on from an earlier age ( Jaramillo and Osses, 2012 ; Tamayo-Alzate et al., 2019 ) and some authors have indicated that psychological maturity has a greater impact on effectively achieving metacognition ( Sastre-Riba, 2012 ; García et al., 2016 ).

At the individual level, metacognition can be worked on via applying questions aimed at the relevant tasks which must be undertaken regarding a task (meta-knowledge questions), for example:

- Do I know how much I know about this subject?

- Do I have clear instructions and know what action is expected from me?

- How much time do I have?

- Am I covering the proper and necessary subjects, or is there anything important left out?

- How do I know that my work is right?

- Have I covered every point of the rubric for the work to gain a good grade or a sufficient level?

These reflective questions facilitate supervising knowledge level, resource use, and the final product achieved, so that the decisions taken for said activities are the best and excellent learning results are achieved.

Graphs or decision diagrams can also be used to aid in organizing these questions during the different phases of executing a task (planning, progress, and final evaluation), which is clearly linked with the knowledge and control processes of metacognition ( Mateos, 2001 ). These diagrams are more complex and elaborate strategies than the questions, but are effective when monitoring the steps considered in the activity ( Ossa et al., 2016 ). Decision diagrams begin from a question or task, detailing the principal steps to take, and associating an alternative (YES or NO) to each step, which leads to the next step whenever the decision is affirmative, or to improve or go further into the step taken if the decision is negative.

Finally, we can work on thinking aloud, a strategy which facilitates making the thoughts explicit and conscious, allowing us to monitor their knowledge, decisions, and actions to promote conscious planning, supervision and evaluation ( Ávila et al., 2017 ; Dahik et al., 2019 ). For example:

- While asking a question, the student thinks aloud: I am having problems with this part of the task, and I may have to ask the teacher to know whether I am right.

Thinking aloud can be done individually or in pairs, allowing for active monitoring of decisions and questions arising from cognitive and procedural work done by the student.

Apart from the preceding strategies, it is also possible to fortify metacognitive development via personal interactions based on dialogue between both the students themselves and between the teacher and individual students. One initial strategy, similar to thinking out loud in pairs, is reflective dialogue between teacher and student, a technique which allows for exchanging deep questions and answers, where the student becomes conscious of their knowledge and practice thanks to dialogical interventions by the teacher ( Urdaneta, 2014 ).

Reflective dialogue can also be done via reflective feedback implemented by the teacher for the students to learn by themselves about the positive and negative aspects of their performance on a task.

Finally, another activity based on dialogue and interaction is related to metacognitive argumentation ( Sánchez-Castaño et al., 2015 ), a strategy which uses argumentative resources to establish a valid argumentative structure to facilitate responding to a question or applying it to a debate. While argumentative analysis is based on logic and the search for solid reasons, these can have higher or lower confidence and reliability as a function of the data which they provide. Thus, if a reflective argumentative process is performed, via questioning reasons or identifying counterarguments, there is more depth and density in the argumentative structure, achieving greater confidence and validity.

We can note that metacognition development strategies are based on reflective capacity, which allow thought to repeatedly review information and decisions to consider, without immediately taking sides or being carried away by superficial or biased ideas or data. Critical thought benefits strongly from applying this reflective process, which guides both data management and cognitive process use. These strategies can also be developed in various formats (written, graphic, oral, individual, and dialogical), providing teachers a wide range of tools to strengthen learning and thinking.

Metacognitive Strategies to Improve Critical Thinking

In this section, we will describe the fundamental metacognitive strategies addressed in our critical thinking skills development program ARDESOS-DIAPROVE.

First, one of the active learning methodologies applied is Problem-Based Learning (PBL). This pedagogical strategy is student-centered and encourages autonomous and participative learning, orienting students toward more active and decisive learning. In PBL each situation must be approached as a problem-solving task, making it necessary to investigate, understand, interpret, reason, decide, and resolve. It is presented as a methodology which facilitates joint knowledge acquisition and skill learning. It is also good for working on daily problems via relevant situations, considerably reducing the distance between learning context and personal/professional life and aiding the connection between theory and practice, which promote the highly desired transference. It favors organization and the capacity to decide about problem-solving, which also improves performance and knowledge about the students’ own learning processes. Because of all this, this methodology aids in reflection and analysis processes, which in turn promotes metacognitive skill development.

The procedure which we carried out in the classroom with all the activities is based on the philosophy of gradual learning control transference ( Mateos, 2001 ). During instruction, the teacher takes on the role of model and guide for students’ cognitive and metacognitive activity, gradually bringing them into participating in an increasing level of competency, and slowly withdrawing support in order to attain control over the students’ learning process. This methodology develops in four phases: (1) explicit instruction, where the teacher directly explains the skills which will be worked on; (2) guided practice, where the teacher acts as a collaborator to guide and aid students in self-regulation; and (3) cooperative practice, where cooperative group work facilitates interaction with a peer group collaborating to resolve the problem. By explaining, elaborating, and justifying their own points of view and alternative solutions, greater consciousness, reflection, and control over their own cognitive processes is promoted. Finally, (4) individual practice is what allows students to place their learning into practice in individual evaluation tasks.

Regarding the tasks, it is important to highlight that the activities must be aimed not only at acquiring declarative knowledge, but also at procedural knowledge. The objective of practical tasks, apart from developing fundamental knowledge, is to develop CT skills among students in both comprehension and expression in order to favor their learning and its transference. The problems used must be common situations, close to our students’ reality. The important thing in our task of teaching critical thinking is its usefulness to our students, which can only be achieved during application since we only know something when we are capable of applying it. We are not interested in students merely developing critical skills; they must also be able to generalize their intellectual skills, for which they must perceive them as useful in order to want to acquire them. Finally, they will have to actively participate to apply them to solving problems. Furthermore, if we study the different ways of reasoning without context, via overly academic problems, their application to the personal sphere becomes impossible, leading them to be considered hardly useful. This makes it important to contextualize skills within everyday problems or situations which help us get students to use them regularly and understand their usefulness.

Reflecting on how one carries things out in practice and analyzing mistakes are ways to encourage success and autonomy in learning. These self-regulation strategies are the properly metacognitive part of our study. The teacher has various resources to increase these strategies, particularly feedback oriented toward task resolution. Similarly, one of the most effective instruments to achieve it is using rubrics, a central tool for our methodology. These guides, used in student performance evaluations, describe the specific characteristics of a task at various performance levels, in order to clarify expectations for students’ work, evaluate their execution, and facilitate feedback. This type of technique also allows students to direct their own activity. We use them with this double goal in mind; on the one hand, they aid students in carrying out tasks, since they help divide the complex tasks they have to do into simpler jobs, and on the other, they help evaluate the task. Rubrics guide students in the skills and knowledge they need to acquire as well as facilitating self-evaluation, thereby favoring responsibility in their learning. Task rubrics are also the guide for evaluation which teachers carry out in classrooms, where they specify, review, and correctly resolve the tasks which students do according to the rubric criteria. Providing complete feedback to students is a crucial aspect for the learning process. Thus, in all sessions time is dedicated to carrying it out. This is what will allow them to move ahead in self-regulated skill learning.

According to what we have seen, there is a wide range of positions when it comes to defining critical thinking. However, there is consensus in the fact that critical thinking involves cognitive, attitudinal, and metacognitive components, which together favor proper performance in critical thinking ( Ennis, 1987 ; Facione, 1990 ). This important relation between metacognition and critical thinking has been widely studied in the literature ( Berardi-Coletta et al., 1995 ; Antonietti et al., 2000 ; Kuhn and Dean, 2004 ; Black, 2005 ; Coutinho et al., 2005 ; Orion and Kali, 2005 ; Schroyens, 2005 ; Akama, 2006 ; Choy and Cheah, 2009 ; Magno, 2010 ; Arslan, 2014 ) although not always in an applied way. Field studies indicate the existence of relations between teaching metacognitive strategies and progress in students’ higher-order thinking processes ( Schraw, 1998 ; Kramarski et al., 2002 ; Van der Stel and Veenman, 2010 ). Metacognition is thus considered one of the most relevant predictors of achieving a complex higher-order thought process.

Along the same lines, different studies show the importance of developing metacognitive skills among students as it is related not only with developing critical thinking, but also with academic achievement and self-regulated learning ( Klimenko and Alvares, 2009 ; Magno, 2010 ; Doganay and Demir, 2011 ; Özsoy, 2011 ). Klimenko and Alvares (2009) indicated that one way for students to acquire necessary tools to encourage autonomous learning is making cognitive and metacognitive strategies explicit and well-used and that teachers’ role is to be mediators and guides. Inspite of this evidence, there is less research about the use of metacognitive strategies in encouraging critical thinking. The principal reason is probably that it is methodologically difficult to gather direct data about active metacognitive processes which are complex by nature. Self-reporting is also still very common in metacognition evaluation, and there are few studies which have included objective measurements aiding in methodological precision for evaluating metacognition.

However, in recent years, greater importance has been assigned to teaching metacognitive skills in the educational system, as they aid students in developing higher-order thinking processes and improving their academic success ( Flavell, 2004 ; Larkin, 2009 ). Because of this, classrooms have seen teaching and learning strategies emphasizing metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Returning to our objective, which is to improve critical thinking via the ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program, we have achieved our goal in an acceptable way ( Saiz and Rivas, 2011 , 2012 , 2016 ).

However, we need to know which specific factors contribute to this improvement. We have covered significant ground through different studies, one of which we present here. In this one, we attempt to find out the role of metacognition in critical thinking. This is the central objective of the study. Our program includes motivational and metacognitive variables. Therefore, we seek to find out whether metacognition improves after this instruction program focused on metacognition. Therefore, our hypothesis is simple: we expect that the lesson will improve our students’ metacognition. The idea is to know whether applying metacognition helps us achieve improved critical thinking and whether after this change metaknowledge itself improves. In other words, improved critical thinking performance will make us think better about thinking processes themselves. If this can be improved, we can expect that in the future it will have a greater influence on critical thinking. The idea is to be able to demonstrate that applying specifically metacognitive techniques, the processes themselves will subsequently improve in quality and therefore contribute better volume and quality to reasoning tasks, decision-making and problem-solving.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

In the present study, we used a sample of 89 students in a first-year psychology course at Public University of the North of Spain. 82% (73) were women, and the other 18% (16) were men. Participants’ median age was 18.93 ( SD 1.744).

Instruments

Critical thinking test.

To measure critical thinking skills, we applied the PENCRISAL test ( Saiz and Rivas, 2008 ; Rivas and Saiz, 2012 ). The PENCRISAL is a battery consisting of 35 production problem situations with an open-answer format, composed of five factors: Deductive Reasoning , Inductive Reasoning , Practical Reasoning , Decision-Making , and Problem-Solving , with seven items per factor. Items for each factor gather the most representative structures of fundamental critical thinking skills.

The items’ format is open, so that the person has to answer a concrete question, adding a justification for the reasons behind their answer. Because of this, there are standardized correction criteria assigning values between 0 and 2 points as a function of answer quality. This test offers us a total score of critical thinking skills and another five scores referring to the five factors. The value range is located between 0 and 72 points as a maximum limit for total test scoring, and between 0 and 14 for each of the five scales. The reliability measures present adequate precision levels according to the scoring procedures, with the lowest Cronbach’s alpha values at 0.632, and the test–retest correlation at 0.786 ( Rivas and Saiz, 2012 ). PENCRISAL administration was done over the Internet via the evaluation platform SelectSurvey.NET V5: http://24.selectsurvey.net/pensamiento-critico/Login.aspx .

Metacognitive Skill Inventory

Metacognitive skill evaluation was done via the metacognitive awareness inventory from Schraw and Dennison (1994) (MAI; Huertas Bustos et al., 2014 ). This questionnaire has 52 Likert scale-type items with five points. The items are distributed in two general dimensions: cognitive knowledge (C) and regulation of cognition (R). This provides ample coverage for the two aforementioned ideas about metaknowledge. There are also eight defined subcategories within each general dimension. For C, these are: declarative knowledge (DK), procedural knowledge (PK), and conditional knowledge (CK). In R, we find: organization (O), monitoring (M), and evaluation (E). This instrument comprehensively, and fairly clearly, brings together essential aspects of metacognition. On one side, there is the level of consciousness, containing types of knowledge—declarative, procedural, and strategic. On the other, it considers everything important in the processes of self-regulation, planning, organization, direction or control (monitoring), adjustment (troubleshooting), and considering the results achieved (evaluation). It provides a very complete vision of everything important in this dimension. Cronbach’s alpha for this instrument is 0.94, showing good internal consistency.

Intervention Program

As previously mentioned, in this study, we applied the third version of the ARDESOS_DIAPROVE program ( Saiz and Rivas, 2016 ; Saiz, 2020 ), with the objective of improving thinking skills. This program is centered on directly teaching the skills which we consider essential to develop critical thinking and for proper performance in our daily affairs. For this, we must use reasoning and good problem-solving and decision-making strategies, with one of the most fundamental parts of our intervention being the use of everyday situations to develop these abilities.

DIAPROVE methodology incorporates three new and essential aspects: developing observation, the combined use of facts and deduction, and effective management of de-confirmation procedures, or discarding hypotheses. These are the foundation of our teaching, which requires specific teaching–learning techniques.

The intervention took place over 16 weeks and is designed to be applied in classrooms over a timeframe of 55–60 h. The program is applied in classes of around 30–35 students divided into groups of four for classwork in collaborative groups, and organized into six activity blocks: (1) nature of critical thinking, (2) problem-solving and effectiveness, (3) explanation and causality, (4) deduction and explanation, (5) argumentation and deduction, and (6) problem-solving and decision-making. These blocks are assembled maintaining homogeneity, facilitating a global integrated skill focus which helps form comprehension and use of the different structures in any situation as well as a greater degree of ability within the domain of each skill.

