approach to teaching critical thinking

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

Helping Students Hone Their Critical Thinking Skills

Used consistently, these strategies can help middle and high school teachers guide students to improve much-needed skills.

Critical thinking skills are important in every discipline, at and beyond school. From managing money to choosing which candidates to vote for in elections to making difficult career choices, students need to be prepared to take in, synthesize, and act on new information in a world that is constantly changing.

While critical thinking might seem like an abstract idea that is tough to directly instruct, there are many engaging ways to help students strengthen these skills through active learning.

Make Time for Metacognitive Reflection

Create space for students to both reflect on their ideas and discuss the power of doing so. Show students how they can push back on their own thinking to analyze and question their assumptions. Students might ask themselves, “Why is this the best answer? What information supports my answer? What might someone with a counterargument say?”

Through this reflection, students and teachers (who can model reflecting on their own thinking) gain deeper understandings of their ideas and do a better job articulating their beliefs. In a world that is go-go-go, it is important to help students understand that it is OK to take a breath and think about their ideas before putting them out into the world. And taking time for reflection helps us more thoughtfully consider others’ ideas, too.

Teach Reasoning Skills 

Reasoning skills are another key component of critical thinking, involving the abilities to think logically, evaluate evidence, identify assumptions, and analyze arguments. Students who learn how to use reasoning skills will be better equipped to make informed decisions, form and defend opinions, and solve problems. 

One way to teach reasoning is to use problem-solving activities that require students to apply their skills to practical contexts. For example, give students a real problem to solve, and ask them to use reasoning skills to develop a solution. They can then present their solution and defend their reasoning to the class and engage in discussion about whether and how their thinking changed when listening to peers’ perspectives. 

A great example I have seen involved students identifying an underutilized part of their school and creating a presentation about one way to redesign it. This project allowed students to feel a sense of connection to the problem and come up with creative solutions that could help others at school. For more examples, you might visit PBS’s Design Squad , a resource that brings to life real-world problem-solving.

Ask Open-Ended Questions 

Moving beyond the repetition of facts, critical thinking requires students to take positions and explain their beliefs through research, evidence, and explanations of credibility. 

When we pose open-ended questions, we create space for classroom discourse inclusive of diverse, perhaps opposing, ideas—grounds for rich exchanges that support deep thinking and analysis. 

For example, “How would you approach the problem?” and “Where might you look to find resources to address this issue?” are two open-ended questions that position students to think less about the “right” answer and more about the variety of solutions that might already exist. 

Journaling, whether digitally or physically in a notebook, is another great way to have students answer these open-ended prompts—giving them time to think and organize their thoughts before contributing to a conversation, which can ensure that more voices are heard. 

Once students process in their journal, small group or whole class conversations help bring their ideas to life. Discovering similarities between answers helps reveal to students that they are not alone, which can encourage future participation in constructive civil discourse.

Teach Information Literacy 

Education has moved far past the idea of “Be careful of what is on Wikipedia, because it might not be true.” With AI innovations making their way into classrooms, teachers know that informed readers must question everything. 

Understanding what is and is not a reliable source and knowing how to vet information are important skills for students to build and utilize when making informed decisions. You might start by introducing the idea of bias: Articles, ads, memes, videos, and every other form of media can push an agenda that students may not see on the surface. Discuss credibility, subjectivity, and objectivity, and look at examples and nonexamples of trusted information to prepare students to be well-informed members of a democracy.

One of my favorite lessons is about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus . This project asks students to explore what appears to be a very real website that provides information on this supposedly endangered animal. It is a wonderful, albeit over-the-top, example of how something might look official even when untrue, revealing that we need critical thinking to break down “facts” and determine the validity of the information we consume. 

A fun extension is to have students come up with their own website or newsletter about something going on in school that is untrue. Perhaps a change in dress code that requires everyone to wear their clothes inside out or a change to the lunch menu that will require students to eat brussels sprouts every day. 

Giving students the ability to create their own falsified information can help them better identify it in other contexts. Understanding that information can be “too good to be true” can help them identify future falsehoods. 

Provide Diverse Perspectives 

Consider how to keep the classroom from becoming an echo chamber. If students come from the same community, they may have similar perspectives. And those who have differing perspectives may not feel comfortable sharing them in the face of an opposing majority. 

To support varying viewpoints, bring diverse voices into the classroom as much as possible, especially when discussing current events. Use primary sources: videos from YouTube, essays and articles written by people who experienced current events firsthand, documentaries that dive deeply into topics that require some nuance, and any other resources that provide a varied look at topics. 

