what is critical thinking scholarly articles

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

Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems

Diane f. halpern.

1 Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, Emerita, Altadena, CA 91001, USA

Dana S. Dunn

2 Department of Psychology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA; ude.naivarom@nnud

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. A high IQ is correlated with many important outcomes (e.g., academic prominence, reduced crime), but it does not protect against cognitive biases, partisan thinking, reactance, or confirmation bias, among others. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests. Similarly, some scholars argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Other investigators advocate for critical thinking as a model of intelligence specifically designed for addressing real-world problems. Yes, intelligence (i.e., critical thinking) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem such as COVID-19, which we use as an example of contemporary problems that need a new approach.

1. Introduction

The editors of this Special Issue asked authors to respond to a deceptively simple statement: “How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World Problems.” This statement holds many complexities, including how intelligence is defined and which theories are designed to address real-world problems.

2. The Problem with Using Standardized IQ Measures for Real-World Problems

For the most part, we identify high intelligence as having a high score on a standardized test of intelligence. Like any test score, IQ can only reflect what is on the given test. Most contemporary standardized measures of intelligence include vocabulary, working memory, spatial skills, analogies, processing speed, and puzzle-like elements (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition; see ( Drozdick et al. 2012 )). Measures of IQ correlate with many important outcomes, including academic performance ( Kretzschmar et al. 2016 ), job-related skills ( Hunter and Schmidt 1996 ), reduced likelihood of criminal behavior ( Burhan et al. 2014 ), and for those with exceptionally high IQs, obtaining a doctorate and publishing scholarly articles ( McCabe et al. 2020 ). Gottfredson ( 1997, p. 81 ) summarized these effects when she said the “predictive validity of g is ubiquitous.” More recent research using longitudinal data, found that general mental abilities and specific abilities are good predictors of several work variables including job prestige, and income ( Lang and Kell 2020 ). Although assessments of IQ are useful in many contexts, having a high IQ does not protect against falling for common cognitive fallacies (e.g., blind spot bias, reactance, anecdotal reasoning), relying on biased and blatantly one-sided information sources, failing to consider information that does not conform to one’s preferred view of reality (confirmation bias), resisting pressure to think and act in a certain way, among others. This point was clearly articulated by Stanovich ( 2009, p. 3 ) when he stated that,” IQ tests measure only a small set of the thinking abilities that people need.”

3. Which Theories of Intelligence Are Relevant to the Question?

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. For example, Grossmann et al. ( 2013 ) cite many studies in which IQ scores have not predicted well-being, including life satisfaction and longevity. Using a stratified random sample of Americans, these investigators found that wise reasoning is associated with life satisfaction, and that “there was no association between intelligence and well-being” (p. 944). (critical thinking [CT] is often referred to as “wise reasoning” or “rational thinking,”). Similar results were reported by Wirthwein and Rost ( 2011 ) who compared life satisfaction in several domains for gifted adults and adults of average intelligence. There were no differences in any of the measures of subjective well-being, except for leisure, which was significantly lower for the gifted adults. Additional research in a series of experiments by Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that participants with high cognitive ability were as likely as others to endorse positions that are consistent with their biases, and they were equally likely to prefer one-sided arguments over those that provided a balanced argument. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests (e.g., Sternberg 2019 ). Similarly, Stanovich and West ( 2014 ) argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Halpern and Butler ( 2020 ) advocate for CT as a useful model of intelligence for addressing real-world problems because it was designed for this purpose. Although there is much overlap among these more recent theories, often using different terms for similar concepts, we use Halpern and Butler’s conceptualization to make our point: Yes, intelligence (i.e., CT) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem like COVID-19.

4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence

One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson ( 2020, p. 205 ): “the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life.” Using this definition, the question of whether intelligent thinking can solve a world problem like the novel coronavirus is a resounding “yes” because solutions to real-world novel problems are part of his definition. This is a popular idea in the general public. For example, over 1000 business managers and hiring executives said that they want employees who can think critically based on the belief that CT skills will help them solve work-related problems ( Hart Research Associates 2018 ).

We define CT as the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed--the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. International surveys conducted by the OECD ( 2019, p. 16 ) established “key information-processing competencies” that are “highly transferable, in that they are relevant to many social contexts and work situations; and ‘learnable’ and therefore subject to the influence of policy.” One of these skills is problem solving, which is one subset of CT skills.

The CT model of intelligence is comprised of two components: (1) understanding information at a deep, meaningful level and (2) appropriate use of CT skills. The underlying idea is that CT skills can be identified, taught, and learned, and when they are recognized and applied in novel settings, the individual is demonstrating intelligent thought. CT skills include judging the credibility of an information source, making cost–benefit calculations, recognizing regression to the mean, understanding the limits of extrapolation, muting reactance responses, using analogical reasoning, rating the strength of reasons that support and fail to support a conclusion, and recognizing hindsight bias or confirmation bias, among others. Critical thinkers use these skills appropriately, without prompting, and usually with conscious intent in a variety of settings.

One of the key concepts in this model is that CT skills transfer in appropriate situations. Thus, assessments using situational judgments are needed to assess whether particular skills have transferred to a novel situation where it is appropriate. In an assessment created by the first author ( Halpern 2018 ), short paragraphs provide information about 20 different everyday scenarios (e.g., A speaker at the meeting of your local school board reported that when drug use rises, grades decline; so schools need to enforce a “war on drugs” to improve student grades); participants provide two response formats for every scenario: (a) constructed responses where they respond with short written responses, followed by (b) forced choice responses (e.g., multiple choice, rating or ranking of alternatives) for the same situations.

There is a large and growing empirical literature to support the assertion that CT skills can be learned and will transfer (when taught for transfer). See for example, Holmes et al. ( 2015 ), who wrote in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , that there was “significant and sustained improvement in students’ critical thinking behavior” (p. 11,199) for students who received CT instruction. Abrami et al. ( 2015, para. 1 ) concluded from a meta-analysis that “there are effective strategies for teaching CT skills, both generic and content specific, and CT dispositions, at all educational levels and across all disciplinary areas.” Abrami et al. ( 2008, para. 1 ), included 341 effect sizes in a meta-analysis. They wrote: “findings make it clear that improvement in students’ CT skills and dispositions cannot be a matter of implicit expectation.” A strong test of whether CT skills can be used for real-word problems comes from research by Butler et al. ( 2017 ). Community adults and college students (N = 244) completed several scales including an assessment of CT, an intelligence test, and an inventory of real-life events. Both CT scores and intelligence scores predicted individual outcomes on the inventory of real-life events, but CT was a stronger predictor.

Heijltjes et al. ( 2015, p. 487 ) randomly assigned participants to either a CT instruction group or one of six other control conditions. They found that “only participants assigned to CT instruction improved their reasoning skills.” Similarly, when Halpern et al. ( 2012 ) used random assignment of participants to either a learning group where they were taught scientific reasoning skills using a game format or a control condition (which also used computerized learning and was similar in length), participants in the scientific skills learning group showed higher proportional learning gains than students who did not play the game. As the body of additional supportive research is too large to report here, interested readers can find additional lists of CT skills and support for the assertion that these skills can be learned and will transfer in Halpern and Dunn ( Forthcoming ). There is a clear need for more high-quality research on the application and transfer of CT and its relationship to IQ.

5. Pandemics: COVID-19 as a Consequential Real-World Problem

A pandemic occurs when a disease runs rampant over an entire country or even the world. Pandemics have occurred throughout history: At the time of writing this article, COVID-19 is a world-wide pandemic whose actual death rate is unknown but estimated with projections of several million over the course of 2021 and beyond ( Mega 2020 ). Although vaccines are available, it will take some time to inoculate most or much of the world’s population. Since March 2020, national and international health agencies have created a list of actions that can slow and hopefully stop the spread of COVID (e.g., wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, avoiding group gatherings), yet many people in the United States and other countries have resisted their advice.

Could instruction in CT encourage more people to accept and comply with simple life-saving measures? There are many possible reasons to believe that by increasing citizens’ CT abilities, this problematic trend can be reversed for, at least, some unknown percentage of the population. We recognize the long history of social and cognitive research showing that changing attitudes and behaviors is difficult, and it would be unrealistic to expect that individuals with extreme beliefs supported by their social group and consistent with their political ideologies are likely to change. For example, an Iranian cleric and an orthodox rabbi both claimed (separately) that the COVID-19 vaccine can make people gay ( Marr 2021 ). These unfounded opinions are based on deeply held prejudicial beliefs that we expect to be resistant to CT. We are targeting those individuals who beliefs are less extreme and may be based on reasonable reservations, such as concern about the hasty development of the vaccine and the lack of long-term data on its effects. There should be some unknown proportion of individuals who can change their COVID-19-related beliefs and actions with appropriate instruction in CT. CT can be a (partial) antidote for the chaos of the modern world with armies of bots creating content on social media, political and other forces deliberately attempting to confuse issues, and almost all media labeled “fake news” by social influencers (i.e., people with followers that sometimes run to millions on various social media). Here, are some CT skills that could be helpful in getting more people to think more critically about pandemic-related issues.

Reasoning by Analogy and Judging the Credibility of the Source of Information

Early communications about the ability of masks to prevent the spread of COVID from national health agencies were not consistent. In many regions of the world, the benefits of wearing masks incited prolonged and acrimonious debates ( Tang 2020 ). However, after the initial confusion, virtually all of the global and national health organizations (e.g., WHO, National Health Service in the U. K., U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) endorse masks as a way to slow the spread of COVID ( Cheng et al. 2020 ; Chu et al. 2020 ). However, as we know, some people do not trust governmental agencies and often cite the conflicting information that was originally given as a reason for not wearing a mask. There are varied reasons for refusing to wear a mask, but the one most often cited is that it is against civil liberties ( Smith 2020 ). Reasoning by analogy is an appropriate CT skill for evaluating this belief (and a key skill in legal thinking). It might be useful to cite some of the many laws that already regulate our behavior such as, requiring health inspections for restaurants, setting speed limits, mandating seat belts when riding in a car, and establishing the age at which someone can consume alcohol. Individuals would be asked to consider how the mandate to wear a mask compares to these and other regulatory laws.

Another reason why some people resist the measures suggested by virtually every health agency concerns questions about whom to believe. Could training in CT change the beliefs and actions of even a small percentage of those opposed to wearing masks? Such training would include considering the following questions with practice across a wide domain of knowledge: (a) Does the source have sufficient expertise? (b) Is the expertise recent and relevant? (c) Is there a potential for gain by the information source, such as financial gain? (d) What would the ideal information source be and how close is the current source to the ideal? (e) Does the information source offer evidence that what they are recommending is likely to be correct? (f) Have you traced URLs to determine if the information in front of you really came from the alleged source?, etc. Of course, not everyone will respond in the same way to each question, so there is little likelihood that we would all think alike, but these questions provide a framework for evaluating credibility. Donovan et al. ( 2015 ) were successful using a similar approach to improve dynamic decision-making by asking participants to reflect on questions that relate to the decision. Imagine the effect of rigorous large-scale education in CT from elementary through secondary schools, as well as at the university-level. As stated above, empirical evidence has shown that people can become better thinkers with appropriate instruction in CT. With training, could we encourage some portion of the population to become more astute at judging the credibility of a source of information? It is an experiment worth trying.

6. Making Cost—Benefit Assessments for Actions That Would Slow the Spread of COVID-19

Historical records show that refusal to wear a mask during a pandemic is not a new reaction. The epidemic of 1918 also included mandates to wear masks, which drew public backlash. Then, as now, many people refused, even when they were told that it was a symbol of “wartime patriotism” because the 1918 pandemic occurred during World War I ( Lovelace 2020 ). CT instruction would include instruction in why and how to compute cost–benefit analyses. Estimates of “lives saved” by wearing a mask can be made meaningful with graphical displays that allow more people to understand large numbers. Gigerenzer ( 2020 ) found that people can understand risk ratios in medicine when the numbers are presented as frequencies instead of probabilities. If this information were used when presenting the likelihood of illness and death from COVID-19, could we increase the numbers of people who understand the severity of this disease? Small scale studies by Gigerenzer have shown that it is possible.

Analyzing Arguments to Determine Degree of Support for a Conclusion

The process of analyzing arguments requires that individuals rate the strength of support for and against a conclusion. By engaging in this practice, they must consider evidence and reasoning that may run counter to a preferred outcome. Kozyreva et al. ( 2020 ) call the deliberate failure to consider both supporting and conflicting data “deliberate ignorance”—avoiding or failing to consider information that could be useful in decision-making because it may collide with an existing belief. When applied to COVID-19, people would have to decide if the evidence for and against wearing a face mask is a reasonable way to stop the spread of this disease, and if they conclude that it is not, what are the costs and benefits of not wearing masks at a time when governmental health organizations are making them mandatory in public spaces? Again, we wonder if rigorous and systematic instruction in argument analysis would result in more positive attitudes and behaviors that relate to wearing a mask or other real-world problems. We believe that it is an experiment worth doing.

7. Conclusions

We believe that teaching CT is a worthwhile approach for educating the general public in order to improve reasoning and motivate actions to address, avert, or ameliorate real-world problems like the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that CT can guide intelligent responses to societal and global problems. We are NOT claiming that CT skills will be a universal solution for the many real-world problems that we confront in contemporary society, or that everyone will substitute CT for other decision-making practices, but we do believe that systematic education in CT can help many people become better thinkers, and we believe that this is an important step toward creating a society that values and practices routine CT. The challenges are great, but the tools to tackle them are available, if we are willing to use them.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F.H. and D.S.D.; resources, D.F.H.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, D.F.H.; writing—review and editing, D.F.H. and D.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No IRB Review.

Informed Consent Statement

No Informed Consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Wade C. Anne, Surkes Michael A., Tamim Rana, Zhang Dai. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A Stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :1102–34. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–341. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burhan Nik Ahmad Sufian, Kurniawan Yohan, Sidek Abdul Halim, Mohamad Mohd Rosli. Crimes and the Bell curve: Th e role of people with high, average, and low intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 47 :12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A., Pentoney Christopher, Bong Maebelle P. 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 ]
• Cheng Vincent Chi-Chung, Wong Shuk-Ching, Chuang Vivien Wai-Man, So Simon Yung-Chun, Chen Jonathan Hon-Kwan, Sridhar Sidharth, To Kelvin Kai-Wwang, Chan Jasper Fuk-Wu, Hung Ivan Fan-Ngai, Ho Pak-Leung, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Infectious Disease. 2020; 81 :107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu Derek K., Aki Elie A., Duda Stephanie, Solo Karla, Yaacoub Sally, Schunemann Holger J. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A system atic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020; 395 :1973–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan Sarah J., Guss C. Dominick, Naslund Dag. Improving dynamic decision-making through training and self-re flection. Judgment and Decision Making. 2015; 10 :284–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drozdick Lisa Whipple, Wahlstrom Dustin, Zhu Jianjun, Weiss Lawrence G. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition. In: Flanagan Dawn P., Harrison Patti L., editors. Contemporary Intellectual as Sessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. The Guilford Press; New York: 2012. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer Gerd. When all is just a click away: Is critical thinking obsolete in the digital age? In: Sternberg Robert J., Halpern Diane F., editors. Critical Thinking IN Psychology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson Linda S. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence. 1997; 24 :79–132. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossmann Igor, Varnum Michael E. W., Na Jinkyung, Kitayama Shinobu, Nisbett Richard E. A route to well-being: Intelligence ver sus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013; 142 :944–53. doi: 10.1037/a0029560. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. Schuhfried Test Publishers; Modling: 2018. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]. Available online: www.schuhfried.com [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Butler Heather A. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The nature of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 183–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana S. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Taylor & Francis; New York: Forthcoming. in press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Millis Keith, Graesser Arthur, Butler Heather, Forsyth Carol, Cai Zhiqiang. Operation ARA: A computerized learn ing game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart Research Associates [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Employers Express Confidence in Colleges and Universities: See College as Worth the Investment, New Research Finds. 2018 Aug 29; Available online: https://hartresearch.com/employers-express-confidence-in-colleges-and-universities-see-college-as-worth-the-investment-new-research-finds/
• Heijltjes Anita, Gog Tamara van, Lippink Jimmie, Paas Fred. Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instructional Science. 2015; 43 :487–506. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes Natasha G., Wieman Carl E., Bonn DougA. Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112 :11199–204. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1505329112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter John E., Schmidt Frank L. Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2 :447–72. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozyreva Anastasia, Lewandowsky Stephan, Hertwig Ralph. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2020 21 doi: 10.1177/1529100620946707. Available online: https://www.psychologi calscience.org/publications/confronting-digital-challenges-with-cognitive-tools.html [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar Andre, Neubert Jonas C., Wusternberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel. Construct validity of complex problem- solv ing: A comprehensive view on different facts of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence. 2016; 54 :55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang Jonas W.B., Kell Harrison J. General mental ability and specific abilities: Their relative importance for extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020; 105 :1047–61. doi: 10.1037/apl0000472. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovelace Berkeley., Jr. Medical Historians Compare the Coronavirus to the 1918 Flu Pandemic: Both Were Highly Political. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; CNBC. 2020 Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/comparing-1918-flu-vs-corona virus.html?fbclid=IwAR1RAVRUOIdN9qqvNnMPimf5Q4XfV-pn_qdC3DwcfnPu9kavwumDI2zq9Xs
• Marr Rhuaridh. Iranian Cleric Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Can Make People Gay. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Metro Weekly. 2021 Available online: https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/02/iranian-cleric-claims-covid-19-vaccine-can-make-people-gay/
• McCabe Kira O., Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2020; 119 :390–416. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000239. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mega Emiliano R. COVID Has Killed more than One Million People. How Many more will Die? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Nature. 2020 Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02762-y [ PubMed ]
• Nickerson Raymond S. Developing intelligence through instruction. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 205–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader’s Companion. 3rd ed. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2019. OECD Skills Studies. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Matthew. Why won’t Britons Wear Face Masks? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; YouGov. 2020 Available online: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/07/15/why-wont-britons-wear-face-masks
• Stanovich Keith E. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. Yale University Press; New Haven: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. On the failure of cognitive ability to predict my-side bias and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning. 2008; 14 :129–67. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. What intelligence tests miss. The Psychologist. 2014; 27 :80–83. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews201126216. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence. 2019; 7 :23. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence7040023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang Julian W. COVID-19: Interpreting scientific evidence—Uncertainty, confusion, and delays. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2020; 20 :653. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05387-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wirthwein Linda, Rost Detlef H. Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individuals Differences. 2011; 21 :182–86. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

OPINION article

Redefining critical thinking: teaching students to think like scientists.

