self assessment techniques to promote critical thinking

Promoting and Assessing Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a high priority outcome of higher education – critical thinking skills are crucial for independent thinking and problem solving in both our students’ professional and personal lives. But, what does it mean to be a critical thinker and how do we promote and assess it in our students? Critical thinking can be defined as being able to examine an issue by breaking it down, and evaluating it in a conscious manner, while providing arguments/evidence to support the evaluation. Below are some suggestions for promoting and assessing critical thinking in our students.

Thinking through inquiry

Asking questions and using the answers to understand the world around us is what drives critical thinking. In inquiry-based instruction, the teacher asks students leading questions to draw from them information, inferences, and predictions about a topic. Below are some example generic question stems that can serve as prompts to aid in generating critical thinking questions. Consider providing prompts such as these to students to facilitate their ability to also ask these questions of themselves and others. If we want students to generate good questions on their own, we need to teach them how to do so by providing them with the structure and guidance of example questions, whether in written form, or by our use of questions in the classroom.

Generic question stems

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of …?
• What is the difference between … and …?
• Explain why/how …?
• What would happen if …?
• What is the nature of …?
• Why is … happening?
• What is a new example of …?
• How could … be used to …?
• What are the implications of …?
• What is … analogous to?
• What do we already know about …?
• How does … affect …?
• How does … tie in with what we have learned before?
• What does … mean?
• Why is … important?
• How are … and … similar/different?
• How does … apply to everyday life?
• What is a counterarguement for …?
• What is the best …and why?
• What is a solution to the problem of …?
• Compare … and … with regard to …?
• What do you think causes …? Why?
• Do you agree or disagree with this statement? What evidence is there to support your answer?
• What is another way to look at …?

Critical thinking through writing

Another essential ingredient in critical thinking instruction is the use of writing. Writing converts students from passive to active learners and requires them to identify issues and formulate hypotheses and arguments. The act of writing requires students to focus and clarify their thoughts before putting them down on paper, hence taking them through the critical thinking process. Writing requires that students make important critical choices and ask themselves (Gocsik, 2002):

• What information is most important?
• What might be left out?
• What is it that I think about this subject?
• How did I arrive at what I think?
• What are my assumptions? Are they valid?
• How can I work with facts, observations, and so on, in order to convince others of what I think?
• What do I not yet understand?

Consider providing the above questions to students so that they can evaluate their own writing as well. Some suggestions for critical thinking writing activities include:

• Give students raw data and ask them to write an argument or analysis based on the data.
• Have students explore and write about unfamiliar points of view or “what if” situations.
• Think of a controversy in your field, and have the students write a dialogue between characters with different points of view.
• Select important articles in your field and ask the students to write summaries or abstracts of them. Alternately, you could ask students to write an abstract of your lecture.
• Develop a scenario that place students in realistic situations relevant to your discipline, where they must reach a decision to resolve a conflict.

See the Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) teaching tip “ Low-Stakes Writing Assignments ” for critical thinking writing assignments.

Critical thinking through group collaboration

Opportunities for group collaboration could include discussions, case studies, task-related group work, peer review, or debates. Group collaboration is effective for promoting critical thought because:

• An effective team has the potential to produce better results than any individual,
• Students are exposed to different perspectives while clarifying their own ideas,
• Collaborating on a project or studying with a group for an exam generally stimulates interest and increases the understanding and knowledge of the topic.

See the CTE teaching tip “ Group Work in the Classroom: Types of Small Groups ” for suggestions for forming small groups in your classroom.

Assessing critical thinking skills

You can also use the students’ responses from the activities that promote critical thinking to assess whether they are, indeed, reaching your critical thinking goals. It is important to establish clear criteria for evaluating critical thinking. Even though many of us may be able to identify critical thinking when we see it, explicitly stated criteria help both students and teachers know the goal toward which they are working. An effective criterion measures which skills are present, to what extent, and which skills require further development. The following are characteristics of work that may demonstrate effective critical thinking:

• Accurately and thoroughly interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, literary elements, etc.
• Asks relevant questions.
• Analyses and evaluates key information, and alternative points of view clearly and precisely.
• Fair-mindedly examines beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weighs them against facts.
• Draws insightful, reasonable conclusions.
• Justifies inferences and opinions.
• Thoughtfully addresses and evaluates major alternative points of view.
• Thoroughly explains assumptions and reasons.

It is also important to note that assessment is a tool that can be used throughout a course, not just at the end. It is more useful to assess students throughout a course, so you can see if criteria require further clarification and students can test out their understanding of your criteria and receive feedback. Also consider distributing your criteria with your assignments so that students receive guidance about your expectations. This will help them to reflect on their own work and improve the quality of their thinking and writing.

See the CTE teaching tip sheets “ Rubrics ” and “ Responding to Writing Assignments: Managing the Paper Load ” for more information on rubrics.

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help.  View the  CTE Support  page to find the most relevant staff member to contact. 

• Gocsik, K. (2002). Teaching Critical Thinking Skills. UTS Newsletter, 11(2):1-4
• Facione, P.A. and Facione, N.C. (1994). Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. www.calpress.com/rubric.html (retrieved September 2003)
• King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1): 13-17
• Wade, C. and Tavris, C. (1987). Psychology (1st ed.) New York: Harper. IN: Wade, C. (1995). Using Writing to Develop and Assess Critical Thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1): 24-28.

Catalog search

Teaching tip categories.

• Assessment and feedback
• Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
• Career Development
• Course Design
• Course Implementation
• Inclusive Teaching and Learning
• Learning activities
• Support for Student Learning
• Support for TAs

• Teaching Tips

A Brief Guide for Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Psychology

In my first year of college teaching, a student approached me one day after class and politely asked, “What did you mean by the word ‘evidence’?” I tried to hide my shock at what I took to be a very naive question. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that this was actually a good question, for which the usual approaches to teaching psychology provided too few answers. During the next several years, I developed lessons and techniques to help psychology students learn how to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of scientific and nonscientific kinds of evidence and to help them draw sound conclusions. It seemed to me that learning about the quality of evidence and drawing appropriate conclusions from scientific research were central to teaching critical thinking (CT) in psychology.

In this article, I have attempted to provide guidelines to psychol­ogy instructors on how to teach CT, describing techniques I devel­oped over 20 years of teaching. More importantly, the techniques and approach described below are ones that are supported by scientific research. Classroom examples illustrate the use of the guidelines and how assessment can be integrated into CT skill instruction.

Overview of the Guidelines

Confusion about the definition of CT has been a major obstacle to teaching and assessing it (Halonen, 1995; Williams, 1999). To deal with this problem, we have defined CT as reflective think­ing involved in the evaluation of evidence relevant to a claim so that a sound or good conclusion can be drawn from the evidence (Bensley, 1998). One virtue of this definition is it can be applied to many thinking tasks in psychology. The claims and conclusions psychological scientists make include hypotheses, theoretical state­ments, interpretation of research findings, or diagnoses of mental disorders. Evidence can be the results of an experiment, case study, naturalistic observation study, or psychological test. Less formally, evidence can be anecdotes, introspective reports, commonsense beliefs, or statements of authority. Evaluating evidence and drawing appropriate conclusions along with other skills, such as distin­guishing arguments from nonarguments and finding assumptions, are collectively called argument analysis skills. Many CT experts take argument analysis skills to be fundamental CT skills (e.g., Ennis, 1987; Halpern, 1998). Psychology students need argument analysis skills to evaluate psychological claims in their work and in everyday discourse.

Some instructors expect their students will improve CT skills like argument analysis skills by simply immersing them in challenging course work. Others expect improvement because they use a textbook with special CT questions or modules, give lectures that critically review the literature, or have students complete written assignments. While these and other traditional techniques may help, a growing body of research suggests they are not sufficient to efficiently produce measurable changes in CT skills. Our research on acquisition of argument analysis skills in psychology (Bensley, Crowe, Bernhardt, Buchner, & Allman, in press) and on critical reading skills (Bensley & Haynes, 1995; Spero & Bensley, 2009) suggests that more explicit, direct instruction of CT skills is necessary. These results concur with results of an earlier review of CT programs by Chance (1986) and a recent meta-analysis by Abrami et al., (2008).

Based on these and other findings, the following guidelines describe an approach to explicit instruction in which instructors can directly infuse CT skills and assessment into their courses. With infusion, instructors can use relevant content to teach CT rules and concepts along with the subject matter. Directly infus­ing CT skills into course work involves targeting specific CT skills, making CT rules, criteria, and methods explicit, providing guided practice in the form of exercises focused on assessing skills, and giving feedback on practice and assessments. These components are similar to ones found in effective, direct instruc­tion approaches (Walberg, 2006). They also resemble approaches to teaching CT proposed by Angelo (1995), Beyer (1997), and Halpern (1998). Importantly, this approach has been successful in teaching CT skills in psychology (e.g., Bensley, et al., in press; Bensley & Haynes, 1995; Nieto & Saiz, 2008; Penningroth, Despain, & Gray, 2007). Directly infusing CT skill instruction can also enrich content instruction without sacrificing learning of subject matter (Solon, 2003). The following seven guidelines, illustrated by CT lessons and assessments, explicate this process.

Seven Guidelines for Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking

1. Motivate your students to think critically

Critical thinking takes effort. Without proper motivation, students are less inclined to engage in it. Therefore, it is good to arouse interest right away and foster commitment to improving CT throughout a course. One motivational strategy is to explain why CT is important to effective, professional behavior. Often, telling a compelling story that illustrates the consequences of failing to think critically can mo­tivate students. For example, the tragic death of 10-year-old Candace Newmaker at the hands of her therapists practicing attachment therapy illustrates the perils of using a therapy that has not been supported by good empirical evidence (Lilienfeld, 2007).

Instructors can also pique interest by taking a class poll posing an interesting question on which students are likely to have an opinion. For example, asking students how many think that the full moon can lead to increases in abnormal behavior can be used to introduce the difference between empirical fact and opinion or common sense belief. After asking students how psychologists answer such questions, instructors might go over the meta-analysis of Rotton and Kelly (1985). Their review found that almost all of the 37 studies they reviewed showed no association between the phase of the moon and abnormal behavior with only a few, usually poorly, controlled studies supporting it. Effect size over all stud­ies was very small (.01). Instructors can use this to illustrate how psychologists draw a conclusion based on the quality and quantity of research studies as opposed to what many people commonly believe. For other interesting thinking errors and misconceptions related to psychology, see Bensley (1998; 2002; 2008), Halpern (2003), Ruscio (2006), Stanovich (2007), and Sternberg (2007).

Attitudes and dispositions can also affect motivation to think critically. If students lack certain CT dispositions such as open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, and skepticism, they will be less likely to think critically even if they have CT skills (Halpern, 1998). Instructors might point out that even great scientists noted for their powers of reasoning sometimes fail to think critically when they are not disposed to use their skills. For example, Alfred Russel Wallace who used his considerable CT skills to help develop the concept of natural selection also believed in spiritualistic contact with the dead. Despite considerable evidence that mediums claiming to contact the dead were really faking such contact, Wallace continued to believe in it (Bensley, 2006). Likewise, the great American psychologist William James, whose reasoning skills helped him develop the seeds of important contemporary theories, believed in spiritualism despite evidence to the contrary.

2. Clearly state the CT goals and objectives for your class

Once students are motivated, the instructor should focus them on what skills they will work on during the course. The APA task force on learning goals and objectives for psychology listed CT as one of 10 major goals for students (Halonen et al., 2002). Under critical thinking they have further specified outcomes such as evaluating the quality of information, identifying and evaluating the source and credibility of information, recognizing and defending against think­ing errors and fallacies. Instructors should publish goals like these in their CT course objectives in their syllabi and more specifically as assignment objectives in their assignments. Given the pragmatic penchant of students for studying what is needed to succeed in a course, this should help motivate and focus them.

To make instruction efficient, course objectives and lesson ob­jectives should explicitly target CT skills to be improved. Objectives should specify the behavior that will change in a way that can be measured. A course objective might read, “After taking this course, you will be able to analyze arguments found in psychological and everyday discussions.” When the goal of a lesson is to practice and improve specific microskills that make up argument analysis, an assignment objective might read “After successfully completing this assignment, you will be able to identify different kinds of evidence in a psychological discussion.” Or another might read “After suc­cessfully completing this assignment, you will be able to distinguish arguments from nonarguments.” Students might demonstrate they have reached these objectives by showing the behavior of correctly labeling the kinds of evidence presented in a passage or by indicating whether an argument or merely a claim has been made. By stating objectives in the form of assessable behaviors, the instructor can test these as assessment hypotheses.

Sometimes when the goal is to teach students how to decide which CT skills are appropriate in a situation, the instructor may not want to identify specific skills. Instead, a lesson objective might read, “After successfully completing this assignment, you will be able to decide which skills and knowledge are appropriate for criti­cally analyzing a discussion in psychology.”