Our program made an integrated use of problem-based learning (PBL) and cooperative learning (CL) as didactic teaching and learning strategies in the critical thinking program. These methodologies jointly exert a positive influence on the students, allowing them to participate more actively in the learning process, achieve better results in contextualizing content and developing skills and abilities for problem-solving, and improve motivation.

To carry out our methodology in the classrooms, we have designed a teaching system aligned with these directives. Two types of tasks are done: (1) comprehension and (2) production. The materials we used to carry out these activities are the same for all the program blocks. One key element in our aim of teaching how to think critically must be its usefulness to our students, which is only achieved through application. This makes it important to contextualize reasoning types within common situations or problems, aiding students to use them regularly and understand their usefulness. Our intention with the materials we use is to face the problems of transference, usefulness, integrated skills, and how to produce these things. Accordingly, the materials used for the tasks are: (1) common situations and (2) professional/personal problems.

The tasks which the students perform take place over a week. They work in cooperative groups in class, and then review, correct, and clarify together, promoting reflection on their achievements and errors, which fortifies metacognition. Students get the necessary feedback on the work performed which will help them progressively acquire fundamental procedural contents. Our goal here is that students become conscious of their own thought processes in order to improve them. In this way, via the dialogue achieved between teachers and students as well as between the students themselves in their cooperative work, metacognition is developed. For conscious performance of tasks, the students will receive rubrics for each and every task to guide them in their completion.

Application of the ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program was done across a semester in the Psychology Department of the Public University of the North of Spain. One week before teaching began; critical thinking and metacognition evaluations were done. This was also done 1 week after the intervention ended, in order to gather the second measurement for PENCRISAL and MAI. The timelapse between the pre-treatment and post-treatment measurements was 4 months. The intervention was done by instructors with training and good experience in the program.

To test our objective, we used a quasi-experimental pre-post design with repeated measurements.

Statistical Analysis

For statistical analysis, we used the IBM SPSS Statistics 26 statistical packet. The statistical tools and techniques used were: frequency and percentage tables for qualitative variables, exploratory and descriptive analysis of quantitative variables with a goodness of fit test to the normal Gaussian model, habitual descriptive statistics (median, SD, etc.) for numerical variables, and Student’s t -tests for significance of difference.

To begin, a descriptive analysis of the study variables was carried out. Tables 1 , 2 present the summary of descriptions for the scores obtained by students in the sample, as well as the asymmetry and kurtosis coefficients for their distribution.

Table 1 . Description of critical thinking measurement (PENCRISAL).

Table 2 . Description of metacognition measurement (MAI).

As we see in the description of all study variables, the evidence is that the majority of them adequately fit the normal model, although some present significant deviations which can be explained by sample size.

Next, to verify whether there were significant differences in the metacognition variable based on measurements before and after the intervention, we contrasted medians for samples related with Student’s t -test (see Table 3 ).

Table 3 . Comparison of the METAKNOWLEDGE variable as a function of PRE-POST measurements.

The results show that there are significant differences in the metaknowledge scale total and in most of its dimensions, where all the post medians for both the scale overall and for the three dimensions of the knowledge factor (declarative, procedural, and conditional) are higher than the pre-medians. However, in the cognition regulation dimension, there are only significant differences in the total and in the planning, organization, and monitoring dimensions. The medians are also greater in the post-test than the pre-test. However, the troubleshooting and evaluation dimensions do not differ significantly after intervention.

Finally, for critical thinking skills, the results show significant differences in the scale total and in the five factors regarding the measurement time, where performance medians rise after intervention (see Table 4 ).

Table 4 . Comparison of the CRITICAL THINKING variable as a function of PRE-POST measurements.

These results show how metacognition improves due to CT intervention, as well as how critical thinking also improves with metacognitive intervention and CT skills intervention. Thus, it improves how people think about thinking as well as about the results achieved, since metacognition supports decision-making and final evaluation about proper strategies to solve problems.

Discussion and Conclusions

The general aim of our study was to know whether a critical thinking intervention program can also influence metacognitive processes. We know that our teaching methodology improves cross-sectional skills in argumentation, explanation, decision-making, and problem-solving, but we do not know if this intervention also directly or indirectly influences metacognition. In our study, we sought to shed light on this little-known point. If we bear in mind the centrality of how we think about thinking for our cognitive machinery to function properly and reach the best results possible in the problems we face, it is hard to understand the lack of attention given to this theme in other research. Our study aimed to remedy this deficiency somewhat.

As said in the introduction, metacognition has to do with consciousness, planning, and regulation of our activities. These mechanisms, as understood by many authors, have a blended cognitive and non-cognitive nature, which is a conceptual imprecision; what is known, though, is the enormous influence they exert on fundamental thinking processes. However, there is a large knowledge gap about the factors which make metacognition itself improve. This second research lacuna is what we have partly aimed to shrink here as well with this study. Our guide has been the idea of knowing how to improve metacognition from a teaching initiative and from the improvement of fundamental critical thinking skills.

Our study has shed light in both directions, albeit in a modest way, since its design does not allow us to unequivocally discern some of the results obtained. However, we believe that the data provide relevant information to know more about existing relations between skills and metacognition, something which has seen little contrast. These results allow us to better describe these relations, guiding the design of future studies which can better discern their roles. Our data have shown that this relation is bidirectional, so that metacognition improves thinking skills and vice versa. It remains to establish a sequence of independent factors to avoid this confusion, something which the present study has aided with to be able to design future research in this area.

As the results show, total differences in almost all metaknowledge dimensions are higher after intervention; specifically, we see how in the knowledge factor the declarative, procedural, and conditional dimensions improve in post-measurements. This improvement moves in the direction we predicted. However, the cognitive regulation dimension only shows differences in the total, and in the planning, organization, and regulation dimensions. We can see how the declarative knowledge dimensions are more sensitive than the procedural ones to change, and within the latter, the dimensions over which we have more control are also more sensitive. With troubleshooting and evaluation, no changes are seen after intervention. We may interpret this lack of effects as being due to how everything referring to evaluating results is highly determined by calibration capacity, which is influenced by personality factors not considered in our study. Regarding critical thinking, we found differences in all its dimensions, with higher scores following intervention. We can tentatively state that this improved performance can be influenced not only by interventions, but also by the metacognitive improvement observed, although our study was incapable of separating these two factors, and merely established their relation.

As we know, when people think about thinking they can always increase their critical thinking performance. Being conscious of the mechanisms used in problem-solving and decision-making always contributes to improving their execution. However, we need to go into other topics to identify the specific determinants of these effects. Does performance improve because skills are metacognitively benefited? If so, how? Is it only the levels of consciousness which aid in regulating and planning execution, or do other factors also have to participate? What level of thinking skills can be beneficial for metacognition? At what skill level does this metacognitive change happen? And finally, we know that teaching is always metacognitive to the extent that it helps us know how to proceed with sufficient clarity, but does performance level modify consciousness or regulation level of our action? Do bad results paralyze metacognitive activity while good ones stimulate it? Ultimately, all of these open questions are the future implications which our current study has suggested. We believe them to be exciting and necessary challenges, which must be faced sooner rather than later. Finally, we cannot forget the implications derived from specific metacognitive instruction, as presented at the start of this study. An intervention of this type should also help us partially answer the aforementioned questions, as we cannot obviate what can be modified or changed by direct metacognition instruction.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

SR and CS contributed to the conception and design of the study. SR organized the database, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SR, CS, and CO wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This study was partly financed by the Project FONDECYT no. 11220056 ANID-Chile.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Akama, K. (2006). Relations among self-efficacy, goal setting, and metacognitive experiences in problem solving. Psychol. Rep. 98, 895–907. doi: 10.2466/pr0.98.3.895-907

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S., and Perego, P. (2000). Metacognitive knowledge about problem solving methods. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 70, 1–16. doi: 10.1348/000709900157921

APA (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive Summary “The Delphi Report.”

Google Scholar

Arslan, S. (2014). An investigation of the relationships between metacognition and self-regulation with structural equation. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 6, 603–611. doi: 10.15345/IOJES.2014.03.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ávila, M., Bianchetti, M., and González, A. (2017). Uso del método “Think Aloud” en la investigación cualitativa. Pistas Educ. 39, 26–38.

Azevedo, R. (2020). Reflections on the field of metacognition: issues, challenges, and opportunities. Metacogn. Learn. 15, 91–98. doi: 10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x

Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L., and Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: a process-oriented approach. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 21, 205–223.

Black, S. (2005). Teaching students to think critically. Educ. Digest 70, 42–47.

Choy, S. C., and Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 20, 198–206.

Coutinho, S., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Skowronski, J. J., and Britt, M. A. (2005). Metacognition, need for cognition and use of explanations during ongoing learning and problem solving. Learn. Individ. Differ. 15, 321–337. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.001

Dahik, S., Cáneppa, C., Dahik, C., and Feijoò, K. (2019). Estrategias de Think-Aloud para mejorar la habilidad de lectura en estudiantes en el centro de idiomas en la universidad técnica de Babahoyo. Rev. Magaz. Ciencias 4, 65–83. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3239552

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. J. Res. Pers. 19, 109–134. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

Doganay, A., and Demir, O. (2011). Comparison of the level of using metacognitive strategies during study between high achieving and low achieving prospective teachers. Educ. Sci. Theor. Pract. 11, 2036–2043.

Drigas, A., and Mitsea, E. (2020). The 8 pillars of metacognition. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15, 162–178. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i21.14907

Drigas, A., and Mitsea, E. (2021). 8 pillars X 8 layers model of metacognition: educational strategies, exercises and trainings. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 17, 115–134. doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v17i08.23563

Ennis, R. H. (1987). “A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities,” in Teaching Thinking Skills. eds. J. B. Baron and R. J. Sternberg (New York: Freeman and Company), 9–26.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of expert consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction—Executive Summary of the delphi Report. Millbrae: California Academic Press

Facione, P. A. (2011). Think Critically. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving,” in The Nature of Intelligence. ed. L. B. Resnik (Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum), 231–235.

Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory of the mind development: retrospect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Q. 50, 274–290. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2004.0018

García, T., Rodríguez, C., González-Castro, P., Álvarez-García, D., and González-Pienda, J.-A. (2016). Metacognición y funcionamiento ejecutivo en Educación Primaria [Metacognition and executive functioning in Elementary School]. Ann. Psychol. 32, 474–483. doi: 10.6018/analesps.32.2.202891

Glaser, R. (1994). “Learning theory and instruction,” in International Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 2. eds. G. D’Ydewalle, P. Eelen, and B. Bertelson (NJ: Erlbaum)

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains—dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol. 53, 449–455. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449

Halpern, D. (2003). Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment Using Everyday Situations: Background and Scoring Standards. Claremont, CA: Claremont McKenna College.

Halpern, D. F., and Dunn, D. S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. J. Intellig. 9:22. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020022

Halpern, D. F., and Dunn, D. S. (2022). Thought and Knowledge. An Introduction to Critical-Thinking . 6th Edn. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Huertas Bustos, A. P., Vesga Bravo, G. J., and Gilando León, M. (2014). Validación del instrumento “Inventario de Habilidades Metacognitivas (MAI)” con estudiantes colombianos. Praxis Saber 5, 55–74. doi: 10.19053/22160159.3022

Jaramillo, S., and Osses, S. (2012). Validación de un Instrumento sobre Metacognición para Estudiantes de Segundo Ciclo de Educación General Básica. Estud. Pedag. 38, 117–131. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07052012000200008

Johnson, R. H. (2008). “Critical thinking, logic and argumentation,” in Paper presented at the Conferencia Internacional: Lógica, Argumentación y Pensamiento Crítico. Santiago de Chile. January 8–11.

Klimenko, O., and Alvares, J. L. (2009). Aprender cómo aprendo: la enseñanza de estrategias metacognitivas. Educ. Educ. 12, 11–28.

Kramarski, B., Mevarceh, Z. R., and Arami, M. (2002). The effect of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educ. Stud. Math. 49, 225–250. doi: 10.1023/A:1016282811724

Kuhn, D., and Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: a bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Pract. 43, 268–274. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4

Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in Young Children. New York, NY: Routledge

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd Edn.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press

Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacogn. Learn. 5, 137–156. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4

Mateos, M. (2001). Metacognición y Educación. Buenos Aires: Aique

Mayor, J., Suengas, A., and González Marqués, J. (1993). Estrategias Metacognitivas. Aprender a Aprendery Aprender a Pensar. Madrid: Síntesis

Orion, N., and Kali, Y. (2005). The effect of an earth-science learning program on students’ scientific thinking skills. J. Geosci. Educ. 53, 387–394. doi: 10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.387

Ossa, C., Rivas, S.F., and Saiz, C. (2016). Estrategias metacognitivas en el desarrollo del análisis argumentativo En IV Seminário Internacional Cognição, aprendizagem e desempenho. eds. J. Casanova, C. Bisinoto, and L. Almeida (Braga: Livro de atas), 30–47.

Özsoy, G. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 12, 227–235. doi: 10.1007/s12564-010-9129-6

Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking Handbook: Basic Theory and Instructional Structures. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking

Paul, R., and Elder, A. D. (2006). Critical Thinking. Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall

Rivas, S. F., and Saiz, C. (2012). Validación y propiedades psicométricas de la prueba de pensamiento crítico PENCRISAL . Rev. Electrón. Metodol. Aplic. 17, 18–34.

Rivas, S. F., Saiz, C., and Ossa, C. (2017). “ Desarrollo de las estrategias metacognitivas mediante el programa de instrucción en pensamiento crítico ARDESOS .” in II Seminario Internacional de 660 Pensamiento Crítico. Manizales (Colombia). de octubre de 11–13, 2017.

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 21, 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Saiz, C. (2017). Pensamiento Crítico y Cambio. Madrid: Pirámide.

Saiz, C. (2020). Pensamiento Crítico y Eficacia. 2ª Edn. Madrid: Pirámide.

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2008). Evaluación en pensamiento crítico: una propuesta para diferenciar formasde pensar. Ergo. Nueva Época 22-23, 25–66.