• Department of Psychology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada

From primary to post-secondary school, critical thinking (CT) is an oft cited focus or key competency (e.g., DeAngelo et al., 2009 ; California Department of Education, 2014 ; Alberta Education, 2015 ; Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d. ). Unfortunately, the definition of CT has become so broad that it can encompass nearly anything and everything (e.g., Hatcher, 2000 ; Johnson and Hamby, 2015 ). From discussion of Foucault, critique and the self ( Foucault, 1984 ) to Lawson's (1999) definition of CT as the ability to evaluate claims using psychological science, the term critical thinking has come to refer to an ever-widening range of skills and abilities. We propose that educators need to clearly define CT, and that in addition to teaching CT, a strong focus should be placed on teaching students how to think like scientists. Scientific thinking is the ability to generate, test, and evaluate claims, data, and theories (e.g., Bullock et al., 2009 ; Koerber et al., 2015 ). Simply stated, the basic tenets of scientific thinking provide students with the tools to distinguish good information from bad. Students have access to nearly limitless information, and the skills to understand what is misinformation or a questionable scientific claim is crucially important ( Smith, 2011 ), and these skills may not necessarily be included in the general teaching of critical thinking ( Wright, 2001 ).

This is an issue of more than semantics. While some definitions of CT include key elements of the scientific method (e.g., Lawson, 1999 ; Lawson et al., 2015 ), this emphasis is not consistent across all interpretations of CT ( Huber and Kuncel, 2016 ). In an attempt to provide a comprehensive, detailed definition of CT, the American Philosophical Association (APA), outlined six CT skills, 16 subskills, and 19 dispositions ( Facione, 1990 ). Skills include interpretation, analysis, and inference; dispositions include inquisitiveness and open-mindedness. 1 From our perspective, definitions of CT such as those provided by the APA or operationally defined by researchers in the context of a scholarly article (e.g., Forawi, 2016 ) are not problematic—the authors clearly define what they are referring to as CT. Potential problems arise when educators are using different definitions of CT, or when the banner of CT is applied to nearly any topic or pedagogical activity. Definitions such as those provided by the APA provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the multi-faceted nature of CT, however the definition is complex and may be difficult to work with at a policy level for educators, especially those who work primarily with younger students.

The need to develop scientific thinking skills is evident in studies showing that 55% of undergraduate students believe that a full moon causes people to behave oddly, and an estimated 67% of students believe creatures such as Bigfoot and Chupacabra exist, despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting these claims ( Lobato et al., 2014 ). Additionally, despite overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of anthropogenic climate change, and the dire need to mitigate its effects, many people still remain skeptical of climate change and its impact ( Feygina et al., 2010 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2013 ). One of the goals of education is to help students foster the skills necessary to be informed consumers of information ( DeAngelo et al., 2009 ), and providing students with the tools to think scientifically is a crucial component of reaching this goal. By focusing on scientific thinking in conjunction with CT, educators may be better able design specific policies that aim to facilitate the necessary skills students should have when they enter post-secondary training or the workforce. In other words, students should leave secondary school with the ability to rule out rival hypotheses, understand that correlation does not equal causation, the importance of falsifiability and replicability, the ability to recognize extraordinary claims, and use the principle of parsimony (e.g., Lett, 1990 ; Bartz, 2002 ).

Teaching scientific thinking is challenging, as people are vulnerable to trusting their intuitions and subjective observations and tend to prioritize them over objective scientific findings (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2012 ). Students and the public at large are prone to naïve realism, or the tendency to believe that our experiences and observations constitute objective reality ( Ross and Ward, 1996 ), when in fact our experiences and observations are subjective and prone to error (e.g., Kahneman, 2011 ). Educators at the post-secondary level tend to prioritize scientific thinking ( Lilienfeld, 2010 ), however many students do not continue on to a post-secondary program after they have completed high school. Further, students who are told they are learning critical thinking may believe they possess the skills to accurately assess the world around them. However, if they are not taught the specific skills needed to be scientifically literate, they may still fall prey to logical fallacies and biases. People tend to underestimate or not understand fallacies that can prevent them from making sound decisions ( Lilienfeld et al., 2001 ; Pronin et al., 2004 ; Lilienfeld, 2010 ). Thus, it is reasonable to think that a person who has not been adequately trained in scientific thinking would nonetheless consider themselves a strong critical thinker, and therefore would be even less likely consider his or her own personal biases. Another concern is that when teaching scientific thinking there is always the risk that students become overly critical or cynical (e.g., Mercier et al., 2017 ). By this, a student may be skeptical of nearly all findings, regardless of the supporting evidence. By incorporating and focusing on cognitive biases, instructors can help students understand their own biases, and demonstrate how the rigor of the scientific method can, at least partially, control for these biases.

Teaching CT remains controversial and confusing for many instructors ( Bensley and Murtagh, 2012 ). This is partly due to the lack of clarity in the definition of CT and the wide range of methods proposed to best teach CT ( Abrami et al., 2008 ; Bensley and Murtagh, 2012 ). For instance, Bensley and Spero (2014) found evidence for the effectiveness of direct approaches to teaching CT, a claim echoed in earlier research ( Abrami et al., 2008 ; Marin and Halpern, 2011 ). Despite their positive findings, some studies have failed to find support for measures of CT ( Burke et al., 2014 ) and others have found variable, yet positive, support for instructional methods ( Dochy et al., 2003 ). Unfortunately, there is a lack of research demonstrating the best pedagogical approaches to teaching scientific thinking at different grade levels. More research is needed to provide an empirically grounded approach to teach scientific thinking, and there is also a need to develop evidence based measures of scientific thinking that are grade and age appropriate. One approach to teaching scientific thinking may be to frame the topic in its simplest terms—the ability to “detect baloney” ( Sagan, 1995 ).

Sagan (1995) has promoted the tools necessary to recognize poor arguments, fallacies to avoid, and how to approach claims using the scientific method. The basic tenets of Sagan's argument apply to most claims, and have the potential to be an effective teaching tool across a range of abilities and ages. Sagan discusses the idea of a baloney detection kit, which contains the “tools” for skeptical thinking. The development of “baloney detection kits” which include age-appropriate scientific thinking skills may be an effective approach to teaching scientific thinking. These kits could include the style of exercises that are typically found under the banner of CT training (e.g., group discussions, evaluations of arguments) with a focus on teaching scientific thinking. An empirically validated kit does not yet exist, though there is much to draw from in the literature on pedagogical approaches to correcting cognitive biases, combatting pseudoscience, and teaching methodology (e.g., Smith, 2011 ). Further research is needed in this area to ensure that the correct, and age-appropriate, tools are part of any baloney detection kit.

Teaching Sagan's idea of baloney detection in conjunction with CT provides educators with a clear focus—to employ a pedagogical approach that helps students create sound and cogent arguments while avoiding falling prey to “baloney”. This is not to say that all of the information taught under the current banner of “critical thinking” is without value. In fact, many of the topics taught under the current approach of CT are important, even though they would not fit within the framework of some definitions of critical thinking. If educators want to ensure that students have the ability to be accurate consumers of information, a focus should be placed on including scientific thinking as a component of the science curriculum, as well as part of the broader teaching of CT.

Educators need to be provided with evidence-based approaches to teach the principles of scientific thinking. These principles should be taught in conjunction with evidence-based methods that mitigate the potential for fallacious reasoning and false beliefs. At a minimum, when students first learn about science, there should also be an introduction to the basics tenets of scientific thinking. Courses dedicated to promoting scientific thinking may also be effective. A course focused on cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and the hallmarks of scientific thinking adapted for each grade level may provide students with the foundation of solid scientific thinking skills to produce and evaluate arguments, and allow expansion of scientific thinking into other scholastic areas and classes. Evaluations of the efficacy of these courses would be essential, along with research to determine the best approach to incorporate scientific thinking into the curriculum.

If instructors know that students have at least some familiarity with the fundamental tenets of scientific thinking, the ability to expand and build upon these ideas in a variety of subject specific areas would further foster and promote these skills. For example, when discussing climate change, an instructor could add a brief discussion of why some people reject the science of climate change by relating this back to the information students will be familiar with from their scientific thinking courses. In terms of an issue like climate change, many students may have heard in political debates or popular culture that global warming trends are not real, or a “hoax” ( Lewandowsky et al., 2013 ). In this case, only teaching the data and facts may not be sufficient to change a student's mind about the reality of climate change ( Lewandowsky et al., 2012 ). Instructors would have more success by presenting students with the data on global warming trends as well as information on the biases that could lead some people reject the data ( Kowalski and Taylor, 2009 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2012 ). This type of instruction helps educators create informed citizens who are better able to guide future decision making and ensure that students enter the job market with the skills needed to be valuable members of the workforce and society as a whole.

By promoting scientific thinking, educators can ensure that students are at least exposed to the basic tenets of what makes a good argument, how to create their own arguments, recognize their own biases and those of others, and how to think like a scientist. There is still work to be done, as there is a need to put in place educational programs built on empirical evidence, as well as research investigating specific techniques to promote scientific thinking for children in earlier grade levels and develop measures to test if students have acquired the necessary scientific thinking skills. By using an evidence based approach to implement strategies to promote scientific thinking, and encouraging researchers to further explore the ideal methods for doing so, educators can better serve their students. When students are provided with the core ideas of how to detect baloney, and provided with examples of how baloney detection relates to the real world (e.g., Schmaltz and Lilienfeld, 2014 ), we are confident that they will be better able to navigate through the oceans of information available and choose the right path when deciding if information is valid.

Author Contribution

RS was the lead author and this paper, and both EJ and NW contributed equally.

Conflict of Interest Statement

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.

1. ^ There is some debate about the role of dispositional factors in the ability for a person to engage in critical thinking, specifically that dispositional factors may mitigate any attempt to learn CT. The general consensus is that while dispositional traits may play a role in the ability to think critically, the general skills to be a critical thinker can be taught ( Niu et al., 2013 ; Abrami et al., 2015 ).

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., and Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084

Alberta Education (2015). Ministerial Order on Student Learning . Available online at: https://education.alberta.ca/policies-and-standards/student-learning/everyone/ministerial-order-on-student-learning-pdf/

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.). Available online at: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au

Bartz, W. R. (2002). Teaching skepticism via the CRITIC acronym and the skeptical inquirer. Skeptical Inquirer 17, 42–44.

Google Scholar

Bensley, D. A., and Murtagh, M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment. Teach. Psychol. 39, 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0098628311430642

Bensley, D. A., and Spero, R. A. (2014). Improving critical thinking skills and metacognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think. Skills Creativ. 12, 55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Bullock, M., Sodian, B., and Koerber, S. (2009). “Doing experiments and understanding science: development of scientific reasoning from childhood to adulthood,” in Human Development from Early Childhood to Early Adulthood: Findings from a 20 Year Longitudinal Study , eds W. Schneider and M. Bullock (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 173–197.

Burke, B. L., Sears, S. R., Kraus, S., and Roberts-Cady, S. (2014). Critical analysis: a comparison of critical thinking changes in psychology and philosophy classes. Teach. Psychol. 41, 28–36. doi: 10.1177/0098628313514175

California Department of Education (2014). Standard for Career Ready Practice . Available online at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel22.asp

DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. R., Santos, J. L., and Korn, W. S. (2009). The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2007-2008 HERI Faculty Survey . Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., and Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn. Instruct. 13, 533–568. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association.

Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., and Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 326–338. doi: 10.1177/0146167209351435

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Forawi, S. A. (2016). Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think. Skills Creativ. 20, 52–62. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader . New York, NY: Pantheon.

Hatcher, D. L. (2000). Arguments for another definition of critical thinking. Inquiry 20, 3–8. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews20002016

Huber, C. R., and Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 431–468. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917

Johnson, R. H., and Hamby, B. (2015). A meta-level approach to the problem of defining “Critical Thinking”. Argumentation 29, 417–430. doi: 10.1007/s10503-015-9356-4

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow . New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Koerber, S., Mayer, D., Osterhaus, C., Schwippert, K., and Sodian, B. (2015). The development of scientific thinking in elementary school: a comprehensive inventory. Child Dev. 86, 327–336. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12298

Kowalski, P., and Taylor, A. K. (2009). The effect of refuting misconceptions in the introductory psychology class. Teach. Psychol. 36, 153–159. doi: 10.1080/00986280902959986

Lawson, T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for psychology majors. Teach. Psychol. 26, 207–209. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP260311

CrossRef Full Text

Lawson, T. J., Jordan-Fleming, M. K., and Bodle, J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking: an update. Teach. Psychol. 42, 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624

Lett, J. (1990). A field guide to critical thinking. Skeptical Inquirer , 14, 153–160.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., and Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13, 106–131. doi: 10.1177/1529100612451018

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., and Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. 24, 622–633. doi: 10.1177/0956797612457686

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2010). Can psychology become a science? Pers. Individ. Dif. 49, 281–288. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.024

Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., and David, M. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. J. Sch. Psychol. 50, 7–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., and Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology: useful resources. Teach. Psychol. 28, 182–191. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03

Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sims, V., and Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28, 617–625. doi: 10.1002/acp.3042

Marin, L. M., and Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Think. Skills Creativ. 6, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., and Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educ. Psychol. 52, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207537

Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., and Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students' critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 9, 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., and Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychol. Rev. 111, 781–799. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781

Ross, L., and Ward, A. (1996). “Naive realism in everyday life: implications for social conflict and misunderstanding,” in Values and Knowledge , eds E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, T. Brown, E. S. Reed, E. Turiel and T. Brown (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.), 103–135.

Sagan, C. (1995). Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark . New York, NY: Random House.

Schmaltz, R., and Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014). Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking. Front. Psychol. 5:336. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00336

Smith, J. C. (2011). Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit . New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Wright, I. (2001). Critical thinking in the schools: why doesn't much happen? Inform. Logic 22, 137–154. doi: 10.22329/il.v22i2.2579

Keywords: scientific thinking, critical thinking, teaching resources, skepticism, education policy

Citation: Schmaltz RM, Jansen E and Wenckowski N (2017) Redefining Critical Thinking: Teaching Students to Think like Scientists. Front. Psychol . 8:459. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00459

Received: 13 December 2016; Accepted: 13 March 2017; Published: 29 March 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Schmaltz, Jansen and Wenckowski. 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) or licensor 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: Rodney M. Schmaltz, [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.

Promoting critical thinking through an evidence-based skills fair intervention

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 23 November 2020

Issue publication date: 1 April 2022

The lack of critical thinking in new graduates has been a concern to the nursing profession. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an innovative, evidence-based skills fair intervention on nursing students' achievements and perceptions of critical thinking skills development.

Design/methodology/approach

The explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed for this study.

The findings indicated participants perceived the intervention as a strategy for developing critical thinking.

Originality/value

The study provides educators helpful information in planning their own teaching practice in educating students.

Critical thinking

Evidence-based practice, skills fair intervention.

Gonzalez, H.C. , Hsiao, E.-L. , Dees, D.C. , Noviello, S.R. and Gerber, B.L. (2022), "Promoting critical thinking through an evidence-based skills fair intervention", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-08-2020-0041

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Heidi C. Gonzalez, E-Ling Hsiao, Dianne C. Dees, Sherri R. Noviello and Brian L. Gerber

Published in Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) was defined as “cognitive skills of analyzing, applying standards, discriminating, information seeking, logical reasoning, predicting, and transforming knowledge” ( Scheffer and Rubenfeld, 2000 , p. 357). Critical thinking is the basis for all professional decision-making ( Moore, 2007 ). The lack of critical thinking in student nurses and new graduates has been a concern to the nursing profession. It would negatively affect the quality of service and directly relate to the high error rates in novice nurses that influence patient safety ( Arli et al. , 2017 ; Saintsing et al. , 2011 ). It was reported that as many as 88% of novice nurses commit medication errors with 30% of these errors due to a lack of critical thinking ( Ebright et al. , 2004 ). Failure to rescue is another type of error common for novice nurses, reported as high as 37% ( Saintsing et al. , 2011 ). The failure to recognize trends or complications promptly or take action to stabilize the patient occurs when health-care providers do not recognize signs and symptoms of the early warnings of distress ( Garvey and CNE series, 2015 ). Internationally, this lack of preparedness and critical thinking attributes to the reported 35–60% attrition rate of new graduate nurses in their first two years of practice ( Goodare, 2015 ). The high attrition rate of new nurses has expensive professional and economic costs of $82,000 or more per nurse and negatively affects patient care ( Twibell et al. , 2012 ). Facione and Facione (2013) reported the failure to utilize critical thinking skills not only interferes with learning but also results in poor decision-making and unclear communication between health-care professionals, which ultimately leads to patient deaths.

Due to the importance of critical thinking, many nursing programs strive to infuse critical thinking into their curriculum to better prepare graduates for the realities of clinical practice that involves ever-changing, complex clinical situations and bridge the gap between education and practice in nursing ( Benner et al. , 2010 ; Kim et al. , 2019 ; Park et al. , 2016 ; Newton and Moore, 2013 ; Nibert, 2011 ). To help develop students' critical thinking skills, nurse educators must change the way they teach nursing, so they can prepare future nurses to be effective communicators, critical thinkers and creative problem solvers ( Rieger et al. , 2015 ). Nursing leaders also need to redefine teaching practice and educational guidelines that drive innovation in undergraduate nursing programs.

Evidence-based practice has been advocated to promote critical thinking and help reduce the research-practice gap ( Profetto-McGrath, 2005 ; Stanley and Dougherty, 2010 ). Evidence-based practice was defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of the individual patient” ( Sackett et al. , 1996 , p. 71). Skills fair intervention, one type of evidence-based practice, can be used to engage students, promote active learning and develop critical thinking ( McCausland and Meyers, 2013 ; Roberts et al. , 2009 ). Skills fair intervention helps promote a consistent teaching practice of the psychomotor skills to the novice nurse that decreased anxiety, gave clarity of expectations to the students in the clinical setting and increased students' critical thinking skills ( Roberts et al. , 2009 ). The researchers of this study had an opportunity to create an active, innovative skills fair intervention for a baccalaureate nursing program in one southeastern state. This intervention incorporated evidence-based practice rationale with critical thinking prompts using Socratic questioning, evidence-based practice videos to the psychomotor skill rubrics, group work, guided discussions, expert demonstration followed by guided practice and blended learning in an attempt to promote and develop critical thinking in nursing students ( Hsu and Hsieh, 2013 ; Oermann et al. , 2011 ; Roberts et al. , 2009 ). The effects of an innovative skills fair intervention on senior baccalaureate nursing students' achievements and their perceptions of critical thinking development were examined in the study.

Literature review

The ability to use reasoned opinion focusing equally on processes and outcomes over emotions is called critical thinking ( Paul and Elder, 2008 ). Critical thinking skills are desired in almost every discipline and play a major role in decision-making and daily judgments. The roots of critical thinking date back to Socrates 2,500 years ago and can be traced to the ancient philosopher Aristotle ( Paul and Elder, 2012 ). Socrates challenged others by asking inquisitive questions in an attempt to challenge their knowledge. In the 1980s, critical thinking gained nationwide recognition as a behavioral science concept in the educational system ( Robert and Petersen, 2013 ). Many researchers in both education and nursing have attempted to define, measure and teach critical thinking for decades. However, a theoretical definition has yet to be accepted and established by the nursing profession ( Romeo, 2010 ). The terms critical literacy, CT, reflective thinking, systems thinking, clinical judgment and clinical reasoning are used synonymously in the reviewed literature ( Clarke and Whitney, 2009 ; Dykstra, 2008 ; Jones, 2010 ; Swing, 2014 ; Turner, 2005 ).