3. Find opportunities to infuse CT that fit content and skill requirements of your course

To improve their CT skills, students must be given opportunities to practice them. Different courses present different opportunities for infusion and practice. Stand-alone CT courses usually provide the most opportunities to infuse CT. For example, the Frostburg State University Psychology Department has a senior seminar called “Thinking like a Psychologist” in which students complete lessons giving them practice in argument analysis, critical reading, critically evaluating information on the Internet, distinguishing science from pseudoscience, applying their knowledge and CT skills in simula­tions of psychological practice, and other activities.

In more typical subject-oriented courses, instructors must find specific content and types of tasks conducive to explicit CT skill instruction. For example, research methods courses present several opportunities to teach argument analysis skills. Instructors can have students critically evaluate the quality of evidence provided by studies using different research methods and designs they find in PsycINFO and Internet sources. This, in turn, could help students write better critical evaluations of research for research reports.

A cognitive psychology teacher might assign a critical evalu­ation of the evidence on an interesting question discussed in text­book literature reviews. For example, students might evaluate the evidence relevant to the question of whether people have flashbulb memories such as accurately remembering the 9-11 attack. This provides the opportunity to teach them that many of the studies, although informative, are quasi-experimental and cannot show causation. Or, students might analyze the arguments in a TV pro­gram such as the fascinating Nova program Kidnapped by Aliens on people who recall having been abducted by aliens.

4. Use guided practice, explicitly modeling and scaffolding CT.

Guided practice involves modeling and supporting the practice of target skills, and providing feedback on progress towards skill attainment. Research has shown that guided practice helps student more efficiently acquire thinking skills than unguided and discovery approaches (Meyer, 2004).

Instructors can model the use of CT rules, criteria, and proce­dures for evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions in many ways. They could provide worked examples of problems, writing samples displaying good CT, or real-world examples of good and bad thinking found in the media. They might also think out loud as they evaluate arguments in class to model the process of thinking.

To help students learn to use complex rules in thinking, instruc­tors should initially scaffold student thinking. Scaffolding involves providing product guidelines, rules, and other frameworks to support the process of thinking. Table 1 shows guidelines like those found in Bensley (1998) describing nonscientific kinds of evidence that can support student efforts to evaluate evidence in everyday psychologi­cal discussions. Likewise, Table 2 provides guidelines like those found in Bensley (1998) and Wade and Tavris (2005) describing various kinds of scientific research methods and designs that differ in the quality of evidence they provide for psychological arguments.

In the cognitive lesson on flashbulb memory described earlier, students use the framework in Table 2 to evaluate the kinds of evidence in the literature review. Table 1 can help them evaluate the kinds of evidence found in the Nova video Kidnapped by Aliens . Specifically, they could use it to contrast scientific authority with less credible authority. The video includes statements by scientific authorities like Elizabeth Loftus based on her extensive research contrasted with the nonscientific authority of Bud Hopkins, an artist turned hypnotherapist and author of popular books on alien abduction. Loftus argues that the memories of alien abduction in the children interviewed by Hopkins were reconstructed around the suggestive interview questions he posed. Therefore, his conclu­sion that the children and other people in the video were recalling actual abduction experiences was based on anecdotes, unreliable self-reports, and other weak evidence.

Modeling, scaffolding, and guided practice are especially useful in helping students first acquire CT skills. After sufficient practice, however, instructors should fade these and have students do more challenging assignments without these supports to promote transfer.

5. Align assessment with practice of specific CT skills

Test questions and other assessments of performance should be similar to practice questions and problems in the skills targeted but differ in content. For example, we have developed a series of practice and quiz questions about the kinds of evidence found in Table 1 used in everyday situations but which differ in subject matter from practice to quiz. Likewise, other questions employ research evidence examples corresponding to Table 2. Questions ask students to identify kinds of evidence, evaluate the quality of the evidence, distinguish arguments from nonarguments, and find assumptions in the examples with practice examples differing in content from assessment items.

6. Provide feedback and encourage students to reflect on it

Instructors should focus feedback on the degree of attainment of CT skill objectives in the lesson or assessment. The purpose of feedback is to help students learn how to correct faulty thinking so that in the future they monitor their thinking and avoid such problems. This should increase their metacognition or awareness and control of their thinking, an important goal of CT instruction (Halpern, 1998).

Students must use their feedback for it to improve their CT skills. In the CT exercises and critical reading assignments, students receive feedback in the form of corrected responses and written feedback on open-ended questions. They should be advised that paying attention to feedback on earlier work and assessments should improve their performance on later assessments.

7. Reflect on feedback and assessment results to improve CT instruction

Instructors should use the feedback they provide to students and the results of ongoing assessments to ‘close the loop,’ that is, use these outcomes to address deficiencies in performance and improve instruction. In actual practice, teaching and assessment strategies rarely work optimally the first time. Instructors must be willing to tinker with these to make needed improvements. Reflec­tion on reliable and valid assessment results provides a scientific means to systematically improve instruction and assessment.

Instructors may find the direct infusion approach as summarized in the seven guidelines to be efficient, especially in helping students acquire basic CT skills, as research has shown. They may especially appreciate how it allows them to take a scientific approach to the improvement of instruction. Although the direct infusion approach seems to efficiently promote acquisition of CT skills, more research is needed to find out if students transfer their skills outside of the class­room or whether this approach needs adjustment to promote transfer.

Table 1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Nonscientific Sources and Kinds of Evidence

Table 2. Strengths and Weaknesses of Scientific Research Methods/Designs Used as Sources of Evidence

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al., (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 4 , 1102–1134.

Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology , 22(1), 6–7.

Bensley, D.A. (1998). Critical thinking in psychology: A unified skills approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bensley, D.A. (2002). Science and pseudoscience: A critical thinking primer. In M. Shermer (Ed.), The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. (pp. 195–203). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC–CLIO.

Bensley, D.A. (2006). Why great thinkers sometimes fail to think critically. Skeptical Inquirer, 30, 47–52.

Bensley, D.A. (2008). Can you learn to think more like a psychologist? The Psychologist, 21, 128–129.

Bensley, D.A., Crowe, D., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. (in press). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology .

Bensley, D.A. & Haynes, C. (1995). The acquisition of general purpose strategic knowledge for argumentation. Teaching of Psychology, 22 , 41–45.

Beyer, B.K. (1997). Improving student thinking: A comprehensive approach . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chance, P. (1986) Thinking in the classroom: A review of programs . New York: Instructors College Press.

Ennis, R.H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. F. Sternberg (Eds.). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: Freeman.

Halonen, J.S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 , 75–81.

Halonen, J.S., Appleby, D.C., Brewer, C.L., Buskist, W., Gillem, A. R., Halpern, D. F., et al. (APA Task Force on Undergraduate Major Competencies). (2002) Undergraduate psychology major learning goals and outcomes: A report. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ed/pcue/reports.html .

Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist , 53 , 449–455.

Halpern, D.F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking . (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lilienfeld, S.O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2 , 53–70.

Meyer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist , 59 , 14–19.

Nieto, A.M., & Saiz, C. (2008). Evaluation of Halpern’s “structural component” for improving critical thinking. The Spanish Journal of Psychology , 11 ( 1 ), 266–274.

Penningroth, S.L., Despain, L.H., & Gray, M.J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology , 34 , 153–157.

Rotton, J., & Kelly, I. (1985). Much ado about the full moon: A meta-analysis of lunar-lunacy research. Psychological Bulletin , 97 , 286–306.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology , 34(2), 972–987.

Stanovich, K.E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology . (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Critical thinking in psychology: It really is critical. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. Roediger, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology. (pp. 289–296) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2005) Invitation to psychology. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Walberg, H.J. (2006). Improving educational productivity: A review of extant research. In R. F. Subotnik & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), The scientific basis of educational productivity (pp. 103–159). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Williams, R.L. (1999). Operational definitions and assessment of higher-order cognitive constructs. Educational Psychology Review , 11 , 411–427.

Excellent article.

Interesting and helpful!

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

D. Alan Bensley is Professor of Psychology at Frostburg State University. He received his Master’s and PhD degrees in cognitive psychology from Rutgers University. His main teaching and research interests concern the improvement of critical thinking and other cognitive skills. He coordinates assessment for his department and is developing a battery of instruments to assess critical thinking in psychology. He can be reached by email at [email protected] Association for Psychological Science December 2010 — Vol. 23, No. 10

Student Notebook: Five Tips for Working with Teaching Assistants in Online Classes

Sarah C. Turner suggests it’s best to follow the golden rule: Treat your TA’s time as you would your own.

Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science

Aimed at integrating cutting-edge psychological science into the classroom, Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science offers advice and how-to guidance about teaching a particular area of research or topic in psychological science that has been

European Psychology Learning and Teaching Conference

The School of Education of the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg is hosting the next European Psychology Learning and Teaching (EUROPLAT) Conference on September 18–20, 2017 in Salzburg, Austria. The main theme of the conference

Privacy Overview

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

(This is the first post in a three-part series.)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

This three-part series will explore what critical thinking is, if it can be specifically taught and, if so, how can teachers do so in their classrooms.

Today’s guests are Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

You might also be interested in The Best Resources On Teaching & Learning Critical Thinking In The Classroom .

Current Events

Dara Laws Savage is an English teacher at the Early College High School at Delaware State University, where she serves as a teacher and instructional coach and lead mentor. Dara has been teaching for 25 years (career preparation, English, photography, yearbook, newspaper, and graphic design) and has presented nationally on project-based learning and technology integration:

There is so much going on right now and there is an overload of information for us to process. Did you ever stop to think how our students are processing current events? They see news feeds, hear news reports, and scan photos and posts, but are they truly thinking about what they are hearing and seeing?

I tell my students that my job is not to give them answers but to teach them how to think about what they read and hear. So what is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom? There are just as many definitions of critical thinking as there are people trying to define it. However, the Critical Think Consortium focuses on the tools to create a thinking-based classroom rather than a definition: “Shape the climate to support thinking, create opportunities for thinking, build capacity to think, provide guidance to inform thinking.” Using these four criteria and pairing them with current events, teachers easily create learning spaces that thrive on thinking and keep students engaged.

One successful technique I use is the FIRE Write. Students are given a quote, a paragraph, an excerpt, or a photo from the headlines. Students are asked to F ocus and respond to the selection for three minutes. Next, students are asked to I dentify a phrase or section of the photo and write for two minutes. Third, students are asked to R eframe their response around a specific word, phrase, or section within their previous selection. Finally, students E xchange their thoughts with a classmate. Within the exchange, students also talk about how the selection connects to what we are covering in class.

There was a controversial Pepsi ad in 2017 involving Kylie Jenner and a protest with a police presence. The imagery in the photo was strikingly similar to a photo that went viral with a young lady standing opposite a police line. Using that image from a current event engaged my students and gave them the opportunity to critically think about events of the time.

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

In the first picture, you see a strong and courageous black female, bravely standing in front of two officers in protest. She is risking her life to do so. Iesha Evans is simply proving to the world she does NOT mean less because she is black … and yet officers are there to stop her. She did not step down. In the picture below, you see Kendall Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi. Maybe this wouldn’t be a big deal, except this was Pepsi’s weak, pathetic, and outrageous excuse of a commercial that belittles the whole movement of people fighting for their lives.

I - Identify a word or phrase, underline it, then write about it for two minutes

A white, privileged female in place of a fighting black woman was asking for trouble. A struggle we are continuously fighting every day, and they make a mockery of it. “I know what will work! Here Mr. Police Officer! Drink some Pepsi!” As if. Pepsi made a fool of themselves, and now their already dwindling fan base continues to ever shrink smaller.

R - Reframe your thoughts by choosing a different word, then write about that for one minute

You don’t know privilege until it’s gone. You don’t know privilege while it’s there—but you can and will be made accountable and aware. Don’t use it for evil. You are not stupid. Use it to do something. Kendall could’ve NOT done the commercial. Kendall could’ve released another commercial standing behind a black woman. Anything!

Exchange - Remember to discuss how this connects to our school song project and our previous discussions?

This connects two ways - 1) We want to convey a strong message. Be powerful. Show who we are. And Pepsi definitely tried. … Which leads to the second connection. 2) Not mess up and offend anyone, as had the one alma mater had been linked to black minstrels. We want to be amazing, but we have to be smart and careful and make sure we include everyone who goes to our school and everyone who may go to our school.

As a final step, students read and annotate the full article and compare it to their initial response.

Using current events and critical-thinking strategies like FIRE writing helps create a learning space where thinking is the goal rather than a score on a multiple-choice assessment. Critical-thinking skills can cross over to any of students’ other courses and into life outside the classroom. After all, we as teachers want to help the whole student be successful, and critical thinking is an important part of navigating life after they leave our classrooms.

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

Patrick Brown is the executive director of STEM and CTE for the Fort Zumwalt school district in Missouri and an experienced educator and author :

Planning for critical thinking focuses on teaching the most crucial science concepts, practices, and logical-thinking skills as well as the best use of instructional time. One way to ensure that lessons maintain a focus on critical thinking is to focus on the instructional sequence used to teach.