I like to use the Smithsonian “OurStory” page , which shares a wide variety of stories from people in the United States. The page on Japanese American internment camps is very powerful because of its first-person perspectives. 

Practice Makes Perfect 

To make the above strategies and thinking routines a consistent part of your classroom, spread them out—and build upon them—over the course of the school year. You might challenge students with information and/or examples that require them to use their critical thinking skills; work these skills explicitly into lessons, projects, rubrics, and self-assessments; or have students practice identifying misinformation or unsupported arguments.

Critical thinking is not learned in isolation. It needs to be explored in English language arts, social studies, science, physical education, math. Every discipline requires students to take a careful look at something and find the best solution. Often, these skills are taken for granted, viewed as a by-product of a good education, but true critical thinking doesn’t just happen. It requires consistency and commitment.

In a moment when information and misinformation abound, and students must parse reams of information, it is imperative that we support and model critical thinking in the classroom to support the development of well-informed citizens.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Back to Entry
• Entry Contents
• Entry Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Supplement to Critical Thinking

Educational methods.

Experiments have shown that educational interventions can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. Glaser (1941) developed teaching materials suitable for senior primary school, high school and college students. To test their effectiveness, he developed with his sponsor Goodwin Watson the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking, whose descendants are in widespread global use under the name “Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal” (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994). He found that senior secondary school students receiving 10 weeks of instruction using these materials improved their scores on these tests more than other such students receiving the standard English curriculum during the 10 weeks, to a degree that was statistically significant (i.e., probably not due to chance). More recently, Abrami et al. (2015) summarized in a meta-analysis the best available evidence on the effectiveness of various strategies for teaching students to think critically. The meta-analysis used as a measure of effectiveness a modified version of a statistical measure known as “Cohen’s d”: the ratio of a difference in mean score to the statistical deviation (SD) of the scores in a reference group. A difference of 0.2 SD is a small effect, a difference of 0.5 SD is a moderate effect, and a difference of 0.8 is a large effect (Cohen 1988: 25–27). Abrami et al. (2015) found a weighted mean effect size of 0.30 among 341 effect sizes, with effect sizes ranging from −1 to +2. This methodologically careful meta-analysis provides strong statistical evidence that explicit instruction for critical thinking can improve critical thinking abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests.

Although contemporary meta-analysis provides a more justified verdict on claims of causal effectiveness than other methods of investigation, it does not give the reader an intuitive grasp of what difference a particular intervention makes to the lives of those who receive it. To get an appreciation of this difference, it helps to read the testimony of the teachers and students in the Laboratory School of Chicago where Dewey’s ideas obtained concreteness. The history of the school, written by two of its former teachers in collaboration with Dewey, makes the following claim for the effects of its approach:

As a result of this guarding and direction of their freedom, the children retained the power of initiative naturally present in young children through their inquisitive interests. This spirit of inquiry was given plenty of opportunity and developed with most of the children into the habit of trying a thing out for themselves. Thus, they gradually became familiar with, and to varying degrees skilled in, the use of the experimental method to solve problems in all areas of their experience. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 402–403)

A science teacher in the school wrote:

I think the children did get the scientific attitude of mind. They found out things for themselves. They worked out the simplest problems that may have involved a most commonplace and everyday fact in the manner that a really scientific investigator goes to work. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 403)

An alumna of the school summed up the character of its former students as follows:

It is difficult for me to be restrained about the character building results of the Dewey School. As the years have passed and as I have watched the lives of many Dewey School children, I have always been astonished at the ease which fits them into all sorts and conditions of emergencies. They do not vacillate and flounder under unstable emotions; they go ahead and work out the problem in hand, guided by their positively formed working habits. Discouragement to them is non-existent, almost ad absurdum. For that very fact, accomplishment in daily living is inevitable. Whoever has been given the working pattern of tackling problems has a courage born of self-confidence and achieves. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 406–407)

In the absence of control groups, of standardized tests, and of statistical methods of controlling for confounding variables, such testimonies are weak evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker—in Dewey’s conception, a scientific attitude. But they give a vivid impression of what might be accomplished in an educational system that takes the development of critical thinking as a goal.

Dewey established the Laboratory School explicitly as an experiment to test his theory of knowledge, which

emphasized the part in the development of thought of problems which originated in active situations and also the necessity of testing thought by action if thought was to pass over into knowledge. (Dewey 1936: 464)

Hence the curriculum of the school started from situations familiar to children from their home life (such as preparing food and making clothing) and posed problems that the children were to solve by doing things and noting the consequences. This curriculum was adjusted in the light of its observed results in the classroom.