Watson and Glaser (1980) viewed critical thinking not only as cognitive skills but also as a combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes. Paul (1993) , the founder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, offered several definitions of critical thinking and identified three essential components of critical thinking: elements of thought, intellectual standards and affective traits. Brunt (2005) stated critical thinking is a process of being practical and considered it to be “the process of purposeful thinking and reflective reasoning where practitioners examine ideas, assumptions, principles, conclusions, beliefs, and actions in the contexts of nursing practice” (p. 61). In an updated definition, Ennis (2011) described critical thinking as, “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (para. 1).

The most comprehensive attempt to define critical thinking was under the direction of Facione and sponsored by the American Philosophical Association ( Scheffer and Rubenfeld, 2000 ). Facione (1990) surveyed 53 experts from the arts and sciences using the Delphi method to define critical thinking as a “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as an explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which judgment, is based” (p. 2).

To come to a consensus definition for critical thinking, Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000) also conducted a Delphi study. Their study consisted of an international panel of nurses who completed five rounds of sequenced questions to arrive at a consensus definition. Critical thinking was defined as “habits of mind” and “cognitive skills.” The elements of habits of mind included “confidence, contextual perspective, creativity, flexibility, inquisitiveness, intellectual integrity, intuition, open-mindedness, perseverance, and reflection” ( Scheffer and Rubenfeld, 2000 , p. 352). The elements of cognitive skills were recognized as “analyzing, applying standards, discriminating, information seeking, logical reasoning, predicting, and transforming knowledge” ( Scheffer and Rubenfeld, 2000 , p. 352). In addition, Ignatavicius (2001) defined the development of critical thinking as a long-term process that must be practiced, nurtured and reinforced over time. Ignatavicius believed that a critical thinker required six cognitive skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation ( Chun-Chih et al. , 2015 ). According to Ignatavicius (2001) , the development of critical thinking is difficult to measure or describe because it is a formative rather than summative process.

Fero et al. (2009) noted that patient safety might be compromised if a nurse cannot provide clinically competent care due to a lack of critical thinking. The Institute of Medicine (2001) recommended five health care competencies: patient-centered care, interdisciplinary team care, evidence-based practice, informatics and quality improvement. Understanding the development and attainment of critical thinking is the key for gaining these future competencies ( Scheffer and Rubenfeld, 2000 ). The development of a strong scientific foundation for nursing practice depends on habits such as contextual perspective, inquisitiveness, creativity, analysis and reasoning skills. Therefore, the need to better understand how these critical thinking habits are developed in nursing students needs to be explored through additional research ( Fero et al. , 2009 ). Despite critical thinking being listed since the 1980s as an accreditation outcome criteria for baccalaureate programs by the National League for Nursing, very little improvement has been observed in practice ( McMullen and McMullen, 2009 ). James (2013) reported the number of patient harm incidents associated with hospital care is much higher than previously thought. James' study indicated that between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year go to the hospital for care and end up suffering some preventable harm that contributes to their death. James' study of preventable errors is attributed to other sources besides nursing care, but having a nurse in place who can advocate and critically think for patients will make a positive impact on improving patient safety ( James, 2013 ; Robert and Peterson, 2013 ).

Adopting teaching practice to promote CT is a crucial component of nursing education. Research by Nadelson and Nadelson (2014) suggested evidence-based practice is best learned when integrated into multiple areas of the curriculum. Evidence-based practice developed its roots through evidence-based medicine, and the philosophical origins extend back to the mid-19th century ( Longton, 2014 ). Florence Nightingale, the pioneer of modern nursing, used evidence-based practice during the Crimean War when she recognized a connection between poor sanitary conditions and rising mortality rates of wounded soldiers ( Rahman and Applebaum, 2011 ). In professional nursing practice today, a commonly used definition of evidence-based practice is derived from Dr. David Sackett: the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of the individual patient ( Sackett et al. , 1996 , p. 71). As professional nurses, it is imperative for patient safety to remain inquisitive and ask if the care provided is based on available evidence. One of the core beliefs of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association's (2019) 2019–2020 Strategic Plan is “Anna must support research to develop evidence-based practice, as well as to advance nursing science, and that as individual members, we must support, participate in, and apply evidence-based research that advances our own skills, as well as nursing science” (p. 1). Longton (2014) reported the lack of evidence-based practice in nursing resulted in negative outcomes for patients. In fact, when evidence-based practice was implemented, changes in policies and procedures occurred that resulted in decreased reports of patient harm and associated health-care costs. The Institute of Medicine (2011) recommendations included nurses being leaders in the transformation of the health-care system and achieving higher levels of education that will provide the ability to critically analyze data to improve the quality of care for patients. Student nurses must be taught to connect and integrate CT and evidence-based practice throughout their program of study and continue that practice throughout their careers.

One type of evidence-based practice that can be used to engage students, promote active learning and develop critical thinking is skills fair intervention ( McCausland and Meyers, 2013 ; Roberts et al. , 2009 ). Skills fair intervention promoted a consistent teaching approach of the psychomotor skills to the novice nurse that decreased anxiety, gave clarity of expectations to the students in the clinical setting and increased students' critical thinking skills ( Roberts et al. , 2009 ). The skills fair intervention used in this study is a teaching strategy that incorporated CT prompts, Socratic questioning, group work, guided discussions, return demonstrations and blended learning in an attempt to develop CT in nursing students ( Hsu and Hsieh, 2013 ; Roberts et al. , 2009 ). It melded evidence-based practice with simulated CT opportunities while students practiced essential psychomotor skills.

Research methodology

Context – skills fair intervention.

According to Roberts et al. (2009) , psychomotor skills decline over time even among licensed experienced professionals within as little as two weeks and may need to be relearned within two months without performing a skill. When applying this concept to student nurses for whom each skill is new, it is no wonder their competency result is diminished after having a summer break from nursing school. This skills fair intervention is a one-day event to assist baccalaureate students who had taken the summer off from their studies in nursing and all faculty participated in operating the stations. It incorporated evidence-based practice rationale with critical thinking prompts using Socratic questioning, evidence-based practice videos to the psychomotor skill rubrics, group work, guided discussions, expert demonstration followed by guided practice and blended learning in an attempt to promote and develop critical thinking in baccalaureate students.

Students were scheduled and placed randomly into eight teams based on attributes of critical thinking as described by Wittmann-Price (2013) : Team A – Perseverance, Team B – Flexibility, Team C – Confidence, Team D – Creativity, Team E – Inquisitiveness, Team F – Reflection, Team G – Analyzing and Team H – Intuition. The students rotated every 20 minutes through eight stations: Medication Administration: Intramuscular and Subcutaneous Injections, Initiating Intravenous Therapy, ten-minute Focused Physical Assessment, Foley Catheter Insertion, Nasogastric Intubation, Skin Assessment/Braden Score and Restraints, Vital Signs and a Safety Station. When the students completed all eight stations, they went to the “Check-Out” booth to complete a simple evaluation to determine their perceptions of the effectiveness of the innovative intervention. When the evaluations were complete, each of the eight critical thinking attribute teams placed their index cards into a hat, and a student won a small prize. All Junior 2, Senior 1 and Senior 2 students were required to attend the Skills Fair. The Skills Fair Team strove to make the event as festive as possible, engaging nursing students with balloons, candy, tri-boards, signs and fun pre and postactivities. The Skills Fair rubrics, scheduling and instructions were shared electronically with students and faculty before the skills fair intervention to ensure adequate preparation and continuous resource availability as students move forward into their future clinical settings.

Research design

Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from XXX University to conduct this study and protect human subject rights. The explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed for this study. The design was chosen to identify what effects a skills fair intervention that had on senior baccalaureate nursing students' achievements on the Kaplan Critical Thinking Integrated Test (KCTIT) and then follow up with individual interviews to explore those test results in more depth. In total, 52 senior nursing students completed the KCTIT; 30 of them participated in the skills fair intervention and 22 of them did not participate. The KCTIT is a computerized 85-item exam in which 85 equates to 100%, making each question worth one point. It has high reliability and validity ( Kaplan Nursing, 2012 ; Swing, 2014 ). The reliability value of the KCTIT ranged from 0.72 to 0.89. A t -test was used to analyze the test results.

A total of 11 participants were purposefully selected based on a range of six high achievers and five low achievers on the KCTIT for open-ended one-on-one interviews. Each interview was conducted individually and lasted for about 60 minutes. An open-ended interview protocol was used to guide the flow of data collection. The interviewees' ages ranged from 21 to 30 years, with an average of 24 years. One of 11 interviewees was male. Among them, seven were White, three were Black and one was Indian American. The data collected were used to answer the following research questions: (1) What was the difference in achievements on the KCTIT among senior baccalaureate nursing students who participated in the skills fair intervention and students who did not participate? (2) What were the senior baccalaureate nursing students' perceptions of internal and external factors impacting the development of critical thinking skills during the skills fair intervention? and (3) What were the senior baccalaureate nursing students' perceptions of the skills fair intervention as a critical thinking developmental strategy?

Inductive content analysis was used to analyze interview data by starting with the close reading of the transcripts and writing memos for initial coding, followed by an analysis of patterns and relationships among the data for focused coding. The intercoder reliability was established for qualitative data analysis with a nursing expert. The lead researcher and the expert read the transcript several times and assigned a code to significant units of text that corresponded with answering the research questions. The codes were compared based on differences and similarities and sorted into subcategories and categories. Then, headings and subheadings were used based on similar comments to develop central themes and patterns. The process of establishing intercoder reliability helped to increase dependability, conformability and credibility of the findings ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2004 ). In addition, methods of credibility, confirmability, dependability and transferability were applied to increase the trustworthiness of this study ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2004 ). First, reflexivity was observed by keeping journals and memos. This practice allowed the lead researcher to reflect on personal views to minimize bias. Data saturation was reached through following the recommended number of participants as well as repeated immersion in the data during analysis until no new data surfaced. Member checking was accomplished through returning the transcript and the interpretation to the participants to check the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings. Finally, proper documentation was conducted to allow accurate crossreferencing throughout the study.

Quantitative results

Results for the quantitative portion showed there was no difference in scores on the KCTIT between senior nursing students who participated in the skills fair intervention and senior nursing students who did not participate, t (50) = −0.174, p  = 0.86 > 0.05. The test scores between the nonparticipant group ( M  = 67.59, SD = 5.81) and the participant group ( M  = 67.88, SD = 5.99) were almost equal.

Qualitative results

Initial coding.

The results from the initial coding and generated themes are listed in Table 1 . First, the participants perceived the skills fair intervention as “promoting experience” and “confidence” by practicing previously learned knowledge and reinforcing it with active learning strategies. Second, the participants perceived the skills fair intervention as a relaxed, nonthreatening learning environment due to the festive atmosphere, especially in comparison to other learning experiences in the nursing program. The nonthreatening environment of the skills fair intervention allowed students to learn without fear. Third, the majority of participants believed their critical thinking was strengthened after participating. Several participants believed their perception of critical thinking was “enhanced” or “reinforced” rather than significantly changed.

Focused coding results

The final themes were derived from the analysis of patterns and relationships among the content of the data using inductive content analysis ( Saldana, 2009 ). The following was examined across the focused coding process: (1) factors impacting critical thinking skills development during skills fair intervention and (2) skills fair intervention a critical thinking skills developmental strategy.

Factors impacting critical thinking skills development . The factors impacting the development of critical thinking during the skills fair intervention were divided into two themes: internal factors and external factors. The internal factors were characteristics innate to the students. The identified internal factors were (1) confidence and anxiety levels, (2) attitude and (3) age. The external factors were the outside influences that affected the students. The external factors were (1) experience and practice, (2) faculty involvement, (3) positive learning environment and (4) faculty prompts.

I think that confidence and anxiety definitely both have a huge impact on your ability to be able to really critically think. If you start getting anxious and panicking you cannot think through the process like you need too. I do not really think gender or age necessarily would have anything to do with critical thinking.

Definitely the confidence level, I think, the more advanced you get in the program, your confidence just keeps on growing. Level of anxiety, definitely… I think the people who were in the Skills Fair for the first time, had more anxiety because they did not really know to think, they did not know how strict it was going to be, or if they really had to know everything by the book. I think the Skills Fair helped everyone's confidence levels, but especially the Jr. 2's.

Attitude was an important factor in the development of critical thinking skills during the skills fair intervention as participants believed possessing a pleasant and positive attitude meant a student was eager to learn, participate, accept responsibility for completing duties and think seriously. Participant 6 believed attitude contributed to performance in the Skills Fair.

I feel like, certain things bring critical thinking out in you. And since I'm a little bit older than some of the other students, I have had more life experiences and am able to figure stuff out better. Older students have had more time to learn by trial and error, and this and that.

Like when I had clinical with you, you'd always tell us to know our patients' medications. To always know and be prepared to answer questions – because at first as a Junior 1 we did not do that in the clinical setting… and as a Junior 2, I did not really have to know my medications, but with you as a Senior 1, I started to realize that the patients do ask about their meds, so I was making sure that I knew everything before they asked it. And just having more practice with IVs – at first, I was really nervous, but when I got to my preceptorship – I had done so many IVs and with all of the practice, it just built up my confidence with that skill so when I performed that skill during the Fair, I was confident due to my clinical experiences and able to think and perform better.

I think teachers will always affect the ability to critically think just because you want [to] get the right answer because they are there and you want to seem smart to them [Laugh]. Also, if you are leading in the wrong direction of your thinking – they help steer you back to [in] the right direction so I think that was very helpful.

You could tell the faculty really tried to make it more laid back and fun, so everybody would have a good experience. The faculty had a good attitude. I think making it fun and active helped keep people positive. You know if people are negative and not motivated, nothing gets accomplished. The faculty did an amazing job at making the Skills Fair a positive atmosphere.

However, for some of the participants, a positive learning environment depended on their fellow students. The students were randomly assigned alphabetically to groups, and the groups were assigned to starting stations at the Skills Fair. The participants claimed some students did not want to participate and displayed cynicism toward the intervention. The participants believed their cynicism affected the positive learning environment making critical thinking more difficult during the Skills Fair.

Okay, when [instructor name] was demonstrating the Chevron technique right after we inserted the IV catheter and we were trying to secure the catheter, put on the extension set, and flush the line at what seemed to be all at the same time. I forgot about how you do not want to put the tape right over the hub of the catheter because when you go back in and try to assess the IV site – you're trying to assess whether or not it is patent or infiltrated – you have to visualize the insertion site. That was one of the things that I had been doing wrong because I was just so excited that I got the IV in the vein in the first place – that I did not think much about the tape or the tegaderm for sterility. So I think an important part of critical thinking is to be able to recognize when you've made a mistake and stop, stop yourself from doing it in the future (see Table 2 ).

Skills fair intervention as a developmental strategy for critical thinking . The participants identified the skills fair intervention was effective as a developmental strategy for critical thinking, as revealed in two themes: (1) develops alternative thinking and (2) thinking before doing (See Table 3 ).

Develops alternative thinking . The participants perceived the skills fair intervention helped enhance critical thinking and confidence by developing alternative thinking. Alternative thinking was described as quickly thinking of alternative solutions to problems based on the latest evidence and using that information to determine what actions were warranted to prevent complications and prevent injury. It helped make better connections through the learning of rationale between knowledge and skills and then applying that knowledge to prevent complications and errors to ensure the safety of patients. The participants stated the learning of rationale for certain procedures provided during the skills fair intervention such as the evidence and critical thinking prompts included in the rubrics helped reinforce this connection. The participants also shared they developed alternative thinking after participating in the skills fair intervention by noticing trends in data to prevent potential complications from the faculty prompts. Participant 1 stated her instructor prompted her alternative thinking through questioning about noticing trends to prevent potential complications. She said the following:

Another way critical thinking occurred during the skills fair was when [instructor name] was teaching and prompted us about what it would be like to care for a patient with a fractured hip – I think this was at the 10-minute focused assessment station, but I could be wrong. I remember her asking, “What do you need to be on the look-out for? What can go wrong?” I automatically did not think critically very well and was only thinking circulation in the leg, dah, dah, dah. But she was prompting us to think about mobility alterations and its effect on perfusion and oxygenation. She was trying to help us build those connections. And I think that's a lot of the aspects of critical thinking that gets overlooked with the nursing student – trouble making connections between our knowledge and applying it in practice.

Thinking before doing . The participants perceived thinking before doing, included thinking of how and why certain procedures, was necessary through self-examination prior to taking action. The hands-on situational learning allowed the participants in the skills fair intervention to better notice assessment data and think at a higher level as their previous learning of the skills was perceived as memorization of steps. This higher level of learning allowed participants to consider different future outcomes and analyze pertinent data before taking action.

I think what helped me the most is considering outcomes of my actions before I do anything. For instance, if you're thinking, “Okay. Well, I need to check their blood pressure before I administer this blood pressure medication – or the blood pressure could potentially bottom out.” I really do not want my patient to bottom out and get hypotensive because I administered a medication that was ordered, but not safe to give. I could prevent problems from happening if I know what to be on alert for and act accordingly. So ultimately knowing that in the clinical setting, I can prevent complications from happening and I save myself, my license, and promote patient safety. I think knowing that I've seen the importance of critical thinking already in practice has helped me value and understand why I should be critically thinking. Yes, we use the 5-rights of medication safety – but we also have to think. For instance, if I am going to administer insulin – what do I need to know or do to give this safely? What is the current blood sugar? Has the patient been eating? When is the next meal scheduled? Is the patient NPO for a procedure? Those are examples of questions to consider and the level of thinking that needs to take place prior to taking actions in the clinical setting.

Although the results of quantitative data showed no significant difference in scores on the KCTIT between the participant and nonparticipant groups, during the interviews some participants attributed this result to the test not being part of a course grade and believed students “did not try very hard to score well.” However, the participants who attended interviews did identify the skills fair intervention as a developmental strategy for critical thinking by helping them develop alternative thinking and thinking before doing. The findings are supported in the literature as (1) nurses must recognize signs of clinical deterioration and take action promptly to prevent potential complications ( Garvey and CNE series 2015 ) and (2) nurses must analyze pertinent data and consider all possible solutions before deciding on the most appropriate action for each patient ( Papathanasiou et al. , 2014 ).

The skills fair intervention also enhanced the development of self-confidence by participants practicing previously learned skills in a controlled, safe environment. The nonthreatening environment of the skills fair intervention allowed students to learn without fear and the majority of participants believed their critical thinking was strengthened after participating. The interview data also revealed a combination of internal and external factors that influenced the development of critical thinking during the skills fair intervention including confidence and anxiety levels, attitude, age, experience and practice, faculty involvement, positive learning environment and faculty prompts. These factors should be considered when addressing the promotion and development of critical thinking.