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2011). Evaluation of the ARDESOS program: an initiative to improve criticalthinking skills. J. Scholar. Teach. Learn. 11, 34–51.

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2012). Pensamiento crítico y aprendizaje basado en problemas. Rev. Docenc. Univ. 10, 325–346. doi: 10.4995/redu.2012.6026

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2016). New teaching techniques to improve critical thinking. DIAPROVE Methodol. 40, 3–36.

Sánchez-Castaño, J. A., Castaño-Mejía, O. Y., and Tamayo-Alzate, O. E. (2015). La argumentación metacognitiva en el aula de ciencias. Rev. Latin. Cienc. Soc. 13, 1153–1168. doi: 10.11600/1692715x.13242110214

Sastre-Riba, S. (2012). Alta capacidad intelectual: perfeccionismo y regulación metacognitiva. Rev. Neurol. 54, S21–S29. doi: 10.33588/rn.54S01.2012011

Sattin, D., Magnani, F. G., Bartesaghi, L., Caputo, M., Fittipaldo, A. V., Cacciatore, M., et al. (2021). Theoretical models of consciousness: a scoping review. Brain Sci. 11:535. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11050535

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr. Sci. 26, 113–125. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033

Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 19, 460–475. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

Schroyens, W. (2005). Knowledge and thought: an introduction to critical thinking. Exp. Psychol. 52, 163–164. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.2.163

Shekhar, M., and Rahnev, D. (2021). Sources of metacognitive inefficiency. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.007

Tamayo-Alzate, O., Cadavid-Alzate, V., and Montoya-Londoño, D. (2019). Análisis metacognitivo en estudiantes de básica, durante la resolución de dos situaciones experimentales en la clase de Ciencias Naturales. Rev. Colomb. Educ. 76, 117–141. doi: 10.17227/rce.num76-4188

Ugartetxea, J. (2001). Motivación y metacognición, más que una relación. Relieve 7:4442. doi: 10.7203/relieve.7.2.4442

Urdaneta, M. (2014). Diálogo para la reflexión: compartiendo la experiencia de aula desde el proyecto pedagógico. Innov. Educ. 16, 43–49. doi: 10.22458/ie.v16i21.902

Van der Stel, M., and Veenman, M. V. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: a longitudinal study. Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 220–224. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.005

Keywords: critical thinking, instruction, evaluation, metacognition, problem-solving

Citation: Rivas SF, Saiz C and Ossa C (2022) Metacognitive Strategies and Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Front. Psychol . 13:913219. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913219

Received: 05 April 2022; Accepted: 19 May 2022; Published: 15 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Rivas, Saiz and Ossa. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Silvia F. Rivas, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

How to build critical thinking skills for better decision-making

It’s simple in theory, but tougher in practice – here are five tips to get you started.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Have you heard the riddle about two coins that equal thirty cents, but one of them is not a nickel? What about the one where a surgeon says they can’t operate on their own son?

Those brain teasers tap into your critical thinking skills. But your ability to think critically isn’t just helpful for solving those random puzzles – it plays a big role in your career. 

An impressive 81% of employers say critical thinking carries a lot of weight when they’re evaluating job candidates. It ranks as the top competency companies consider when hiring recent graduates (even ahead of communication ). Plus, once you’re hired, several studies show that critical thinking skills are highly correlated with better job performance.

So what exactly are critical thinking skills? And even more importantly, how do you build and improve them? 

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to evaluate facts and information, remain objective, and make a sound decision about how to move forward.

Does that sound like how you approach every decision or problem? Not so fast. Critical thinking seems simple in theory but is much tougher in practice, which helps explain why 65% of employers say their organization has a need for more critical thinking. 

In reality, critical thinking doesn’t come naturally to a lot of us. In order to do it well, you need to:

• Remain open-minded and inquisitive, rather than relying on assumptions or jumping to conclusions
• Ask questions and dig deep, rather than accepting information at face value
• Keep your own biases and perceptions in check to stay as objective as possible
• Rely on your emotional intelligence to fill in the blanks and gain a more well-rounded understanding of a situation

So, critical thinking isn’t just being intelligent or analytical. In many ways, it requires you to step outside of yourself, let go of your own preconceived notions, and approach a problem or situation with curiosity and fairness.

It’s a challenge, but it’s well worth it. Critical thinking skills will help you connect ideas, make reasonable decisions, and solve complex problems.

7 critical thinking skills to help you dig deeper

Critical thinking is often labeled as a skill itself (you’ll see it bulleted as a desired trait in a variety of job descriptions). But it’s better to think of critical thinking less as a distinct skill and more as a collection or category of skills. 

To think critically, you’ll need to tap into a bunch of your other soft skills. Here are seven of the most important. 

Open-mindedness

It’s important to kick off the critical thinking process with the idea that anything is possible. The more you’re able to set aside your own suspicions, beliefs, and agenda, the better prepared you are to approach the situation with the level of inquisitiveness you need. 

That means not closing yourself off to any possibilities and allowing yourself the space to pull on every thread – yes, even the ones that seem totally implausible.

As Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D. writes in a piece for Psychology Today , “Even if an idea appears foolish, sometimes its consideration can lead to an intelligent, critically considered conclusion.” He goes on to compare the critical thinking process to brainstorming . Sometimes the “bad” ideas are what lay the foundation for the good ones. 

Open-mindedness is challenging because it requires more effort and mental bandwidth than sticking with your own perceptions. Approaching problems or situations with true impartiality often means:

• Practicing self-regulation : Giving yourself a pause between when you feel something and when you actually react or take action.
• Challenging your own biases: Acknowledging your biases and seeking feedback are two powerful ways to get a broader understanding. 

Critical thinking example

In a team meeting, your boss mentioned that your company newsletter signups have been decreasing and she wants to figure out why.

At first, you feel offended and defensive – it feels like she’s blaming you for the dip in subscribers. You recognize and rationalize that emotion before thinking about potential causes. You have a hunch about what’s happening, but you will explore all possibilities and contributions from your team members.

Observation

Observation is, of course, your ability to notice and process the details all around you (even the subtle or seemingly inconsequential ones). Critical thinking demands that you’re flexible and willing to go beyond surface-level information, and solid observation skills help you do that.

Your observations help you pick up on clues from a variety of sources and experiences, all of which help you draw a final conclusion. After all, sometimes it’s the most minuscule realization that leads you to the strongest conclusion.

Over the next week or so, you keep a close eye on your company’s website and newsletter analytics to see if numbers are in fact declining or if your boss’s concerns were just a fluke. 

Critical thinking hinges on objectivity. And, to be objective, you need to base your judgments on the facts – which you collect through research. You’ll lean on your research skills to gather as much information as possible that’s relevant to your problem or situation. 

Keep in mind that this isn’t just about the quantity of information – quality matters too. You want to find data and details from a variety of trusted sources to drill past the surface and build a deeper understanding of what’s happening. 

You dig into your email and website analytics to identify trends in bounce rates, time on page, conversions, and more. You also review recent newsletters and email promotions to understand what customers have received, look through current customer feedback, and connect with your customer support team to learn what they’re hearing in their conversations with customers.

The critical thinking process is sort of like a treasure hunt – you’ll find some nuggets that are fundamental for your final conclusion and some that might be interesting but aren’t pertinent to the problem at hand.

That’s why you need analytical skills. They’re what help you separate the wheat from the chaff, prioritize information, identify trends or themes, and draw conclusions based on the most relevant and influential facts. 

It’s easy to confuse analytical thinking with critical thinking itself, and it’s true there is a lot of overlap between the two. But analytical thinking is just a piece of critical thinking. It focuses strictly on the facts and data, while critical thinking incorporates other factors like emotions, opinions, and experiences. 

As you analyze your research, you notice that one specific webpage has contributed to a significant decline in newsletter signups. While all of the other sources have stayed fairly steady with regard to conversions, that one has sharply decreased.

You decide to move on from your other hypotheses about newsletter quality and dig deeper into the analytics. 

One of the traps of critical thinking is that it’s easy to feel like you’re never done. There’s always more information you could collect and more rabbit holes you could fall down.

But at some point, you need to accept that you’ve done your due diligence and make a decision about how to move forward. That’s where inference comes in. It’s your ability to look at the evidence and facts available to you and draw an informed conclusion based on those. 

When you’re so focused on staying objective and pursuing all possibilities, inference can feel like the antithesis of critical thinking. But ultimately, it’s your inference skills that allow you to move out of the thinking process and onto the action steps. 

You dig deeper into the analytics for the page that hasn’t been converting and notice that the sharp drop-off happened around the same time you switched email providers.

After looking more into the backend, you realize that the signup form on that page isn’t correctly connected to your newsletter platform. It seems like anybody who has signed up on that page hasn’t been fed to your email list. 

Communication

3 ways to improve your communication skills at work

If and when you identify a solution or answer, you can’t keep it close to the vest. You’ll need to use your communication skills to share your findings with the relevant stakeholders – like your boss, team members, or anybody who needs to be involved in the next steps.

Your analysis skills will come in handy here too, as they’ll help you determine what information other people need to know so you can avoid bogging them down with unnecessary details. 

In your next team meeting, you pull up the analytics and show your team the sharp drop-off as well as the missing connection between that page and your email platform. You ask the web team to reinstall and double-check that connection and you also ask a member of the marketing team to draft an apology email to the subscribers who were missed. 

Problem-solving

Critical thinking and problem-solving are two more terms that are frequently confused. After all, when you think critically, you’re often doing so with the objective of solving a problem.

The best way to understand how problem-solving and critical thinking differ is to think of problem-solving as much more narrow. You’re focused on finding a solution.

In contrast, you can use critical thinking for a variety of use cases beyond solving a problem – like answering questions or identifying opportunities for improvement. Even so, within the critical thinking process, you’ll flex your problem-solving skills when it comes time to take action. 

Once the fix is implemented, you monitor the analytics to see if subscribers continue to increase. If not (or if they increase at a slower rate than you anticipated), you’ll roll out some other tests like changing the CTA language or the placement of the subscribe form on the page.

5 ways to improve your critical thinking skills

Beyond the buzzwords: Why interpersonal skills matter at work

Think critically about critical thinking and you’ll quickly realize that it’s not as instinctive as you’d like it to be. Fortunately, your critical thinking skills are learned competencies and not inherent gifts – and that means you can improve them. Here’s how:

• Practice active listening: Active listening helps you process and understand what other people share. That’s crucial as you aim to be open-minded and inquisitive.
• Ask open-ended questions: If your critical thinking process involves collecting feedback and opinions from others, ask open-ended questions (meaning, questions that can’t be answered with “yes” or “no”). Doing so will give you more valuable information and also prevent your own biases from influencing people’s input.
• Scrutinize your sources: Figuring out what to trust and prioritize is crucial for critical thinking. Boosting your media literacy and asking more questions will help you be more discerning about what to factor in. It’s hard to strike a balance between skepticism and open-mindedness, but approaching information with questions (rather than unquestioning trust) will help you draw better conclusions. 
• Play a game: Remember those riddles we mentioned at the beginning? As trivial as they might seem, games and exercises like those can help you boost your critical thinking skills. There are plenty of critical thinking exercises you can do individually or as a team . 
• Give yourself time: Research shows that rushed decisions are often regrettable ones. That’s likely because critical thinking takes time – you can’t do it under the wire. So, for big decisions or hairy problems, give yourself enough time and breathing room to work through the process. It’s hard enough to think critically without a countdown ticking in your brain. 

Critical thinking really is critical

The ability to think critically is important, but it doesn’t come naturally to most of us. It’s just easier to stick with biases, assumptions, and surface-level information. 

But that route often leads you to rash judgments, shaky conclusions, and disappointing decisions. So here’s a conclusion we can draw without any more noodling: Even if it is more demanding on your mental resources, critical thinking is well worth the effort.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

• Critical Thinking and other Higher-Order Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is a higher-order thinking skill. Higher-order thinking skills go beyond basic observation of facts and memorization. They are what we are talking about when we want our students to be evaluative, creative and innovative.

When most people think of critical thinking, they think that their words (or the words of others) are supposed to get “criticized” and torn apart in argument, when in fact all it means is that they are criteria-based. These criteria require that we distinguish fact from fiction; synthesize and evaluate information; and clearly communicate, solve problems and discover truths.

Why is Critical Thinking important in teaching?

According to Paul and Elder (2007), “Much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced.  Yet the quality of our life and that of which we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought.”  Critical thinking is therefore the foundation of a strong education.

Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of thinking skills, the goal is to move students from lower- to higher-order thinking:

• from knowledge (information gathering) to comprehension (confirming)
• from application (making use of knowledge) to analysis (taking information apart)
• from evaluation (judging the outcome) to synthesis (putting information together) and creative generation

This provides students with the skills and motivation to become innovative producers of goods, services, and ideas.  This does not have to be a linear process but can move back and forth, and skip steps.

How do I incorporate critical thinking into my course?

The place to begin, and most obvious space to embed critical thinking in a syllabus, is with student-learning objectives/outcomes.  A well-designed course aligns everything else—all the activities, assignments, and assessments—with those core learning outcomes.

Learning outcomes contain an action (verb) and an object (noun), and often start with, “Student’s will....” Bloom’s taxonomy can help you to choose appropriate verbs to clearly state what you want students to exit the course doing, and at what level.

• Students will define the principle components of the water cycle. (This is an example of a lower-order thinking skill.)
• Students will evaluate how increased/decreased global temperatures will affect the components of the water cycle. (This is an example of a higher-order thinking skill.)

Both of the above examples are about the water cycle and both require the foundational knowledge that form the “facts” of what makes up the water cycle, but the second objective goes beyond facts to an actual understanding, application and evaluation of the water cycle.

Using a tool such as Bloom’s Taxonomy to set learning outcomes helps to prevent vague, non-evaluative expectations. It forces us to think about what we mean when we say, “Students will learn…”  What is learning; how do we know they are learning?