Explore-before-explain teaching is all about promoting critical thinking for learners to better prepare students for the reality of their world. What having an explore-before-explain mindset means is that in our planning, we prioritize giving students firsthand experiences with data, allow students to construct evidence-based claims that focus on conceptual understanding, and challenge students to discuss and think about the why behind phenomena.

Just think of the critical thinking that has to occur for students to construct a scientific claim. 1) They need the opportunity to collect data, analyze it, and determine how to make sense of what the data may mean. 2) With data in hand, students can begin thinking about the validity and reliability of their experience and information collected. 3) They can consider what differences, if any, they might have if they completed the investigation again. 4) They can scrutinize outlying data points for they may be an artifact of a true difference that merits further exploration of a misstep in the procedure, measuring device, or measurement. All of these intellectual activities help them form more robust understanding and are evidence of their critical thinking.

In explore-before-explain teaching, all of these hard critical-thinking tasks come before teacher explanations of content. Whether we use discovery experiences, problem-based learning, and or inquiry-based activities, strategies that are geared toward helping students construct understanding promote critical thinking because students learn content by doing the practices valued in the field to generate knowledge.

An Issue of Equity

Meg Riordan, Ph.D., is the chief learning officer at The Possible Project, an out-of-school program that collaborates with youth to build entrepreneurial skills and mindsets and provides pathways to careers and long-term economic prosperity. She has been in the field of education for over 25 years as a middle and high school teacher, school coach, college professor, regional director of N.Y.C. Outward Bound Schools, and director of external research with EL Education:

Although critical thinking often defies straightforward definition, most in the education field agree it consists of several components: reasoning, problem-solving, and decisionmaking, plus analysis and evaluation of information, such that multiple sides of an issue can be explored. It also includes dispositions and “the willingness to apply critical-thinking principles, rather than fall back on existing unexamined beliefs, or simply believe what you’re told by authority figures.”

Despite variation in definitions, critical thinking is nonetheless promoted as an essential outcome of students’ learning—we want to see students and adults demonstrate it across all fields, professions, and in their personal lives. Yet there is simultaneously a rationing of opportunities in schools for students of color, students from under-resourced communities, and other historically marginalized groups to deeply learn and practice critical thinking.

For example, many of our most underserved students often spend class time filling out worksheets, promoting high compliance but low engagement, inquiry, critical thinking, or creation of new ideas. At a time in our world when college and careers are critical for participation in society and the global, knowledge-based economy, far too many students struggle within classrooms and schools that reinforce low-expectations and inequity.

If educators aim to prepare all students for an ever-evolving marketplace and develop skills that will be valued no matter what tomorrow’s jobs are, then we must move critical thinking to the forefront of classroom experiences. And educators must design learning to cultivate it.

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

To understand critical thinking, educators need to first unpack and define its components. What exactly are we looking for when we speak about reasoning or exploring multiple perspectives on an issue? How does problem-solving show up in English, math, science, art, or other disciplines—and how is it assessed? At Two Rivers, an EL Education school, the faculty identified five constructs of critical thinking, defined each, and created rubrics to generate a shared picture of quality for teachers and students. The rubrics were then adapted across grade levels to indicate students’ learning progressions.

At Avenues World School, critical thinking is one of the Avenues World Elements and is an enduring outcome embedded in students’ early experiences through 12th grade. For instance, a kindergarten student may be expected to “identify cause and effect in familiar contexts,” while an 8th grader should demonstrate the ability to “seek out sufficient evidence before accepting a claim as true,” “identify bias in claims and evidence,” and “reconsider strongly held points of view in light of new evidence.”

When faculty and students embrace a common vision of what critical thinking looks and sounds like and how it is assessed, educators can then explicitly design learning experiences that call for students to employ critical-thinking skills. This kind of work must occur across all schools and programs, especially those serving large numbers of students of color. As Linda Darling-Hammond asserts , “Schools that serve large numbers of students of color are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum needed to ... help students attain the [critical-thinking] skills needed in a knowledge work economy. ”

So, what can it look like to create those kinds of learning experiences?

Designing experiences for critical thinking

After defining a shared understanding of “what” critical thinking is and “how” it shows up across multiple disciplines and grade levels, it is essential to create learning experiences that impel students to cultivate, practice, and apply these skills. There are several levers that offer pathways for teachers to promote critical thinking in lessons:

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

A key Common Core State Standard asks for students to “write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” That might not sound exciting or culturally relevant. But a learning experience designed for a 12th grade humanities class engaged learners in a compelling topic— policing in America —to analyze and evaluate multiple texts (including primary sources) and share the reasoning for their perspectives through discussion and writing. Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care about and connect with can ignite powerful learning experiences.

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

At The Possible Project , an out-of-school-time program designed to promote entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, students in a recent summer online program (modified from in-person due to COVID-19) explored the impact of COVID-19 on their communities and local BIPOC-owned businesses. They learned interviewing skills through a partnership with Everyday Boston , conducted virtual interviews with entrepreneurs, evaluated information from their interviews and local data, and examined their previously held beliefs. They created blog posts and videos to reflect on their learning and consider how their mindsets had changed as a result of the experience. In this way, we can design powerful community-based learning and invite students into productive struggle with multiple perspectives.

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

At Big Picture Learning schools, students engage in internship-based learning experiences as a central part of their schooling. Their school-based adviser and internship-based mentor support them in developing real-world projects that promote deeper learning and critical-thinking skills. Such authentic experiences teach “young people to be thinkers, to be curious, to get from curiosity to creation … and it helps students design a learning experience that answers their questions, [providing an] opportunity to communicate it to a larger audience—a major indicator of postsecondary success.” Even in a remote environment, we can design projects that ask more of students than rote memorization and that spark critical thinking.

Our call to action is this: As educators, we need to make opportunities for critical thinking available not only to the affluent or those fortunate enough to be placed in advanced courses. The tools are available, let’s use them. Let’s interrogate our current curriculum and design learning experiences that engage all students in real, relevant, and rigorous experiences that require critical thinking and prepare them for promising postsecondary pathways.

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

Dr. PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, keynote speaker, consultant, and author of seven books who currently serves as the superintendent of schools for the award-winning Meridian CUSD 223 in northwest Illinois. You can find PJ on most social-media platforms as MCUSDSupe:

When I start my keynote on student engagement, I invite two people up on stage and give them each five paper balls to shoot at a garbage can also conveniently placed on stage. Contestant One shoots their shot, and the audience gives approval. Four out of 5 is a heckuva score. Then just before Contestant Two shoots, I blindfold them and start moving the garbage can back and forth. I usually try to ensure that they can at least make one of their shots. Nobody is successful in this unfair environment.

I thank them and send them back to their seats and then explain that this little activity was akin to student engagement. While we all know we want student engagement, we are shooting at different targets. More importantly, for teachers, it is near impossible for them to hit a target that is moving and that they cannot see.

Within the world of education and particularly as educational leaders, we have failed to simplify what student engagement looks like, and it is impossible to define or articulate what student engagement looks like if we cannot clearly articulate what critical thinking is and looks like in a classroom. Because, simply, without critical thought, there is no engagement.

The good news here is that critical thought has been defined and placed into taxonomies for decades already. This is not something new and not something that needs to be redefined. I am a Bloom’s person, but there is nothing wrong with DOK or some of the other taxonomies, either. To be precise, I am a huge fan of Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework. I have used that as a core element of my practice for years, and it has shaped who I am as an instructional leader.

So, in order to explain critical thought, a teacher or a leader must familiarize themselves with these tried and true taxonomies. Easy, right? Yes, sort of. The issue is not understanding what critical thought is; it is the ability to integrate it into the classrooms. In order to do so, there are a four key steps every educator must take.

• Integrating critical thought/rigor into a lesson does not happen by chance, it happens by design. Planning for critical thought and engagement is much different from planning for a traditional lesson. In order to plan for kids to think critically, you have to provide a base of knowledge and excellent prompts to allow them to explore their own thinking in order to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information.
• SIDE NOTE – Bloom’s verbs are a great way to start when writing objectives, but true planning will take you deeper than this.

QUESTIONING

• If the questions and prompts given in a classroom have correct answers or if the teacher ends up answering their own questions, the lesson will lack critical thought and rigor.
• Script five questions forcing higher-order thought prior to every lesson. Experienced teachers may not feel they need this, but it helps to create an effective habit.
• If lessons are rigorous and assessments are not, students will do well on their assessments, and that may not be an accurate representation of the knowledge and skills they have mastered. If lessons are easy and assessments are rigorous, the exact opposite will happen. When deciding to increase critical thought, it must happen in all three phases of the game: planning, instruction, and assessment.

TALK TIME / CONTROL

• To increase rigor, the teacher must DO LESS. This feels counterintuitive but is accurate. Rigorous lessons involving tons of critical thought must allow for students to work on their own, collaborate with peers, and connect their ideas. This cannot happen in a silent room except for the teacher talking. In order to increase rigor, decrease talk time and become comfortable with less control. Asking questions and giving prompts that lead to no true correct answer also means less control. This is a tough ask for some teachers. Explained differently, if you assign one assignment and get 30 very similar products, you have most likely assigned a low-rigor recipe. If you assign one assignment and get multiple varied products, then the students have had a chance to think deeply, and you have successfully integrated critical thought into your classroom.

Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Our Mission

3 Simple Ways to Use Pre-Unit Assessments to Promote Critical Thinking

Teachers can tweak popular strategies to assess students’ prior knowledge in order to encourage critical thinking at the same time.

Pre-unit assessment is an integral part of comprehensive assessment; however, these activities often miss easy and effective opportunities to increase students’ critical thinking abilities while gathering data for future instruction. Additionally, students can feel called out in situations where they lack the schema to complete what is supposed to be a low-risk assessment, leaving them with feelings of defeat before the unit has even begun. Tried-and-true preassessments can be adjusted to promote critical thinking while also sending positive messages to students.

Try OWL Instead of KWL

KWL (a graphic organizer recording students’ Knowledge, Wonders, and Learning over time) can be an effective strategy to measure schema and new learning throughout a unit. However, for a student who’s never heard of quadrilaterals, Cro-Magnon humans, or soil, this can be an intimidating task when a teacher says to fill a graphic organizer with background knowledge. You don’t know what you don’t know. Instead, teachers can tweak this process so that it’s a win for them as well as their students.

OWL ( Observe, Wonder, Learn ) is a small variation that can increase higher-order thinking by introducing a topic through a shared observation. A teacher could display a collage of rectangles, rhombuses, parallelograms, etc., and ask students to use comparison skills to write down everything they notice and wonder about these shapes.

Another teacher could play a short clip from a documentary about Cro-Magnon humans with muted volume so that the students engage in inference while formulating their responses. Still another teacher could have students use magnifying glasses and analysis skills to observe a bucket of topsoil and then write their connections.

These teachers will still be able to gather actionable data regarding vocabulary, previous exposure, connections to real-life examples, etc., and will most likely be pleased with the higher-order thinking that they observe. Varied levels of schema on the topic will be evident, but the difference is that in this type of activity all students are entering into an equitable experience. Everyone will have something to say/write.

What KWL might suggest:

• You should already know something about this.
• You are already behind to be successful in this unit.

What OWL suggests:

• You are in an equitable situation with everyone else.
• Everyone’s map to learning about this is unique.

Try Anticipation Guides Instead of Pretests

Simply stated, pretests collect a unit’s big takeaways and gauge students’ previous exposure and readiness to learn. Anticipation guides are a unique spin on pretests that require some of the most complex higher-order thinking skills: evaluation, synthesis, analysis, judgment, and justification, while still making it possible to glean student schema. They are popular in English language arts but often fall out of favor in other subjects where the teacher needs to determine if students know the right answer, not just have opinions.

Consider how a slight change in language opens the doors for better thinking. For example, instead of asking, “T or F: Fungi can be helpful to humans,” try asking students to provide scientific evidence to support their responses to the prompt—for example: “Some of the best things are found by accident” or “In most cases, help outweighs hurt.”

Instead of asking students which equation from a list is not correct, have them provide mathematical examples to support if they agree or disagree with   “There’s one best way to solve a problem.” Anticipation guides require metacognition and often get students emotionally engaged with the topic before content delivery. Best of all, students practice the life skill of using evidence to justify their beliefs.

What pretests might suggest:

• There is one right or wrong answer.

What anticipation guides suggest:

• Your viewpoint is valued and will make your learning stronger.
• As long as you can justify your answer and/or provide evidence, you aren’t wrong.

Try Narrative and Demonstration Instead of Quick Writes

Quick writes are a powerful tool that all teachers, regardless of their subject or grade level, can use. By having students process their thoughts, feelings, ideas, and information into quick, low-stakes writing moments, teachers aren’t only gathering data regarding learning but also are using brain-based strategies to increase student memory and understanding.

While a quick write is good on its own, teachers can increase creativity and synthesis, as well as honor differences in expressive skills, with a slight addition to this process. Rather than having students only write on a topic, the allotted time can be broken into two equal parts: narrative writing and demonstration .