The school’s continued experimentation with the subject matter of the elementary curriculum proved that classroom results were best when activities were in accord with the child’s changing interests, his growing consciousness of the relation of means and ends, and his increasing willingness to perfect means and to postpone satisfactions in order to arrive at better ends…. The important question for those guiding this process of growth, and of promoting the alignment and cooperation of interest and effort, is this. What specific subject-matter or mode of skill has such a vital connection with the child’s interest, existing powers, and capabilities as will extend the one [the interest–DH] and stimulate, exercise, and carry forward the others [the powers and capabilities–DH] in a progressive course of action? (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 420–421)

In an appendix to the history of the Laboratory School, Dewey (1936: 468–469) acknowledges that the school did not solve the problem of finding things in the child’s present experience out of which would grow more elaborate, technical and organized knowledge. Passmore (1980: 91) notes one difficulty of starting from children’s out-of-school experiences: they differ a lot from one child to another. More fundamentally, the everyday out-of-school experiences of a child provide few links to the systematic knowledge of nature and of human history that humanity has developed and that schools should pass on to the next generation. If children are to acquire such knowledge through investigation of problems, teachers must first provide information as a basis for formulating problems that interest them (Passmore 1980: 93–94).

More than a century has passed since Dewey’s experiment. In the interim, researchers have refined the methodology of experimenting with human subjects, in educational research and elsewhere. They have also developed the methodology of meta-analysis for combining the results of various experiments to form a comprehensive picture of what has been discovered. Abrami et al. (2015) report the results of such a meta-analysis of all the experimental and quasi-experimental studies published or archived before 2010 that used as outcome variables standardized measures of critical thinking abilities or dispositions of the sort enumerated in Facione 1990a and described in sections 8 and 9 of the main entry. By an experimental study, they mean one in which participants are divided randomly into two groups, one of which receives the educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and the other of which serves as a control; they found few such experiments, because of the difficulty of achieving randomization in the classrooms where the studies were conducted. By a quasi-experiment, they mean a study with an intervention group that receives an educational intervention designed to improve critical thinking and a control group, but without random allocation to the two groups. Initially, they included also what they called “pre-experiments”, with single-group pretest-posttest designs, but decided at the analysis stage not to include these studies. By a standardized measure, they mean a test with norms derived from previous administration of the test, as set out in the test’s manual, such as the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985; 2005), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (Facione & Facione 1992; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). They included all such studies in which the educational intervention lasted at least three hours and the participants were at least six years old.

In these studies they found 341 effect sizes. They rated each educational intervention according to the degree to which it involved dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. They found that each of these factors increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They explained the three factors as follows.

Dialogue : In critical dialogue, which historically goes back to Socrates, individuals discuss a problem together. The dialogue can be oral or written, and cooperative or adversarial. It can take the form of asking questions, discussion, or debate. Some curricula designed to promote critical thinking establish “communities of inquiry” among the students. Such communities were a prominent feature of Dewey’s Laboratory School, incorporated as a means of promoting the primary moral objective of fostering a spirit of social cooperation among the children.

An important aspect of this conditioning process by means of the school’s daily practices was to aid each child in forming a habit of thinking before doing in all of his various enterprises. The daily classroom procedure began with a face-to-face discussion of the work of the day and its relation to that of the previous period. The new problem was then faced, analyzed, and possible plans and resources for its solution suggested by members of the group. The children soon grew to like this method. It gave both individual and group a sense of power to be intelligent, to know what they wanted to do before they did it, and to realize the reasons why one plan was preferred to another. It also enlisted their best effort to prove the validity of their judgment by testing the plan in action. Each member of the group thus acquired a habit of observing, criticizing, and integrating values in thought, in order that they should guide the action that would integrate them in fact. The value of thus previsioning consequences of action before they became fixed as fact was emphasized in the school’s philosophy. The social implication is evident. The conscious direction of his actions toward considered social ends became an unfailing index of the child’s progress toward maturity. (Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 423–424)

Communities of inquiry are also a feature of the Montessori method described by Thayer-Bacon (2000) and of the Philosophy for Children program developed by Matthew Lipman (Splitter 1987). Lipman (2003) examines theoretically what is involved in creating communities of inquiry. Hitchcock (2021) argues that the most obvious way for schools to develop critical thinking is to foster development of communities of inquiry.

Anchored instruction : In anchored instruction, whose advocacy goes back to Rousseau (1762) and Dewey (1910), there is an effort to present students with problems that make sense to them, engage them, and stimulate them to inquire. Simulations, role-playing and presentation of ethical or medical dilemmas are methods of anchoring.