The Best Resources For Helping Teachers Use Bloom’s Taxonomy In The Classroom by Larry Ferlazzo

Consider designing class activities, assignments, and assessments—as well as student-learning outcomes—using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide.

The Socratic style of questioning encourages critical thinking.  Socratic questioning  “is systematic method of disciplined questioning that can be used to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought” (Paul and Elder 2007).

Socratic questioning is most frequently employed in the form of scheduled discussions about assigned material, but it can be used on a daily basis by incorporating the questioning process into your daily interactions with students.

In teaching, Paul and Elder (2007) give at least two fundamental purposes to Socratic questioning:

• To deeply explore student thinking, helping students begin to distinguish what they do and do not know or understand, and to develop intellectual humility in the process
• To foster students’ abilities to ask probing questions, helping students acquire the powerful tools of dialog, so that they can use these tools in everyday life (in questioning themselves and others)

How do I assess the development of critical thinking in my students?

If the course is carefully designed around student-learning outcomes, and some of those outcomes have a strong critical-thinking component, then final assessment of your students’ success at achieving the outcomes will be evidence of their ability to think critically.  Thus, a multiple-choice exam might suffice to assess lower-order levels of “knowing,” while a project or demonstration might be required to evaluate synthesis of knowledge or creation of new understanding.

Critical thinking is not an “add on,” but an integral part of a course.

• Make critical thinking deliberate and intentional in your courses—have it in mind as you design or redesign all facets of the course
• Many students are unfamiliar with this approach and are more comfortable with a simple quest for correct answers, so take some class time to talk with students about the need to think critically and creatively in your course; identify what critical thinking entail, what it looks like, and how it will be assessed.

Additional Resources

• Barell, John. Teaching for Thoughtfulness: Classroom Strategies to Enhance Intellectual Development . Longman, 1991.
• Brookfield, Stephen D. Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions . Jossey-Bass, 2012.
• Elder, Linda and Richard Paul. 30 Days to Better Thinking and Better Living through Critical Thinking . FT Press, 2012.
• Fasko, Jr., Daniel, ed. Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Current Research, Theory, and Practice . Hampton Press, 2003.
• Fisher, Alec. Critical Thinking: An Introduction . Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Paul, Richard and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use . Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
• Faculty Focus article, A Syllabus Tip: Embed Big Questions
• The Critical Thinking Community
• The Critical Thinking Community’s The Thinker’s Guides Series and The Art of Socratic Questioning

Quick Links

• Developing Learning Objectives
• Creating Your Syllabus
• Active Learning
• Service Learning
• Case Based Learning
• Group and Team Based Learning
• Integrating Technology in the Classroom
• Effective PowerPoint Design
• Hybrid and Hybrid Limited Course Design
• Online Course Design

Consult with our CETL Professionals

Consultation services are available to all UConn faculty at all campuses at no charge.

3 Core Critical Thinking Skills Every Thinker Should Have

Critically thinking about critical thinking skills..

Posted March 13, 2020 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• Why Education Is Important
• Find a Child Therapist

I recently received an email from an educator friend, asking me to briefly describe the skills necessary for critical thinking. They were happy to fill in the blanks themselves from outside reading but wanted to know what specific skills they should focus on teaching their students. I took this as a good opportunity to dedicate a post here to such discussion, in order to provide my friend and any other interested parties with an overview.

To understand critical thinking skills and how they factor into critical thinking, one first needs a definition of the latter. Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of skills and dispositions, that when used through self-regulatory reflective judgment, increases the chances of producing a logical conclusion to an argument or solution to a problem (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). On the surface, this definition clarifies two issues. First, critical thinking is metacognitive—simply, it requires the individual to think about thinking; second, its main components are reflective judgment, dispositions, and skills.

Below the surface, this description requires clarification; hence the impetus for this entry—what is meant by reflective judgment, disposition towards CT, and CT skills? Reflective judgment (i.e. an individuals' understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing and how this can affect their judgments [King & Kitchener, 1994]) and disposition towards CT (i.e. an inclination, tendency or willingness to perform a given thinking skill [Dwyer, 2017; Facione, Facione & Giancarlo, 1997; Ku, 2009; Norris, 1992; Siegel, 1999; Valenzuela, Nieto & Saiz, 2011]) have both already been covered in my posts; so, consistent with the aim of this piece, let’s discuss CT skills.

CT skills allow individuals to transcend lower-order, memorization-based learning strategies to gain a more complex understanding of the information or problems they encounter (Halpern, 2014). Though debate is ongoing over the definition of CT, one list stands out as a reasonable consensus conceptualization of CT skills. In 1988, a committee of 46 experts in the field of CT gathered to discuss CT conceptualisations, resulting in the Delphi Report; within which was overwhelmingly agreement (i.e. 95% consensus) that analysis , evaluation and inference were the core skills necessary for CT (Facione, 1990). Indeed, over 30 years later, these three CT skills remain the most commonly cited.

1. Analysis

Analysis is a core CT skill used to identify and examine the structure of an argument, the propositions within an argument and the role they play (e.g. the main conclusion, the premises and reasons provided to support the conclusion, objections to the conclusion and inferential relationships among propositions), as well as the sources of the propositions (e.g. personal experience, common belief, and research).

When it comes to analysing the basis for a standpoint, the structure of the argument can be extracted for subsequent evaluation (e.g. from dialogue and text). This can be accomplished through looking for propositions that either support or refute the central claim or other reasons and objections. Through analysis, the argument’s hierarchical structure begins to appear. Notably, argument mapping can aid the visual representation of this hierarchical structure and is supported by research as having positive effects on critical thinking (Butchart et al., 2009; Dwyer, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2012; van Gelder, Bisset & Cumming, 2004).

2. Evaluation

Evaluation is a core CT skill that is used in the assessment of propositions and claims (identified through the previous analysis ) with respect to their credibility; relevance; balance, bias (and potential omissions); as well as the logical strength amongst propositions (i.e. the strength of the inferential relationships). Such assessment allows for informed judgment regarding the overall strength or weakness of an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, 1990). If an argument (or its propositions) is not credible, relevant, logical, and unbiased, you should consider excluding it or discussing its weaknesses as an objection.

Evaluating the credibility of claims and arguments involves progressing beyond merely identifying the source of propositions in an argument, to actually examining the "trustworthiness" of those identified sources (e.g. personal experiences, common beliefs/opinions, expert/authority opinion and scientific evidence). This is particularly important because some sources are more credible than others. Evaluation also implies deep consideration of the relevance of claims within an argument, which is accomplished by assessing the contextual relevance of claims and premises—that is, the pertinence or applicability of one proposition to another.

With respect to balance, bias (and potential omissions), it's important to consider the "slant" of an argument—if it seems imbalanced in favour of one line of thinking, then it’s quite possible that the argument has omitted key, opposing points that should also be considered. Imbalance may also imply some level of bias in the argument—another factor that should also be assessed.

However, just because an argument is balanced does not mean that it isn’t biased. It may very well be the case that the "opposing views" presented have been "cherry-picked" because they are easily disputed (akin to building a strawman ); thus, making supporting reasons appear stronger than they may actually be—and this is just one example of how a balanced argument may, in fact, be biased. The take-home message regarding balance, bias, and potential omissions should be that, in any argument, you should construct an understanding of the author or speaker’s motivations and consider how these might influence the structure and contents of the argument.

Finally, evaluating the logical strength of an argument is accomplished through monitoring both the logical relationships amongst propositions and the claims they infer. Assessment of logical strength can actually be aided through subsequent inference, as a means of double-checking the logical strength. For example, this can be checked by asking whether or not a particular proposition can actually be inferred based on the propositions that precede it. A useful means of developing this sub-skill is through practicing syllogistic reasoning .

3. Inference

Similar to other educational concepts like synthesis (e.g., see Bloom et al., 1956; Dwyer, 2011; 2017), the final core CT skill, inference , involves the “gathering” of credible, relevant and logical evidence based on the previous analysis and evaluation, for the purpose of drawing a reasonable conclusion (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, 1990). Drawing a conclusion always implies some act of synthesis (i.e. the ability to put parts of information together to form a new whole; see Dwyer, 2011). However, inference is a unique form of synthesis in that it involves the formulation of a set of conclusions derived from a series of arguments or a body of evidence. This inference may imply accepting a conclusion pointed to by an author in light of the evidence they present, or "conjecturing an alternative," equally logical, conclusion or argument based on the available evidence (Facione, 1990). The ability to infer a conclusion in this manner can be completed through formal logic strategies, informal logic strategies (or both) in order to derive intermediate conclusions, as well as central claims.

Another important aspect of inference involves the querying of available evidence, for example, by recognising the need for additional information, gathering it and judging the plausibility of utilising such information for the purpose of drawing a conclusion. Notably, in the context of querying evidence and conjecturing alternative conclusions, inference overlaps with evaluation to a certain degree in that both skills are used to judge the relevance and acceptability of a claim or argument. Furthermore, after inferring a conclusion, the resulting argument should be re-evaluated to ensure that it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that was derived.

Overall, the application of critical thinking skills is a process—one must analyse, evaluate and then infer; and this process can be repeated to ensure that a reasonable conclusion has been drawn. In an effort to simplify the description of this process, for the past few years, I’ve used the analogy of picking apples for baking . We begin by picking apples from a tree. Consider the tree as an analogy, in its own right, for an argument, which is often hierarchically structured like a tree-diagram. By picking apples, I mean identifying propositions and the role they play (i.e. analysis). Once we pick an apple, we evaluate it—we make sure it isn’t rotten (i.e. lacks credibility, is biased) and is suitable for baking (i.e. relevant and logically strong). Finally, we infer— we gather the apples in a basket and bring them home and group them together based on some rationale for construction— maybe four for a pie, three for a crumble and another four for a tart. By the end of the process, we have baked some apple-based goods, or developed a conclusion, solution or decision through critical thinking.

Of course, there is more to critical thinking than the application of skills—a critical thinker must also have the disposition to think critically and engage reflective judgment. However, without the appropriate skills—analysis, evaluation, and inference, it is not likely that CT will be applied. For example, though one might be willing to use CT skills and engage reflective judgment, they may not know how to do so. Conversely, though one might be aware of which CT skills to use in a given context and may have the capacity to perform well when using these skills, they may not be disposed to use them (Valenzuela, Nieto & Saiz, 2011). Though the core CT skills of analysis, evaluation, and inference are not the only important aspects of CT, they are essential for its application.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Butchart, S., Bigelow, J., Oppy, G., Korb, K., & Gold, I. (2009). Improving critical thinking using web-based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 2, 268-291.

Dwyer, C.P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool. Doctoral Thesis. National University of Ireland, Galway.

Dwyer, C.P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219-244.

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43–52.

Facione, P.A. (1990). The Delphi report: Committee on pre-college philosophy. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C., & Giancarlo, C.A. (1997). Setting expectations for student learning: New directions for higher education. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Halpern, D.F. (2014). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th Ed.). UK: Psychology Press.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ku, K.Y.L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 1, 70- 76.

Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. New York: Teachers College Press.

Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory, 49, 2, 207-221.

Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A.M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: A contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 2, 823-848.

van Gelder, T.J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58, 142-52.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10103667

Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?

Angel j. y. tan.

1 Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

Jean L. Davies

2 Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Roderick I. Nicolson

Themis karaminis, associated data.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Critical thinking is identified as a key educational outcome in higher education curricula; however, it is not trivial to support students in building this multifaceted skill. In this study, we evaluated a brief online learning intervention focusing on informal fallacy identification, a hallmark critical-thinking skill. The intervention used a bite-sized video learning approach, which has been shown to promote student engagement. Video-based learning was implemented within a precision teaching (PT) framework, which modulates the exposure of individual learners to the learning material to enable them to build ‘fluency’ in the targeted skills. In one of the learning conditions, PT was applied synergistically with domain-general problem-based training to support generalisation. The intervention consisted of two learning episodes and was administered to three groups (learning conditions) of 19 participants each: a PT fluency-based training group; a PT + group, where PT was combined with problem-based training; and a self-directed learning control group. All three groups showed comparable improvements in fallacy identification on taught (post-episode tests) and unseen materials (post-intervention assessment), with lower-scoring participants showing higher gains than high-scoring participants. The results of the knowledge retention tests a week later were also comparable between groups. Importantly, in the domain-general fallacy-identification assessment (post-intervention), the two PT groups showed higher improvements than the control group. These findings suggest that the integration of bite-sized video learning technologies with PT can improve students’ critical-thinking skills. Furthermore, PT, on its own or combined with problem-based training, can improve their skill to generalise learning to novel contexts. We discuss the educational implications of our findings.

Introduction

Critical thinking can be described as the “purposeful, self-regulatory judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanations of the considerations on which that judgement is based” (Abrami et al., 2015 , p. 275). This high-level skill enables individuals to think logically, make appropriate decisions, and solve problems effectively (Peter, 2012 ). Critical thinking has been associated with academic achievements, enhanced employability, higher financial status, and better real-life decisions (Butler et al., 2017 ; Facione & Facione, 2001 ; Hart Research Associates, 2015 ). It has also been identified as an important educational goal for higher education (HE), preparing students for the demands of the 21st Century workplace (Hatcher, 2011 ; Joynes et al., 2019 ) and is often included in learning outcomes and assessment standards across disciplines (Forbes, 2018 ).

However, despite the emphasis that HE curricula place on critical thinking, students present difficulties in demonstrating critical-thinking skills (Harrington et al., 2006 ; Kreth et al., 2010 ). From educators’ perspective, formal training in critical thinking instruction is rarely provided (Broadbear, 2003 ; Scriven & Paul, 2007 ), and there is no clear consensus on how critical thinking should be taught (Abrami et al., 2015 ). Some researchers have suggested that critical thinking builds on metacognitive skills, such as differentiating inductive and deductive reasoning, interpreting the validity of arguments, and analysing relevant evidence (Solon, 2007 ). As metacognitive skills are domain-general, these researchers argue that critical thinking should thus be taught across disciplines (Solon, 2007 ). By contrast, other researchers have argued that critical thinking is context-specific (e.g., Baker, 2001 ). These researchers, who challenge the usefulness of standalone and generic critical-thinking courses, advocate that critical thinking should be taught within the domains in which it is used and based on content-focused approaches, such as Infusion courses (Baker, 2001 ; Brunt, 2005 ; McPeck, 1981 ). The debate between domain-general and domain-specific critical thinking pedagogy is longstanding; nevertheless, mastering critical thinking skills should imply that students can apply their critical thinking skills and dispositions regardless of context (Solon, 2007 ).