On one side of paper, students write everything they know (or don’t know) about a topic. On the reverse, they demonstrate their knowledge in visual form. This might look like students’ drawing clock faces, doodling World War II symbols, or labeling the parts of the digestive system. This variation works well for all students and also empowers those with language barriers and/or delays to show off what they know, while not obsessing with filling the page or how much time on the clock is left to fill.

What quick writes might suggest:

• Quantity is more important than quality in response.

What narrative and demonstration suggests:

• You may be able to share/connect this information in a better way than just words.
• Depth of response is most important.

8 Active Learning Strategies: Build Critical Thinking

The Reflective Pause: First, ask a thought provoking question and then intentionally allow 10–15 seconds of silence to elapse before calling on any student to respond. Cognitive science research has shown that a pause of this length is necessary for the human brain to sufficiently process a question and formulate a reasonable response.

Model strong critical thinking. Avoid misleading, and imprecise expressions such as: “How do you feel about that?” and “What is your view of this?” and even “What did you think of this?”. Your students watch you, so what you say and what you do might be more powerful in motivating them to build their critical thinking skills than anything they read or hear in a lecture. If you show that you practice the positive critical thinking habits of mind and that you engage in problems and decisions by applying critical thinking skills, that message comes through to them. If you do not, you give them a negative message.

Call out strong critical thinking: Acknowledge when students use critical thinking so that you promote their self-awareness and recognition of reasoning (don’t forget to use the critical thinking vocabulary). For example, use phrases such as: “The claim you are making…”, “The inquisitiveness of this group was evident when…”, “I agree with your interpretation of…”, and “In your analysis of…”.

Don’t let students get by with shut-down clichés such as, “That’s just how I feel.”, “I was brought up to think that…”, “My parents always said that…”, and “It’s common sense.”. Require students to provide reasons or explanations for all their claims, interpretations, analyses, evaluations, and decisions. Ask why and expect a good, well-reasoned answer.

Work from example back to theory: Discuss the examples in the text first, and then draw out the concepts they teach. This active learning technique exercises students’ inductive reasoning skills and promotes active engagement and inquisitiveness.

Include student reflective journals: Cue students to practice specific thinking skills or mindset attributes. For example, practice interpretation, analysis, and evaluation skills by journaling “What exactly happened and why was that important?”

Use dynamic active learning activities to promote independent thinking and to expose students to the thinking of others. Here are some examples: conversing with a partner, small groups, or the whole class; investigations, inquires, and informed conversations; debates; simulations; role playing; fishbowl activities; panel discussions; brainstorming exercises; case studies; course blogs or wikis; individual or group argument mapping; social networking features such as asynchronous bulletin boards that are often found in course management systems; maintaining a paper or electronic Portfolio, and so on. Every moment is an opportunity. Provide frequent opportunities to practice critical thinking skills and receive formative feedback from the instructor and peers. Interactions that result in constructive feedback can be incorporated by the student and reinforce self-regulation.

This material about using active learning strategies to promote critical thinking is shared by Dr. Carol Gittens, PhD., Dean of the School of Education at St. Mary’s University. Dr. Gittens is a strategic planning consultant and a well-known expert in the training and assessment of critical thinking. If you are interested in additional strategies for teaching and training reasoning skills, check out the Deep Dives and Skill Builders at InsightBasecamp .

Translate this page from English...

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

Structures for Student Self-Assessment

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
• J Athl Train
• v.38(3); Jul-Sep 2003

Active Learning Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking

Stacy E. Walker, PhD, ATC, provided conception and design; acquisition and analysis and interpretation of the data; and drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the article.

To provide a brief introduction to the definition and disposition to think critically along with active learning strategies to promote critical thinking.

Data Sources:

I searched MEDLINE and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) from 1933 to 2002 for literature related to critical thinking, the disposition to think critically, questioning, and various critical-thinking pedagogic techniques.

Data Synthesis:

The development of critical thinking has been the topic of many educational articles recently. Numerous instructional methods exist to promote thought and active learning in the classroom, including case studies, discussion methods, written exercises, questioning techniques, and debates. Three methods—questioning, written exercises, and discussion and debates—are highlighted.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

The definition of critical thinking, the disposition to think critically, and different teaching strategies are featured. Although not appropriate for all subject matter and classes, these learning strategies can be used and adapted to facilitate critical thinking and active participation.

The development of critical thinking (CT) has been a focus of educators at every level of education for years. Imagine a certified athletic trainer (ATC) who does not consider all of the injury options when performing an assessment or an ATC who fails to consider using any new rehabilitation techniques because the ones used for years have worked. Envision ATCs who are unable to react calmly during an emergency because, although they designed the emergency action plan, they never practiced it or mentally prepared for an emergency. These are all examples of situations in which ATCs must think critically.

Presently, athletic training educators are teaching many competencies and proficiencies to entry-level athletic training students. As Davies 1 pointed out, CT is needed in clinical decision making because of the many changes occurring in education, technology, and health care reform. Yet little information exists in the athletic training literature regarding CT and methods to promote thought. Fuller, 2 using the Bloom taxonomy, classified learning objectives, written assignments, and examinations as CT and nonCT. Athletic training educators fostered more CT in their learning objectives and written assignments than in examinations. The disposition of athletic training students to think critically exists but is weak. Leaver-Dunn et al 3 concluded that teaching methods that promote the various components of CT should be used. My purpose is to provide a brief introduction to the definition and disposition to think critically along with active learning strategies to promote CT.

DEFINITION OF CRITICAL THINKING

Four commonly referenced definitions of critical thinking are provided in Table ​ Table1. 1 . All of these definitions describe an individual who is actively engaged in the thought process. Not only is this person evaluating, analyzing, and interpreting the information, he or she is also analyzing inferences and assumptions made regarding that information. The use of CT skills such as analysis of inferences and assumptions shows involvement in the CT process. These cognitive skills are employed to form a judgment. Reflective thinking, defined by Dewey 8 as the type of thinking that consists of turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration, can be used to evaluate the quality of judgment(s) made. 9 Unfortunately, not everyone uses CT when solving problems. Therefore, in order to think critically, there must be a certain amount of self-awareness and other characteristics present to enable a person to explain the analysis and interpretation and to evaluate any inferences made.

Various Definitions of Critical Thinking

DISPOSITION TO THINK CRITICALLY

Recently researchers have begun to investigate the relationship between the disposition to think critically and CT skills. Many believe that in order to develop CT skills, the disposition to think critically must be nurtured as well. 4 , 10 – 12 Although research related to the disposition to think critically has recently increased, as far back as 1933 Dewey 8 argued that possession of knowledge is no guarantee for the ability to think well but that an individual must desire to think. Open mindedness, wholeheartedness, and responsibility were 3 of the attitudes he felt were important traits of character to develop the habit of thinking. 8

More recently, the American Philosophical Association Delphi report on critical thinking 7 was released in 1990. This report resulted from a questionnaire regarding CT completed by a cross-disciplinary panel of experts from the United States and Canada. Findings included continued support for the theory that to develop CT, an individual must possess and use certain dispositional characteristics. Based upon the dispositional phrases, the California Critical Thinking Dispositional Inventory 13 was developed. Seven dispositions (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) were derived from the original 19 published in the Delphi report. 12 It is important to note that these are attitudes or affects, which are sought after in an individual, and not thinking skills. Facione et al 9 purported that a person who thinks critically uses these 7 dispositions to form and make judgments. For example, if an individual is not truth seeking, he or she may not consider other opinions or theories regarding an issue or problem before forming an opinion. A student may possess the knowledge to think critically about an issue, but if these dispositional affects do not work in concert, the student may fail to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the information to think critically. More research is needed to determine the relationship between CT and the disposition to think critically.

Dispositions to Think Critically 12

METHODS TO PROMOTE CRITICAL THOUGHT

Educators can use various instructional methods to promote CT and problem solving. Although educators value a student who thinks critically about concepts, the spirit or disposition to think critically is, unfortunately, not always present in all students. Many college faculty expect their students to think critically. 14 Some nursing-specific common assumptions made by university nursing teaching faculty are provided 15 (Table ​ (Table3) 3 ) because no similar research exists in athletic training. Espeland and Shanta 16 argued that faculty who select lecture formats as a large part of their teaching strategy may be enabling students. When lecturing, the instructor organizes and presents essential information without student input. This practice eliminates the opportunity for students to decide for themselves what information is important to know. For example, instead of telling our students via lecture what medications could be given to athletes with an upper respiratory infection, they could be assigned to investigate medications and decide which one is appropriate.

Common Assumptions of Nursing Faculty 15

Students need to be exposed to diverse teaching methods that promote CT in order to nurture the CT process. 14 , 17 – 19 As pointed out by Kloss, 20 sometimes students are stuck and unable to understand that various answers exist for one problem. Each ATC has a different method of taping a sprained ankle, performing special tests, and obtaining medical information. Kloss 20 stated that students must be exposed to ambiguity and multiple interpretations and perspectives of a situation or problem in order to stimulate growth. As students move through their clinical experiences, they witness the various methods for taping ankles, performing special tests, and obtaining a thorough history from an injured athlete. Paul and Elder 21 stated that many professors may try to encourage students to learn a body of knowledge by stating that body of knowledge in a sequence of lectures and then asking students to internalize knowledge outside of class on their own time. Not all students possess the thinking skills to analyze and synthesize information without practice. The following 3 sections present information and examples of different teaching techniques to promote CT.

Questioning

An assortment of questioning tactics exists to promote CT. Depending on how a question is asked, the student may use various CT skills such as interpretation, analysis, and recognition of assumptions to form a conclusion. Mills 22 suggested that the thoughtful use of questions may be the quintessential activity of an effective teacher. Questions are only as good as the thought put into them and should go beyond knowledge-level recall. 22 Researchers 23 , 24 have found that often clinical teachers asked significantly more lower-level cognitive questions than higher-level questions. Questions should be designed to promote evaluation and synthesis of facts and concepts. Asking a student to evaluate when proprioception exercises should be included in a rehabilitation program is more challenging than asking a student to define proprioception. Higher-level thinking questions should start or end with words or phrases such as, “explain,” “compare,” “why,” “which is a solution to the problem,” “what is the best and why,” and “do you agree or disagree with this statement?” For example, a student could be asked to compare the use of parachlorophenylalanine versus serotonin for control of posttreatment soreness. Examples of words that can be used to begin questions to challenge at the different levels of the Bloom Taxonomy 25 are given in Table ​ Table4. 4 . The Bloom Taxonomy 25 is a hierarchy of thinking skills that ranges from simple skills, such as knowledge, to complex thinking, such as evaluation. Depending on the initial words used in the question, students can be challenged at different levels of cognition.

Examples of Questions 23

Another type of questioning technique is Socratic questioning. Socratic questioning is defined as a type of questioning that deeply probes or explores the meaning, justification, or logical strength of a claim, position, or line of reasoning. 4 , 26 Questions are asked that investigate assumptions, viewpoints, consequences, and evidence. Questioning methods, such as calling on students who do not have their hands up, can enhance learning by engaging students to think. The Socratic method focuses on clarification. A student's answer to a question can be followed by asking a fellow student to summarize the previous answer. Summarizing the information allows the student to demonstrate whether he or she was listening, had digested the information, and understood it enough to put it into his or her own words. Avoiding questions with one set answer allows for different viewpoints and encourages students to compare problems and approaches. Asking students to explain how the high school and the collegiate or university field experiences are similar and different is an example. There is no right or wrong answer because the answers depend upon the individual student's experiences. 19 Regardless of the answer, the student must think critically about the topic to form a conclusion of how the field experiences are different and similar.

In addition to using these questioning techniques, it is equally important to orient the students to this type of classroom interaction. Mills 22 suggested that provocative questions should be brief and contain only one or two issues at a time for class reflection. It is also important to provide deliberate silence, or “wait” time, for students upon asking questions. 22 , 27 Waiting at least 5 seconds allows the students to think and encourages thought. Elliot 18 argued that waiting even as long as 10 seconds allows the students time to think about possibilities. If a thought question is asked, time must be given for the students to think about the answer.

Classroom Discussion and Debates

Classroom discussion and debates can promote critical thinking. Various techniques are available. Bernstein 28 developed a negotiation model in which students were confronted with credible but antagonistic arguments. Students were challenged to deal with the tension between the two arguments. This tension is believed to be one component driving critical thought. Controversial issues in psychology, such as animal rights and pornography, were presented and discussed. Students responded favorably and, as the class progressed over time, they reported being more comfortable arguing both sides of an issue. In athletic training education, a negotiation model could be employed to discuss certain topics, such as the use of heat versus ice or the use of ultrasound versus electric stimulation in the treatment of an injury. Students could be assigned to defend the use of a certain treatment. Another strategy to promote students to seek both sides of an issue is pro and con grids. 29 Students create grids with the pros and cons or advantages or disadvantages of an issue or treatment. Debate was used to promote CT in second-year medical students. 30 After debating, students reported improvements in literature searching, weighing risks and benefits of treatments, and making evidence-based decisions. Regardless of the teaching methods used, students should be exposed to analyzing the costs and benefits of issues, problems, and treatments to help prepare them for real-life decision making.