Mentoring : Mentoring is a one-on-one relationship in which someone with more relevant expertise (the mentor) interacts with someone with less (the mentee). The mentor acts as a model and as a critic correcting errors by the mentee. Examples of mentoring are an advisor talking to a student, a physician modeling a procedure for a medical student, and an employee correcting an intern. Abrami et al. (2015) identified three kinds of mentoring in the studies that they analyzed: one-on-one teacher-student interaction, peer-led dyads, and internships.

Abrami et al. (2015) also compared educational interventions with respect to whether they were part of subject-matter instruction. For this purpose, they used a distinction among four types of intervention articulated by Ennis (1989). A general approach tries to teach critical thinking separately from subject-matter instruction. An infusion approach combines deep subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically with explicit reference to critical thinking principles. An immersion approach provides deep subject-matter instruction with encouragement to think critically, but without explicit reference to critical thinking principles. A mixed approach combines the general approach with either the infusion or the immersion approach; students combine a separate thread or course aimed at teaching general critical thinking principles with deep subject-matter instruction in which they are encouraged to think critically about the subject-matter. Although the average effect size in the studies using a mixed intervention (+0.38) was greater than the average effect sizes in the studies using general (+0.26), infusion (+0.29) and immersion (+0.23) interventions, the difference was not statistically significant; in other words, it might have been due to chance.

Cleghorn (2021), Makaiau (2021), and Hiner (2021) make specific suggestions for fostering critical thinking respectively in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) report the results of a project of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop with teachers and schools in 11 countries resources for fostering creativity and critical thinking in elementary and secondary schools.

Ennis (2013, 2018) has made a detailed proposal for a mixed approach to teaching critical thinking across the curriculum of undergraduate education. Attempts at implementing such an approach have faced difficulties. Weinstein (2013: 209–213) describes the attempt at Montclair State University in Montclair, New Jersey, from 1987 through the 1990s. He reports that the university’s requirement to include critical thinking in all general education courses led to the use of the concept in identifying topics and tasks in course syllabi, but without a unifying theoretical basis. The committee that approved courses as satisfying a general education requirement ignored the relation of curricular outcomes to critical thinking, and focused instead on work requirements with a prima facie relation to reflective thought: term papers, projects, group work, and dialogue. Sheffield (2018) reports similar difficulties encountered in his position from 2012 to 2015 as the inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York. A cross-disciplinary faculty advisory group was not ready to accept RIT’s approved definition of critical thinking, but never reached a consensus on an alternative. Payette and Ross (2016), on the other hand, report widespread acceptance of the Paul-Elder framework, which involves elements of thought, intellectual standards, and intellectual virtues (Paul & Elder 2006). Sheffield (2018) reports that many colleges and universities in the United States have received funding for so-called “Quality Enhancement Plans” (QEPs) devoted to critical thinking, many of them written by Paul and Elder or developed in consultation with them. He faults the plans for having a typical time frame of five years, which he argues is probably too short for meaningful results, since lasting institutional change is often extremely slow.

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

How to teach critical thinking: an experimental study with three different approaches

• Original Paper
• Published: 25 June 2022
• Volume 26 , pages 199–217, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ali Orhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1234-3919 1 &
• Şule Çeviker Ay 2  

4919 Accesses

4 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of critical thinking (CT) teaching involving general, immersion, and mixed approaches on the CT skills and dispositions of high-school students. The study, which had three experimental groups (EG) and one control group, employed a pretest–posttest control-group quasi-experimental design. CT teaching was initiated with a general approach in EG I, an immersion approach in EG II, and a mixed approach in EG III. The Critical Thinking Skill Test and UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument were used to collect the data. General, immersion, and mixed approaches improved CT skills and dispositions, with a large effect size for the improvement of CT skills. CT teaching with general, immersion, and mixed approaches had large, moderate, and small effects, respectively, on improving CT dispositions. In terms of improving CT skills and dispositions, the most effective approach, respectively, was the general, mixed, and immersion approach.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map

Melissa Bond, Katja Buntins, … Michael Kerres

The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): a Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality

Guido Makransky & Gustav B. Petersen

Students’ perceptions of their STEM learning environment

Nicole Fairhurst, Rekha Koul & Rachel Sheffield

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Critical thinking (CT), in many classifications of higher-order thinking skills in the literature (Lipman, 2003 ; Presseisen, 1985 ), is a functional and sensible way of thinking that is employed by individuals for deciding what to believe or to do in the face of problems (Ennis, 1991 ). CT is basically individuals’ act of defending themselves against the world in an era when a great amount of information is easily accessible or several people try to influence us or our thoughts (Epstein & Kernberger, 2012 ). Individuals acquire healthy and accurate information about their surroundings through CT by questioning, examining, and evaluating information. That evaluation is the task of reviewing the underlying reasons and looking for sound evidence to decide whether the information is accurate or not (Mason, 2008 ). Thanks to CT, individuals evaluate the sensibility and accuracy of information, claims and judgements and, after that, come to conclusion (Lewis & Smith, 1993 ).