Conclusions, limitations and recommendations

A major concern in the nursing profession is the lack of critical thinking in student nurses and new graduates, which influences the decision-making of novice nurses and directly affects patient care and safety ( Saintsing et al. , 2011 ). Nurse educators must use evidence-based practice to prepare students to critically think with the complicated and constantly evolving environment of health care today ( Goodare, 2015 ; Newton and Moore, 2013 ). Evidence-based practice has been advocated to promote critical thinking ( Profetto-McGrath, 2005 ; Stanley and Dougherty, 2010 ). The skills fair intervention can be one type of evidence-based practice used to promote critical thinking ( McCausland and Meyers, 2013 ; Roberts et al. , 2009 ). The Intervention used in this study incorporated evidence-based practice rationale with critical thinking prompts using Socratic questioning, evidence-based practice videos to the psychomotor skill rubrics, group work, guided discussions, expert demonstration followed by guided practice and blended learning in an attempt to promote and develop critical thinking in nursing students.

The explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed to investigate the effects of the innovative skills fair intervention on senior baccalaureate nursing students' achievements and their perceptions of critical thinking skills development. Although the quantitative results showed no significant difference in scores on the KCTIT between students who participated in the skills fair intervention and those who did not, those who attended the interviews perceived their critical thinking was reinforced after the skills fair intervention and believed it was an effective developmental strategy for critical thinking, as it developed alternative thinking and thinking before doing. This information is useful for nurse educators who plan their own teaching practice to promote critical thinking and improve patient outcomes. The findings also provide schools and educators information that helps review their current approach in educating nursing students. As evidenced in the findings, the importance of developing critical thinking skills is crucial for becoming a safe, professional nurse. Internal and external factors impacting the development of critical thinking during the skills fair intervention were identified including confidence and anxiety levels, attitude, age, experience and practice, faculty involvement, positive learning environment and faculty prompts. These factors should be considered when addressing the promotion and development of critical thinking.

There were several limitations to this study. One of the major limitations of the study was the limited exposure of students' time of access to the skills fair intervention, as it was a one-day learning intervention. Another limitation was the sample selection and size. The skills fair intervention was limited to only one baccalaureate nursing program in one southeastern state. As such, the findings of the study cannot be generalized as it may not be representative of baccalaureate nursing programs in general. In addition, this study did not consider students' critical thinking achievements prior to the skills fair intervention. Therefore, no baseline measurement of critical thinking was available for a before and after comparison. Other factors in the nursing program could have affected the students' scores on the KCTIT, such as anxiety or motivation that was not taken into account in this study.

The recommendations for future research are to expand the topic by including other regions, larger samples and other baccalaureate nursing programs. In addition, future research should consider other participant perceptions, such as nurse educators, to better understand the development and growth of critical thinking skills among nursing students. Finally, based on participant perceptions, future research should include a more rigorous skills fair intervention to develop critical thinking and explore the link between confidence and critical thinking in nursing students.

Initial coding results

Factors impacting critical thinking skill development during skills fair intervention

Skills fair intervention as a developmental strategy for critical thinking

American Nephrology Nurses Association (ANNA) ( 2019 ), “ Learning, leading, connecting, and playing at the intersection of nephrology and nursing-2019–2020 strategic plan ”, viewed 3 Aug 2019, available at: https://www.annanurse.org/download/reference/association/strategicPlan.pdf .

Arli , S.D. , Bakan , A.B. , Ozturk , S. , Erisik , E. and Yildirim , Z. ( 2017 ), “ Critical thinking and caring in nursing students ”, International Journal of Caring Sciences , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 471 - 478 .

Benner , P. , Sutphen , M. , Leonard , V. and Day , L. ( 2010 ), Educating Nurses: A Call for Radical Transformation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco .

Brunt , B. ( 2005 ), “ Critical thinking in nursing: an integrated review ”, The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing , Vol. 36 No. 2 , pp. 60 - 67 .

Chun-Chih , L. , Chin-Yen , H. , I-Ju , P. and Li-Chin , C. ( 2015 ), “ The teaching-learning approach and critical thinking development: a qualitative exploration of Taiwanese nursing students ”, Journal of Professional Nursing , Vol. 31 No. 2 , pp. 149 - 157 , doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.07.001 .

Clarke , L.W. and Whitney , E. ( 2009 ), “ Walking in their shoes: using multiple-perspectives texts as a bridge to critical literacy ”, The Reading Teacher , Vol. 62 No. 6 , pp. 530 - 534 , doi: 10.1598/RT.62.6.7 .

Dykstra , D. ( 2008 ), “ Integrating critical thinking and memorandum writing into course curriculum using the internet as a research tool ”, College Student Journal , Vol. 42 No. 3 , pp. 920 - 929 , doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0477-2 .

Ebright , P. , Urden , L. , Patterson , E. and Chalko , B. ( 2004 ), “ Themes surrounding novice nurse near-miss and adverse-event situations ”, The Journal of Nursing Administration: The Journal of Nursing Administration , Vol. 34 , pp. 531 - 538 , doi: 10.1097/00005110-200411000-00010 .

Ennis , R. ( 2011 ), “ The nature of critical thinking: an outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities ”, viewed 3 May 2017, available at: https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf .

Facione , P.A. ( 1990 ), Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , The California Academic Press , Millbrae .

Facione , N.C. and Facione , P.A. ( 2013 ), The Health Sciences Reasoning Test: Test Manual , The California Academic Press , Millbrae .

Fero , L.J. , Witsberger , C.M. , Wesmiller , S.W. , Zullo , T.G. and Hoffman , L.A. ( 2009 ), “ Critical thinking ability of new graduate and experienced nurses ”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 65 No. 1 , pp. 139 - 148 , doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04834.x .

Garvey , P.K. and CNE series ( 2015 ), “ Failure to rescue: the nurse's impact ”, Medsurg Nursing , Vol. 24 No. 3 , pp. 145 - 149 .

Goodare , P. ( 2015 ), “ Literature review: ‘are you ok there?’ The socialization of student and graduate nurses: do we have it right? ”, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 38 - 43 .

Graneheim , U.H. and Lundman , B. ( 2014 ), “ Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures, and measures to achieve trustworthiness ”, Nurse Education Today , Vol. 24 No. 2 , pp. 105 - 12 , doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 .

Hsu , L. and Hsieh , S. ( 2013 ), “ Factors affecting metacognition of undergraduate nursing students in a blended learning environment ”, International Journal of Nursing Practice , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 233 - 241 , doi: 10.1111/ijn.12131 .

Ignatavicius , D. ( 2001 ), “ Six critical thinking skills for at-the-bedside success ”, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 30 - 33 .

Institute of Medicine ( 2001 ), Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century , National Academy Press , Washington .

James , J. ( 2013 ), “ A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care ”, Journal of Patient Safety , Vol. 9 No. 3 , pp. 122 - 128 , doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69 .

Jones , J.H. ( 2010 ), “ Developing critical thinking in the perioperative environment ”, AORN Journal , Vol. 91 No. 2 , pp. 248 - 256 , doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2009.09.025 .

Kaplan Nursing ( 2012 ), Kaplan Nursing Integrated Testing Program Faculty Manual , Kaplan Nursing , New York, NY .

Kim , J.S. , Gu , M.O. and Chang , H.K. ( 2019 ), “ Effects of an evidence-based practice education program using multifaceted interventions: a quasi-experimental study with undergraduate nursing students ”, BMC Medical Education , Vol. 19 , doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1501-6 .

Longton , S. ( 2014 ), “ Utilizing evidence-based practice for patient safety ”, Nephrology Nursing Journal , Vol. 41 No. 4 , pp. 343 - 344 .

McCausland , L.L. and Meyers , C.C. ( 2013 ), “ An interactive skills fair to prepare undergraduate nursing students for clinical experience ”, Nursing Education Perspectives , Vol. 34 No. 6 , pp. 419 - 420 , doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-34.6.419 .

McMullen , M.A. and McMullen , W.F. ( 2009 ), “ Examining patterns of change in the critical thinking skills of graduate nursing students ”, Journal of Nursing Education , Vol. 48 No. 6 , pp. 310 - 318 , doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090515-03 .

Moore , Z.E. ( 2007 ), “ Critical thinking and the evidence-based practice of sport psychology ”, Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology , Vol. 1 , pp. 9 - 22 , doi: 10.1123/jcsp.1.1.9 .

Nadelson , S. and Nadelson , L.S. ( 2014 ), “ Evidence-based practice article reviews using CASP tools: a method for teaching EBP ”, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing , Vol. 11 No. 5 , pp. 344 - 346 , doi: 10.1111/wvn.12059 .

Newton , S.E. and Moore , G. ( 2013 ), “ Critical thinking skills of basic baccalaureate and accelerated second-degree nursing students ”, Nursing Education Perspectives , Vol. 34 No. 3 , pp. 154 - 158 , doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-34.3.154 .

Nibert , A. ( 2011 ), “ Nursing education and practice: bridging the gap ”, Advance Healthcare Network , viewed 3 May 2017, available at: https://www.elitecme.com/resource-center/nursing/nursing-education-practice-bridging-the-gap/ .

Oermann , M.H. , Kardong-Edgren , S. , Odom-Maryon , T. , Hallmark , B.F. , Hurd , D. , Rogers , N. and Smart , D.A. ( 2011 ), “ Deliberate practice of motor skills in nursing education: CPR as exemplar ”, Nursing Education Perspectives , Vol. 32 No. 5 , pp. 311 - 315 , doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-32.5.311 .

Papathanasiou , I.V. , Kleisiaris , C.F. , Fradelos , E.C. , Kakou , K. and Kourkouta , L. ( 2014 ), “ Critical thinking: the development of an essential skill for nursing students ”, Acta Informatica Medica , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 283 - 286 , doi: 10.5455/aim.2014.22.283-286 .

Park , M.Y. , Conway , J. and McMillan , M. ( 2016 ), “ Enhancing critical thinking through simulation ”, Journal of Problem-Based Learning , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 31 - 40 , doi: 10.24313/jpbl.2016.3.1.31 .

Paul , R. ( 1993 ), Critical Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World , The Foundation for Critical Thinking , Santa Rosa .

Paul , R. and Elder , L. ( 2008 ), “ Critical thinking: the art of socratic questioning, part III ”, Journal of Developmental Education , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 34 - 35 .

Paul , R. and Elder , L. ( 2012 ), Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life , 3rd ed. , Pearson/Prentice Hall , Boston .

Profetto-McGrath , J. ( 2005 ), “ Critical thinking and evidence-based practice ”, Journal of Professional Nursing , Vol. 21 No. 6 , pp. 364 - 371 , doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.10.002 .

Rahman , A. and Applebaum , R. ( 2011 ), “ What's all this about evidence-based practice? The roots, the controversies, and why it matters ”, American Society on Aging , viewed 3 May 2017, available at: https://www.asaging.org/blog/whats-all-about-evidence-based-practice-roots-controversies-and-why-it-matters .

Rieger , K. , Chernomas , W. , McMillan , D. , Morin , F. and Demczuk , L. ( 2015 ), “ The effectiveness and experience of arts‐based pedagogy among undergraduate nursing students: a comprehensive systematic review protocol ”, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports , Vol. 13 No. 2 , pp. 101 - 124 , doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1891 .

Robert , R.R. and Petersen , S. ( 2013 ), “ Critical thinking at the bedside: providing safe passage to patients ”, Medsurg Nursing , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 85 - 118 .

Roberts , S.T. , Vignato , J.A. , Moore , J.L. and Madden , C.A. ( 2009 ), “ Promoting skill building and confidence in freshman nursing students with a skills-a-thon ”, Educational Innovations , Vol. 48 No. 8 , pp. 460 - 464 , doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090518-05 .

Romeo , E. ( 2010 ), “ Quantitative research on critical thinking and predicting nursing students' NCLEX-RN performance ”, Journal of Nursing Education , Vol. 49 No. 7 , pp. 378 - 386 , doi: 10.3928/01484834-20100331-05 .

Sackett , D. , Rosenberg , W. , Gray , J. , Haynes , R. and Richardson , W. ( 1996 ), “ Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't ”, British Medical Journal , Vol. 312 No. 7023 , pp. 71 - 72 , doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 .

Saintsing , D. , Gibson , L.M. and Pennington , A.W. ( 2011 ), “ The novice nurse and clinical decision-making: how to avoid errors ”, Journal of Nursing Management , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 354 - 359 .

Saldana , J. ( 2009 ), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , Sage , Los Angeles .

Scheffer , B. and Rubenfeld , M. ( 2000 ), “ A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing ”, Journal of Nursing Education , Vol. 39 No. 8 , pp. 352 - 359 .

Stanley , M.C. and Dougherty , J.P. ( 2010 ), “ Nursing education model. A paradigm shift in nursing education: a new model ”, Nursing Education Perspectives , Vol. 31 No. 6 , pp. 378 - 380 , doi: 10.1043/1536-5026-31.6.378 .

Swing , V.K. ( 2014 ), “ Early identification of transformation in the proficiency level of critical thinking skills (CTS) for the first-semester associate degree nursing (ADN) student ”, doctoral thesis , Capella University , Minneapolis , viewed 3 May 2017, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database .

Turner , P. ( 2005 ), “ Critical thinking in nursing education and practice as defined in the literature ”, Nursing Education Perspectives , Vol. 26 No. 5 , pp. 272 - 277 .

Twibell , R. , St Pierre , J. , Johnson , D. , Barton , D. , Davis , C. and Kidd , M. ( 2012 ), “ Tripping over the welcome mat: why new nurses don't stay and what the evidence says we can do about it ”, American Nurse Today , Vol. 7 No. 6 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Watson , G. and Glaser , E.M. ( 1980 ), Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal , Psychological Corporation , San Antonio .

Wittmann-Price , R.A. ( 2013 ), “ Facilitating learning in the classroom setting ”, in Wittmann-Price , R.A. , Godshall , M. and Wilson , L. (Eds), Certified Nurse Educator (CNE) Review Manual , Springer Publishing , New York, NY , pp. 19 - 70 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Fostering Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Argumentation Skills through Bioethics Education

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Northwest Association for Biomedical Research, Seattle, Washington, United States of America

Affiliation Center for Research and Learning, Snohomish, Washington, United States of America

• Jeanne Ting Chowning, 
• Joan Carlton Griswold, 
• Dina N. Kovarik, 
• Laura J. Collins

• Published: May 11, 2012
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791
• Reader Comments

Developing a position on a socio-scientific issue and defending it using a well-reasoned justification involves complex cognitive skills that are challenging to both teach and assess. Our work centers on instructional strategies for fostering critical thinking skills in high school students using bioethical case studies, decision-making frameworks, and structured analysis tools to scaffold student argumentation. In this study, we examined the effects of our teacher professional development and curricular materials on the ability of high school students to analyze a bioethical case study and develop a strong position. We focused on student ability to identify an ethical question, consider stakeholders and their values, incorporate relevant scientific facts and content, address ethical principles, and consider the strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions. 431 students and 12 teachers participated in a research study using teacher cohorts for comparison purposes. The first cohort received professional development and used the curriculum with their students; the second did not receive professional development until after their participation in the study and did not use the curriculum. In order to assess the acquisition of higher-order justification skills, students were asked to analyze a case study and develop a well-reasoned written position. We evaluated statements using a scoring rubric and found highly significant differences (p<0.001) between students exposed to the curriculum strategies and those who were not. Students also showed highly significant gains (p<0.001) in self-reported interest in science content, ability to analyze socio-scientific issues, awareness of ethical issues, ability to listen to and discuss viewpoints different from their own, and understanding of the relationship between science and society. Our results demonstrate that incorporating ethical dilemmas into the classroom is one strategy for increasing student motivation and engagement with science content, while promoting reasoning and justification skills that help prepare an informed citizenry.

Citation: Chowning JT, Griswold JC, Kovarik DN, Collins LJ (2012) Fostering Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Argumentation Skills through Bioethics Education. PLoS ONE 7(5): e36791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791

Editor: Julio Francisco Turrens, University of South Alabama, United States of America

Received: February 7, 2012; Accepted: April 13, 2012; Published: May 11, 2012

Copyright: © 2012 Chowning et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The “Collaborations to Understand Research and Ethics” (CURE) program was supported by a Science Education Partnership Award grant ( http://ncrrsepa.org ) from the National Center for Research Resources and the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives of the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number R25OD011138. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

While the practice of argumentation is a cornerstone of the scientific process, students at the secondary level have few opportunities to engage in it [1] . Recent research suggests that collaborative discourse and critical dialogue focused on student claims and justifications can increase student reasoning abilities and conceptual understanding, and that strategies are needed to promote such practices in secondary science classrooms [2] . In particular, students need structured opportunities to develop arguments and discuss them with their peers. In scientific argument, the data, claims and warrants (that relate claims to data) are strictly concerned with scientific data; in a socio-scientific argument, students must consider stakeholder perspectives and ethical principles and ideas, in addition to relevant scientific background. Regardless of whether the arguments that students employ point towards scientific or socio-scientific issues, the overall processes students use in order to develop justifications rely on a model that conceptualizes arguments as claims to knowledge [3] .

Prior research in informal student reasoning and socio-scientific issues also indicates that most learners are not able to formulate high-quality arguments (as defined by the ability to articulate justifications for claims and to rebut contrary positions), and highlights the challenges related to promoting argumentation skills. Research suggests that students need experience and practice justifying their claims, recognizing and addressing counter-arguments, and learning about elements that contribute to a strong justification [4] , [5] .

Proponents of Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) education stress that the intellectual development of students in ethical reasoning is necessary to promote understanding of the relationship between science and society [4] , [6] . The SSI approach emphasizes three important principles: (a) because science literacy should be a goal for all students, science education should be broad-based and geared beyond imparting relevant content knowledge to future scientists; (b) science learning should involve students in thinking about the kinds of real-world experiences that they might encounter in their lives; and (c) when teaching about real-world issues, science teachers should aim to include contextual elements that are beyond traditional science content. Sadler and Zeidler, who advocate a SSI perspective, note that “people do not live their lives according to disciplinary boundaries, and students approach socio-scientific issues with diverse perspectives that integrate science and other considerations” [7] .

Standards for science literacy emphasize not only the importance of scientific content and processes, but also the need for students to learn about science that is contextualized in real-world situations that involve personal and community decision-making [7] – [10] . The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards stresses that students need “regular exposure to the human contexts of science [and] examples of ethical dilemmas, both current and past, that surround particular scientific activities, discoveries, and technologies” [11] . Teachers are mandated by national science standards and professional teaching standards to address the social dimensions of science, and are encouraged to provide students with the tools necessary to engage in analyzing bioethical issues; yet they rarely receive training in methods to foster such discussions with students.

The Northwest Association for Biomedical Research (NWABR), a non-profit organization that advances the understanding and support of biomedical research, has been engaging students and teachers in bringing the discussion of ethical issues in science into the classroom since 2000 [12] . The mission of NWABR is to promote an understanding of biomedical research and its ethical conduct through dialogue and education. The sixty research institutions that constitute our members include academia, industry, non-profit research organizations, research hospitals, professional societies, and volunteer health organizations. NWABR connects the scientific and education communities across the Northwestern United States and helps the public understand the vital role of research in promoting better health outcomes. We have focused on providing teachers with both resources to foster student reasoning skills (such as activities in which students practice evaluating arguments using criteria for strong justifications), as well as pedagogical strategies for fostering collaborative discussion [13] – [15] . Our work draws upon socio-scientific elements of functional scientific literacy identified by Zeidler et al. [6] . We include support for teachers in discourse issues, nature of science issues, case-based issues, and cultural issues – which all contribute to cognitive and moral development and promote functional scientific literacy. Our Collaborations to Understand Research and Ethics (CURE) program, funded by a Science Education Partnership Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), promotes understanding of translational biomedical research as well as the ethical considerations such research raises.