Observing the reasoning skills of another person was used by Galotti 31 to promote CT. Students were paired, and 4 reasoning tasks were administered. As the tasks were administered, students were told to talk aloud through the reasoning process of their decisions. Students who were observing were to write down key phrases and statements. This same process can be used in an injury-evaluation class. One student performs an evaluation while the others in the class observe. Classroom discussion can then follow. Another alternative is to divide students into pairs. One student performs an evaluation while the other observes. After the evaluation is completed, the students discuss with each other the evaluation (Table ​ (Table5 5 presents examples). Another option is to have athletic training students observe a student peer or ATC during a field evaluation of an athlete. While observing, the student can write down any questions or topics to discuss after the evaluation, providing the student an opportunity to ask why certain evaluation methods were and were not used.

Postevaluation Questions

Daily newspaper clippings directly related to current classroom content also allow an instructor to incorporate discussion into the classroom. 32 For example, an athlete who has been reported to have died as a result of heat illness could provide subject matter for classroom discussion or various written assignments. Such news also affords the instructor an opportunity to discuss the affective components involved. Students could be asked to step into the role of the ATC and think about the reported implications of this death from different perspectives. They could also list any assumptions made by the article or follow-up questions they would ask if they could interview the persons involved. This provides a forum to enlighten students to think for themselves and realize that not each person in the room perceives the article the same way. Whatever the approach taken, investigators and educators agree that assignments and arguments are useful to promote thought among students.

Written Assignments

In-class and out-of-class assignments can also serve as powerful vehicles to allow students to expand their thinking processes. Emig 33 believed that involving students in writing serves their learning uniquely because writing, as process and product, possesses a cluster of attributes that correspond uniquely to certain powerful learning strategies. As a general rule, assignments for the purpose of promoting thought should be short (not long term papers) and focus on the aspect of thinking. 19 Research or 1-topic papers may or may not be a student's own thoughts, and Meyers 32 argued that term papers often prove to be exercises in recapitulating the thoughts of others.

Allegretti and Frederick 34 used a variety of cases from a book to promote CT regarding different ethical issues. Countless case-study situations can be created to allow students to practice managing situations and assess clinical decision making. For example, after reading the National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement on lightning, a student can be asked to address the following scenario: “Explain how you would handle a situation in which a coach has kept athletes outside practicing unsafely. What information would you use from this statement to explain your concerns? Explain why you picked the specific concerns.” These questions can be answered individually or in small groups and then discussed in class. The students will pick different concerns based on their thinking. This variety in answers is not only one way to show that no answer is right or wrong but also allows students to defend their answers to peers. Questions posed on listservs are excellent avenues to enrich a student's education. Using these real-life questions, students read about real issues and concerns of ATCs. These topics present excellent opportunities to pose questions to senior-level athletic training students to examine how they would handle the situation. This provides the students a safe place to analyze the problem and form a decision. Once the students make a decision, additional factors, assumptions, and inferences can be discussed by having all students share the solution they chose.

Lantz and Meyers 35 used personification and assigned students to assume the character of a drug. Students were to relate themselves to the drug, in the belief that drugs exhibit many unique characteristics, such as belonging to a family, interaction problems, adverse reactions, and so forth. The development of analogies comes from experience and comparing one theory or scenario to another with strong similarities.

Fopma-Loy and Ulrich 36 identified various CT classroom exercises educators can implement to promote higher-order thought (Table ​ (Table6). 6 ). Many incorporate a personal reaction from the student and allow the student to link that learning to his or her feelings. This personal reaction of feelings to cognitive information is important to show the relevance of material.

Exercises to Promote Critical Thought 36

Last, poems are another avenue that can be used to promote CT. 20 Although poems are widely thought of as an assignment in an English class, athletic training students may benefit from this creative writing activity. The focus of this type of homework activity should be on reviewing content creatively. The lines of the poem need not rhyme as long as appropriate content is explained in the poem. For example, a poem on the knee could be required to include signs, symptoms, and anatomical content of one injury or various injuries. A poem on head injuries could focus on the different types of history questions that should be asked. Students should understand that the focus of the assignment is a creative review of the material and not a test of their poetic qualities. The instructor should complete a poem as well. To break the ice, the instructor's poem can be read first, followed by a student volunteering to read his or her poem.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the methods used to promote CT, care must be taken to consider the many factors that may inhibit a student from thinking critically. The student's disposition to think critically is a major factor, and if a deficit in a disposition is noticed, this should be nurtured. Students should be encouraged to be inquisitive, ask questions, and not believe and accept everything they are told. As pointed out by Loving and Wilson 14 and Oermann, 19 thought develops with practice and evaluation over time using multiple strategies. Additionally, faculty should be aware of their course goals and learning objectives. If these goals and objectives are stated as higher-order thought outcomes, then activities that promote CT should be included in classroom activities and assignments. 14 Finally, it is important that CT skills be encouraged and reinforced in all classes by teaching faculty, not only at the college level but at every level of education. Although huge gains in CT may not be reflected in all college students, we can still plant the seed and encourage students to use their thinking abilities in the hope these will grow over time.

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

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

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking?

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

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

Key Critical Thinking Skills

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

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

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

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

Logical Thinking

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

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

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

Self-Awareness

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

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

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

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

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

Gather Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Thinking Infographic

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

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Ten tips for recruiting on a budget.

Tips to Improve the Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness of Your Approach to Recruitment

Asking for Help

Getting the Support You Need Without Looking Weak

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

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

Sign-up to our newsletter

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

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

How to Spot and Deal with Bad Behavior at Work

How to Energize Your Morning

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Model of personal reflective space.

We Review Clutterbuck and Meggison’s Model Of Personal Reflective Space

The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition

The Five Steps to Expert Learning

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

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

Recommended for you

The resource-based view of strategy.

A Look at the Key Thinkers and Principles Behind This Approach to Strategic Management

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

The Art of Questioning: Techniques to Promote Critical Thinking and Inquiry

We can all agree that critical thinking is an essential skill for students to develop.

This article will provide educators with a comprehensive guide on the art of questioning - powerful techniques to promote critical thinking, inquiry, and deep learning in the classroom.

You'll discover the core principles of effective questioning, actionable strategies to engage different types of learners, as well as sample activities and assessments to put these methods into practice. Equipped with these practical tools, you can transform class discussions that foster students' natural curiosity and grow their capacity for critical thought.

Embracing the Importance of Art of Questioning

The art of questioning is a critical skill for educators to develop. Questioning techniques that promote critical thinking and inquiry-based learning lead to increased student engagement and deeper understanding. By mastering various strategic questioning approaches, teachers can stimulate complex thinking in their students.

Defining the Art of Questioning

The art of questioning refers to the teacher's ability to craft and ask meaningful questions that push students to think more critically. It goes beyond surface-level, fact-based questioning and instead focuses on stimulating analysis, evaluation, creation, connection-making, and reflection. Well-designed questions require students to tap into higher-order cognitive skills and prior knowledge to construct responses. This process mirrors real-world critical thinking and problem-solving.

Benefits of Mastering Questioning Techniques

Teachers skilled in questioning techniques reap many rewards, including:

• Increased student participation and engagement during lessons
• Development of students' critical thinking capacities
• Ability to check students' understanding and identify knowledge gaps
• Scaffolding learning to meet students at their zone of proximal development
• Encouragement of inquiry, sparking student curiosity and motivation to learn

By honing their questioning approach, teachers gain an invaluable tool for promoting deep learning.

The Role of Questioning in Early Childhood Education

Questioning plays a pivotal role in early childhood education by fostering mental activity and communities of practice. Crafting developmentally-appropriate questions allows teachers to gauge children's baseline understanding and then scaffold new concepts. This questioning facilitates theory of mind growth, as children learn to articulate their thought processes. An inquiry-based classroom also encourages participation, inclusive learning, and problem-solving. Ultimately, strategic questioning lays the foundation for critical thinking that will benefit students throughout their education.

What is the art of questioning critical thinking?

The art of questioning refers to the skill of asking thoughtful, open-ended questions that promote critical thinking , inquiry, and deeper learning. As an educator, mastering this art is key to creating an engaging classroom environment where students actively participate.

Here are some best practices around the art of questioning:

Use Open-Ended Questions

Open-ended questions allow students to explain their thought process and help teachers identify gaps in understanding. For example, asking "Why do you think the character made that decision?" lets students share their unique perspectives. Closed-ended questions that just require yes/no answers should be used sparingly.

Ask Follow-Up Questions

Asking follow-up questions based on students' responses shows you are listening and encourages them to expand upon their ideas. Phrases like "Tell me more about..." or "What makes you think that?" stimulate further discussion.

Pause After Posing Questions

Providing wait time of 3-5 seconds after asking a question gives students time to reflect and articulate a thoughtful response, rather than feeling put on the spot.

Scaffold Complex Questions

Break down multi-layered questions into smaller parts to make them more manageable. You can also give students a framework to help organize their thoughts before answering.

Encourage Multiple Perspectives

Prompt students to consider other vantage points by asking, "How might this look from X's perspective?" This builds empathy, critical analysis skills, and more inclusive thinking.

Mastering the art questioning leads to richer class discussions and unlocks students' intellectual curiosity. With practice, you'll be able to stimulate vibrant student-centered dialogue.

What questioning techniques promote critical thinking?

Asking effective questions is a skill that takes practice to develop. Here are some techniques to promote critical thinking through questioning:

Ask questions that require more than a one-word response. This encourages students to explain their reasoning and make connections. For example:

• Why do you think that?
• What evidence supports your conclusion?
• How does this relate to what we learned before?

Dig deeper into student responses by asking them to expand upon their ideas. This helps clarify understanding and uncover misconceptions. Some follow up questions include:

• Can you explain what you mean by that?
• What makes you think that?
• How does that apply to this situation?

Pause After Questions

Provide wait time of 3-5 seconds after posing a question. This gives students time to think and construct an answer, promoting deeper reflection. Resist the urge to rephrase the question or provide the answer yourself.

Scaffold Questions

Break down complex questions into smaller parts to guide student thinking while still encouraging them to do the intellectual work.

Asking thoughtful, open-ended questions takes practice but is essential for developing critical thinking skills . Start by planning 2-3 higher-order questions for each lesson and focus on truly listening to student responses. Over time, a questioning approach focused on explanation, evidence, and exploration will become second nature.

What is the art of questioning method?

The art of questioning is a teaching technique that focuses on asking strategic questions to promote critical thinking, inquiry, and meaningful learning experiences for students. It is an essential skill for educators to master in order to elicit student understanding and uncover gaps in knowledge.

Some key things to know about the art of questioning:

It checks for understanding and gets insight into students' thought processes. By asking probing questions, teachers can determine if students have truly grasped key concepts.

It activates higher-order thinking skills. Well-designed questions require students to analyze, evaluate, and create, moving beyond basic recall.

It sparks student curiosity and engagement. Thought-provoking questions pique interest in lesson topics.

It facilitates rich class discussions. Using quality questioning techniques lays the foundation for impactful dialogue.

It informs teaching strategies and adaptations. Based on student responses, teachers can clarify misconceptions or adjust the pace/complexity of lessons.

Mastering the art of questioning takes practice but is worth the effort. It transforms passive learning into an active, student-centered experience that sticks. Equipped with this vital skill, teachers can maximize critical thinking and inquiry-based learning in their classrooms.

What are the 4 main questioning techniques?

Teachers can utilize four key questioning techniques to promote critical thinking and inquiry in the classroom:

Closed Questions

Closed questions typically require short or one-word answers. They are useful for:

• Checking for understanding
• Getting students to state facts
• Reviewing material

For example, "What year did World War 2 begin?"

Open Questions

Open questions require more elaborate responses. They are effective for:

• Encouraging discussion
• Extracting deeper thinking
• Allowing students to explain concepts

For instance, "How did the Great Depression impact American society?"

Funnel Questions

Funnel questions start broad and become increasingly specific. This technique:

• Prompts recall of contextual details
• Guides students step-by-step
• Focuses thinking

An example is, "What do you know about World War 2? What were the key events leading up to it? What specific decisions by world leaders contributed to its outbreak?"

Probing Questions

Probing questions request clarification or more information. They help to:

• Draw out additional details
• Test the strength of an argument
• Determine accuracy and depth of understanding

For example, "You mentioned the Great Depression caused widespread poverty. Can you expand on the ways it impacted day-to-day life?"

Using a mix of these four questioning techniques can elicit thoughtful participation and allow teachers to effectively gauge comprehension.

sbb-itb-bb2be89

Exploring types of art of questioning.

Art of questioning refers to the teacher's ability to ask thoughtful, open-ended questions that promote critical thinking, inquiry, and engagement among students. Here we explore some key categories of questions that go beyond basic fact recall to stimulate deeper learning.