Another major point about CT is that it involves not only skills such as inference, deduction or interpretation, but also a disposition towards using those skills such as being open-minded, systematic, or willing to seek the truth (Ennis, 2018 ). According to Paul & Elder ( 2001 ), CT dispositions are regarded as vital as CT skills because having high CT skills is not enough to use those skills in everyday life. Therefore, it can be said that individuals can be seen as good critical thinkers only when they have high CT skills and dispositions together (Profetto-McGrath, 2003 ). If the individual does not have a strong inclination towards using CT skills, these skills might not be used by the individual; on the other hand, without having high CT skills, having high CT dispositions might be meaningless (Profetto-McGrath et al., 2003 ). Therefore, it is important for individuals to have high CT skills and strong dispositions together.

As one of the most essential skills that students from all educational levels should possess (Ennis, 2018 ; Kaeppel, 2021 ), CT attracts much-deserved attention in the business world as well (Al-Zou’bi, 2021 ). The Future of Jobs Report (World Economic Forum, 2020 ) lists CT among the top ten skills to be required in the business world in 2025. Moreover, the International Summit on the Teaching Profession held in 2016 listed CT as being among the most-important skills for elementary-school students who are still studying and will start their careers approximately in 2030 (Schleicher, 2016 ).

In this century, there is consensus on the importance of CT for societies, but debate on how it is to be taught is still in progress (Bellaera et al., 2021 ; Lombardi et al., 2021 ). CT skills can be taught to everyone through an appropriate education (Kennedy et al., 1991 ; Scriven & Paul, 2005 ) regardless of age (Bailin et al., 1999 ) or level of intelligence (Lewis & Smith, 1993 ). However, there are different opinions on how such appropriate education of CT will be performed. In the literature, approaches to CT teaching are addressed under the four topics of infusion, immersion, general, and mixed approaches (Ennis, 1991 ).

The main point in the infusion approach is to teach CT skills and the subject area explicitly. Hence, the teacher has two main objectives which are to teach the subject area and foster CT skills. Students utilize their CT skills by adapting them to the subject area (Gann, 2013 ). In the immersion approach, CT skills should not be taught explicitly when information on the subject area is conveyed to students (Hager & Kaye, 1992 ). Therefore, its significant difference from the infusion approach is that the students are not taught CT skills directly. In the immersion approach, it is considered that CT skills develop automatically through activities such as discussion, pair work, group work, and problem solving which are utilized when teaching the subject area (Gann, 2013 ). The main assumption which underlies this approach is that CT skills depend on given content and that, without acquiring information about the subject area first, individuals cannot utilize their CT skills on that specific area (McPeck, 1981 ; Willingham, 2008 ). Thus, teaching CT skills along with the subject area yields more-effective results than teaching skills independently of the subject area (Daniel & Auriac, 2011 ; Mason, 2008 ). Having a deep relationship with the subject area, CT skills cannot be converted into behavior by students who do not possess sufficient knowledge on the subject area (Willingham, 2008 ). The CT process is about the content of thinking, and these skills cannot be learned at once and easily transferred to different areas. According to Ruggerio ( 1988 ), there are two main reasons why CT is taught along with content. One reason is the challenge of ensuring that CT skills become retentive in students, and the other reason is that infusion of CT skills across the course content increases interest, desire, and motivation with regards to the course.

In the general approach, CT should be taught independently of the subject area. Accordingly, there is no need for any content in CT teaching (Ennis, 1997 ) and one should attempt to teach students CT skills within the scope of a separate course (Ennis, 1997 ; Ian, 2002 ). Content in the general approach is the CT skills itself. Indeed, when CT skills are taught in a separate course, it is ensured that students’ only focus is those skills (Gann, 2013 ; Lipman, 1988 ). Instead of struggling with learning information in the subject area, students spend their energy and effort on acquiring the CT skills (Ian, 2002 ). In addition, for a student who has acquired CT skills independently of a subject area, it is easier to transfer those skills to different subject areas, outside-school contexts, or the real world (Ennis, 1997 ; Haskell, 2001 ). While fostering CT skills, students need well-planned practices, which are only possible through CT teaching in a separate course (Van Gelder, 2005 ).