Apart from the debate in pedagogical approaches, critical thinking education is also challenged by the limited contact time for critical discussion and evaluation of the learning content in conventional teacher-led instructional approaches (Mandernach, 2006 ; Peter, 2012 ). All these challenges apply not only to traditional face-to-face teaching formats but also to online pedagogy of critical thinking. Furthermore, the rapid shift of the HE sector to online teaching during the recent COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2020 ) presented educators with additional challenges related to teaching critical thinking. Online learning relies on students feeling comfortable with using and participating in live discussion boards, online debates and focus groups, and this may pose a barrier to student access and engagement in activities relevant to the application of critical thinking skills, especially when students are not familiar with the online learning environments (MacKnight, 2000 ). There is also a scarcity of studies on instructional strategies to promote critical thinking in online environments (Guiller et al., 2008 ; Richardson & Ice, 2010 ).

In this study, we examined the effectiveness of a technology-enhanced learning intervention for critical thinking administered online to HE students during the second round of COVID-19 restrictions in the UK (early 2021). The intervention combined video-based learning with precision teaching, a behaviourally-grounded teaching approach targeted to build so-called fluency on learnt skills. In addition to this, in one of the learning conditions, precision teaching was combined with context-based training to better support the application of learnt knowledge.

Video-based learning

In the HE sectors, which heavily rely on e-learning, video-based learning has become increasingly popular as a student-centred, inclusive learning approach to support ubiquitous learning. Video-based learning enables students to learn outside of the physical classrooms and at their own pace (Syed et al., 2020 ). It also enables educators to enrich mainstream teaching provision with supplementary material, implement diverse pedagogical strategies (e.g., flipped classroom, blended learning; Yousef et al., 2014 ), and meet students’ individual learning needs and preferences (Carmichael et al., 2018 ). There is ample evidence that video-based learning can enhance students’ engagement (Stockwell et al., 2015 ), academic performance (Salina et al., 2012 ), and motivation (Hill & Nelson, 2011 ). There is also evidence that these benefits are maximised when videos of a shorter duration are used (Guo et al., 2014 ).

Bite-sized or micro-videos are designed to chunk information into manageable and digestible pieces, making the learning content more accessible and improving the engagement of students with it (Koh et al., 2018 ). It has been suggested that bite-sized video learning sessions facilitate active learning (Brame, 2016 ), as students can rewind and review parts of the videos more easily when videos are available in smaller chunks (Carmichael et al., 2018 ). High-speed internet and improved functionality of mobile devices have also helped to integrate bite-sized learning into everyday routines and support autonomy in learning (Khong & Kabilan, 2020 ). However, research on the educational uses of videos has mostly focused on subject-relevant knowledge and practical skills rather than on higher-level skills such as critical thinking (Carmichael et al., 2018 ). The current study addressed this limitation in literature by exploring the effectiveness of bite-sized videos on critical-thinking skill development alongside another instructional approach that has been shown to be effective—precision teaching.

Precision teaching (PT)

PT refers to a framework for the systematic self-monitoring of learning (Lindsley, 1997 ) and the effectiveness of instructional approaches (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ). PT can also be used to collect students' learning data and tailor instructional methods to the individual student’s performance (Sundhu & Kittles, 2016 ). PT often obtains evidence of learning by measuring fluency, the combination of accuracy and speed in performing a targeted skill (Kubina & Morrison, 2000 , p. 89), which is a prerequisite for more advanced skills (Kubina & Morrison, 2000 ). Within the PT framework, fluency is associated with other learning outcomes, including retention —maintaining good performance after an interval without training, endurance —carrying out a task fluently for long durations, stability —not being affected by distractions, and application —combining basic skills to perform a more complex task (abbreviated as RESA, Binder, 1996 ; Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ; see also Karpicke & Roediger, 2008 for alternative accounts on the positive effects of testing on memory retrieval and retention).

A commonly used fluency-training approach within the PT framework is frequency building (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ). Frequency building uses timed repetition of tasks coupled with performance feedback provided immediately after timed trials (Lokke et al., 2008 ). This practice is thought to support the acquisition of the targeted skills in a time-efficient manner (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ).

Research has shown that frequency-building techniques can support the acquisition of academic skills, such as reading, handwriting, and numeracy (e.g. Chiesa & Robertson, 2000 ; Hughes et al., 2007 ). There is less extensive evidence on whether and how frequency-building approaches could support the learning of models of complex thinking (Commons et al., 2015 ), improve fluency in complex concepts, such as logical fallacies (Fox & Ghezzi, 2003 ), and strengthen domain-general cognitive skills (Cuzzocrea et al., 2011 ). These led to a call for research in exploring the extent and the application of frequency-building approaches in enhancing complex, multifaceted skills, such as critical thinking.

One important challenge for frequency-building approaches is that building up fluency in basic skills does not necessarily lead to the automatic transfer of knowledge in applied settings (Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ). Furthermore, the ability to apply critical thinking skills learnt in real-world or subject-specific contexts does not often come intuitively (Paul & Elder, 2009 ). One way to address these challenges is to use frequency building synergistically with instructional approaches that promote the transfer and the application of critical thinking skills across domains. For example, embedding critical thinking training into content-focused courses or instructions (Braun, 2004 ; Gray, 1993 ; Ikuenobe, 2001 ) can facilitate the transfer of critical thinking skills by teaching students 'how to think' rather than 'what to think' (Clement, 1979 ). Similarly, Halpern ( 1998 ) proposed a model for the trans-contextual learning of critical thinking skills, which scaffolds the learner's ability to apply skills in real-world contexts.

Current study

In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of an online learning intervention that aimed to enhance the critical-thinking skills of university students. The intervention focused on the skill of students to identify a type of reasoning error referred to as informal logical fallacies (Carey, 2000 ). This skill is thought of as a hallmark component of critical thinking (Carey, 2000 ; Ramasamy, 2011 ).

The intervention adopted a bite-sized video-learning approach and used frequency building within a precision-teaching framework. We compared the learning performance of three experimental groups: a PT intervention group, a PT + intervention group, and a self-directed learning control group. The two intervention groups (PT & PT +) received frequency-building practice aimed at increasing the rate of fallacy identification, with the addition of problem-based training in the PT + group. The control group was exposed to the same instructional materials as the intervention groups but was asked to navigate through them in a self-paced way.

We examined students' learning of the taught critical thinking skills, as well as their ability to transfer taught knowledge and skills in novel settings. More specifically, we measured student performance on the testing material in which they received instruction, as well as their performance in unseen examples and domain-general assessments of broader fallacy-identification skills.

Furthermore, we carried out follow-up assessments one week after the intervention. These follow-up tests were included in the research design to specifically address the potential benefits of frequency-building training in knowledge retention, which is a key learning outcome associated with precision teaching—RESA, Binder, 1996 ; Kubina & Yurich, 2012 ; see also Karpicke & Roediger, 2008 ).

With all these measures, we aimed to address the following research questions:

• RQ1: What are the educational benefits of frequency-building practice on students’ learning of taught critical thinking materials?
• RQ2: What are the educational benefits of frequency-building practice on students’ abilities to apply critical-thinking skills in novel contexts?
• RQ3: How does frequency building affect students’ knowledge retention following the intervention?
• RQ4: Does the combination of frequency building with problem-based training support further benefits in students’ learning of taught critical thinking materials (RQ1), generalisation in novel contexts (RQ2) or knowledge retention (RQ3)?

Instructional framework for teaching critical thinking skills

Traditionally, critical-thinking training follows either the domain-general or the domain-specific approach (Tiruneh et al., 2018 ). However, here, and in-line with other researchers (e.g., Koslowski, 1996 ; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009 ; Tiruneh et al., 2018 ), we take the view that domain-general and domain-specific expertise do not develop in isolation. Rather, both domain-general and context-specific knowledge is important for the effective acquisition of critical-thinking skills (McNeill & Krajcik, 2009 ). Thus, our instructional framework combines domain-general and domain-specific approaches. Specifically, the introduction to fallacy identification within bite-sized videos and frequency-building practice drew on elements of the domain-general approach; as learners could apply the critical-thinking skills learned across different domains. Whereas, problem-based training drew on elements of the domain-specific approach; as learners could learn how the skills are applied within subject-specific domains.

The domain-general approach is based on the assumption that the identification of informal logical fallacies shares commonalities across disciplines, and proficiency in this skill could transcend across the domain in which training was done. For example, let’s consider a hypothetical Argument 1 “there is no proof that the parapsychology experiments were fraudulent, so I’m sure they weren’t” and another hypothetical Argument 2 “because scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won’t”. Although the two arguments differ in terms of context (the first case involves a psychology science, the second case involves nature science), both arguments are fallacious and share commonalities of using the lack of evidence as a proof of correctness (i.e., appeal to ignorance fallacy). In this study, scaffoldings of generic fallacy-identification skills within the bite-sized videos help students develop the skill to identify arguments that are “ psychologically persuasive but logically incorrect” (Copy & Burgess-Jackson, 1996 , p. 97). The exposure to structural features of fallacies and the use of real-world examples within frequency-building practice prompt students to apply generatively what they had learned. This strategy aligns with Engle et al. ( 2003 ) suggestion for intercontextuality as a means of bridging the gap between learning and transfer practices.

In addition, and following the domain-specific view, we also assume that critical-thinking skills may require explicit instruction within subject-specific domains to perform competently. This notion is similar to the Infusion approach, which emphasises how a critical-thinking skill could be applied within a subject-specific context (Abrami et al., 2008 ). In this study, the context-based scaffolding (i.e., problem-based training) within the PT + group prompts students to apply critical-thinking skills in a context-specific situation. While we compare critical-thinking abilities between students in the PT and the PT + groups, we, therefore, investigated if Infusion is necessary to promote the development of critical-thinking skills across domains (RQ4).

Participants

A total of 57 adults (39 females, 17 males, 1 preferring not to say) with a mean age of 24.14 years (SD = 5.62; range 18–47 years old) took part in this study. Participants were recruited through the University’s Research Participation System and departmental social media platforms. All participants were university students, with 37 registered as undergraduate students and 20 as postgraduate students. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology.

The intervention focused on four informal logical fallacies: 'appeal to ignorance', 'bandwagon', 'false cause', and 'hasty generalisation'. These four logical fallacies corresponded to common reasoning errors and were selected after consultation with a subject matter expert (a senior lecturer of a university-level course involving critical thinking) and reviews of relevant textbooks (e.g., Gray, 1991 ; Schick & Vaughn, 2020 ). The four logical fallacies share a similar form, consisting of a premise followed by a conclusion (Fox & Ghezzi, 2003 ; see Table ​ Table1 1 ).

Informal logical fallacies

Instructional material

Learning videos.

Two ‘bite-sized’ learning videos, lasting 2:46 and 2:54 min, were created using the video animation software, Powtoon ( https://www.powtoon.com ). Powtoon has been highlighted as user-friendly software for supporting digital-based learning as it is equipped with various functions that can help to improve teacher’s creativity, boost learning motivation, and support the learning needs of students with different abilities (Muhammad Basri et al., 2021 ; Resmol & Leasa, 2022 ; Zamora et al., 2021 ).

Within the two learning videos, the first video (Episode 1: Arguments and Fallacies ) presented learners with the standard form of an argument and introduced the four fallacies. The second video (Episode 2: Examples of Fallacies ) gave examples for each of the four fallacies and explained why the arguments involved were fallacious or problematic.

Learning tasks

Two learning tasks (one for each episode) consisting of 20 multiple-choice items were developed to facilitate knowledge acquisition after the presentation of the learning videos. Items for these tasks were based on material from critical thinking textbooks (Gray, 1991 ; Schick & Vaughn, 2020 ) and were also reviewed by the subject-matter expert. Each item presented participants with a short paragraph that illustrated an example or a definition of a fallacy, followed by a forced-choice question asking participants to identify the relevant fallacy. Participants received programmed feedback (“Correct!” or “Incorrect!”) on the screen after each answer selection.

Problem-based tasks (used in the PT + intervention group only)

Three problem-based tasks were developed to support learning in the PT + intervention group, following each learning episode. The problem-based tasks consisted of open-ended questions, which required participants to analyse, evaluate, and explain flaws in reasoning within a psychological debate or dispute. Each task first presented a debate situation. This was done by showing a newsletter article or a short paragraph which summarised research findings referring to the main claim in dispute, alongside some context about the debate. For example, participants were presented with a paragraph entitled "does social media do more harm than good?" and referring to a recent survey, which found that feelings of loneliness among young workers increased as they reported higher amounts of time spent on social media. Then, participants were invited to identify fallacies in arguments presented by three panel members, who advocated for the disadvantages of social media (open-ended question, "Review the reasoning of each of the panel members A, B, and C and explain what might be problematic with their reasoning if considered to be faulty"). For example, a panel member would suggest that social media is doing more harm than good based on the fact that too much social media use will cause someone to feel lonely ('false cause'), and his friend, George, who uses social media more than 16 h a day has been diagnosed to have depression lately ('hasty generalisation'). Participants were asked to review each argument and explain if a fallacy was involved.