Open-Ended Questions to Foster Inquiry

Open-ended questions have no single right answer, allowing students to respond creatively within their current knowledge and experiences. Some examples:

• What do you think would happen if...?
• How might we go about solving this problem?
• What are some possible explanations for...?

Guidelines for open-ended questions:

• Ask about hypothetical situations or predictions
• Inquire about students' thought processes or reasoning
• Seek multiple diverse responses to broad issues

Probing Questions to Assess Prior Knowledge

Probing questions aim to uncover and expand upon students' existing knowledge. For instance:

• What do you already know about this topic?
• Can you explain your solution further?

Tips for probing questions:

• Ask students to elaborate or clarify their responses
• Dig deeper into the reasons behind their ideas
• Gauge their current level of understanding on a topic

Hypothetical & Speculative Questions for Mental Activity

Hypothetical and speculative questions require students to mentally engage with imaginative or puzzling scenarios. Examples:

• What do you imagine this character is thinking/feeling?
• If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?
• What might the world look like 100 years from now?

Strategies using speculative questions:

• Present imaginary situations
• Ask about unlikely or fantastical events
• Inquire about hopes, wonders, or puzzles

Synthesis & Evaluation Questions to Enhance Critical Thinking

Higher-order questions push students to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information. For example:

• How would you compare and contrast these two stories?
• What evidence supports or contradicts this conclusion?
• What changes would you suggest to improve this process?

Techniques for using synthesis questions:

• Ask students to make connections between ideas
• Require them to assess credibility and logical consistency
• Prompt them to create novel solutions based on analysis

Thoughtful questioning is invaluable for engaging students, inspiring deeper thinking, assessing understanding, and taking learning to the next level. Match question types to desired educational outcomes.

Effective Timing and Application of Questioning Techniques

Utilizing zones of proximal development at the beginning of lesson.

At the start of a lesson, it's important to assess students' prior knowledge and understanding within their zones of proximal development. Open-ended questions that require some thought and analysis work well here, such as "What do you already know about this topic?" or "How might this connect to what we learned previously?". Allowing some think time and using gentle probing follow-ups can uncover gaps and misconceptions to address.

During Instruction: Encouraging Active Participation

While teaching new material, questions should regularly check comprehension and spur examination of ideas. "Why" and "how" questions prompt students to articulate concepts in their own words, while think-pair-share structures promote participation. Allow just enough wait time for students to gather thoughts before cold-calling. Ask students to summarize key points or apply them in novel contexts. Maintain an encouraging tone and affirm effort.

End-of-Lesson Evaluations and Inquiry

Conclude by synthesizing main points and addressing lingering questions. Open-ended questions like "What are you still wondering about?" give quieter students a chance to share. Exit tickets, short reflective writing assignments, also stimulate additional inquiry. Follow-up questions based on student responses facilitate rich discussion. Affirm participation and remind students that lingering questions present opportunities for future investigation.

Art of Questioning Activities and Games

Think-pair-share and other participatory activities.

The think-pair-share approach provides an excellent framework for questioning techniques. Students are first asked to independently think about a question or problem. They then discuss their ideas in pairs, encouraging participation from every student before ideas are shared with the whole class. Variations like think-write-pair-share add a writing component for reflection. These participatory structures promote critical thinking and inquiry through peer discussion.

Question Cycles for Continuous Learning Experience

Using a series of interrelated questions on a topic creates continuity in the learning experience. Starting with simpler questions then building up to more complex, higher-order questions logically develops student understanding. Question cycles enable connecting new information to prior knowledge, unpacking ideas, applying concepts, making evaluations, and synthesizing learning. This technique ensures questioning sequentially builds up rather than occurring in isolation.

Socratic Questioning to Challenge Theory of Mind

The Socratic method uses questioning to draw out ideas and uncover assumptions. Teachers can play "devil's advocate" to challenge students' thought processes. This develops theory of mind as students learn to see other perspectives. Socratic questioning teaches the value of intellectual humility and deep thinking. Example questions include "What do you mean when you say...?", "What evidence supports that?", "How does this tie into our earlier discussion?"

Interactive Questioning Games to Engage Students

Games put questioning techniques into action while engaging students. Examples include Quiz-Quiz-Trade with student-created questions, Question Rally with teams answering on whiteboards, Question Cards with written responses, and Question Dice promoting discussion. These games leverage friendly competition and peer involvement to motivate learning through questioning. The interactive format promotes enjoyment, attention, and participation.

Assessing the Objectives and Impact of Questioning Techniques

Developing questioning rubrics aligned with objectives.

Rubrics can be a useful tool for assessing questioning techniques and alignment with learning objectives. When developing a rubric, key aspects to consider include:

• Types of questions asked - Factual, convergent, divergent, evaluative, etc.
• Cognitive level of questions - Remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create
• Scaffolding and sequencing of questions
• Linkage to lesson objectives and goals
• Student engagement and participation

The rubric can include rating scales or descriptors across these dimensions to evaluate the art of questioning. Teachers can use the rubric for self-assessment or be observed and evaluated by others.

Gathering Insights Through Student Feedback Surveys

Conducting periodic student surveys can provide valuable perceptions into questioning approaches. Useful survey questions may cover:

• Comfort and willingness to respond to questions
• Perceived relevance of questions to learning goals
• Role of questions in promoting thinking and understanding
• Suggestions for improvement

Analyzing survey results over time can indicate whether shifts in questioning techniques have positively influenced the learning experience.

Measuring Growth in Critical Thinking with Assessments

Assessments focused on critical thinking skills can gauge the impact of improved questioning. These may include:

• Essay prompts and open-ended questions
• Scenarios to analyze that require evaluation, synthesis and creative solutions
• Individual or group projects necessitating inquiry and investigation
• Presentations demonstrating deep understanding

Comparing baseline to post-intervention assessments can quantify if questioning strategies have successfully developed critical thinking capacities.

Participatory Action Research for Professional Development

Teachers can engage in participatory action research by:

• Recording lessons and categorizing types/cognitive levels of questions asked
• Soliciting peer or mentor feedback on questioning approaches
• Setting goals for improvement and tracking progress
• Iteratively refining techniques based on evidence and collaboration

This process facilitates continuous growth and allows networking with a community of practice.

Building a Community of Practice Through Questioning

Fostering collaborative environments where educators can share best practices in questioning techniques is key to building a strong community of practice focused on the art of questioning. By creating opportunities for continuous learning and adaptation, educators can work together to advance their skills.

Fostering Collaborative Environments

• Establish routines for educators to observe each other's classrooms and provide feedback on questioning strategies
• Organize professional learning groups for educators to collaborate on developing effective questions
• Create shared online spaces for educators to exchange ideas on the art of questioning
• Promote a growth mindset culture that values inquiry and critical feedback

Sharing Best Practices in Questioning

• Host workshops for educators to demonstrate questioning techniques and activities
• Publish videos/documents highlighting examples of impactful questioning strategies in action
• Maintain forums for educators to post questions and get input from colleagues
• Enable educators to share lesson plans centered around critical thinking questions
• Encourage educators to exchange ideas on adapting questioning for different subjects

Continuous Learning and Adaptation

• Survey educators regularly on evolving needs related to questioning techniques
• Provide ongoing professional development on emerging best practices in questioning
• Establish mentoring programs for new educators to get support in questioning skills
• Promote reflection techniques for educators to assess their questioning methods
• Foster a culture of critical inquiry where questioning practices continuously improve

By taking a collaborative, growth-focused approach to the art of questioning, educators can work together in communities of practice to advance their skills and create vibrant cultures of learning in their classrooms.

Conclusion: Synthesizing the Art of Questioning for Educational Excellence

The art of questioning is a critical skill that all educators should develop. By mastering various techniques that promote critical thinking and inquiry, teachers can stimulate rich discussion, facilitate deeper learning, and empower students to analyze information.

Here are some key takeaways:

Asking open-ended questions is key to sparking curiosity and prompting students to think more critically. Closed-ended questions that have yes/no answers should be used sparingly.

Mix lower and higher-order questions. Lower-order questions assess basic understanding while higher-order questions require evaluation, synthesis and analysis.

Allow adequate wait time between questions. Give students sufficient time to process the question and develop thoughtful responses.

Scaffold complex questions by building on students' prior knowledge. Connect new ideas to concepts already familiar to them.

Encourage participation from all students with inclusive questioning strategies. Consider think-pair-share methods.

Use prompting and probing techniques to extend dialogue. Ask follow-up questions to clarify, provide evidence or expand on initial responses.

By honing expertise in thoughtful inquiry-based questioning, educators can unlock their students' potential for critical thought while creating engaging, student-centered learning environments. Continual development through communities of practice, action research and other forms of professional development can help perfect this invaluable teaching skill.

Related posts

• The Socratic Method: Engaging Students in Critical Thinking and Dialogue
• Teaching Resources for Teachers: Cultivate Critical Thinking
• Cultivating Creativity: Innovative Approaches to Encouraging Student Imagination
• How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students

Brain Breaks: Maximizing Student Attention

Effective Classroom Management Techniques for New Teachers

Best Parent-Teacher Communication Tools for Teachers: Building Partnerships

Become a buddy..

Join 500+ teachers getting free goodies every week. 📚

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs

Using Assessments to Promote Higher-Level Thinking

Andrew passinger.

• October 19, 2020

One of the toughest components to handle in education is the ability to utilize assessments in the most appropriate ways. With the rapid evolution of technology, the fluctuations in the world economies and job markets, and the requirements to challenge students in thought processes, we no longer can follow the traditional route of teaching a unit and giving an exam just to get a grade. Assessments must be designed with objectives that promote varying levels of cognition, while tying in real-life experiences.

But how do educators achieve these types of objectives with assessments? How do they elevate students’ understanding beyond the rote memory and simple multiple-choice questioning patterns? How do they prepare their students to problem-solve, to apply their experiences to obtain answers, and to reflect on their lifelong learning opportunities?

What is Higher-Level Thinking?

Students must move beyond simply recalling information in order to truly understand materials. Higher-level thinking incorporates levels of processing, through analysis, synthesis, systematic evaluation, and finally creating, which incorporates all of these elements into a coherent final product, which reflects several layers of in-depth learning. This process is based on the principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy .

These concepts have also been organized into the Webb’s Depths of Knowledge chart: recall, skill/concept, strategic thinking, and extensive thinking. The challenge is to transition students from the recall thinking into the extensive thinking. Here, students take the content they are studying and transform it into a cohesive project application. They are critically evaluating numerous platforms of information in order to produce a final assessment that shows thorough depth in design and thinking.

One of the newest models promoting higher-level thinking is embedded in the 21st-Century Skills category, wherein critical thinking skills are connected to literacy skills (technology, media, etc.) and life skills (leadership, social, etc.). This not only moves away from the standard rote memory, simple questioning patterns, but also provides hands-on skills pertaining to necessary character traits required to be successful in a selected career.

Aligning Assessments and Higher-Level Thinking

With a stronger understanding regarding the models of higher-level thinking, the significance relies on the design of the assessment. Assessments are meant to measure depth of thinking and experience, not just simply be offered as quizzes or exams simply because they add points to a course. But what does an assessment that incorporates higher-level thinking look like in a classroom? How does a teacher activate this upper-level cognition?

It’s initially important to understand the connections between curriculum and instruction, which correlate directly to the assessments. Secondarily to curriculum, the standards, whether a national common core or a state-mandated set, should focus the curriculum on the skill-based components that need to be learned. Then the instruction directs the curriculum from there.

Finally, the assessment should incorporate those elements into the evaluation of learning. If these elements are appropriately implemented, higher-level thinking can more easily be addressed by teachers, ranging from scaffolded questions, to longer wait times, to reflection writing, to in-depth discussions in small and whole groups. Let’s move to some examples that may help promote deeper understanding.

Assessment Examples

Those students who are studying math theorems must shift from memorizing the formulaic definitions to applying those in a performance task that focuses on multiple mathematical processes. Students might apply a theorem or model, or even several theorems or models, to solve a problem or highlight a situation, such as determining the amounts of garbage produced by one school, one district, one county, etc., and the possibilities in rectifying or reducing those amounts.

Adding why it is an important task for students will open thoughtful pathways, like extensive research into pollution, reducing carbon footprints, and possibly volunteering opportunities in the community. Students will view applicable results stemming from their math lessons while addressing the higher-level thinking through both formative and summative assessments .

In an English course, whether middle school, high school, or college, a DOK level 4 assessed task might take several different texts from varying time periods and align the common themes for the human condition in writing form. There should occur a form of deconstruction of those texts that will allow a teacher to propose to students a chance to model that essay specific to the writer’s style. The ability to encourage metacognitive thought is perfectly connected.

Even students writing journal entries about their own lives in attempts to model specific authors can allow exploration and creativity for application purposes in assessments, as well as highlight the therapeutic nature of writing. And tying in the social studies aspects can provide backgrounds that connect to students’ own personal journeys.

It is imperative to add the why in any of these lessons. Students must be able to link what they are doing with why they are doing it in their assessments. Just taking an exam does not engage them or truly promote the critical thinking skills that will help benefit society.