The mixed approach utilizes general and infusion or immersion approaches to CT teaching together (Nicholas & Raider, 2011 ). In this approach, CT teaching starts with the general approach and continues with the infusion or immersion approach, or the infusion or immersion approach is followed by the general approach (Gann, 2013 ). Reviewing the studies that involve CT teaching with several approaches, Kennedy et al., ( 1991 ) state that, because those approaches are not superior to each other, one should use the mixed approach. Indeed, the mixed approach allows combining the strengths of general, infusion and immersion approaches.

Previous studies on teaching CT

Arısoy & Aybek ( 2021 ) conducted an experimental study to examine the effect of CT teaching with the general approach on students’ CT skills and dispositions and concluded that it enhanced students’ CT skills ( η ²=0.52) and dispositions ( η ²=0.66) with large effect sizes. Also, in their study aiming to investigate the effect of CT teaching with the immersion approach on CT skills, Schreglmann & Karakuş ( 2017 ) concluded that it enhanced students’ CT skills with a large effect size. Besides, in their study investigating the effect of CT teaching with general approach on CT skills and dispositions, Taghinezhad & Riasati ( 2020 ) found that teaching CT explicitly enhanced students’ CT skills ( d  = 2.83) and dispositions ( d =  0.80) with large effects. Aybek ( 2006 ) conducted a study with two experimental groups and one control group to compare the effect of immersion and general approaches on CT skills and dispositions. In her study with university students, Aybek ( 2006 ) used CoRT 1 program to teach CT skills explicitly and used the immersion approach in social sciences lesson. CT teaching both with the general approach (skills d  = 2.19, dispositions d  = 2.01) and the immersion approach (skills d  = 1.10, dispositions d  = 1.08) enhanced students’ CT skills and dispositions. Also, it is possible to say that CT teaching with the general approach enhances students’ CT skills and dispositions more than the immersion approach (skills η 2  = 0.43, dispositions η 2  = 0.19).

In their study with two experimental and one control groups, Marin & Halpern ( 2011 ) examined the effect of the general and immersion approaches on the CT skills of high-school students. According to Marin & Halpern ( 2011 ), both general ( d  = 0.67) and immersion approaches ( d  = 0.25) increase students’ CT skills. Also, the general approach is more effective than the immersion approach to enhance CT skills ( d  = 0.51). When Kurnaz (2017) compared the effect of general and immersion approaches on CT skills, the general approach was more effective than the immersion approach in enhancing CT skills ( η 2  = 0.23). Also, there have been many other experimental studies which concluded that the general approach (Arı, 2020 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Karadağ & Demirtaş, 2018 ; Rahdar et al., 2018 ; Zulkifli & Hashim, 2020 ), the immersion approach (Bağ, 2020 ; Fung & Howe, 2012 ; Reed & Kromrey, 2001 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ) and the mixed approach (Ku et al., 2014 ; Plath et al., 1999 ) enhances CT. Although there have been several experimental studies of the effectiveness of these approaches, there is no consensus about which approach is more effective (Cáceres et al., 2020 ; Larsson, 2017 ). Moreover, there are a few studies that compared the effect of immersion and general approaches to CT teaching (Aybek, 2006 ; Kurnaz, 2007 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Williams & Worth, 2001 ).

Thus, with the aim of comparing the effects of immersion, general, and mixed approaches on CT, this study is important. Also, our study is important for addressing the mixed approach in addition to the immersion and general approaches which have been studied more frequently, thus making it possible to compare how the three most basic approaches to CT teaching affect CT. Besides, this study is important for learning environments that aim to enhance CT because it provides some important evidence for the best approach for teaching CT.

Research questions

Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of CT teaching involving general, immersion, and mixed approaches on the CT skills and dispositions of high-school students. To this end, answers to the following questions were sought for:

Are there any significant differences in the Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students (CTST) pretest and posttest scores between a control group and (a) the experimental group (EG) I for which CT teaching involved the general approach, (b) the EG II group for which CT teaching involved the immersion approach, and (c) the EG III group for which CT teaching involved the mixed approach?

Are there any significant differences among the CTST posttest scores of the students in the EG I, II, III, and control groups?

Are there any significant differences between EG I, II, III and the control groups in terms of students’ scores on the UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument (CTDI) pretest and posttest?

Are there any significant differences between the EG I, II, III, and the control groups in terms of students’ CTDI posttest scores?