Many teachers find a principles-based approach most manageable for introducing ethical considerations. The principles include respect for persons (respecting the inherent worth of an individual and his or her autonomy), beneficence/nonmaleficence (maximizing benefits/minimizing harms), and justice (distributing benefits/burdens equitably across a group of individuals). These principles, which are articulated in the Belmont Report [16] in relation to research with human participants (and which are clarified and defended by Beauchamp and Childress [17] ), represent familiar concepts and are widely used. In our professional development workshops and in our support resources, we also introduce teachers to care, feminist, virtue, deontological and consequentialist ethics. Once teachers become familiar with principles, they often augment their teaching by incorporating these additional ethical approaches.

The Bioethics 101 materials that were the focus of our study were developed in conjunction with teachers, ethicists, and scientists. The curriculum contains a series of five classroom lessons and a culminating assessment [18] and is described in more detail in the Program Description below. For many years, teachers have shared with us the dramatic impacts that the teaching of bioethics can have on their students; this research study was designed to investigate the relationship between explicit instruction in bioethical reasoning and resulting student outcomes. In this study, teacher cohorts and student pre/post tests were used to investigate whether CURE professional development and the Bioethics 101 curriculum materials made a significant difference in high school students’ abilities to analyze a case study and justify their positions. Our research strongly indicates that such reasoning approaches can be taught to high school students and can significantly improve their ability to develop well-reasoned justifications to bioethical dilemmas. In addition, student self-reports provide additional evidence of the extent to which bioethics instruction impacted their attitudes and perceptions and increased student motivation and engagement with science content.

Program Description

Our professional development program, Ethics in the Science Classroom, spanned two weeks. The first week, a residential program at the University of Washington (UW) Pack Forest Conference Center, focused on our Bioethics 101 curriculum, which is summarized in Table S1 and is freely available at http://www.nwabr.org . The curriculum, a series of five classroom lessons and a culminating assessment, was implemented by all teachers who were part of our CURE treatment group. The lessons explore the following topics: (a) characteristics of an ethical question; (b) bioethical principles; (c) the relationship between science and ethics and the roles of objectivity/subjectivity and evidence in each; (d) analysis of a case study (including identifying an ethical question, determining relevant facts, identifying stakeholders and their concerns and values, and evaluating options); and (e) development of a well-reasoned justification for a position.

Additionally, the first week focused on effective teaching methods for incorporating ethical issues into science classrooms. We shared specific pedagogical strategies for helping teachers manage classroom discussion, such as asking students to consider the concerns and values of individuals involved in the case while in small single and mixed stakeholder groups. We also provided participants with background knowledge in biomedical research and ethics. Presentations from colleagues affiliated with the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award program, from the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the UW, and from NWABR member institutions helped participants develop a broad appreciation for the process of biomedical research and the ethical issues that arise as a consequence of that research. Topics included clinical trials, animal models of disease, regulation of research, and ethical foundations of research. Participants also developed materials directly relevant and applicable to their own classrooms, and shared them with other educators. Teachers wrote case studies and then used ethical frameworks to analyze the main arguments surrounding the case, thereby gaining experience in bioethical analysis. Teachers also developed Action Plans to outline their plans for implementation.

The second week provided teachers with first-hand experiences in NWABR research institutions. Teachers visited research centers such as the Tumor Vaccine Group and Clinical Research Center at the UW. They also had the opportunity to visit several of the following institutions: Amgen, Benaroya Research Institute, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Infectious Disease Research Institute, Institute for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine at the UW, Pacific Northwest Diabetes Research Institute, Puget Sound Blood Center, HIV Vaccine Trials Network, and Washington National Primate Research Center. Teachers found these experiences in research facilities extremely valuable in helping make concrete the concepts and processes detailed in the first week of the program.

We held two follow-up sessions during the school year to deepen our relationship with the teachers, promote a vibrant ethics in science education community, provide additional resources and support, and reflect on challenges in implementation of our materials. We also provided the opportunity for teachers to share their experiences with one another and to report on the most meaningful longer-term impacts from the program. Another feature of our CURE program was the school-year Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) follow-up sessions. Teachers chose to attend one of NWABR’s IRB or IACUC conferences, attend a meeting of a review board, or complete NIH online ethics training. Some teachers also visited the UW Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee. CURE funding provided substitutes in order for teachers to be released during the workday. These opportunities further engaged teachers in understanding and appreciating the actual process of oversight for federally funded research.

Participants

Most of the educators who have been through our intensive summer workshops teach secondary level science, but we have welcomed teachers at the college, community college, and even elementary levels. Our participants are primarily biology teachers; however, chemistry and physical science educators, health and career specialists, and social studies teachers have also used our strategies and materials with success.

The research design used teacher cohorts for comparison purposes and recruited teachers who expressed interest in participating in a CURE workshop in either the summer of 2009 or the summer of 2010. We assumed that all teachers who applied to the CURE workshop for either year would be similarly interested in ethics topics. Thus, Cohort 1 included teachers participating in CURE during the summer of 2009 (the treatment group). Their students received CURE instruction during the following 2009–2010 academic year. Cohort 2 (the comparison group) included teachers who were selected to participate in CURE during the summer of 2010. Their students received a semester of traditional classroom instruction in science during the 2009–2010 academic year. In order to track participation of different demographic groups, questions pertaining to race, ethnicity, and gender were also included in the post-tests.

Using an online sample size calculator http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm , a 95% Confidence Level, and a Confidence Interval of 5, it was calculated that a sample size of 278 students would be needed for the research study. For that reason, six Cohort 1 teachers were impartially chosen to be in the study. For the comparison group, the study design also required six teachers from Cohort 2. The external evaluator contacted all Cohort 2 teachers to explain the research study and obtain their consent, and successfully recruited six to participate.

Ethics Statement

This study was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to the study, research processes and materials were reviewed and approved by the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB Study #1103180). CURE staff and evaluators received written permission from parents to have their minor children participate in the Bioethics 101 curriculum, for the collection and subsequent analysis of students’ written responses to the assessment, and for permission to collect and analyze student interview responses. Teachers also provided written informed consent prior to study participation. All study participants and/or their legal guardians provided written informed consent for the collection and subsequent analysis of verbal and written responses.

Research Study

Analyzing a case study: cure and comparison students..

Teacher cohorts and pre/post tests were used to investigate whether CURE professional development and curriculum materials made a significant difference in high school students’ abilities to analyze a case study and justify their positions. Cohort 1 teachers (N = 6) received CURE professional development and used the Bioethics 101 curriculum with their students (N = 323); Cohort 2 teachers (N = 6) did not receive professional development until after their participation in the study and did not use the curriculum with their students (N = 108). Cohort 2 students were given the test case study and questions, but with only traditional science instruction during the semester. Each Cohort was further divided into two groups (A and B). Students in Group A were asked to complete a pre-test prior to the case study, while students in Group B did not. All four student groups completed a post-test after analysis of the case study. This four-group model ( Table 1 ) allowed us to assess: 1) the effect of CURE treatment relative to conventional education practices, 2) the effect of the pre-test relative to no pre-test, and 3) the interaction between the pre-test and CURE treatment condition. Random assignment of students to treatment and comparison groups was not possible; consequently we used existing intact classes. In all, 431 students and 12 teachers participated in the research study ( Table 2 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.t002

In order to assess the acquisition of higher-order justification skills, students used the summative assessment provided in our curriculum as the pre- and post-test. We designed the curriculum to scaffold students’ ability to write a persuasive bioethical position; by the time they participated in the assessment, Cohort 1 students had opportunities to discuss the elements of a strong justification as well as practice in analyzing case studies. For our research, both Cohort 1 and 2 students were asked to analyze the case study of “Ashley X” ( Table S2 ), a young girl with a severe neurological impairment whose parents wished to limit her growth through a combination of interventions so that they could better care for her. Students were asked to respond to the ethical question: “Should one or more medical interventions be used to limit Ashley’s growth and physical maturation? If so, which interventions should be used and why?” In their answer, students were encouraged to develop a well-reasoned written position by responding to five questions that reflected elements of a strong justification. One difficulty in evaluating a multifaceted science-related learning task (analyzing a bioethical case study and justifying a position) is that a traditional multiple-choice assessment may not adequately reflect the subtlety and depth of student understanding. We used a rubric to assess student responses to each of the following questions (Q) on a scale of 1 to 4; these questions represent key elements of a strong justification for a bioethical argument:

• Q1: Student Position: What is your decision?
• Q2: Factual Support: What facts support your decision? Is there missing information that could be used to make a better decision?
• Q3: Interests and Views of Others: Who will be impacted by the decision and how will they be impacted?
• Q4: Ethical Considerations: What are the main ethical considerations?
• Q5: Evaluating Alternative Options: What are some strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions?

In keeping with our focus on the process of reasoning rather than on having students draw any particular conclusion, we did not assess students on which position they took, but on how well they stated and justified the position they chose.

We used a rubric scoring guide to assess student learning, which aligned with the complex cognitive challenges posed by the task ( Table S3 ). Assessing complex aspects of student learning is often difficult, especially evaluating how students represent their knowledge and competence in the domain of bioethical reasoning. Using a scoring rubric helped us more authentically score dimensions of students’ learning and their depth of thinking. An outside scorer who had previously participated in CURE workshops, has secondary science teaching experience, and who has a Masters degree in Bioethics blindly scored all student pre- and post-tests. Development of the rubric was an iterative process, refined after analyzing a subset of surveys. Once finalized, we confirmed the consistency and reliability of the rubric and grading process by re-testing a subset of student surveys randomly selected from all participating classes. The Cronbach alpha reliability result was 0.80 [19] .

The rubric closely followed the framework introduced through the curricular materials and reinforced through other case study analyses. For example, under Q2, Factual Support , a student rated 4 out of 4 if their response demonstrated the following:

• The justification uses the relevant scientific reasons to support student’s answer to the ethical question.
• The student demonstrates a solid understanding of the context in which the case occurs, including a thoughtful description of important missing information.
• The student shows logical, organized thinking. Both facts supporting the decision and missing information are presented at levels exceeding standard (as described above).

An example of a student response that received the highest rating for Q2 asking for factual support is: “Her family has a history of breast cancer and fibrocystic breast disease. She is bed-bound and completely dependent on her parents. Since she is bed-bound, she has a higher risk of blood clots. She has the mentality of an infant. Her parents’ requests offer minimal side effects. With this disease, how long is she expected to live? If not very long then her parents don’t have to worry about growth. Are there alternative measures?”

In contrast, a student rated a 1 for responses that had the following characteristics:

• Factual information relevant to the case is incompletely described or is missing.
• Irrelevant information may be included and the student demonstrates some confusion.

An example of a student response that rated a 1 for Q2 is: “She is unconscious and doesn’t care what happens.”

All data were entered into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and analyzed for means, standard deviations, and statistically significant differences. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant overall differences between the two cohort groups. Pre-test and post-test composite scores were calculated for each student by adding individual scores for each item on the pre- and post-tests. The composite score on the post-test was identical in form and scoring to the composite score on the pre-test. The effect of the CURE treatment on post-test composite scores is referred to as the Main Effect, and was determined by comparing the post-test composite scores of the Cohort 1 (CURE) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) groups. In addition, Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 means scores for each test question (Questions 1–5) were compared within and between cohorts using t-tests.

CURE student perceptions of curriculum effect.

During prior program evaluations, we asked teachers to identify what they believed to be the main impacts of bioethics instruction on students. From this earlier work, we identified several themes. These themes, listed below, were further tested in our current study by asking students in the treatment group to assess themselves in these five areas after participation in the lesson, using a retrospective pre-test design to measure self-reported changes in perceptions and abilities [20] .

• Interest in the science content of class (before/after) participating in the Ethics unit.
• Ability to analyze issues related to science and society and make well-justified decisions (before/after) participating in the Ethics unit.
• Awareness of ethics and ethical issues (before/after) participating in the Ethics unit.
• Understanding of the connection between science and society (before/after) participating in the Ethics unit.
• Ability to listen to and discuss different viewpoints (before/after) participating in the Ethics unit.

After Cohort 1 (CURE) students participated in the Bioethics 101 curriculum, we asked them to indicate the extent to which they had changed in each of the theme areas we had identified using Likert-scale items on a retrospective pre-test design [21] , with 1 =  None and 5 =  A lot!. We used paired t-tests to examine self-reported changes in their perceptions and abilities. The retrospective design avoids response-shift bias that results from overestimation or underestimation of change since both before and after information is collected at the same time [20] .

Student Demographics

Demographic information is provided in Table 3 . Of those students who reported their gender, a larger number were female (N = 258) than male (N = 169), 60% and 40%, respectively, though female students represented a larger proportion of Cohort 1 than Cohort 2. Students ranged in age from 14 to 18 years old; the average age of the students in both cohorts was 15. Students were enrolled in a variety of science classes (mostly Biology or Honors Biology). Because NIH recognizes a difference between race and ethnicity, students were asked to respond to both demographic questions. Students in both cohorts were from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.t003

Pre- and Post-Test Results for CURE and Comparison Students

Post-test composite means for each cohort (1 and 2) and group (A and B) are shown in Table 4 . Students receiving CURE instruction earned significantly higher (p<0.001) composite mean scores than students in comparison classrooms. Cohort 1 (CURE) students (N = 323) post-test composite means were 10.73, while Cohort 2 (Comparison) students (N = 108) had post-test composite means of 9.16. The ANOVA results ( Table 5 ) showed significant differences in the ability to craft strong justifications between Cohort 1 (CURE) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) students F (1, 429) = 26.64, p<0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.t005

We also examined if the pre-test had a priming effect on the students’ scores because it provides an opportunity to practice or think about the content. The pre-test would not have this effect on the comparison group because they were not exposed to CURE teaching or materials. If the pre-test provides a practice or priming effect, this would result in higher post-test performance by CURE students receiving the pre-test than by CURE students not receiving the pre-test. For this comparison, the F (1, 321) = 0.10, p = 0.92. This result suggests that the differences between the CURE and comparison groups are attributable to the treatment condition and not a priming effect of the pre-test.

After differences in main effects were investigated, we analyzed differences between and within cohorts on individual items (Questions 1–5) using t-tests. The Mean scores of individual questions for each cohort are shown in Figure 1 . There were no significant differences between Cohort 1 (CURE) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) on pre-test scores. In fact, for Q5, the mean pre-test scores for the Cohort 2 (Comparison) group were slightly higher (1.8) than the Cohort 1 (CURE) group (1.6). On the post-test, the Cohort 1 (CURE) students significantly outscored the Cohort 2 (Comparison) students on all questions; Q1, Q3, and Q4 were significant at p<0.001, Q2 was significant at p<0.01, and Q5 was significant at p<0.05. The largest post-test difference between Cohort 1 (CURE) students and Cohort 2 (Comparison) students was for Q3, with an increase of 0.6; all the other questions showed changes of 0.3 or less. Comparing Cohort 1 (CURE) post-test performance on individual questions yields the following results: scores were highest for Q1 (mean = 2.8), followed by Q3 (mean = 2.2), Q2 (mean = 2.1), and Q5 (mean = 1.9). Lowest Cohort 1 (CURE) post-test scores were associated with Q4 (mean = 1.8).

Mean scores for individual items of the pre-test for each cohort revealed no differences between groups for any of the items (Cohort 1, CURE, N = 323; Cohort 2, Comparison, N = 108). Post-test gains of Cohort 1 (CURE) relative to Cohort 2 (Comparison) were statistically significant for all questions. (Question (Q) 1) What is your decision? (Q2) What facts support your decision? Is there missing information that could be used to make a better decision? (Q3) Who will be impacted by the decision and how will they be impacted? (Q4) What are the main ethical considerations? and (Q5)What are some strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions? Specifically: (Q1), (Q3), (Q4) were significant at p<0.001 (***); (Q2) was significant at p<0.01 (**); and (Q5) was significant at p<0.05 (*). Lines represent standard deviations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.g001

Overall, across all four groups, mean scores for Q1 were highest (2.6), while scores for Q4 were lowest (1.6). When comparing within-Cohort scores on the pre-test versus post-test, Cohort 2 (Comparison Group) showed little to no change, while CURE students improved on all test questions.

CURE Student Perceptions of Curriculum Effect

After using our resources, Cohort 1 (CURE) students showed highly significant gains (p<0.001) in all areas examined: interest in science content, ability to analyze socio-scientific issues and make well-justified decisions, awareness of ethical issues, understanding of the connection between science and society, and the ability to listen to and discuss viewpoints different from their own ( Figure 2 ). Overall, students gave the highest score to their ability to listen to and discuss viewpoints different than their own after participating in the CURE unit (mean = 4.2). Also highly rated were the changes in understanding of the connection between science and society (mean = 4.1) and the awareness of ethical issues (mean = 4.1); these two perceptions also showed the largest change pre-post (from 2.8 to 4.1 and 2.7 to 4.1, respectively).

Mean scores for individual items of the retrospective items on the post-test for Cohort 1 students revealed significant gains (p<0.001) in all self-reported items: Interest in science (N = 308), ability to Analyze issues related to science and society and make well-justified decisions (N = 306), Awareness of ethics and ethical issues (N = 309), Understanding of the connection between science and society (N = 308), and the ability to Listen and discuss different viewpoints (N = 308). Lines represent standard deviations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.g002

NWABR’s teaching materials provide support both for general ethics and bioethics education, as well as for specific topics such as embryonic stem cell research. These resources were developed to provide teachers with classroom strategies, ethics background, and decision-making frameworks. Teachers are then prepared to share their understanding with their students, and to support their students in using analysis tools and participating in effective classroom discussions. Our current research grew out of a desire to measure the effectiveness of our professional development and teaching resources in fostering student ability to analyze a complex bioethical case study and to justify their positions.

Consistent with the findings of SSI researchers and our own prior anecdotal observations of teacher classrooms and student work, we found that students improve in their analytical skill when provided with reasoning frameworks and background in concepts such as beneficence, respect, and justice. Our research demonstrates that structured reasoning approaches can be effectively taught at the secondary level and that they can improve student thinking skills. After teachers participated in a two-week professional development workshop and utilized our Bioethics 101 curriculum, within a relatively short time period (five lessons spanning approximately one to two weeks), students grew significantly in their ability to analyze a complex case and justify their position compared to students not exposed to the program. Often, biology texts present a controversial issue and ask students to “justify their position,” but teachers have shared with us that students frequently do not understand what makes a position or argument well-justified. By providing students with opportunities to evaluate sample justifications, and by explicitly introducing a set of elements that students should include in their justifications, we have facilitated the development of this important cognitive skill.