Think of the times when you have been truly challenged to think about a project, a problem, or a personal trial. Think about the results and the pride you experienced when you not only resolved or completed it, but learned from the experience. That is what we want our students to desire in education.

• #HigherLevelThinking , #studentassessment

More in Professional Development

How Sensory Rooms Help Students with Autism Thrive

Students with autism often face challenges in the classroom due to their sensory…

Establishing a Smooth Flow: The Power of Classroom Routines

Learners thrive in environments where there’s structure and familiarity, and implementing classroom routines…

The Benefits of Learning a Foreign Language

One of my favorite memories from my time in high school was when…

How to Enhance Working Memory in your Classroom

Enhancing working memory is vital in the learning process of all classrooms. There…

Advertisement

Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?

• Development Article
• Published: 14 April 2023
• Volume 71 , pages 1275–1296, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Angel J. Y. Tan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6947-3063 1 ,
• Jean L. Davies 2 ,
• Roderick I. Nicolson 2 &
• Themis Karaminis 2  

3625 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

The Value of Using Tests in Education as Tools for Learning—Not Just for Assessment

The Effects of Problem-Based, Project-Based, and Case-Based Learning on Students’ Motivation: a Meta-Analysis

Study smart – impact of a learning strategy training on students’ study behavior and academic performance

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

• Video-based learning

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

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

Precision teaching (PT)

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

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

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

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

Current study

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

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

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

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

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

RQ1: What are the educational benefits of frequency-building practice on students’ learning of taught critical thinking materials?

RQ2: What are the educational benefits of frequency-building practice on students’ abilities to apply critical-thinking skills in novel contexts?

RQ3: How does frequency building affect students’ knowledge retention following the intervention?

RQ4: Does the combination of frequency building with problem-based training support further benefits in students’ learning of taught critical thinking materials (RQ1), generalisation in novel contexts (RQ2) or knowledge retention (RQ3)?

Instructional framework for teaching critical thinking skills

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Instructional material

Learning videos.

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

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

Learning tasks

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

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

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

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

Testing material

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

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

Pre- and post-intervention assessments on unseen questions

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

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

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

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

A yes/no fallacy identification question , which examined whether participants conceived an argument as fallacious or problematic (e.g. “Do you think there is a problem in the argument that the antagonist presented in Line 5?”).

A open-ended fallacy explanation question , which assessed participants’ skill to articulate what they perceived to be faulty with the reasoning of an argument (e.g. “If you think that there is a problem in the argument presented by the antagonist, what is the problem?”).

An open-ended response question , which assessed participants’ skill to debate and present a counter-argument (e.g. “What is the best answer the protagonist can use in response to the antagonist’s argument?”).

A forced-choice fallacy classification question , which assessed whether participants perceived the argument to be a quarrel, a formal debate, or a critical discussion (e.g. "In your opinion, what is the main reason for the debate between the two arguers"). Participants responded to this question by selecting one of the three answer choices: (a) They do not like each other and, therefore, each person is attacking the other’s claim-quarrel, (b) Each one of them wants to impress his colleagues and win the debate–formal debate, and (c) They have different opinions on this matter, and they are trying to convince each other-critical discussion.

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

Flowchart of the study

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

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

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

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group

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

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

Learning tasks in the PT + intervention group

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

Learning tasks in the control group

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

Pre- and post-episode tests on the learning tasks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge retention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and directions for further research

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability

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

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85 (2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084

Baker, D. C. (2001). Nursing reasoning model. Nurse Educator, 26 (5), 203–204.

Beverley, M., Hughes, J. C., & Hastings, R. P. (2009). What’s the probability of that? Using SAFMEDS to increase undergraduate success with statistical concepts. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis, 10 (2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434321

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19 (2), 163–197.

Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximising student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15 (4), es6.

Braun, N. M. (2004). Critical thinking in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 79 (4), 232–236.

Broadbear, J. T. (2003). Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (3), 1–8.

Google Scholar  

Brunt, B. A. (2005). Models, measurement, and strategies in developing critical-thinking skills. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36 (6), 255–262.

Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: Views of student near peer teachers and learners. Medical Teacher, 29 , 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583824

Butler, H. A., Pentoney, C., & Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25 , 38–46.

Carey, S. S. (2000). The uses and abuses of argument: Critical thinking and the fallacies . Mayfield.

Carmichael, M., Reid, A. K., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Assessing the impact of educational video on student engagement, critical thinking and learning: The current state of play . Sage Publicaions.

Chiesa, M., & Robertson, A. (2000). Precision teaching and fluency training: Making maths easier for pupils and teachers. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16 (3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666088

Clement, J. (1979). Introduction to research in cognitive process instruction. In J. Lochhead & J. Clement (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Commons, M. L., Owens, C. J., & Will, S. M. (2015). Using a computer-based precision teaching program to facilitate learning of complex material: The case of the model of hierarchical complexity. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20 (2), 207.

Copy, I. M., & Burgess-Jackson, K. (1996). Informal logic . Prentice Hall.

Cuzzocrea, F., Murdaca, A. M., & Oliva, P. (2011). Using precision teaching method to improve foreign language and cognitive skills in university students. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC), 2 (4), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdldc.2011100104

Engle, R., & Greeno, J. (2003). Framing interactions to foster productive learning. In K. Beach (Ed.), Sociocultural, semiotic, situative, and activity theoretic alternatives to the transfer metaphor: New understandings of how knowledge generalizes. American Educational Research Association.

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2001). Analysing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15 (2), 267–286.

Forbes, K. (2018). Exploring first year undergraduate students’ conceptualisations of critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30 (3), 433–442.

Forsetlund, L., Chalmers, I., & Bjørndal, A. (2007). When was random allocation first used to generate comparison groups in experiments to assess the effects of social interventions? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16 (5), 371–384.

Fox, E. J., & Ghezzi, P. M. (2003). Effects of computer-based fluency training on concept formation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12 (1), 1–21.

Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16 , 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001

Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students’ intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20 (2), 68–74.

Gray, W. D. (1991). Thinking critically about New Age ideas . Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18 (2), 187–200.

Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceeding of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference (pp. 41–50). ACM.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449.

Harrington, K., Norton, L., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Aiyegbayo, O., Pitt, E., Robinson, H., & Reddy, P. (2006). Using core assessment criteria to improve essay writing. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 110–119). Routledge.

Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short?: College learning and career success . Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Hatcher, D. L. (2011). Which test? Whose scores? Comparing standardised critical thinking tests. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149 , 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.378

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning . Routledge.

Hill, J. L., & Nelson, A. (2011). New technology, new pedagogy? Employing video podcasts in learning and teaching about exotic ecosystems. Environmental Education Research, 17 (3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.545873

Hughes, J. C., Beverley, M., & Whitehead, J. (2007). Using precision teaching to increase the fluency of word reading with problem readers. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8 (2), 221–238.

Ikuenobe, P. (2001). Teaching and assessing critical thinking abilities as outcomes in an informal logic course. Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (1), 19–32.

Joynes, C., Rossignoli, S., & FenyiwaAmonoo-Kuofi, E. (2019). 21st Century Skills: Evidence of issues in definition, demand and delivery for development contexts (K4D Helpdesk Report) . Institute of Development Studies.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319 (5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408

Khong, H. K., & Kabilan, M. K. (2020). A theoretical model of micro-learning for second language instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2020 , 1–24.

Koh, N. S., Gottipati, S., & Shankararaman, V. (2018). Effectiveness of bite-sized lecture on student learning outcomes. 4th international conference on higher education advances (HEAd’18) (pp. 515–523). Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.

Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning . MIT Press.

Kreth, M., Crawford, M. A., Taylor, M., & Brockman, E. (2010). Situated assessment: Limitations and promise. Assessing Writing, 15 (1), 40–59.

Kubina, R. M., & Morrison, R. S. (2000). Fluency in education. Behavior and Social Issues, 10 , 83–99.

Kubina, R. M., & Yurich, K. K. (2012). The precision teaching book . Greatness Achieved Publishing Company.

Lindsley, O. R. (1997). Precise instructional design: Guidelines from precision teaching. Instructional Development Paradigms, 1997 , 537–554.

Lockspeiser, T. M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008). Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: The value of social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13 (3), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8

Lokke, G. E., Lokke, J. A., & Arntzen, E. (2008). Precision teaching, frequency-building, and ballet dancing. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 24 , 21–27.

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23 (4), 38–41.

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to promote critical thinking. Insight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 1 , 41–50.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276–282.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (3), 416–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education . Oxford University Press.

Muhammad Basri, M. B., Sumargono, S., & Fatan, F. (2021). The effect of using the Powtoon application on student learning motivation. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11 (5), 4019–4024.

Neuman, Y. (2003). Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13 (4), 367–380.

Neuman, Y., & Weizman, E. (2003). The role of text representation in students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56 (5), 849–864.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms-children, computers, and powerful ideas . Basic Books, Inc.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2009). The miniature guide to critical thinking (5th ed.). The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Peter, E. E. (2012). Critical thinking: Essence for teaching mathematics and mathematics problem-solving skills. African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research, 5 (3), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMCSR11.161

Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017). Does instructor’s image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (4), 347–354.

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8 (1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

Ramasamy, S. (2011). An analysis of informal reasoning fallacy and critical thinking dispositions among malaysian undergraduates.  Online submission . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525513.pdf

Resmol, K., & Leasa, M. (2022). The effect of learning cycle 5E+ Powtoon on students’ motivation: The concept of animal metamorphosis. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 8 (2), 121–128.

Richardson, J., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13 , 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009

Salina, L., Ruffinengo, C., Garrino, L., Massariello, P., Charrier, L., Martin, B., Favale, M. S., & Dimonte, V. (2012). Effectiveness of an educational video as an instrument to refresh and reinforce the learning of a nursing technique: A randomised controlled trial. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1 (2), 67–75.

Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2020). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age . McGraw Hill.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2007). Defining critical thinking. The critical thinking community: foundation for critical thinking. CRC.

Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34 (2), 1–10.

Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162 (5), 933–936.

Sundhu, R., & Kittles, M. (2016). Precision teaching: Does training by educational psychologist have an impact? Educational Psychology in Practice, 32 (1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1094651

Syed, A. M., Ahmad, S., Alaraifi, A., & Rafi, W. (2020). Identification of operational risks impeding the implementation of eLearning in higher education system. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10281-6

Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2018). Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educucation, 16 , 1065–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9829-z

Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 77–94.

World Health Organization. (2020). WHO director-general’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 . WHO.

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). Video-based learning: A critical analysis of the research published in 2003–2013 and future visions. eLmL 2014, the sixth international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning (pp. 112–119). IARIA.

Zamora, L. P., Bravo, S. S., & Padilla, A. G. (2021). Production of comics in POWTOON as a teaching-learning strategy in an operations research course. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 10 (1), 137–147.

Download references

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

Angel J. Y. Tan

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Jean L. Davies, Roderick I. Nicolson & Themis Karaminis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angel J. Y. Tan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

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

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tan, A.J.Y., Davies, J.L., Nicolson, R.I. et al. Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?. Education Tech Research Dev 71 , 1275–1296 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10227-y

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10227-y

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

• Critical thinking
• Precision teaching
• Problem-based learning
• Computer-assisted learning
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Critical Thinking for Self-Improvement: A Guide to Unlocking Your Potential

Critical thinking plays a significant role in self-improvement as it allows individuals to analyze information, question assumptions, and make informed decisions. By adopting a mindset that encourages curiosity and inquisitiveness, one can enhance problem-solving abilities and personal growth. In a rapidly changing world, the need for continuous learning and adaptability is crucial, and critical thinking paves the way for better judgment and resilience during challenging situations.

Understanding the importance of critical thinking in everyday life is essential as it helps us to effectively navigate through interpersonal relationships, decision-making, and problem-solving. Developing these skills requires practice and dedication, as well as the ability to identify personal biases and assumptions that may impede the process. By engaging with diverse perspectives and striving to challenge one’s mindset, it becomes possible to experience self-improvement and personal growth.

Practical application of critical thinking skills involves continuous reflection and evaluation of one’s thinking processes. As individuals begin to dissect their thoughts, beliefs, and actions, a deeper understanding of self-improvement emerges. Embracing the challenges associated with the development of critical thinking allows for a more mindful and empowered approach to personal and professional growth.

Key Takeaways

• Critical thinking enhances self-improvement by promoting better judgment and decision-making abilities.
• Recognizing the importance of critical thinking in everyday life enables individuals to navigate complex situations more effectively.
• Practicing and reflecting on critical thinking skills facilitates personal growth and lays the groundwork for continuous self-improvement.

Understanding Critical Thinking

Nature and purpose of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a valuable skill that enables individuals to effectively analyze and evaluate information, allowing them to make informed decisions and solve problems. It involves the use of logic and reasoning to systematically break down arguments, identify biases, and assess the validity of claims. The purpose of critical thinking is to promote intellectual empathy, confidence in reason, and help individuals navigate the complexity of human irrationality.