Research design

In this study, a pretest–posttest control-group quasi-experimental design was employed. While CT skills and CT dispositions were the dependent variables, the general, immersion, and mixed approaches to CT teaching were the independent variables. In this research design, groups are randomly assigned (Büyüköztürk et al., 2014 ). Our study was quasi-experimental because the existing classes were utilized at the high school where the study was carried out. Of four randomly-chosen classes, three were assigned as EGs, and one was assigned as the control group. Table  1 presents the design used in the research.

CT teaching was initiated with the general approach in EG I, with the immersion approach in EG II, and with the mixed approach in EG III. In EG III, CT teaching was started with general approach and finished with the immersion approach. No experimental procedures were followed in the control group, and the students in this group continued their curriculum being practiced in their school. The CTST and CTDI were implemented as pretests and posttests in all groups.

Study group

The study group consisted of 114 ninth-grade students studying in four different classes of a high school in northern Turkey in the academic year of 2019–2020. There were six ninth-grade classes in the high school and four of them were randomly chosen. After that, the classes were randomly assigned as EGs and a control group. All students voluntarily participated in the study and none of them had received any previous training on CT. Ninth-grade high-school students were chosen as the study group because generating positive attitudes and behaviors including CT skills and dispositions is easier with younger ages (Lee, 2018 ; Lombardi et al., 2021 ). Before the study, when a priori power analysis for conducting a one-way ANOVA with 4 groups was carried out using Faul et al.’s ( 2007 ) G*Power 3 software program, it was found that the minimal sample size of students needed for this study (alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95) to have a large effect ( η 2  = 0.25) was 56 based on the previous experimental studies (Aybek, 2006 ; Kurnaz, 2017; Marin & Halpern 2011 ). Therefore, the sample size of 114 in this study was adequate.

As it can be seen in Table  2 , there were 29 students in EG I, 26 students in EG II, 29 students in EG III, and 30 students in the control group. Of the students in EG I, 65.5% are females and 34.5% are males. Mothers of those students are graduates of high school (31%), university (27.6%), primary school (20.7%), and secondary school (20.7%), respectively. The majority of their fathers are graduates of high school (41.4%) and university (41.4). Of the students in EG II, 61.5% are females and 38.5% are males. The majority of their mothers are graduates of primary school and secondary school (53.8%) and 23.1% of the mothers are university graduates. Fathers of EG II students are graduates of high school (38.5%), university (26.9%) and secondary school (19.2%). Of the students in EG III, 55.2% are females and 44.8% are males. The majority of their mothers are high school graduates (44.8%), with 20.75% of mothers who are university graduates (20.7%) and 20.7% of mothers who are graduates of primary school. The majority of their fathers are graduates of high school and university (69%). Of the control group students, 53.3% are females and 46.7% are males, with 33.3% of their mothers being university graduates while 30% of them graduated from high school. 33.3% of their fathers are university graduates, whereas 30% of them graduated from high school.

The students can enroll and study in the high school in which the study was conducted after a nationwide examination. Therefore, it is possible to say that the students in four groups are comparable to each other in terms of academic success. Also, because it is a public high school, families of the students in all groups had similar socio-economic backgrounds.

As presented in Table  3 and 4 , there was no statistically-significant difference between the three EGs and one control group for the pretest scores of students for the CTST ( X 2 (sd=3, n=114)  = 6.555, p  > 0.05) and the CTDI ( F (114)  = 2.273; p  > 0.05).

In the EGs, the courses were held for two class hours a week for ten weeks in total. The duration of the courses was 40 min. The researcher was the instructor of the courses for all EGs. Control group students continued the curriculum being taught in their school and no experimental procedures were followed in this group. The researcher did not have any extra teaching motivation when implementing CT activities in three EGs not to influence the results of the current study. Besides, the researcher did not perform any extra activities to increase student motivation in any EGs and just followed the pre-prepared lesson plans. The activities and materials related to CT teaching were conducted in all groups just as planned by the researcher. The researcher formed a democratic classroom environment as much as possible during the teaching and organized the classroom to allow group work and 10–15 min breaks between two courses in all groups.