The first part of our research examined the impact of CURE instruction on students’ ability to analyze a case study. Although students grew significantly in all areas, the highest scores for the Cohort 1 (CURE) students were found in response to Q1 of the case analysis, which asked them to clearly state their own position, and represented a relatively easy cognitive task. This question also received the highest score in the comparison group. Not surprisingly, students struggled most with Q4 and Q5, which asked for the ethical considerations and the strengths and weaknesses of different solutions, respectively, and which tested specialized knowledge and sophisticated analytical skills. The area in which we saw the most growth in Cohort 1 (CURE) (both in comparison to the pre-test and in relation to the comparison group) was in students’ ability to identify stakeholders in a case and state how they might be impacted by a decision (Q3). Teachers have shared with us that secondary students are often focused on their own needs and perspectives; stepping into the perspectives of others helps enlarge their understanding of the many views that can be brought to bear upon a socio-scientific issue.

Many of our teachers go far beyond these introductory lessons, revisiting key concepts throughout the year as new topics are presented in the media or as new curricular connections arise. Although we have observed this phenomenon for many years, it has been difficult to evaluate these types of interventions, as so many teachers implement the concepts and ideas differently in response to their unique needs. Some teachers have used the Bioethics 101 curriculum as a means for setting the tone and norms for the entire year in their classes and fostering an atmosphere of respectful discussion. These teachers note that the “opportunity cost” of investing time in teaching basic bioethical concepts, decision-making strategies, and justification frameworks pays off over the long run. Students’ understanding of many different science topics is enhanced by their ability to analyze issues related to science and society and make well-justified decisions. Throughout their courses, teachers are able to refer back to the core ideas introduced in Bioethics 101, reinforcing the wide utility of the curriculum.

The second part of our research focused on changes in students’ self-reported attitudes and perceptions as a result of CURE instruction. Obtaining accurate and meaningful data to assess student self-reported perceptions can be difficult, especially when a program is distributed across multiple schools. The traditional use of the pretest-posttest design assumes that students are using the same internal standard to judge attitudes or perceptions. Considerable empirical evidence suggests that program effects based on pre-posttest self-reports are masked because people either overestimate or underestimate their pre-program perceptions [20] , [22] – [26] . Moore and Tananis [27] report that response shift can occur in educational programs, especially when they are designed to increase students’ awareness of a specific construct that is being measured. The retrospective pre-test design (RPT), which was used in this study, has gained increasing prominence as a convenient and valid method for measuring self-reported change. RPT has been shown to reduce response shift bias, providing more accurate assessment of actual effect. The retrospective design avoids response-shift bias that results from overestimation or underestimation of change since both before and after information is collected at the same time [20] . It is also convenient to implement, provides comparison data, and may be more appropriate in some situations [26] . Using student self-reported measures concerning perceptions and attitudes is also a meta-cognitive strategy that allows students to think about their learning and justify where they believe they are at the end of a project or curriculum compared to where they were at the beginning.

Our approach resulted in a significant increase in students’ own perceived growth in several areas related to awareness, understanding, and interest in science. Our finding that student interest in science can be significantly increased through a case-study based bioethics curriculum has implications for instruction. Incorporating ethical dilemmas into the classroom is one strategy for increasing student motivation and engagement with science content. Students noted the greatest changes in their own awareness of ethical issues and in understanding the connection between science and society. Students gave the highest overall rating to their ability to listen to and discuss viewpoints different from their own after participation in the bioethics unit. This finding also has implications for our future citizenry; in an increasingly diverse and globalized society, students need to be able to engage in civil and rational dialogue with others who may not share their views.

Conducting research studies about ethical learning in secondary schools is challenging; recruiting teachers for Cohort 2 and obtaining consent from students, parents, and teachers for participation was particularly difficult, and many teachers faced restraints from district regulations about curriculum content. Additional studies are needed to clarify the extent to which our curricular materials alone, without accompanying teacher professional development, can improve student reasoning skills.

Teacher pre-service training programs rarely incorporate discussion of how to address ethical issues in science with prospective educators. Likewise, with some noticeable exceptions, such as the work of the University of Pennsylvania High School Bioethics Project, the Genetic Science Learning Center at the University of Utah, and the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, relatively few resources exist for high school curricular materials in this area. Teachers have shared with us that they know that such issues are important and engaging for students, but they do not have the experience in either ethical theory or in managing classroom discussion to feel comfortable teaching bioethics topics. After participating in our workshops or using our teaching materials, teachers shared that they are better prepared to address such issues with their students, and that students are more engaged in science topics and are better able to see the real-world context of what they are learning.

Preparing students for a future in which they have access to personalized genetic information, or need to vote on proposals for stem cell research funding, necessitates providing them with the tools required to reason through a complex decision containing both scientific and ethical components. Students begin to realize that, although there may not be an absolute “right” or “wrong” decision to be made on an ethical issue, neither is ethics purely relative (“my opinion versus yours”). They come to realize that all arguments are not equal; there are stronger and weaker justifications for positions. Strong justifications are built upon accurate scientific information and solid analysis of ethical and contextual considerations. An informed citizenry that can engage in reasoned dialogue about the role science should play in society is critical to ensure the continued vitality of the scientific enterprise.

“I now bring up ethical issues regularly with my students, and use them to help students see how the concepts they are learning apply to their lives…I am seeing positive results from my students, who are more clearly able to see how abstract science concepts apply to them.” – CURE Teacher “In ethics, I’ve learned to start thinking about the bigger picture. Before, I based my decisions on how they would affect me. Also, I made decisions depending on my personal opinions, sometimes ignoring the facts and just going with what I thought was best. Now, I know that to make an important choice, you have to consider the other people involved, not just yourself, and take all information and facts into account.” – CURE Student

Supporting Information

Bioethics 101 Lesson Overview.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.s001

Case Study for Assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.s002

Grading Rubric for Pre- and Post-Test: Ashley’s Case.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791.s003

Acknowledgments

We thank Susan Adler, Jennifer M. Pang, Ph.D., Leena Pranikay, and Reitha Weeks, Ph.D., for their review of the manuscript, and Nichole Beddes for her assistance scoring student work. We also thank Carolyn Cohen of Cohen Research and Evaluation, former CURE Evaluation Consultant, who laid some of the groundwork for this study through her prior work with us. We also wish to thank the reviewers of our manuscript for their thoughtful feedback and suggestions.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: JTC LJC. Performed the experiments: LJC. Analyzed the data: LJC JTC DNK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JCG. Wrote the paper: JTC LJC DNK JCG. Served as Principal Investigator on the CURE project: JTC. Provided overall program leadership: JTC. Led the curriculum and professional development efforts: JTC JCG. Raised funds for the CURE program: JTC.

• 1. Bell P (2004) Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. Toulmin S (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 6. Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes , EV (2005) Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Wiley InterScience. pp. 357–377.
• 8. AAAS (1990) Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
• 9. National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• 10. National Research Council (2011) A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• 11. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2007) Adolescence and Young Adulthood Science Standards. Arlington, VA.
• 17. Beauchamp T, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• 18. Chowning JT, Griswold JC (2010) Bioethics 101. Seattle, WA: NWABR.
• 26. Klatt J, Taylor-Powell E (2005) Synthesis of literature relative to the retrospective pretest design. Presentation to the 2005 Joint CES/AEA Conference, Toronto.

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident than in academia. From the quick scribbles of eager students to the inquisitive thoughts of renowned scholars, academic essays depict the power of the written word. These well-crafted writings propel ideas forward and expand the existing boundaries of human intellect.

What is an Academic Essay

An academic essay is a nonfictional piece of writing that analyzes and evaluates an argument around a specific topic or research question. It serves as a medium to share the author’s views and is also used by institutions to assess the critical thinking, research skills, and writing abilities of a students and researchers.  

Importance of Academic Essays

4 main types of academic essays.

While academic essays may vary in length, style, and purpose, they generally fall into four main categories. Despite their differences, these essay types share a common goal: to convey information, insights, and perspectives effectively.

1. Expository Essay

2. Descriptive Essay

3. Narrative Essay

4. Argumentative Essay

Expository and persuasive essays mainly deal with facts to explain ideas clearly. Narrative and descriptive essays are informal and have a creative edge. Despite their differences, these essay types share a common goal ― to convey information, insights, and perspectives effectively.

Expository Essays: Illuminating ideas

An expository essay is a type of academic writing that explains, illustrates, or clarifies a particular subject or idea. Its primary purpose is to inform the reader by presenting a comprehensive and objective analysis of a topic.

By breaking down complex topics into digestible pieces and providing relevant examples and explanations, expository essays allow writers to share their knowledge.

What are the Key Features of an Expository Essay

Provides factual information without bias

Presents multiple viewpoints while maintaining objectivity

Uses direct and concise language to ensure clarity for the reader

Composed of a logical structure with an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion

When is an expository essay written.

1. For academic assignments to evaluate the understanding of research skills.

2. As instructional content to provide step-by-step guidance for tasks or problem-solving.

3. In journalism for objective reporting in news or investigative pieces.

4. As a form of communication in the professional field to convey factual information in business or healthcare.

How to Write an Expository Essay

Expository essays are typically structured in a logical and organized manner.

1. Topic Selection and Research

• Choose a topic that can be explored objectively
• Gather relevant facts and information from credible sources
• Develop a clear thesis statement

2. Outline and Structure

• Create an outline with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion
• Introduce the topic and state the thesis in the introduction
• Dedicate each body paragraph to a specific point supporting the thesis
• Use transitions to maintain a logical flow

3. Objective and Informative Writing

• Maintain an impartial and informative tone
• Avoid personal opinions or biases
• Support points with factual evidence, examples, and explanations

4. Conclusion

• Summarize the key points
• Reinforce the significance of the thesis

Descriptive Essays: Painting with words

Descriptive essays transport readers into vivid scenes, allowing them to experience the world through the writer ‘s lens. These essays use rich sensory details, metaphors, and figurative language to create a vivid and immersive experience . Its primary purpose is to engage readers’ senses and imagination.

It allows writers to demonstrate their ability to observe and describe subjects with precision and creativity.

What are the Key Features of Descriptive Essay

Employs figurative language and imagery to paint a vivid picture for the reader

Demonstrates creativity and expressiveness in narration

Includes close attention to detail, engaging the reader’s senses

Engages the reader’s imagination and emotions through immersive storytelling using analogies, metaphors, similes, etc.

When is a descriptive essay written.

1. Personal narratives or memoirs that describe significant events, people, or places.

2. Travel writing to capture the essence of a destination or experience.

3. Character sketches in fiction writing to introduce and describe characters.

4. Poetry or literary analyses to explore the use of descriptive language and imagery.

How to Write a Descriptive Essay

The descriptive essay lacks a defined structural requirement but typically includes: an introduction introducing the subject, a thorough description, and a concluding summary with insightful reflection.

1. Subject Selection and Observation

• Choose a subject (person, place, object, or experience) to describe
• Gather sensory details and observations

2. Engaging Introduction

• Set the scene and provide the context
• Use of descriptive language and figurative techniques

3. Descriptive Body Paragraphs

• Focus on specific aspects or details of the subject
• Engage the reader ’s senses with vivid imagery and descriptions
• Maintain a consistent tone and viewpoint

4. Impactful Conclusion

• Provide a final impression or insight
• Leave a lasting impact on the reader

Narrative Essays: Storytelling in Action

Narrative essays are personal accounts that tell a story, often drawing from the writer’s own experiences or observations. These essays rely on a well-structured plot, character development, and vivid descriptions to engage readers and convey a deeper meaning or lesson.

What are the Key features of Narrative Essays

Written from a first-person perspective and hence subjective

Based on real personal experiences

Uses an informal and expressive tone

Presents events and characters in sequential order

When is a narrative essay written.

It is commonly assigned in high school and college writing courses to assess a student’s ability to convey a meaningful message or lesson through a personal narrative. They are written in situations where a personal experience or story needs to be recounted, such as:

1. Reflective essays on significant life events or personal growth.

2. Autobiographical writing to share one’s life story or experiences.

3. Creative writing exercises to practice narrative techniques and character development.

4. College application essays to showcase personal qualities and experiences.

How to Write a Narrative Essay

Narrative essays typically follow a chronological structure, with an introduction that sets the scene, a body that develops the plot and characters, and a conclusion that provides a sense of resolution or lesson learned.

1. Experience Selection and Reflection

• Choose a significant personal experience or event
• Reflect on the impact and deeper meaning

2. Immersive Introduction

• Introduce characters and establish the tone and point of view

3. Plotline and Character Development

• Advance   the  plot and character development through body paragraphs
• Incorporate dialog , conflict, and resolution
• Maintain a logical and chronological flow

4. Insightful Conclusion

• Reflect on lessons learned or insights gained
• Leave the reader with a lasting impression

Argumentative Essays: Persuasion and Critical Thinking

Argumentative essays are the quintessential form of academic writing in which writers present a clear thesis and support it with well-researched evidence and logical reasoning. These essays require a deep understanding of the topic, critical analysis of multiple perspectives, and the ability to construct a compelling argument.

What are the Key Features of an Argumentative Essay?

Logical and well-structured arguments

Credible and relevant evidence from reputable sources

Consideration and refutation of counterarguments

Critical analysis and evaluation of the issue 

When is an argumentative essay written.

Argumentative essays are written to present a clear argument or stance on a particular issue or topic. In academic settings they are used to develop critical thinking, research, and persuasive writing skills. However, argumentative essays can also be written in various other contexts, such as:

1. Opinion pieces or editorials in newspapers, magazines, or online publications.

2. Policy proposals or position papers in government, nonprofit, or advocacy settings.

3. Persuasive speeches or debates in academic, professional, or competitive environments.

4. Marketing or advertising materials to promote a product, service, or idea.

How to write an Argumentative Essay

Argumentative essays begin with an introduction that states the thesis and provides context. The body paragraphs develop the argument with evidence, address counterarguments, and use logical reasoning. The conclusion restates the main argument and makes a final persuasive appeal.

• Choose a debatable and controversial issue
• Conduct thorough research and gather evidence and counterarguments

2. Thesis and Introduction

• Craft a clear and concise thesis statement
• Provide background information and establish importance

3. Structured Body Paragraphs

• Focus each paragraph on a specific aspect of the argument
• Support with logical reasoning, factual evidence, and refutation

4. Persuasive Techniques

• Adopt a formal and objective tone
• Use persuasive techniques (rhetorical questions, analogies, appeals)

5. Impactful Conclusion

• Summarize the main points
• Leave the reader with a strong final impression and call to action

To learn more about argumentative essay, check out this article .

5 Quick Tips for Researchers to Improve Academic Essay Writing Skills

Use clear and concise language to convey ideas effectively without unnecessary words

Use well-researched, credible sources to substantiate your arguments with data, expert opinions, and scholarly references

Ensure a coherent structure with effective transitions, clear topic sentences, and a logical flow to enhance readability 

To elevate your academic essay, consider submitting your draft to a community-based platform like Open Platform  for editorial review 

Review your work multiple times for clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic guidelines to ensure a polished final product

By mastering the art of academic essay writing, researchers and scholars can effectively communicate their ideas, contribute to the advancement of knowledge, and engage in meaningful scholarly discourse.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

• Industry News
• Publishing News

Unified AI Guidelines Crucial as Academic Writing Embraces Generative Tools

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are advancing at an accelerating pace, their…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Need for Diversifying Academic Curricula: Embracing missing voices and marginalized perspectives

In classrooms worldwide, a single narrative often dominates, leaving many students feeling lost. These stories,…

• Reporting Research

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

The pressure to “publish or perish” is a well-known reality for academics, striking fear into…

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without…

Digital Citations: A comprehensive guide to citing of websites in APA, MLA, and CMOS…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Epistemic Goals and Practices in Biology Curriculum—the Philippines and Japan

• Open access
• Published: 10 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Denis Dyvee Errabo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4084-5142 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Keigo Fujinami 2   na1 &
• Tetsuo Isozaki 2   na1  

287 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Despite cultural differences, the Philippines–Japan partnership is developing an intentional teaching curriculum with parallel standards. However, disparities among their respective educational systems have prompted inequalities. As education plays a critical role in collaboration, we explored the Epistemic Goals (EGs) and Epistemic Practices (EPs) in the biology curriculum, with the research question: How do the epistemic goals and practices of the biology curriculum transmit knowledge and skills in the Philippines and Japan? Using an ethnographic design, we conducted two iterative explorations of EGs and EPs. First, we examined the curriculum policy to determine its EGs. Using the A-B-C-D protocol, we employed discourse analysis to evaluate knowledge and skills in the biology grade-level standards. Second, we examined the articulation of goals in classroom teaching practices. We conducted classroom immersion and observed classes to determine EPs and supported our observations through interviews, synthesizing the data using inductive content analysis. Our findings revealed that the Philippines’ EGs were to transmit factual knowledge enhanced by basic science skills, and their EPs were audio-visual materials, gamified instructions, guided inquiry, posing questions, and learning-by-doing. In comparison, Japan’s EGs were to provide a solid foundation of theoretical and metacognitive knowledge, integrated science skills, and positive attitudes. Its EPs involved cultivating lasting learning, observation, investigation, experimentation, collaborative discussion, and reflective thinking. Our study makes a meaningful contribution by shedding light on crucial ideologies and cultural identities embedded in Biology curricula and teaching traditions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mediated Learning Leading Development—The Social Development Theory of Lev Vygotsky

Pragmatism—john dewey.

The Contributions of Philosophy of Science in Science Education Research: a Literature Review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The cultural and educational connections within the Philippines-Japan collaboration establish the basis for developing long-lasting relationships between individuals. Despite cultural differences, both countries continue to develop an intentional teaching curriculum with parallel standards. According to Joseph ( 2010 ), the most effective way to demonstrate cultural ideology is through school curriculum. The term "curriculum" refers to different areas of education, such as the content taught in schools, learning methods, teacher approaches, and student progress assessment (Schiro, 2013 ). Understanding the basic components of an effective curriculum is critical to academic achievement.

Improving the Philippines’ curriculum is a significant and urgent matter given the considerable challenges they face in academic achievement. According to the Program for International Student Assessment (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2023 ), Filipino students exhibit relatively lower levels of achievement in critical academic domains such as science, mathematics, and reading (OECD, 2023 ). In contrast, the educational system in Japan is highly regarded for its exceptional quality and performance, consistently achieving top ranks among global academic systems. The 2022 PISA assessment shows that Japanese students consistently demonstrate superior performance compared with the average in their respective subject areas (OECD, 2023 ).

The disparities in outcomes and rankings between the education systems in Japan and the Philippines prompt an intriguing inquiry: what distinguishes Japanese education and how can we draw insights from its curricular practices to enhance the quality of education in the Philippines? This inquiry is of utmost importance as we aim to improve the educational outcomes and opportunities for Filipino students through an effective, quality curriculum. Moreover, it is essential to acknowledge the substantial research gap in curriculum studies regarding curricular benchmarks. This gap provides a valuable opportunity to gain insight into the unique educational system strategies.