In the realm of art, critical thinking skills can enhance one’s appreciation and understanding of a piece, as well as the artist’s intentions and the context in which the artwork was created. It’s essential to approach art with an open mind, questioning assumptions and exploring diverse perspectives.

Critical Thinking Skills

Developing strong critical thinking skills involves mastering several key abilities:

• Analysis : Breaking down complex ideas and arguments into their constituent parts to better understand their structure and connections.
• Evaluation : Assessing the credibility of sources, the validity of arguments, and the relevance of evidence presented.
• Logic and Reasoning : Identifying relationships between ideas, uncovering inconsistencies, and drawing logical conclusions based on available information.
• Systematical Thinking : Organizing thoughts in a structured manner, facilitating the examination of different aspects of a problem or question.
• Intellectual Empathy : Understanding and considering the perspectives of others, even when they differ from one’s own beliefs or viewpoints.
• Confidence in Reason : Trusting in the power of logic, evidence, and rational thinking, while recognizing the limits of human understanding and the potential for irrationality.

By cultivating these critical thinking skills, individuals can enhance their ability to navigate complex issues, make well-informed decisions, and contribute meaningfully to discussions and debates. These skills can be developed and refined through practice in various domains, including art, science, politics, and everyday life.

Importance of Critical Thinking in Life

Critical thinking in personal life.

Critical thinking plays a crucial role in our personal lives, as it enables us to make informed decisions by analyzing problems, evaluating information, and considering potential consequences. Developing critical thinking habits can help us become more self-guided and self-disciplined in our decision-making process. By observing our own biases and beliefs, we can challenge them and make better choices, ultimately improving our overall quality of life.

Additionally, critical thinking fosters curiosity and encourages us to question our own experiences. By being open to alternative perspectives and recognizing the limitations of our own knowledge, we can continuously learn and grow. This adaptability allows us to navigate challenges more effectively, making us better equipped to handle the complexities of life.

Critical Thinking in Economy and Science

In both the economy and science, critical thinking is essential for progress and innovation. In the economy, it enables individuals to make wise decisions regarding personal finances, investments, and career choices. It helps businesses strategically position themselves in the market by being aware of consumer preferences, competitors, and potential risks. Moreover, critical thinking promotes a more efficient allocation of resources in the economy, leading to better outcomes for all.

In the realm of science, critical thinking is the backbone of the scientific method, allowing researchers to propose hypotheses, design experiments, analyze data, and validate or refute their initial assumptions. Scientific inquiry demands that we examine our assumptions, question the validity of our observations, and challenge established theories. Thus, critical thinking fosters a culture of continuous improvement and discovery, contributing to advancements in technology, medicine, and our overall understanding of the world.

By adopting a critical thinking mindset, we can elevate our thinking, make better-informed decisions, and contribute positively to society, both in our personal lives and within the broader context of the economy and scientific pursuits.

Challenges of Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Developing critical thinking skills is essential for self-improvement, but it comes with its own set of challenges. Some of the most common obstacles are overconfidence and over-generalization, as well as common fallacies that can lead to biases and mistakes in reasoning.

Overconfidence and Over-generalization

Overconfidence is a common issue preventing individuals from thinking critically. It is characterized by an exaggerated belief in one’s own abilities or knowledge. This can lead to biases and affect decision-making, as overconfident individuals are less likely to question their own assumptions and consider alternative viewpoints. A helpful strategy to overcome overconfidence is to acknowledge one’s own limitations and actively seek feedback from others.

Over-generalization is another challenge encountered when developing critical thinking skills. This occurs when individuals make sweeping conclusions based on limited information. It can result in prejudices and uncritically accepted social rules and taboos. To combat over-generalization, it is crucial to distinguish between individual cases and broader trends, and to understand the variety and nuances within different topics.

Common Fallacies

Fallacies are errors in reasoning that can impede effective critical thinking. Two widespread fallacies are egocentrism and sociocentrism.

Egocentrism refers to the tendency to see the world through one’s own perspective only, disregarding other viewpoints. This can lead to a narrow understanding of issues and an inability to empathize with others. Developing self-awareness and practicing empathy can help overcome egocentric tendencies.

Sociocentrism , on the other hand, is the assumption that one’s own social group is inherently superior to others. This can result in biases and prejudices, as well as adherence to uncritically accepted norms and customs. To counteract sociocentrism, it is important to recognize the diversity of perspectives and values across different cultures and groups.

In conclusion, developing critical thinking skills requires recognizing and overcoming various challenges, including overconfidence, over-generalization, and common fallacies. Acknowledging and addressing these obstacles paves the way for more effective decision-making and personal growth.

Practical Application of Critical Thinking

Problem solving.

One of the main applications of critical thinking is in problem solving, as it involves evaluating various concepts, ideas, and perspectives. By honing critical thinking skills, individuals become better equipped to clarify the problem at hand, identify possible solutions, and evaluate the effectiveness of each solution. This process often includes evaluating the breadth, clarity, precision, relevance, and other standards of the solutions. Practicing and developing self-discipline can aid in making informed decisions and taking actionable steps towards solving problems.

A methodical approach in problem-solving includes:

• Defining the problem
• Generating alternative solutions
• Assessing the consequences of each solution
• Selecting the most appropriate solution
• Implementing the chosen solution

Practicing critical thinking during problem solving allows for creativity and flexibility when navigating complex issues, which is highly valued by psychologists and professionals across various fields.

Effective Communication

Another application of critical thinking lies in effective communication. Being able to understand and consider diverse perspectives can greatly improve relationships and foster productive dialogues. Critical thinking helps individuals to focus on vital questions, alternative systems of thought, and the underlying values within a given context.

In effective communication, critical thinking enables individuals to:

• Clearly articulate thoughts and ideas
• Actively listen and empathize with others
• Evaluate the validity of arguments and statements
• Question assumptions and biases
• Adapt communication style based on the audience

By utilizing critical thinking in communication, individuals can better navigate conversations, identify misconceptions, and collaborate effectively with others. Employing a confident, knowledgeable, neutral, and clear tone of voice in written or verbal communication ensures that the message is delivered effectively.

In conclusion, the practical application of critical thinking skills in problem solving and effective communication significantly contributes to self-improvement, personal growth, and overall success in various aspects of life. As individuals continue to practice and develop these skills, they will be better equipped to handle challenges, make informed decisions, and foster strong relationships with others.

Critical Thinking and Self-Improvement

Developing self-corrective thinking.

Critical thinking plays an essential role in self-improvement, as it involves rigorous standards of excellence and fairness . By skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing one’s thoughts, individuals can improve the quality of their thinking and make well-reasoned conclusions. A key aspect of critical thinking is self-corrective thinking . This involves being self-directed, disciplined, monitored, and ready to amend one’s thoughts or beliefs when presented with new information and experiences.

To develop self-corrective thinking, one must cultivate intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, civility, and a sense of justice. By embracing these virtues, individuals can maintain a balanced perspective and avoid being swayed by personal bias or beliefs. Furthermore, the adoption of these virtues fosters motivation and continuous self-improvement.

Mindfulness and Meditation

Integrating mindfulness and meditation into one’s daily routine can enhance the critical thinking process. Mindfulness refers to the practice of being present in the moment and attentive to one’s thoughts, emotions, and surroundings. By practicing mindfulness, individuals can develop better focus, concentration, and emotional regulation, which are essential skills for effective critical thinking.

Meditation, a complementary practice to mindfulness, helps individuals cultivate self-awareness and mental clarity. Regular meditation practice can lead to the strengthening of neural pathways associated with attention and emotional regulation, directly benefiting critical thinking abilities.

In conclusion, critical thinking, self-corrective thinking, mindfulness, and meditation significantly contribute to self-improvement by helping individuals develop mental clarity, better decision-making, and emotional resilience. By practicing these skills with consistency and commitment, individuals can make more informed decisions, understand others’ perspectives, and continue on the path of personal growth and development.

Reflecting on Critical Thinking

Continuous learning.

In a world where knowledge is ever-evolving, continuous learning is necessary for personal and professional growth. Developing critical thinking skills can significantly improve an individual’s learning capabilities. Through self-guided and self-disciplined practice, one can become more adept at processing information, diving deeper into topics, and questioning assumptions. Critical thinking allows people to see beyond surface-level details and engage with the content at a greater depth. As a result, they become more knowledgeable and confident in their reasoning abilities.

Benefits of Self-Reflection

Incorporating self-reflection into one’s learning process is essential for driving improvement. Regular reflection enables individuals to evaluate their thought processes, identify patterns of human irrationality, and understand any distortions that may be present. By engaging in self-reflection, learners develop a better understanding of their own strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement. Some key benefits of self-reflection for critical thinking enhancement include:

• Reinforcing knowledge: Reflecting on what has been learned helps to solidify the information in one’s memory and increase overall understanding.
• Identifying gaps in knowledge: Self-reflection can reveal areas where more information or practice is needed to fully grasp a concept or skill.
• Enhancing decision-making abilities: Understanding the nuances in one’s thought processes can lead to better decision-making in both personal and professional contexts.
• Cultivating self-awareness: Regular reflection can foster a deeper understanding of one’s values, beliefs, and biases, which can significantly impact critical thinking abilities.

Here is a short fictional story on how critical thinking skills can be used for self improvement:

David was a typical guy who had a passion for self-improvement. He read countless books, attended seminars, and watched videos to learn new skills and improve his life. However, he realized that he was missing something crucial – critical thinking skills.

One day, David decided to put his critical thinking skills to the test. He wanted to find a way to improve his productivity at work. He started by analyzing his work process and discovered that he was spending too much time on non-essential tasks. He creatively came up with a plan to delegate those tasks to his colleagues, allowing him to focus on more important tasks.

David’s critical thinking skills didn’t stop there. He also applied them to his personal life. He realized that he was spending too much time on social media and not enough time exercising. He set a goal to exercise for 30 minutes every day and created a schedule to hold himself accountable. He also decided to limit his social media usage to 30 minutes a day, giving him more time to focus on his goals.

David’s critical thinking skills continued to pay off. He started to see improvements in his work and personal life. He was getting more done in less time and had more time to spend with his family and friends. He even had time to take up a new hobby – painting.

David’s friends were amazed at his transformation and asked him how he did it. David replied, “It’s all thanks to critical thinking skills. By analyzing my processes, creatively coming up with solutions, and applying consistent standards, I was able to improve my life in ways I never thought possible.”

From that day on, David continued to use critical thinking skills to improve his life. He even started a blog to share his experiences and help others on their journey to self-improvement.

So, the moral of the story is that critical thinking skills are crucial for self-improvement. By analyzing situations, creatively coming up with solutions, and applying consistent standards, anyone can improve their life in ways they never thought possible. And who knows, maybe you’ll even discover a new hobby along the way!

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the key components of critical thinking.

Critical thinking involves several key components, such as reasoning through logic , actively questioning one’s thought process, and evaluating information and observations. Critical thinkers also strive for objectivity, open-mindedness, and the ability to recognize and challenge their biases.

How can critical thinking enhance decision-making?

Critical thinking can greatly enhance decision-making by fostering a disciplined approach to evaluating information, considering various perspectives, and weighing potential outcomes. By engaging in critical thinking, individuals can make more informed, objective, and effective decisions based on a deep understanding of the issue at hand.

What are some effective strategies to develop critical thinking skills?

Developing critical thinking skills can be achieved through various strategies, such as practicing logical reasoning, actively questioning one’s assumptions, seeking to understand diverse perspectives, and engaging in structured problem-solving exercises. Additionally, individuals can benefit from cultivating mindfulness and radical acceptance to enhance their ability to think critically.

Can critical thinking skills be taught and improved?

Yes, critical thinking skills can be both taught and improved through ongoing practice and learning. Developing critical thinking often involves rigorous questioning and analysis of one’s thought processes, information, and experiences. By actively working on these skills, individuals can increase their ability to think critically, make better decisions, and achieve personal growth and self-improvement.

In what ways do critical thinking and self-improvement intersect?

Critical thinking and self-improvement intersect in several ways. Both entail a commitment to personal growth, self-awareness, and the pursuit of meaningful, positive change. Asking deep questions for improved self-confidence and challenging one’s limiting beliefs can help individuals recognize areas of potential growth, develop new perspectives, and ultimately become more effective critical thinkers. By embracing critical thinking as part of their self-improvement journey, individuals can enhance their decision-making, problem-solving abilities, and overall personal and professional growth.

You may also like

Debate & Critical Thinking

We’ve all had debates with friends or on social media, where we get into it over some heated issue.  Emotions get out […]

How to Overcome Critical Thinking Barriers

Critical thinking is typically needed when graded performances and livelihoods are involved. However, its true value shines outside of academic and professional […]

Does Personality Matter When Choosing A Career?

Take a look at the different departments of a company and see if you can spot certain characteristics unique to each: The […]

A Student’s Guide to Critical Thinking

In the past, classroom-based learning revolved on retaining and repeating any information given. Today, schools focus on teaching the skills to learn […]