Subsequently, participants were asked to indicate which of the three arguments presented by panel members they would be least likely to support (forced-choice question, “Indicate which one you believe to be the reasoning that you would be least likely to support”). Finally, participants were asked to provide a suggestion for the best course of action or the best counter-argument to resolve the debate (open-ended question, “If you are asked to give an opinion in this debate, what would be your next course of action”). Programmed feedback was provided for each task following participants’ responses to the questions involved. For example, the panel member above argued that there is a cause-and-effect relationship based on the correlation found, and drew about the impacts of social media on all individuals on the basis of evidence concerning only certain people. Hence, the fallacies of false cause and hasty generalisation were committed.

Testing material

Pre- and post-episode tests based on the learning material.

The questions included in the learning tasks of the two episodes were also used in the episode-specific tests of critical thinking. These were administered twice, at the beginning and the end of the episode. The pre- and post-episode tests were administered as time-based assessments (to consider both accuracy and speed in identifying the fallacies). Participants were instructed to answer the questions as accurately and as fast as they could within a minute. No feedback was given in the pre- and post-episode tests.

Pre- and post-intervention assessments on unseen questions

An additional 50 multiple-choice questions were used to assess participants’ skill to recognise fallacies in unseen questions. These were selected from the same bank of questions used for the development of the learning tasks and the pre-and post-episode tests. 25 items were presented as a pre-intervention assessment and the rest as a post-intervention assessment.

Broader abilities in fallacy identification: informal reasoning fallacies identification task (IRFIT; Neuman, 2003 ).

To assess the students' broader abilities in fallacy identification, we used a test based on the Informal Reasoning Fallacies Identification Task (Neuman & Weizman, 2003 ; Weinstock et al., 2004 ). In this study, four informal reasoning tasks, each consisting of two items adapted from Neuman ( 2003 )'s study, were administered to participants. Each reasoning task corresponded to one of the four fallacies and consisted of an argumentative scenario followed by four questions. The scenario was structured in four sentences as follows. The first sentence presented participants with two debaters who were described as either psychology students or philosophers. The second sentence presented the context and the main claim under debate stated in the form of a question. The third and the fourth sentences presented the arguments by the two debaters, a so-called “protagonist” and an “antagonist”. Finally, the specific reasoning of one of the debaters in support of their position was presented with a fallacy involved.

Participants were asked to identify potential flaws in reasoning and identify fallacies. In particular, they responded to the following four questions:

• A yes/no fallacy identification question , which examined whether participants conceived an argument as fallacious or problematic (e.g. “Do you think there is a problem in the argument that the antagonist presented in Line 5?”).
• A open-ended fallacy explanation question , which assessed participants’ skill to articulate what they perceived to be faulty with the reasoning of an argument (e.g. “If you think that there is a problem in the argument presented by the antagonist, what is the problem?”).
• An open-ended response question , which assessed participants’ skill to debate and present a counter-argument (e.g. “What is the best answer the protagonist can use in response to the antagonist’s argument?”).
• A forced-choice fallacy classification question , which assessed whether participants perceived the argument to be a quarrel, a formal debate, or a critical discussion (e.g. "In your opinion, what is the main reason for the debate between the two arguers"). Participants responded to this question by selecting one of the three answer choices: (a) They do not like each other and, therefore, each person is attacking the other’s claim-quarrel, (b) Each one of them wants to impress his colleagues and win the debate–formal debate, and (c) They have different opinions on this matter, and they are trying to convince each other-critical discussion.

The design of the study is shown in Fig.  1 . Participants were randomly allocated to three groups: (A) a ‘precision teaching (PT)’ intervention group, (B) a ‘precision teaching plus problem-based training (PT +)’ intervention group, and (C) a ‘self-directed learning’ control group. The three groups were exposed to the same instructional material and testing stimuli; however, this was administered in different ways to implement different learning conditions. In particular, the PT group received frequency-building learning tasks, which aimed at increasing the rate of fallacy identification. The PT + group completed frequency-building learning tasks combined with the addition of problem-based training to facilitate a better application of critical thinking in the PT condition. Finally, the control group completed learning tasks in a self-directed way.

Flowchart of the study

Participants completed the study in three sessions administered online via the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). In the first online session, participants completed the pre-intervention assessment and Episode 1, Arguments and Fallacies . In the second online session, participants completed Episode 2, Examples of Fallacies and the post-intervention assessment. In the last online session, which was administered a week after the completion of Session 2, participants repeated both the post-episode assessments for Episode 1 and Episode 2 as retention assessments.

Each episode started with a time-based pre-episode assessment on fallacy identification. The assessment was followed by the participants watching a learning video, in which the definitions (Episode 1) or examples of fallacies (Episode 2) were explained for approximately three minutes. Participants were asked to watch the video until the end, and the next button to proceed with the next part was only presented at the bottom of the page towards the end of the video presentation. Then, participants completed two blocks of 20 multiple-choice questions, which were administered to the three groups as learning tasks in different forms. The learning tasks allowed participants to familiarise themselves with and consolidate knowledge learnt from the video content. Finally, participants completed the post-episode assessment within a 1 min timeframe.

The three groups were differentiated in the types of learning tasks they completed within the two learning episodes, as detailed in the following section.

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group were guided by a high response-rate requirement implemented in iterations of timed intervals and feedback. Participants were informed that they were going to practice identifying the fallacies within a 1 min timeframe, with the remaining time appearing on the top left corner of the screen. They selected the best answer out of the four choices as fast as they could and received programmed feedback after each response ("Correct!" or "Incorrect!"). After the 1 min interval, participants were shown the number of accurate responses they had provided. Then, participants proceeded to an error-correction procedure, which focused on the questions they had answered incorrectly. During the error correction procedure, participants were instructed to answer these questions again, without any time limit, and were shown the accurate answer if they gave an incorrect response for a second time. After the error correction procedure, participants answered the 20 multiple-choice questions with the same procedure as the first timed interval again. The error-correction procedure and the learning cycle were repeated twice before progressing to complete the post-episode test (see Fig.  2 ).

Screenshots of the learning tasks interface for PT intervention groups— a instruction page; b video presentation page; c block presentation page; d learning tasks page; e error correction procedure page

Learning tasks in the PT + intervention group

Participants who were assigned to the PT + intervention group completed the same learning tasks as the PT group. Additionally, participants in this group completed the corresponding problem-based task following each episode.

Learning tasks in the control group

In this group, learning tasks were completed in a self-directed way, without a high response-rate requirement. Participants were instructed to answer all 20 questions accurately and as fast as they could (but not within timed intervals) and were given feedback on the number of correct responses they achieved. This cycle was repeated twice before progressing to complete the post-episode test. Hence, the main difference between the intervention groups (PT and PT +) and the control group was that participants in the control group did not complete the learning tasks in 1 min timed intervals; rather, they were asked to complete the whole tasks at their own pace. The learning tasks and the number of blocks conducted in each episode remained the same as in the intervention groups.

Content analysis was conducted on participants’ answers to the tasks by two researchers. Using the scoring procedures from Neuman ( 2003 )’s study, 10% of the data was marked by both scorers, and Cohen’s Kappa showed that there was strong agreement between the two scorers (κ = .814; McHugh, 2012 ). The yes/no fallacy identification question (e.g. “Do you think there is a problem in the argument that the antagonist presented in Line 5?”) was scored as 1 for a ‘yes’ answer and 0 for a ‘no’ answer. Both open-ended fallacy explanations (e.g. “If you think that there is a problem in the argument presented by the antagonist, what is the problem?”) and response questions (e.g. “What is the best answer the protagonist can use in response to the antagonist’s argument?”) were marked as 1 when participants took into account to identify and/or explain the informal reasoning fallacy involved in the situation. Participants scored 0.5 when they captured the key elements of why the arguments were fallacious but nonetheless did not provide a complete explanation. Participants scored 0 when either they did not answer the question, did not identify the problem in the situation, or did not take into account the fallacy involved when explaining.

Data analysis

Quantitative data collected from the pre-and post-episode tests and the pre-and post-intervention assessments were analysed to examine the effects of time (within-participants factor) and differences between groups (between-participants factor). When preliminary data checks suggested that the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were met, data were analysed with a 3 (Groups: PT vs. PT + vs. control) × 2 (Time: pre- vs. post-episode/intervention) mixed-design ANOVA. When these assumptions were violated, Wilcoxon Signed Rank non-parametric tests (within-participants) were used to compare differences in a given measure across two time points, and Kruskal Wallis non-parametric tests (between-participants) were used to examine differences in the changes in the measure between groups. If the data were normal but the homogeneity of variance was violated, changes in a measure over time were examined with t-tests, and between-group differences in change over time were examined with a Welsch one-way ANOVA.

In a complementary analysis, we compared changes between participants with relatively low and relatively high performance.

In all analyses, effect sizes were reported using relevant standardised measures (t-tests: Cohen’s d ; Wilcoxon Signed Rank/Kruskal Wallis: r , Welch one-way ANOVA: ω 2 , mixed ANOVA: ηp 2 ). For Cohen’s d and r , a value of .20 was taken to suggest a small effect size, a ± .50 a medium effect size, and ± .80 a large effect size; for ω 2 and ηp 2 the thresholds were .01 (small), .06 (medium) and .13 (large) (Cohen, 1988 ). Effect sizes d greater than .40 were considered educationally relevant (Hattie, 2009 ).

Pre- and post-episode tests on the learning tasks

Figure  3 presents the mean scores of the pre- and post-episode tests for Episode 1 and 2 for the three groups. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that the assumption of normality was not met ( p  < 0.05 for Episode 1 pre- and post-episode tests, and Episode 2 pre-episode test), hence, Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were conducted to examine the changes in performance within each episode. The results showed that participants, on average, scored significantly higher in the post-episode (Episode 1: Mdn  = 10.00; Episode 2: Mdn  = 10.00) compared to the pre-episode tests (Episode 1: Mdn  = 5.00; Episode 2: Mdn  = 5.00) on the learning tasks, for both Episode 1 ( Z  = 6.31, p  < .001, r  = .84) and Episode 2 ( Z  = 5.78, p  < .001, r  = .77).

Mean scores of the pre-and post-episode tests. Scores were calculated out of participants’ accurate responses to 20 questions within a minute. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

Given that the data were not normally distributed, we compared improvements in the three groups using Kruskal Wallis tests for Episode 1 (PT: Mdn difference  = 5.00; PT + : Mdn difference  = 6.00; Control: Mdn difference  = 5.00) and Episode 2 (PT: Mdn difference  = 6.00; PT + : Mdn difference  = 5.00; Control: Mdn difference  = 4.00). These tests suggested that the improvements of the three groups were comparable in both Episode 1 [ H (2) = .17,  p  = .920, r  = .02] and Episode 2 [ H (2) = 1.02,  p  = .601, r  = .13].

Figure  4 shows mean accuracy scores in the pre-and post-intervention for the three groups. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that all data were statistically normal (all ps  > .05). However, the preliminary Levene’s test suggested that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met for the post-test measures ( p  = .017).

Mean accuracy scores of the pre-and post-intervention assessments. Scores were calculated out of 25 questions. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

Paired sample t-tests were thus conducted to compare performance between pre-and post-intervention assessments in the three groups. These tests suggested significant improvements in all three groups [PT: t (18) = 10.33, p  < .001, d  = 2.37; PT + : t (18) = 7.68, p  < .001, d  = 1.76; Control: t (18) = − 4.12, p  = .001, d  = .95].

To compare participants' improvements between groups, a Welch one-way ANOVA with corrected degrees of freedom was used. The results showed a trend for a difference between the average scores of the three groups, which, however, did not reach levels of statistical significance, F (2, 34.63) = 2.61, p  = .088, ω 2  = .05.

To gain further insight into the non-significant trend of between-group differences, in a complementary analysis, we divided participants into lower- and higher-scorer categories based on their pre-test scores. Participants who scored at the 50th percentile and below were categorised as lower-scorers ( n  = 33), and those who scored above the 50th percentile were categorised as higher-scorers ( n  = 24). Figure  5 shows the mean accuracy scores of low- and high-scoring participants in the pre-and post-test. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that the assumption of normality was not met for the pre-and post-test scores (all ps  < .05). Hence, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank non-parametric test was conducted to compare participants' scores between pre-and post-intervention assessments. The results showed that both low- and high-scoring participants achieved significantly higher mean scores at post-intervention compared to pre-intervention (Low-scoring: Z  = 4.79, p  < .001, r  = .83; High-scoring: Z  = 3.68, p  < .001, r  = .75].

Mean accuracy scores for low- and high-scoring participants at pre-and post-intervention assessments. Scores were calculated out of 25 questions. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

With regards to differences in the improvement of low- and high-scoring participants, a Kruskal Wallis test suggested a significant difference, H (1) = 4.48,  p  = .034, r  = .59, with larger improvements for low-scoring ( Mdn difference  = 6.00) than for high-scoring participants ( Mdn difference  = 4.50).

Pre- and post-intervention assessment on broader critical thinking skills (IRFITs)

Figure  6 shows the average scores of the three groups in the IRFIT, the assessment of how well participants applied their critical thinking skills in a broader context of fallacy identification. These data were analysed with parametric statistics; in particular, a 3 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA was conducted, with Group as a between-subjects factor and Time as a within-subjects factor. The analysis showed a significant main effect of Group, F (2, 54) = 6.09, p  = .004, η p 2  = .184 (‘large’ effect), which was further explored with posthoc comparisons. These suggested that the performance scores for the PT ( M  = 11.29) and the PT + intervention groups ( M  = 12.20) were higher than the scores of the control group ( M  = 9.07) (PT vs. Control: p  = .216; PT + vs. Control: p  = .007, PT vs PT + : p  = .127). There was also a significant main effect of Time, F (1, 54) = 9.82, p  < .003, η p 2  = .154, whereby the post-intervention score ( M  = 11.35) was higher than the pre-intervention score ( M  = 10.35), as well as a significant interaction between the two factors, F (2, 54) = 4.14, p  = .021, η p 2  = .133 (see Fig.  6 ), reflecting a significant improvement for the PT ( p  = .001) and PT + ( p  = .046) intervention groups but not the control group.