Background of the Study

Examining the Epistemic Goals (EGs) and Epistemic Practices (EPs) of the biology curricula requires fundamental inquiries regarding the Nature of Science (NoS), the methodologies scientists employ in knowledge acquisition, and the scientific frameworks of understanding. Brock and Park ( 2022 ) argue that there has been a longstanding emphasis in science education on comprehending the NoS and the processes and undertakings of knowledge production. These essential elements are integrated as important learning goals in global science education curricula and policy documents (Leden & Hansson, 2019 ; Olson, 2018 ; Park et al., 2020 ).

EGs play a crucial role in establishing the fundamental and structural knowledge framework, including the required skills and attitudes. It encompasses the essential cognitive abilities that are pivotal for comprehension, academic engagement, and learning. It represents knowledge seeking, comprehension, and construction, particularly within the framework of the NoS (Chinn et al., 2011 ). Similarly, EGs enable individuals to explore their own beliefs about knowledge, as emphasized by Cho et al. ( 2011 ), with a significant influence on how individuals develop epistemic values and academic achievement. This includes improving advanced literacy skills, making informed decisions, and promoting a lifelong dedication to continuous learning.

Similarly, McDevitt et al. ( 1994 ) discuss how EPs involve various personal inquiry methods. The practices discussed by Hofer ( 2001 ) relate to the personal justification of knowledge acquisition. Personal justification of epistemic beliefs occurs through reliable processes when individual and social practices are considered within the epistemological framework (Chinn et al., 2011 ). According to Goldman ( 1999 ), considerable research has been dedicated to studying reliable belief formation processes, particularly concerning specific practices within scientific inquiry, arguing that practices, as opposed to errors and ignorance, have a relatively positive effect on knowledge. Furthermore, utilizing EPs include exploring external sources of information and engaging in active cognitive construction processes, as elucidated by Muis and Franco ( 2009 ). Hence, scientific inquiry is developed as a core emphasis to raise awareness, cultivate independent thinking skills, question assumptions, and make informed judgments.

Theoretical Framework

This study anchors its theoretical framework in the earlier work of Berland et al. ( 2016 ) on Epistemologies in Practice (EIP). Two epistemic folds define this framework.

First, the EIP defines epistemic goals for student knowledge acquisition, referring to the NoS as a means of understanding scientific development (Lederman, 2002 ). It entails an epistemological investigation of the fundamental features of reality such as the essence of truth, the process of justification, and the distinction between knowledge as a manifestation of capabilities and as a collection of factual information (Knight et al., 2014 ).

Moreover, defining goals is intimately connected to the epistemic dimensions; hence, this study examines how students use epistemic considerations when constructing scientific knowledge. This approach offers an analytical lens for understanding student involvement in scientific practices, which is vital to classroom and learning engagement. Berland et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a study identifying four noteworthy epistemic considerations: nature , generality , justification , and audience .

Nature  explores an extensive range of knowledge. Fundamental to this consideration is the nature of knowledge (knowledge is) and that of knowing (knowledge acquisition) (Lederman, 2007 ; Schiefer et al., 2022 ). Generality  delves into complex interconnections, forming an understanding using scientific concepts and facts. For instance, a phenomenon of interest can be comprehensively understood and explained within the scientific community by examining specific contexts and conditions utilizing scientific theories (Lewis & Belanger, 2015 ). Hence, this act of knowledge generation is crucial to thoroughly comprehending observed events and phenomena (Beeth & Hewson, 1999 ).

Next,  justification  underscores the necessity for logical reasoning to substantiate our conceptual comprehension. It is the systematic process that employs factual information and evidence, particularly that obtained from experiments, to substantiate assertions (Peffer & Ramezani, 2019 ). This practice links evidence with knowledge to assess essential claims and facilitates meaningful discussion (McNeill et al., 2006 ; Osborne et al., 2004 ). Finally, the  audience  dimension orients students' knowledge and the usefulness of their understanding (Berland et al., 2016 ). It is also relevant regarding how students perceive and derive meaning from the material, and how they develop a comprehensive understanding of it (Berland & Reiser, 2009 ; Paretti, 2009 ). The combined impact of these epistemic factors intricately shapes and defines the goals that guide the pursuit of epistemic knowledge.

Second, EIP includes essential practices in the classroom and learning community. In addition to acquiring discipline-specific knowledge, Peffer and Ramezani ( 2019 ) argue that demonstrating proficiency in scientific methodologies leads to developing a sophisticated epistemological understanding of concepts relevant to the NoS and scientific knowledge. Since the NoS is an essential element of inquiry in practice, epistemology and the NoS are inextricably linked (Deng et al., 2011 ). By exploring the NoS, we can gain insight into the fundamental elements that define scientific investigation, including its fundamental principles, underlying assumptions, and the methodologies of scientific pursuit.

According to Greene et al. ( 2016 ), NoS can be used interchangeably with concepts such as personal epistemology and epistemic cognition, which explore how individuals conceptualize knowledge. Personal epistemology reflects epistemological beliefs, reflective judgments, ways of knowing, and reflection (Hofer, 2001 ), whereas epistemic cognition is the examination of knowledge, particularly the evaluation of the essential components of justification and related concepts of objectivity, subjectivity, rationality, and truth (Moshman, 2014 ).

Furthermore, Lederman et al. ( 2002 ), referred NoS to the epistemology and sociology of science – understanding science as a way of knowing, and the values and beliefs inherent in scientific knowledge and its development. It encompasses various philosophical presuppositions, including values, development, conceptual inventions, consensus-building in the scientific community, and distinguishing scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992 ; Smith & Wenk, 2006 ; Tsai, 2007 ). The close connection between an individual's cognitive framework and the philosophical foundations of the NoS becomes evident when we recognize that these concepts have a shared identity.

Research Question

In this study we analyzed the EGs and EPs in the Biology curriculum. Specifically, we address the question: How do the epistemic goals and practices of the Biology curriculum transmit knowledge and skills in the Philippines and Japan?

Research Design

We employed an ethnography design to examine the EGs and EPs of the biology curricula. Ethnography comprehensively explores the historical, cultural, and political aspects of knowledge evident in the educational traditions and practices of the countries under study (Hout, 2004 ). It involves systematically observing individuals, locations, concepts, written records, and behaviors (Savage, 2000 ) to document routine occurrences and identify opportunities for improvement (Dixon-Woods et al., 2019 ).

Research Strategies

We investigated two iterative cases of EGs and EPs. First, to determine the framework guiding the scope and implementation of EGs, we examined the Biology Grade Level Standards (BGLSs). In this context, EGs refer to the instructions’ specific statements and purposes that outline what students are expected to learn as they interact with the curriculum (Orr et al., 2022 ; Print, 1993 ).

According to Plowright ( 2011 ), the standards within a curriculum serve as its policies. A curriculum is inherently governed by the power and knowledge structures that stem from and circulate within sociocultural and political domains (Ball et al., 2012 ). As an artifact, it embodies culture, design, and learning (Hodder, 2000 ) and is associated with socio-material factors, discursive frameworks, policies, and performativity frameworks (Horan et al., 2014 ; Kalantzis & Cope, 2020 ; Maguire et al., 2011 ).

Second, we engaged in classroom immersion for observational (teaching) research (Sheal, 1989 ) to investigate the EPs. Teaching observation is an unbiased measure that allows us to gain a thorough, firsthand understanding of teaching practice (Desimone, 2009 ). Being physically present in the learning environment provides a unique opportunity to directly observe the teaching methods and strategies in real-time, including their application and usefulness (Granström et al., 2023 ). In addition to helping us identify opportunities for unique learning practices and ways to improve education (Sullivan et al., 2012 ), it provided a better understanding and appreciation of each country's cultural and pedagogical intricacies.

Data Collection and Gathering Procedures

This longitudinal study is part of an ongoing two-year community inquiry project. Our ongoing immersion began in the last quarter of 2022. The first iteration of the case focuses on the documented policies based on the BGLS. Policy materials were obtained from the websites of the Philippines Department of Education (DepEd) and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) ( 2006 ) in Japan. In the Philippines, science education goals are carefully designed with each grade level having its own standards that differentiate biology from other specialized areas of science, such as earth science, chemistry, and physics. The curriculum goals are divided into objectives customized for each grade level, thus ensuring a smooth and logical learning progression.

In contrast, science education in Japan follows a standardized set of overarching objectives that cover essential scientific concepts such as energy, particles (matter), life, and the earth. These objectives are outlined in the study course and provide a comprehensive framework that includes a range of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The framework clearly outlines the overall objectives, making it possible to identify those specific to different scientific concepts.

The collected BGLSs were analyzed in the subsequent stages below.

Curriculum Matching and Mapping

Table 1 shows the curriculum matching results for both countries. DepEd and MEXT developed, implemented, and monitored the goals of the biology curriculum at the elementary (grades (G) 3–6), junior high (G7–G10), and lower secondary (G7–G9) levels. Employing Hale’s ( 2007 ) curriculum mapping protocol, to map EGs in the BGLS. Essential mapping was used to ascertain specific competencies, including detailed knowledge and abilities that students are expected to acquire.

Syntactic Analysis and Transformation

We expound upon these goals by examining their syntax. Syntax is a methodological analysis of the structure of sentences or statements (Foorman et al., 2016 ), including aspects such as word order, and structure. First, we investigated the verb-content-context and transformed it into Anderson and Krathwohl’s ( 2001 ) A-B-C-D protocol. As shown in Table  2 , a sample goal is divided into four distinct components.

Component A pertains to the intended audience , typically comprising students; component B relates to expected behavior or cognitive faculties component C pertains to the conditions necessary to demonstrate capabilities, and component D relates to the degree to which a behavior must be performed.

Classroom Immersion and Teaching Observation

We coordinated the immersion and teaching observation (IATO) with Philippine and Japanese school administrators. We were granted permission to conduct observations at three schools in Japan and two in the Philippines between January and December 2023. In August 2023, we conducted teaching observations in three classrooms in the Philippines. We further observed ten classrooms, which were predominantly held between November and December in Japan. Our observations encompass various aspects such as imparting subject knowledge, fostering skills, critical thinking abilities, and instilling specific values. Inside the classrooms, we were able to capture photographs and take detailed field notes, which allowed us to thoroughly document the interactions within each dynamic learning environment. By engaging in visual and observational documentation, we created a thorough record of the EPs. For ethical considerations, we deliberately chose not to incorporate any photographs of the students in this manuscript.

Interviews and Focus Group Discussions

After completing IATO, we conducted interviews with the educators to clarify the EPs. This dialogue dramatically improved our understanding of the factors influencing pedagogical decision-making by facilitating the exchange of ideas and perspectives. It also provided valuable context, enhancing our observations and enriching the quality of the observational data collected.

Data Analysis

Using discourse analysis (DA) and curriculum coding, we examined the explicit words that indicate EGs (knowledge and skills), which go beyond signs and signifiers by becoming “practices that methodically produce the objects of which they speak” (Foucault, 1972 , p. 49) at the expense of meaning formation (Khan & MacEachen, 2021 ).

We analyzed EGs based on the explicit BGLSs in the form of knowledge-using behavior and condition . Behavior referred to the knowledge dimension, and condition referred to content (scope of knowledge). To establish a connection between behavior and the cognitive domain, it is imperative to systematically categorize and classify individual cognitive verbs or processes based on their unique characteristics and underlying theoretical frameworks. This allows the development of personalized knowledge about cognitive tasks while contributing to a more organized understanding of cognitive functioning. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of Objectives as revised by Anderson and Krathwohl ( 2001 ), we coded each behavior against the cognitive domains. Each cognitive domain uses active verbs arranged hierarchically. The first aspect is remembering , which facilitates quick recall (i.e., recognition). The second aspect is understanding , which allows one to make sense of knowledge/information (i.e., description). The third aspect is applying , which is a demonstration method/procedure (i.e., classification). The fourth aspect is analyzing , which enables breaking down the structure of one’s understanding into parts and pieces of information (i.e., differentiation). The fifth aspect is evaluating , which entails making use of one’s judgment based on parameters such as conditions (i.e., conclusion). Finally, the sixth aspect is creating , which involves putting together pieces of information to create cohesive and holistic knowledge (i.e., development).

Table 3 presents the coding of EGs using knowledge types. First, with the verb describe , we classified a wide range of behaviors from focus and recall to perception and processing to problem-solving and decision-making and compared and categorized the respective verbs based on characteristics derived from cognitive traits. In this context, the term be describes the understanding of information by employing the knowledge of principles. After determining behaviors using verbs, we further classified them into Anderson and Krathwohl’s ( 2001 ) types of knowledge (ToK). Each behavior is determined using the following: (1) familiarity with concepts, which necessitates acquiring factual knowledge (fk) , specifically knowledge of revealed facts; (2) conceptual knowledge (ck) encompassing the comprehension of ideas, associations, and operations; (3) procedural knowledge (pk), pertaining to the investigation methodology and knowledge acquisition within scientific inquiry; and (4) meta-cognitive knowledge (mck) , which denotes a more advanced level of comprehension pertaining to an individual’s understanding of cognition, self-awareness, and self-regulation. In Table 3 , remembering falls under fk , illustrating the knowledge of details/elements .

Similarly, we assessed EGs based on explicit standards in the form of practical skills (PSs) using condition and degree categories. Condition revealed the scope of knowledge and the degree of skill development. We examined the degree by selecting skills based on Gott and Duggan’s ( 1995 ) classification. These PSs were classified according to Finley ( 1983 ) Science skills . The first is Basic Science skills (BSs) , which cover fundamental scientific processes, including observation, classification, measurement, prediction, inference-making, and communication. Second, Integrated Science skills (ISs) are composites (two or more BSs) with fundamental scientific process competencies. Integrated science skills are uniformly identified as a control variable combined with interpreting, hypothesizing, and experimenting to form a cohesive approach.

Table 4 presents the coding of conditions and degrees. We underlined PSs (i.e., investigating) for ease of identification. Each skill is coded according to its degree of development. Finally, we classified the underlying skills as ISs .

Furthermore, we analyzed IATO data using inductive content analysis (ICA). ICA is a social inquiry method grounded in epistemology that depicts the reality of practice. For example, by examining learning delivery, one can identify replicable and valid strategies that can be used to draw inferences from the data (Krippendorff, 2019 ). We utilized Marying's ( 2000 ) ICA protocol to effectively organize, refine, and establish significant categories in teaching practice, ensuring that our observations and field notes were aligned.

Epistemic Goals and Practices – the Philippines

Table 5 presents the EGs and ToK in the Philippines context, utilizing behavior and condition . Regarding behavior , the data revealed a wide range of knowledge, primarily encompassing the domains of remembering and understanding. This trend indicates that the EGs emphasize acquiring crucial and foundational knowledge to develop fk , namely the specific details, elements, and principles of biology. Furthermore, this trend was consistently evident in G3, G4, G7, G8, and G9. However, we found variations in knowledge offerings for G5, G6, and G9. Higher order behavior incorporates mck in G5. This approach involves generating and cultivating strategic knowledge about health-promotion and hygienic practices. During G6, ck was presented to deliver life science principles, whereas during G9, more profound pk was presented. During G9, students were involved in the knowledge acquisition of scientific inquiry.

The condition suggests a progression of goals from elementary to junior high school. Fundamental principles of biology, such as the components and functions of living organisms, are systematically introduced in the early stages of education. For instance, as students progressed to higher grades, they were presented with more advanced concepts related to the organization and functioning of the human body.

Table 6 shows the degree-related goals and PSs in the Philippines. The data indicates that most elementary-level skills (G3–G6) involved classification, investigation, and communication. The acquisition of proficiency in classification and communication skills are imperative for developing a solid foundation for scientific literacy, commonly known as BSs . This investigation enabled a comprehensive scientific inquiry encompassing extensive processes. Investigative skills in G5 and advancements in classification improve the exploration and comprehension of biological phenomena, a combination of skills commonly referred to as ISs .

Additionally, we acknowledge the skills alignment with the proficiencies exhibited in junior high school. Where the use of condition and degree in the syntax did not effectively express practical skills, we resorted to observing behavior as an indicator of the skill dimension. Both the G7 and G8 levels of the curriculum employed the term recognize . In contrast, at the G9 level, the term familiar was used, implying the incorporation of students’ sensory abilities, such as sight or visual perception. These BSs enable students to cultivate their power of observation.

During our IATO, we identified recurring themes to indicate the EPs in the Philippines.

Audio-Visual Materials

We frequently noticed how adept educators were in using audio-visual materials (AVM) to leverage their instruction. Strategically integrating AVM materials led to more engaging and interactive multimedia content for students while stimulating their auditory and visual faculties. Interestingly, we found that the use of AVM also encourages inclusivity within the classroom. By supporting diverse learning preferences, AVM fostered wider understanding, retention, and promoted significant learning experiences.

Gamified Instruction

Several students actively participated in thrilling learning experiences. We observed a gamified strategy that effectively utilized game elements to optimize student engagement. Teachers incorporated gamified experiences, including quick recall sessions, critical thinking exercises, and formative assessments. The interactive nature of gamified experiences captured students’ attention, transforming ordinary learning activities into intellectually stimulating tasks. Therefore, sparked greater motivation, and consistent engagement.

Guided Inquiry

Students demonstrated scientific exploration consistent along with the structured guidance by their teachers. Curiosity prompted students to ask scientific questions and uncover practical solutions. This increased their interest and understanding to learning, while honing important abilities such as inquiry, critical thinking, and decision-making.

Posing Questions

We observed the art of posing thought-provoking questions. Posing questions tapped into students' inherent curiosity while stimulating their interest and motivation. Teachers often asked questions to probe student understanding and ask critical questions. Students learned self-regulation, critical inquiry, and advanced learning while providing relevant, accurate, and thorough knowledge through this guided process.

Learning-By-Doing

We witnessed a learning experience in which the students were active participants. They were engaged in dynamic discussions that provided them with first-hand encounters toward understanding. During this period, students actively engaged in observing phenomena and scientific processes. Through hands-on experiences, engaged learners assume responsibility for their own understanding. They skillfully implement acquired knowledge while effectively connecting theoretical ideas to real-life situations.

Epistemic Goals and Practices – Japan

Table 7 presents the EGs and ToK by incorporating behavior and condition . Japan has a standardized overall objective (goals) from elementary to lower secondary/junior high schools. The objective is to construct a layer: in elementary school science, each grade’s objectives fall under the subject’s overall objectives and that of lower secondary school science. Under the “objectives of science as a subject,” the first (energy and particles) and second (life and earth) fields have their own objectives, and each unit of the two fields has objectives based on the upper levels. This classification includes knowledge, abilities, and attitudes. We observed a comparable classification between the elementary and lower secondary levels. Within this categorization, there is remarkable uniformity in behavior, which illustrates the knowledge pattern. Students acquire knowledge, abilities, and attributes through higher cognitive learning, specifically in the form of creation. Each form of mck then contributes to the development of strategic knowledge, knowledge of cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge from G3–G9.

This condition entails a deeper understanding of living things, the structure of movement, the continuity of life, and the structure and function of the body. Various biology concepts facilitate scientific inquiry with the objective of advancing the understanding and acquisition of metacognitive knowledge. These objectives were designed to enhance proficiency in employing scientific methods, specifically in conducting scientific inquiry into natural objects, experiencing objects, and understanding phenomena. Furthermore, the process of developing student understanding is facilitated by their direct engagement with objects and phenomena, while honing their attitudes toward scientific inquiry.

Table 8 shows the degree-related EGs and PSs in Japan. The goals consist of knowledge, abilities, and attitude, and demonstrate the consistency of learning development across the elementary and lower secondary school levels. Irrespective of the concept being considered, skill development follows a standardized approach from G3 to G9. PSs are uniform across various learning domains, like all knowledge derived from active demonstration, including observations, experiments, and other scientific activities. Similarly, we noted that student abilities were centered around a repetitive mode of inquiry. The students employ and hone their skills to enhance their comprehension of biological principles. Furthermore, cultivating a positive attitude toward nature, life, and the environment requires consistent practice and refining one’s abilities. By employing observation, experimentation, and other practical work, students cultivate a positive disposition toward scientific inquiry and conducting scientific inquiries.

Our IATO in different schools, helped us determine recurring themes to indicate the EPs in Japan.

Cultivating Lasting Learning

Japanese teachers cultivate lasting learning. They began their lessons by writing the learning goals which are grounded on shared responsibility, to develop a sense of direction and purpose. They introduce real-world problems that allow students to connect their prior understanding. During active learning activities, the teachers gathered students’ observations and methodically arranged them on classroom boards. Such visual representations served as a valuable reference for ongoing discussions, reflection, and knowledge construction. It depicted patterns and variation that can elicit further scientific inquiries. Similarly, it promotes data-driven practice towards generating conclusions and generalizations. This approach bolstered students' capacity for analysis and cultivated a more profound comprehension of biology.

Observation, Investigation, and Experimentation

We observed learners utilizing their senses to examine organisms. They engaged in direct interactions under meticulously replicated conditions in the classroom or laboratory. They participated in a wide range of scientific activities and performed experiments. They diligently adhered to scientific methodologies and precisely recorded their discoveries to enhance understanding of diverse scientific phenomena and processes through practical activities.

Collaborative Discussion

All classes were encouraged to participate in micro-discussions. This allowed the students to ask questions, seek clarification, and enhance their understanding in a smaller and supportive environment. It was crucial for students with advanced understanding to take the lead and facilitate the discussion. Collaborative discussions were instrumental to learning from peers and affirming understanding, while expressing their thoughts and beliefs leading to collective empowerment and collaborative learning.

Reflective Thinking

The classes were adept in reflective thinking. This method encouraged students to carefully review what they had learned and evaluate if their present experiences met the learning objectives. Teachers designed purposeful queries to prompt reflection. While the students were provided ample time to ponder and participate in creating a tranquil environment for introspection.

Epistemic Goals – the Philippines and Japan

In the Philippines, EGs focus on transmitting fk . Both fk and ck are crucial for cognitive proficiency advancement (Schraw, 2006 ) and for helping students perform better in school (Idrus et al., 2022 ). Having a solid foundation of fk is essential for comprehending biological concepts. Thus, these goals aid in the development of critical thinking skills and enhancing students’ self-confidence. Moreover, this knowledge helps individuals navigate their surroundings, make informed choices, and contribute to a knowledgeable and enlightened society. Fk leverages ck , in contrast to the mere acquisition of information; fostering critical thinking skills and facilitating the transfer of learning, adaptability, and effective problem-solving.

The Philippines’ EGs mainly involve transmitting scientific skills essential for establishing scientific literacy and active participation in scientific investigations. Individuals with such skills can confidently observe, communicate, measure, hypothesize, analyze data, solve issues, and navigate the life sciences. Improving and refining these skills increases scientific comprehension and builds crucial life skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication.

In contrast, EGs in Japan center on transmitting mck , which is critical for cognitive development and learning. This knowledge can govern and regulate all aspects of knowledge or processes and can be applied to any cognitive pursuit, including learning (Flavell, 1979 ). This enables individuals to control their learning, adjust their strategies, participate in metacognitive processes, and apply their knowledge to new situations.

Japan’s EGs transmit highly integrated skills that provide a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach to scientific inquiry. Such skills foster a holistic comprehension of broader issues and the cultivation of analytical and reasoning abilities, ideation, and advanced learning. Padilla ( 1990 ) posits that acquiring expertise is imperative for the development, experimentation, and execution of scientific research. Acquiring integrated scientific processing skills enables individuals to proficiently address complex challenges, contribute meaningfully to scientific advancement, and have a considerable impact on their understanding of biology.

Epistemic Practices – the Philippines and Japan

Epistemic practices in the Philippines capitalize on timely and relevant learner-centered pedagogy. The strategic integration of AVM resulted in an engaging and interactive classroom. AVM are designed to cater to diverse learning styles and stimulate learners’ auditory and visual faculties. AVM or multimedia inside the classroom consists of more than one medium aided by technology (Kapi et al., 2017 ; Abdulrahaman et al., 2020 ) and is used to improve understanding (Guan et al., 2018 ). Shaojie et al. ( 2022 ) found that AVM input can enrich learners' understanding of the content and motivate them to actively participate in listening comprehension activities by providing more authentic language input that is richer in multimodal cultural and situational contexts. Moreover, AVM promotes inclusivity by accommodating diverse learning preferences and enhancing comprehension and retention. This drives students’ eagerness to learn, while simplifying and adding excitement to the learning process (Rasul et al., 2011 ). AVM found to enhance student motivation and engagement (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017 ), as well as improve positive learning outcomes (Zainuddin, 2023 ), thus positively impacting student focus and concentration. Integrating gamified elements proved effective in capturing students' attention and foster a higher level of engagement.

It was also evident that the students exhibited a proactive and experiential approach toward scientific exploration. According to Kong ( 2021 ), this educational phenomenon promotes engagement and eventually leads to classroom success. The students demonstrated genuine and inherent curiosity and displayed a sincere interest in biology. Wang et al. ( 2022 ) argue that inquiries and epistemological beliefs form the foundation of scientific literacy. The teachers' adept organization and support effectively nurtured this curiosity. Students’ inherent inquisitiveness, under the guidance of the teacher's intentional mentorship, fostered an atmosphere conducive to purposeful inquiry and thus a heightened comprehension of biology. Based on Lin et al. ( 2011 ) and Jack et al. ( 2014 ), advancing toward scientific understanding and the application of scientific knowledge promotes interest in learning science.

Finally, educators' ability to pose thought-provoking questions has become important in the classroom. Each teacher's inquiries shaped classroom dynamics and fostered students' curiosity, critical thinking, and academic growth (Salmon & Barrera, 2021 ). Hilsdon ( 2010 ) states that insightful inquiries can lead to critical thinking by efficiently probing comprehension. Students actively participate in dynamic discussions and take responsibility for their learning.

Conversely, EPs in Japan use advanced methods to create a highly engaged and learning environment, outperforming traditional education. Teacher techniques included collaborative conversations, reflective thinking, and strategic use of thought-provoking questions throughout our classroom visits. This fostered active participation that encouraged students to critically engage and reflect on their learning. Higher-order thinking skills are essential for conceptual and disciplinary understanding (Heron & Palfreyman, 2023 ). These skills enable students to examine, synthesize, and evaluate information beyond fundamental knowledge.

Barlow et al. ( 2020 ) noted that in extensive research, empirical evidence is consistent, indicating that students who actively engage with learning materials and participate in the educational process demonstrate increased levels of engagement and achieve significantly greater learning outcomes. Similarly, Wang et al. ( 2022 ) argue that metacognitive skills help students learn and perform better. Furthermore, metacognition, or higher learning, also prepares learners for higher education (Stanton et al., 2021 ).

Reflective breaks were thoughtfully included in classroom immersion. Teachers set aside times for students to reflect. It reflects Japan's educational philosophy, which emphasizes learning, internalizing, and synthesizing knowledge to improve metacognition (Hanya et al., 2014 ). Kolb ( 1984 ) successfully linked reflection to experiential learning. The Japanese way of active learning transfer incorporates collaborative discussion and reflective dialogue. Dewey ( 1993 ) argues that reflective thinking examines beliefs, requiring careful examination of reporting, relating, reasoning, and reconstructing knowledge (Ryan, 2013 ).

We conducted ethnographic research examining two iterative cases of EGs and EPs of biology curriculum in the Philippines and Japan. We analyzed how these curricula effectively transmit valuable knowledge and skills. We found that the EGs in the Philippines were primarily grounded in disseminating factual knowledge with a specific emphasis on enhancing health and environmental awareness. Knowledge acquisition transitions from factual to conceptual as students progress to junior high school. EGs emphasize the utilization of basic science skills , particularly for exploring and comprehending various biological concepts. Alternatively, EPs prioritize learner-centered approaches that are both timely and relevant. These EPs include using AVM, gamified instruction, guided inquiry, thought-provoking questions, and hands-on learning experience.

However, EGs in Japan differed, focusing on a reliable means of imparting meta-cognitive knowledge . Students are equipped with problem-solving abilities and empowered to acquire integrated science skills to effectively engage in scientific inquiry. Implementing EPs fosters a sustainable learning environment and cultivates lasting learning, observation, investigation, experimentation, collaborative discussion, and reflective thinking.

Our findings shed light on the distinct and prioritized elements of biology standards and its EGs and EPs, making it a valuable addition to the current body of literature. Examining the realm of curriculum can improve comprehension, spark significant conversations, and enable informed decisions across cultures and borders. This research invites educators, policymakers, and stakeholders to embrace varied educational approaches to build a global community exploring knowledge and skills across national lines.

Limitations and Implications

The scope of this study is limited to a DA of the EGs and an ICA of the EPs. Our study provides insights into the development of policies and interventions that can address gaps in EGs and Eps. They can be used as a foundation for improving the biology curriculum in line with educational objectives and societal needs. Educators can also derive advantages from the findings of this study by engaging in professional development programs specifically designed to equip them with the essential skills and knowledge required to effectively implement learner-centric methodologies and integrate innovative teaching practices seamlessly. In addition, this study's cross-cultural benchmarks provide the potential for collaborative initiatives among educational institutions. Gaining insight into both commonalities and distinctions in EGs and EPs can foster cooperative endeavors aimed at improving global educational benchmarks.

Data Availability

The data have been made accessible in the results.

Abdulrahaman, M. D., Faruk, N., Oloyede, A. A., Surajudeen-Bakinde, N. T., Olawoyin, L. A., Mejabi, O. V., Imam Fulani, Y. O., Fahm, A. O., & Azeez, A. L. (2020). Multimedia tools in the teaching andlearningprocesses: A systematic review. Heliyon, 6 (11), e05312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05312

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . Longman.

Google Scholar  

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactment in secondary schools . Routledge.

Barlow, A., Brown, S., Lutz, B., et al. (2020). Development of the Student Course Cognitive Engagement Instrument (SCCEI) for college engineering courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00220-9

Beeth, M. E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83 , 738–760.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26–55.

Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (7), 1082–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257

Brock, R., & Park, W. (2022). Distinguishing Nature of Science Beliefs, Knowledge, and Understandings. Science & Education. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00368-6

Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46 (3), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722

Cho, M. H., Lankford, D. M., & Wescott, D. J. (2011). Exploring the relationships among epistemological beliefs, nature of science, and conceptual change in the learning of evolutionary theory. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 4(3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-011-0324-7

Deng, F., Chen, D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95 , 961–999.

Department of Education (DepEd) (n.d.). Executive report . https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/06/02/deped-to-launch-basic-educationdevelopment-plan-2030-as-strategic-roadmap-for-basic-education/

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher , 38 (3), 181–199. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20532527

Dewey, J. (1993). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educativeprocess . D. C. Heath.

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 , 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

Dixon-Woods, M., Campbell, A., Aveling, E. L., & Martin, G. (2019). An ethnographic study of improving data collection and completeness in large-scale data exercises. Wellcome Open Research , 4 , 203. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14993.1

Finley, F. N. (1983). Science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200105

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016–4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books.

Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum . Open University Press.

Granström, M., Kikas, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2023). Classroom observations: How do teachers teachlearning strategies? Frontiers in Education, 8 , 1119519. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519

Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition . Routledge Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795225

Guan, N., Song, J., & Li, D. (2018). On the advantages of computer multimedia-aided English teaching. Procedia Computer Science, 131 , 727–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.126

Hale, J. A. (2007). Guide to curriculum mapping: Planning, implementing, and sustaining the process . Sage.

Hanya, M., Yonei, H., Kurono, S., & Kamei, H. (2014). Development of reflective thinking in pharmacy students to improve their communication with patients through a process of role-playing, videoreviews, and transcript creation. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6 (1), 122–129.

Heron, M., & Palfreyman, D. M. (2023). Exploring higher-order thinking in higher education seminar talk. College Teaching, 71 (4), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.2018397

Hilsdon, J. (2010). Critical thinking . Learning development with Plymouth University. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/learn

Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 nd ed., pp. 703–715). Sage.

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. EducationalPsychology Review, 13 , 353–383.

Horan, C., Finch, J., & Reid, E. (2014). The performativity of objects: The sociomaterial role of imaginal others [Conference presentation]. European Group for Organisation Studies (EGOS) Conference, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Hout, S. (2004). Ethnography: Understanding occupation through an examination of culture. In S. Naylor & M. Stanley (Eds.), Qualitative research methodologies for occupational science and therapy (pp. 84–101). Taylor & Francis.

Idrus, H., Rahim, S. S. A., & Zulnaidi, H. (2022). Conceptual knowledge in area measurement for primary school students: A systematic review. STEM Education, 2 (1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2022003

Jack, B. M., Lin, H.-S., & Yore, L. D. (2014). The synergistic effect of affective factors on student learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51 (8), 1084–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21153

Joseph, P. B. (Ed.). (2010). Cultures of curriculum (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2020). Learning by design glossary: Artefacts . http://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/glossary/artefact

Kapi, A. Y., Osman, N., Ramli, R. Z., & Taib, J. M. (2017). Multimedia education tools for effective teaching and learning. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 9 (2–8), 143–146.

Khan, T. H., & MacEachen, E. (2021). Foucauldian discourse analysis: Moving beyond a social constructionist analytic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 20 . https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211018009

Knight, S., Buckingham Shum, S., & Littleton, K. (2014). Epistemology, assessment, pedagogy: Where learning meets analytics in the middle space. Journal of Learning Analytics , 1 (2), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2014.12.3 .

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Prentice-Hall.

Kong, Y. (2021). The Role of Experiential Learning on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 771272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771272

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Analytical constructs. In Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Fourth Edition ed., pp. 178–194). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Leden, L., & Hansson, L. (2019). Nature of science progression in school year 1–9: A case study of teachers’ suggestions and rationales. Research in Science Education, 49 (2), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9628-0

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331–359.

Lederman, N. G. (2002). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education , 3 (2). Retrieved from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497–521.

Lewis, C. T., & Belanger, C. (2015). The generality of scientific models: A measure theoretic approach. Synthese, 192 , 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0567-2

Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., Chen, C. C., & Chou, C. H. (2011). The effect of integrating aesthetic understanding in reflective inquiry activities. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (9), 1199–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.504788

Maguire, M., Hoskins, K., & Ball, S. J. (2011). Policy discourses in school texts. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32 (4), 597–609.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1 (2), Article 20. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0002204

McDevitt, T. M., Sheehan, E. P., Cooney, J. B., & Smith, H. V. (1994). Conceptions of listening, learning processes, and epistemologies held by American, Irish, and Australian university students. Learning & Individual Differences, 6 , 231–256.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (2), 153–191.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2006). Basic Act on Education . https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/detail01/1373798.htm

Moshman, D. (2014). Epistemic domains of reasoning. In H. Markovits (Ed.), The developmental psychology of reasoning and decision-making (pp. 115–129). Psychology Press.

Muis, K. R., & Franco, G. M. (2009). Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards for self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 , 306–318.

Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27 (7), 637–660.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

Orr, R. B., Csikari, M. M., Freeman, S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2022). Writing and using learning objectives. CBE Life Sciences Education , 21 (3), fe3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073

Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994–1020.

Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills . National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)

Paretti, M. (2009). When the teacher is the audience: Assignment design and assessment in the absence of “real” readers. In M. Weiser, B. Fehler, & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies. National Council of Teachers of English.

Park, W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA, Korea, and Taiwan. Science & Education, 29 (4), 899–927.

Peffer, M. E., & Ramezani, N. (2019). Assessing epistemological beliefs of experts and novices via practices in authentic science inquiry. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0157-9

Plowright, D. (2011). Using mixed methods: Frameworks for an integrated methodology . Sage.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Rasul, S., Bukhsh, Q., & Batool, S. (2011). A study to analyze the effectiveness of audio visual aids in teaching learning process at Uvniversity level. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28 , 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.016

Ryan, M. (2013). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (2), 144–151.

Salmon, A. K., & Barrera, M. X. (2021). Intentional questioning to promote thinking and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40 , 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100822

Savage, J. (2000). Ethnography and health care. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 321 (7273), 1400–1402. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1400

Schiefer, J., Edelsbrunner, P. A., Bernholt, A., et al. (2022). Epistemic beliefs in science—a systematic integration of evidence from multiple studies. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 1541–1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w

Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum theory. Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.). Sage.

Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 245–263). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shaojie, T., Samad, A. A., & Ismail, L. (2022). Systematic literature review on audio-visual multimodal input in listening comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 980133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980133

Sheal, P. (1989). Classroom observation: Training the observers. ELT Journal, 43 (2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/43.2.92

Smith, C. L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (8), 747–785.

Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE Life Sciences Education , 20(2), fe3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289 .

Sullivan, P. B., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., et al. (2012). Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Medical Education, 12 , 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-26

Tsai, C. C. (2007). Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students’ views. Science Education, 91 (2), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20175

Wang, H. H., Hong, Z. R., & She, H. C. (2022). The role of structured inquiry, open inquiry, and epistemological beliefs in developing secondary students’ scientific and mathematical literacies. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 , 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00329-z

Zainuddin, Z. (2023). Integrating ease of use and affordable gamification-based instruction into a remote learning environment . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09832-6

Download references

Open Access funding provided by Hiroshima University. This research was financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI program under Grant Number 22KF0274.

Author information

Keigo Fujinami and Tetsuo Isozaki contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

International Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral Fellowship (Standard), Tokyo, Japan

Denis Dyvee Errabo

Graduate School of Humanities and Social Science, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

Denis Dyvee Errabo, Keigo Fujinami & Tetsuo Isozaki

Department of Science Education, Bro. Andrew Gonzales FSC College of Education, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Dyvee Errabo .

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards.

This research conformed to the ethical standards approved by the institutional review board.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Errabo, D.D., Fujinami, K. & Isozaki, T. Epistemic Goals and Practices in Biology Curriculum—the Philippines and Japan. Res Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10170-9

Download citation

Accepted : 22 April 2024

Published : 10 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10170-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biology curriculum
• Epistemic goals
• Epistemic practices 
• Science education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research