Mean performance scores of the IRFITs at pre-and post-intervention. Scores were calculated out of four IRFITs at each time point. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

Knowledge retention

Figure  7 shows the average scores of the three groups in the post-episode assessments and the retention tests for Episode 1 and Episode 2. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that all data were statistically normal. Levene’s tests also showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met. Thus, the data were analysed with a 3 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA with Group as a between-subject factor, and Time (post-episode assessment vs. retention test) as a within-subject factor. For Episode 1, the results showed no significant main effect of Group, F (2, 48) = .22, p  = .803, η p 2  = .007; Time, F (1, 48) = 3.00, p  = .090, η p 2  = .011; and no interaction, F (2, 48) = 1.35, p  = .269, η p 2  = .009. Similarly, for Episode 2, there was no significant main effect of Group, F (2, 47) = .71, p  = .497, η p 2  = .023; Time, F (1, 47) = 3.26, p  = .077, η p 2  = .015; and no interaction, F (2, 47) = .40, p  = .676, η p 2  = .004.

Mean scores for all three groups at the post-episode assessments and the retention tests of Episode 1 and Episode 2. Scores were calculated out of participants’ accurate responses to 20 questions within a minute. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

In this study, we implemented and evaluated an online learning design aiming to improve critical thinking skills in university students based on a video-based learning approach that used frequency building under precision teaching. We also combined the frequency-building approach with structured problem-based training to further foster the transfer of the taught skills. We compared the learning performance of the three experimental groups, examining students’ performance in the taught materials, in unseen examples, and in more general fallacy-identification problems, as well as in follow-up tests.

With regards to whether PT could improve students’ learning of the taught material (RQ1), our results from the post-episode tests demonstrated that all groups showed significant and comparable improvements in their skill to identify the taught examples of fallacies. Thus, all three types of learning condition, PT-based and not, worked equally well in supporting video-based teaching of fallacy-identification and yielded comparable outcomes, in line with findings from an earlier study by Fox and Ghezzi’s ( 2003 ). Furthermore, taking into account that the broader PT literature tends to focus on simpler and low-level skills, our current findings are important because they suggest that the use of precision teaching can be extended to complex and high-level skills such as critical thinking (Cuzzocrea et al., 2011 ).

With regards to the application of the taught knowledge into unseen examples (RQ2), the analyses of the post-intervention assessments suggested that, again, all learning conditions yielded comparable improvements. Interestingly, these improvements were greater for students who scored at or below the 50th percentile. Although this result could be, partially, attributed to a ceiling effect, it demonstrates the usefulness of technology-enhanced learning designs, in particular, the use of bite-sized videos and frequency-building practice in enhancing the transfer of fallacy-identification skills of all students and especially those who present difficulties in critical thinking.

Turning to the transfer of the taught skills in a domain-general IRFIT task (RQ2), our results showed that, importantly, only the two PT groups showed reliable improvements in performance post-intervention. Thus, frequency building under the precision-teaching framework can foster the application of skills in novel contexts, in line with Kubina and Yurich ( 2012 ), who suggested that frequency building can lead to desirable outcomes of knowledge generalisation. In this study, the two PT groups were given access to practices that helped to build fluency in fallacy-identification skills. The ability to show the generalisation of skills beyond taught materials demonstrated that participants had achieved certain levels of fluency. Significant gains in post-intervention performance on a standardised critical-thinking test also reflect the benefits of frequency-building training and support the notion that skill generalisation is an outcome of fluency-focused training (Binder, 1996 ).

Furthermore, in the knowledge retention tests (RQ3), there were no significant differences between the post-episode assessment scores and the retention test scores, implying that students, regardless of groups, presented non-significant detriments in their fluency even after a week without practice. Earlier research suggested that the frequency-building practice can support the retention of skills for a longer period of time (Binder, 1996 ). It is, therefore, expected that the two PT groups would show better skills retention after an interval of no-practice days. However, the difference between the intervention and the control groups was not significant in our study. To understand this inconsistency between our findings and earlier research, further investigation into how frequency-building procedures impact long-term retention is warranted, possibly by extending the time point of retention tests beyond the one-week interval.

With regards to whether problem-based training can support further benefits in students’ acquisition, generalisation, and retention of critical-thinking skills (RQ4), improvements in the domain-general task learning were comparable in the PT and PT + group, suggesting that problem-based training is, indeed, not necessary for promoting the transfer of taught skills. This finding is in contrast with previous literature positing that rigorous practice for critical thinking is required until students can internalise the concepts learnt and demonstrate critical thinking skills intuitively in their daily lives (Paul & Elder, 2009 ).

In sum, the current study provides a foundation for understanding how the use of video technologies and frequency-building practice can be combined into an effective supplementary teaching tool to promote critical thinking in online settings. The integration of the two approaches is suitable for supporting students of various abilities. Our instruction framework draws on elements from Papert’s constructivism, in which effective learning occurs by building upon individual students’ prior knowledge through active engagement (Papert, 1980 ). In this study, the use of video technologies to present learning information in a “bite-sized” format helps to maximise students’ engagement with the content and offers students the flexibility to pause, rewind, and revisit any part of the video whenever necessary (Salina et al., 2012 ). The inclusion of online frequency-building intervention also improves the quality of the session, as it transforms it from solely a passive video-watching event to an active learning opportunity that helps students monitor their own learning and is necessary for knowledge construction (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015 ).

This online learning approach addresses challenges in critical thinking instructional designs related to promoting active learning during students’ independent study time (Mandernach, 2006 ). Our study shows that this type of practice, which focuses on building fluency of skills, is flexible enough to be used in teaching complex concepts such as critical thinking and could lead to desirable learning outcomes, specifically, on the application of skills in a novel setting. Moreover, our study demonstrated that the online learning design of frequency-building intervention is accommodative to individual students, offering students the opportunity to practice their individual mistakes following each practice trial. A technology-enhanced model of frequency-building practice like this also allows a systematic presentation of stimuli and effective tracking of student engagement (Beverley et al., 2009 ). Our approach to teaching critical thinking skills is versatile and also applicable to the current landscape in Higher Education which the COVID-19 restrictions have transformed (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021 ).

Limitations and directions for further research

Our study is not without limitations. First and in terms of scope, our intervention focused on fallacy identification. However, critical thinking is a multifaceted construct, and future studies should be inclusive of more diverse processes related to the interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, such as argument analysis, evaluation of the credibility of claims or sources, and identification of scientific versus pseudo-scientific procedures (McPeck, 1981 ).

Furthermore, in terms of research methodology, although participants in the three groups were exposed to similar instructional materials and procedures, the time of exposure in the learning task was not controlled. A more nuanced investigation of learning under precision teaching will need to explicitly examine the duration of exposure and usage of the learning materials. This is important as it has been argued that frequency-building procedures can reduce the time needed to master a targeted skill (Lokke et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, in the current study, a short-duration precision-teaching intervention yielded significant improvements in fallacy identification performance in novel problem-solving contexts—albeit a small one.

An additional limitation lies in the use of random group allocation in our experimental design, rather than controlling for the participants’ demographics across experimental groups. In this study, participants were randomly allocated to three groups that were exposed to the same instructional stimuli but differed in the way that the learning tasks were performed. Random allocation has been widely used in educational research to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and to ensure that any group differences are due to chance (Forsetlund et al., 2007 ). Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there might be individual variations in participants’ educational level, enrolled course, and motivation to learn that we did not account for in this study. One could draw more robust conclusions by assessing how the impact of this intervention depended on these demographics.

Finally, in this study, we did not include instructors in the learning videos. Instead, we used animated videos created using the Powtoon platform. This decision was partly influenced by the time when the research was developed. COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were in place, and all physical engagements were halted during that period, limiting our ability to carry out video recordings with an instructor in place. While various studies have highlighted the benefits of Powtoon-based videos on student engagement and motivation (Muhammad Basri et al., 2021 ; Zamora et al., 2021 ), contrasting evidence suggests that some students find learning videos featuring a presenter to be more engaging (Guo et al., 2014 ; Pi et al., 2017 ). Future studies could examine the impact of the presence of instructors on students’ engagement and critical thinking skill training. An interesting possibility is to consider peers as presenters as evidence suggested that perceived similarity between a peer and the learner could create a favourable learning environment that can benefit learning (Bulte et al., 2007 ; Lockspeiser et al., 2008 ).

The current study demonstrated the potential of an online intervention approach of video-based learning and PT to improve critical-thinking skills of university students. After a brief intervention, which consisted of only two learning episodes, students showed improvements in fallacy identification performance, which transferred into novel problem-solving contexts. These results are important in an era of over specialisation, in which critical thinking is identified as one of the most desired yet most challenging educational outcomes for Higher Education. Given the increased use and acceptance of technology-enhanced approaches as a result of the recent transformation of the Higher Education landscape following the COVID-19 restrictions, the current results provide a new perspective for the combination of video learning and PT practice in an online learning environment. This new perspective regarding our combined approach suggests that technological innovations for critical thinking education are effective and can be easily accommodated to support active learning outside classrooms.

Biographies

is a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Birmingham City University. This study formed part of her PhD, undertaken at Edge Hill University, which focused on developing technology-enhanced interventions for higher education learning.

is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University. Her research is in the area of Pedagogical Practice in Higher Education.

is a Professor of Psychology at Edge Hill University. His research field is human learning, neuroplasticity and the cerebellum, both for typical and atypical development from young children to older adults.

is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University. His research interests are in individual differences in cognitive development, neurodevelopmental disorders, and human learning from developmental, neurocognitive, computational, and educational perspectives.

The work was supported by the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University under the Graduate Teaching Assistantships scheme awarded to the first author.

Data availability

Declarations.

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study and all procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Angel J. Y. Tan, Email: [email protected] .

Jean L. Davies, Email: ku.ca.llihegde@jseivad .

Roderick I. Nicolson, Email: [email protected] .

Themis Karaminis, Email: [email protected] .

• Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Waddington DI, Wade CA, Persson T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 (2):275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Surkes M, Tamim R, Zhang D. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 (4):1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker DC. Nursing reasoning model. Nurse Educator. 2001; 26 (5):203–204. doi: 10.1097/00006223-200109000-00001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beverley M, Hughes JC, Hastings RP. What’s the probability of that? Using SAFMEDS to increase undergraduate success with statistical concepts. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis. 2009; 10 (2):235–247. doi: 10.1080/15021149.2009.11434321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Binder C. Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst. 1996; 19 (2):163–197. doi: 10.1007/BF03393163. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brame CJ. Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximising student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2016; 15 (4):es6. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun NM. Critical thinking in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business. 2004; 79 (4):232–236. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2020.12088718. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broadbear JT. Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2003; 3 (3):1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunt BA. Models, measurement, and strategies in developing critical-thinking skills. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2005; 36 (6):255–262. doi: 10.3928/0022-0124-20051101-05. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bulte C, Betts A, Garner K, Durning S. Student teaching: Views of student near peer teachers and learners. Medical Teacher. 2007; 29 :583–590. doi: 10.1080/01421590701583824. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler HA, Pentoney C, Bong MP. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 25 :38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey SS. The uses and abuses of argument: Critical thinking and the fallacies. Mayfield; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael M, Reid AK, Karpicke JD. Assessing the impact of educational video on student engagement, critical thinking and learning: The current state of play. Sage Publicaions; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiesa M, Robertson A. Precision teaching and fluency training: Making maths easier for pupils and teachers. Educational Psychology in Practice. 2000; 16 (3):297–310. doi: 10.1080/713666088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clement J. Introduction to research in cognitive process instruction. In: Lochhead J, Clement J, editors. Cognitive process instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Erlbaum; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Commons ML, Owens CJ, Will SM. Using a computer-based precision teaching program to facilitate learning of complex material: The case of the model of hierarchical complexity. Behavioral Development Bulletin. 2015; 20 (2):207. doi: 10.1037/h0101379. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Copy IM, Burgess-Jackson K. Informal logic. Prentice Hall; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuzzocrea F, Murdaca AM, Oliva P. Using precision teaching method to improve foreign language and cognitive skills in university students. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC) 2011; 2 (4):50–60. doi: 10.4018/jdldc.2011100104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engle R, Greeno J. Framing interactions to foster productive learning. In: Beach K, editor. Sociocultural, semiotic, situative, and activity theoretic alternatives to the transfer metaphor: New understandings of how knowledge generalizes. American Educational Research Association; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione PA, Facione NC. Analysing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2001; 15 (2):267–286. doi: 10.5840/ijap200115217. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forbes K. Exploring first year undergraduate students' conceptualisations of critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2018; 30 (3):433–442. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forsetlund L, Chalmers I, Bjørndal A. When was random allocation first used to generate comparison groups in experiments to assess the effects of social interventions? Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2007; 16 (5):371–384. doi: 10.1080/10438590600982467. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox EJ, Ghezzi PM. Effects of computer-based fluency training on concept formation. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2003; 12 (1):1–21. doi: 10.1023/A:1022373304577. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaudin C, Chaliès S. Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review. 2015; 16 :41–67. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray P. Engaging students' intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology. 1993; 20 (2):68–74. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top2002_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray WD. Thinking critically about New Age ideas. Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guiller J, Durndell A, Ross A. Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction. 2008; 18 (2):187–200. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo PJ, Kim J, Rubin R. Proceeding of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference. ACM; 2014. How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos; pp. 41–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern DF. Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist. 1998; 53 (4):449. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrington K, Norton L, Elander J, Lusher J, Aiyegbayo O, Pitt E, Robinson H, Reddy P. Using core assessment criteria to improve essay writing. In: Bryan C, Clegg K, editors. Innovative assessment in higher education. Routledge; 2006. pp. 110–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart Research Associates . Falling short?: College learning and career success. Association of American Colleges and Universities; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatcher DL. Which test? Whose scores? Comparing standardised critical thinking tests. New Directions for Institutional Research. 2011; 149 :29–39. doi: 10.1002/ir.378. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. Visible learning. Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill JL, Nelson A. New technology, new pedagogy? Employing video podcasts in learning and teaching about exotic ecosystems. Environmental Education Research. 2011; 17 (3):393–408. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2010.545873. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes JC, Beverley M, Whitehead J. Using precision teaching to increase the fluency of word reading with problem readers. European Journal of Behavior Analysis. 2007; 8 (2):221–238. doi: 10.1080/15021149.2007.11434284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ikuenobe P. Teaching and assessing critical thinking abilities as outcomes in an informal logic course. Teaching in Higher Education. 2001; 6 (1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/13562510020029572. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joynes C, Rossignoli S, FenyiwaAmonoo-Kuofi E. 21st Century Skills: Evidence of issues in definition, demand and delivery for development contexts (K4D Helpdesk Report) Institute of Development Studies; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karpicke JD, Roediger HL., 3rd The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008; 319 (5865):966–968. doi: 10.1126/science.1152408. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khong HK, Kabilan MK. A theoretical model of micro-learning for second language instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2020; 2020 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh NS, Gottipati S, Shankararaman V. 4th international conference on higher education advances (HEAd’18) Universitat Politecnica de Valencia; 2018. Effectiveness of bite-sized lecture on student learning outcomes; pp. 515–523. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koslowski B. Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. MIT Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreth M, Crawford MA, Taylor M, Brockman E. Situated assessment: Limitations and promise. Assessing Writing. 2010; 15 (1):40–59. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kubina RM, Morrison RS. Fluency in education. Behavior and Social Issues. 2000; 10 :83–99. doi: 10.5210/bsi.v10i0.133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kubina RM, Yurich KK. The precision teaching book. Greatness Achieved Publishing Company; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsley OR. Precise instructional design: Guidelines from precision teaching. Instructional Development Paradigms. 1997; 1997 :537–554. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lockspeiser TM, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: The value of social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2008; 13 (3):361–372. doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lokke GE, Lokke JA, Arntzen E. Precision teaching, frequency-building, and ballet dancing. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration. 2008; 24 :21–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKnight CB. Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly. 2000; 23 (4):38–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandernach BJ. Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to promote critical thinking. Insight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship. 2006; 1 :41–50. doi: 10.46504/01200603ma. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012; 22 (3):276–282. doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNeill KL, Krajcik J. Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2009; 18 (3):416–460. doi: 10.1080/10508400903013488. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McPeck J. Critical thinking and education. Oxford University Press; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhammad Basri MB, Sumargono S, Fatan F. The effect of using the Powtoon application on student learning motivation. Review of International Geographical Education Online. 2021; 11 (5):4019–4024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman Y. Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction. 2003; 13 (4):367–380. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00011-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman Y, Weizman E. The role of text representation in students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 2003; 56 (5):849–864. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000666. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Papert S. Mindstorms-children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul R, Elder L. The miniature guide to critical thinking. 5. The Foundation for Critical Thinking; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter EE. Critical thinking: Essence for teaching mathematics and mathematics problem-solving skills. African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research. 2012; 5 (3):39–43. doi: 10.5897/AJMCSR11.161. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pi Z, Hong J, Yang J. Does instructor's image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2017; 33 (4):347–354. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12183. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pokhrel S, Chhetri R. A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future. 2021; 8 (1):133–141. doi: 10.1177/2347631120983481. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramasamy, S. (2011). An analysis of informal reasoning fallacy and critical thinking dispositions among malaysian undergraduates.  Online submission . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525513.pdf
• Resmol K, Leasa M. The effect of learning cycle 5E+ Powtoon on students’ motivation: The concept of animal metamorphosis. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia) 2022; 8 (2):121–128. doi: 10.22219/jpbi.v8i2.18540. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richardson J, Ice P. Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13 :52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salina L, Ruffinengo C, Garrino L, Massariello P, Charrier L, Martin B, Favale MS, Dimonte V. Effectiveness of an educational video as an instrument to refresh and reinforce the learning of a nursing technique: A randomised controlled trial. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2012; 1 (2):67–75. doi: 10.1007/S40037-012-0013-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schick T, Vaughn L. How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age. McGraw Hill; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scriven M, Paul R. The critical thinking community: foundation for critical thinking. CRC; 2007. Defining critical thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solon T. Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2007; 34 (2):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stockwell BR, Stockwell MS, Cennamo M, Jiang E. Blended learning improves science education. Cell. 2015; 162 (5):933–936. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.009. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sundhu R, Kittles M. Precision teaching: Does training by educational psychologist have an impact? Educational Psychology in Practice. 2016; 32 (1):13–23. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2015.1094651. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Syed AM, Ahmad S, Alaraifi A, Rafi W. Identification of operational risks impeding the implementation of eLearning in higher education system. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 26 (1):655–671. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10281-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiruneh DT, De Cock M, Elen J. Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educucation. 2018; 16 :1065–1089. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9829-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstock M, Neuman Y, Tabak I. Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2004; 29 (1):77–94. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476X(03)00024-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization . WHO director-general’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. WHO; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousef AMF, Chatti MA, Schroeder U. eLmL 2014, the sixth international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning. IARIA; 2014. Video-based learning: A critical analysis of the research published in 2003–2013 and future visions; pp. 112–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zamora LP, Bravo SS, Padilla AG. Production of comics in POWTOON as a teaching-learning strategy in an operations research course. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2021; 10 (1):137–147. [ Google Scholar ]

• Augsburg.edu
• Inside Augsburg

Search Strommen Center for Meaningful Work

• Faculty & Staff
• Graduate Students
• First Generation
• International
• Students With Disabilities
• Undocumented
• Business & Finance
• Culture and Language
• Environmental Sustainability
• Government, Law & Policy
• Health Professions
• Human & Social Services
• Information Technology & Data
• Marketing, Media & Communications
• Resumes and Cover Letters
• Expand Your Network / Mentor
• Explore Your Interests / Self Assessment
• Negotiate an Offer
• Prepare for an Interview
• Prepare for Graduate School
• Search for a Job / Internship
• Job Fair Preparation
• Start Your Internship
• Choosing a Major
• Career Collaborative
• Travelers EDGE
• Meet the Team

Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important

• Share This: Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on Facebook Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on LinkedIn Share Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important on X

Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It’s Important was originally published on Ivy Exec .

Strong critical thinking skills are crucial for career success, regardless of educational background. It embodies the ability to engage in astute and effective decision-making, lending invaluable dimensions to professional growth.

At its essence, critical thinking is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in a logical and reasoned manner. It’s not merely about accumulating knowledge but harnessing it effectively to make informed decisions and solve complex problems. In the dynamic landscape of modern careers, honing this skill is paramount.

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Your Career

☑ problem-solving mastery.

Visualize critical thinking as the Sherlock Holmes of your career journey. It facilitates swift problem resolution akin to a detective unraveling a mystery. By methodically analyzing situations and deconstructing complexities, critical thinkers emerge as adept problem solvers, rendering them invaluable assets in the workplace.

☑ Refined Decision-Making

Navigating dilemmas in your career path resembles traversing uncertain terrain. Critical thinking acts as a dependable GPS, steering you toward informed decisions. It involves weighing options, evaluating potential outcomes, and confidently choosing the most favorable path forward.

☑ Enhanced Teamwork Dynamics

Within collaborative settings, critical thinkers stand out as proactive contributors. They engage in scrutinizing ideas, proposing enhancements, and fostering meaningful contributions. Consequently, the team evolves into a dynamic hub of ideas, with the critical thinker recognized as the architect behind its success.

☑ Communication Prowess

Effective communication is the cornerstone of professional interactions. Critical thinking enriches communication skills, enabling the clear and logical articulation of ideas. Whether in emails, presentations, or casual conversations, individuals adept in critical thinking exude clarity, earning appreciation for their ability to convey thoughts seamlessly.

☑ Adaptability and Resilience

Perceptive individuals adept in critical thinking display resilience in the face of unforeseen challenges. Instead of succumbing to panic, they assess situations, recalibrate their approaches, and persist in moving forward despite adversity.

☑ Fostering Innovation

Innovation is the lifeblood of progressive organizations, and critical thinking serves as its catalyst. Proficient critical thinkers possess the ability to identify overlooked opportunities, propose inventive solutions, and streamline processes, thereby positioning their organizations at the forefront of innovation.

☑ Confidence Amplification

Critical thinkers exude confidence derived from honing their analytical skills. This self-assurance radiates during job interviews, presentations, and daily interactions, catching the attention of superiors and propelling career advancement.

So, how can one cultivate and harness this invaluable skill?

✅ developing curiosity and inquisitiveness:.

Embrace a curious mindset by questioning the status quo and exploring topics beyond your immediate scope. Cultivate an inquisitive approach to everyday situations. Encourage a habit of asking “why” and “how” to deepen understanding. Curiosity fuels the desire to seek information and alternative perspectives.

✅ Practice Reflection and Self-Awareness:

Engage in reflective thinking by assessing your thoughts, actions, and decisions. Regularly introspect to understand your biases, assumptions, and cognitive processes. Cultivate self-awareness to recognize personal prejudices or cognitive biases that might influence your thinking. This allows for a more objective analysis of situations.

✅ Strengthening Analytical Skills:

Practice breaking down complex problems into manageable components. Analyze each part systematically to understand the whole picture. Develop skills in data analysis, statistics, and logical reasoning. This includes understanding correlation versus causation, interpreting graphs, and evaluating statistical significance.

✅ Engaging in Active Listening and Observation:

Actively listen to diverse viewpoints without immediately forming judgments. Allow others to express their ideas fully before responding. Observe situations attentively, noticing details that others might overlook. This habit enhances your ability to analyze problems more comprehensively.

✅ Encouraging Intellectual Humility and Open-Mindedness:

Foster intellectual humility by acknowledging that you don’t know everything. Be open to learning from others, regardless of their position or expertise. Cultivate open-mindedness by actively seeking out perspectives different from your own. Engage in discussions with people holding diverse opinions to broaden your understanding.

✅ Practicing Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

Engage in regular problem-solving exercises that challenge you to think creatively and analytically. This can include puzzles, riddles, or real-world scenarios. When making decisions, consciously evaluate available information, consider various alternatives, and anticipate potential outcomes before reaching a conclusion.

✅ Continuous Learning and Exposure to Varied Content:

Read extensively across diverse subjects and formats, exposing yourself to different viewpoints, cultures, and ways of thinking. Engage in courses, workshops, or seminars that stimulate critical thinking skills. Seek out opportunities for learning that challenge your existing beliefs.

✅ Engage in Constructive Disagreement and Debate:

Encourage healthy debates and discussions where differing opinions are respectfully debated.

This practice fosters the ability to defend your viewpoints logically while also being open to changing your perspective based on valid arguments. Embrace disagreement as an opportunity to learn rather than a conflict to win. Engaging in constructive debate sharpens your ability to evaluate and counter-arguments effectively.

✅ Utilize Problem-Based Learning and Real-World Applications:

Engage in problem-based learning activities that simulate real-world challenges. Work on projects or scenarios that require critical thinking skills to develop practical problem-solving approaches. Apply critical thinking in real-life situations whenever possible.

This could involve analyzing news articles, evaluating product reviews, or dissecting marketing strategies to understand their underlying rationale.

In conclusion, critical thinking is the linchpin of a successful career journey. It empowers individuals to navigate complexities, make informed decisions, and innovate in their respective domains. Embracing and honing this skill isn’t just an advantage; it’s a necessity in a world where adaptability and sound judgment reign supreme.

So, as you traverse your career path, remember that the ability to think critically is not just an asset but the differentiator that propels you toward excellence.

7 tips to master critical thinking and unleash your inner problem solver

C ritical thinking is a fundamental skill that empowers students and young professionals to navigate the complexities of academic and professional life.

Developing strong critical thinking abilities enhances problem-solving, decision-making, and analytical skills.

Here are seven expert tips to help you master the art of critical thinking and thrive in your academic pursuits and professional endeavours:

1. QUESTION ASSUMPTIONS

Challenge assumptions and never take information at face value. Dig deeper, ask probing questions, and seek evidence to support or refute claims.

By questioning assumptions, you'll develop a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.

2. ANALYSE MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES

Broaden your viewpoint by analysing different perspectives and considering diverse opinions. Evaluate arguments objectively, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint.

This practice will enhance your ability to think critically and make well-rounded judgments.

3. DEVELOP PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS

Critical thinking is closely linked to problem-solving. Sharpen your problem-solving abilities by breaking down complex problems into manageable parts, identifying key factors, and exploring alternative solutions.

Embrace a systematic approach to problem-solving to enhance your critical thinking prowess.

4. CULTIVATE CURIOSITY AND CREATIVITY

Nurture a curious and creative mindset. Curiosity encourages exploration, while creativity allows for unique insights and novel approaches.

Embrace new ideas, seek diverse experiences, and challenge conventional thinking patterns to expand your critical thinking capabilities.

5. PRACTICE REFLECTIVE THINKING

Allocate time for reflection and introspection. Regularly evaluate your thoughts, actions, and decision-making processes.

Reflective thinking allows you to identify biases, assess the effectiveness of your reasoning, and make improvements. Embrace self-awareness as a tool for enhancing critical thinking skills.

6. HONE ANALYTICAL SKILLS

Develop strong analytical skills to evaluate information critically. Enhance your ability to interpret data, identify patterns, and draw meaningful conclusions.

Analytical thinking enables you to make well-informed judgments based on evidence and logical reasoning.

7. ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES

Participate in discussions and debates on diverse topics. Engaging in intellectual discourse exposes you to different perspectives, challenges your beliefs, and sharpens your critical thinking skills.

Constructively debate ideas, listen actively, and articulate your thoughts effectively to strengthen your ability to think critically.

By incorporating these seven tips into your UPSC preparation journey, you'll develop and master the art of critical thinking.

Remember, critical thinking is a skill that can be honed with practice and dedication. Embrace a mindset of curiosity, open-mindedness, and intellectual rigor to excel in your UPSC exams and beyond.

Watch Live TV in English

Watch Live TV in Hindi