CT teaching with general approach

In CT teaching with the general approach in EG I, six steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) and part one of CoRT thinking program developed by De Bono ( 2019 ) were utilized. In those courses of EG I, CT skills were taught explicitly, with the students being informed of the objective. Beyer ( 1991 ) suggests six steps for CT teaching with the general approach: introduction, guided practice, independent practice, transfer, guided practice, and autonomous practice. In fact, it is possible to consider the steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) in two groups because the first three steps and the last three steps are similar to each other. While the first three steps are related to the learning of the skill, the last three steps are related to the transfer of the skill to different areas. Both three-step sections start with guided practices and end with autonomous practices of the skill. Six steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) start with informing students of the skill and end with students’ autonomous use of the skill. In this process, progression starts in company with a guide and continues as an independent practice. The instructional plan used in the present study was prepared in consideration of the steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) and using the CoRT 1 thinking program for CT teaching with the general approach. In the courses, students were explicitly taught about CT skills before being asked to use these skills in five distinct activities. During those activities, teacher guidance was gradually reduced, with the last activity being completed independently by the student. Next, the process was discussed with the students and the principles for using the skills were agreed upon mutually.

CT teaching with immersion approach

Because the content used for CT teaching in EG II was environmental education, students were taught the CT skills indirectly through immersion in environmental education rather than explicitly. The instructional plans used for CT teaching with immersion approach were prepared based on the instructional plan development process developed by Paul et al., ( 1990 ) which involves CT strategies. When designing the instructional plans, the three CT strategies identified by Paul et al., ( 1990 ) (affective strategies, macro-abilities, and micro-skills) were embedded into the plans. In the courses, students’ attention was drawn to the subject, the students were informed of that day’s objective, and the stimulating material was presented. Then, the subject was presented to students and learning was guided. Finally, activities were performed to allow students to exhibit the target behaviors, and the course was completed with an activity which made it easier for the student to recall the subject. During the courses, activities such as group work, discussion, pair work, and problem solving were utilized a lot to teach the subject related to environmental education.

CT teaching with mixed approach

The CT teaching in EG III was conducted with the general approach in the first five weeks and the immersion approach with environmental education in the last five weeks. The same lesson plans used for CT teaching with general and immersion approach were also used in mixed CT teaching.

Control group

No procedures were followed for the control group students other than the implementation of the measures as pretests and posttests. These students experienced the courses within their curriculum, which was checked to see whether the control group students took any courses or carried out activities about CT in the spring term of 2019–2020 academic year. It was understood that no effort had been made regarding the CT teaching.

After the pretests had been implemented in four groups in the first week of the spring term in 2019–2020 academic year, the experimental procedure was started in the second week of the term. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, instructional materials and plans were adapted to distant education so that the final four weeks of the experimental procedure were completed with online classes.

Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students (CTST)

The CTST developed by Orhan & Çeviker Ay ( 2022 ) was utilized to measure students’ CT skills. This test was based on the CT skills classification by Watson & Glaser ( 1994 ). It has 51 items in total and five sub-skills, namely, inference (10 items), evaluating arguments (8 items), deduction (11 items), recognizing assumptions (12 items) and interpretation (10 items). The test has multiple-choice items and was developed to evaluate students’ CT skills. Its mean item difficulty value and mean item discrimination value was 0.52 and 0.42, respectively. For the test’s criterion validity, the decision-making skill was used based on the previous literature (Chang et al., 2020 ; Halpern, 2003 ; Özgenel, 2018 ), and the students who were cautious and picky when making a decision were found to have significantly higher scores than students who acted complacently, panicked and tended to avoid taking responsibility when making a decision. KR20 reliability coefficients ranged between 0.62 and 0.76 for the sub-tests and was 0.87 for the total test. Students receive 0 point for their incorrect response and 1 point for correct answers, with the maximum score being 51 and minimum score being 0 for CTST.

UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument

The CTDI developed by Irani et al. ( 2007 ) and adapted to Turkish language by Kılıç & Şen ( 2014 ) was used to determine students’ CT dispositions. The instrument has the three sub-dimensions of engagement, maturity, and innovativeness. In adaptation study with 342 high school students by Kılıç & Şen ( 2014 ), one item was omitted from the instrument, but the other items were consistent with the original construct. Reliability estimates of the CTDI’s sub-dimensions ranged from 0.70 to 0.88 and it was 0.91 for the total scale. CFA conducted for the present study confirmed the three-factor structure of the instrument (χ 2 /sd = 2.05; RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.10). The reliability coefficients calculated for the present study were 0.85, 0.68, 0.70, and 0.86 for engagement, maturity, innovativeness, and total scale, respectively.

Data collection

Upon ethical committee approval (No. 2019/86 dated 5.11.2019) and research approval (No. E23489630 dated 27.11.2019), data were collected in the spring term of the 2019–2020 academic year. Pretests were administered in the first week of the term before the CT teaching started in all groups, whereas posttests were administered after the CT teaching finished in all groups. Students were informed about privacy and confidentiality issues, as well as their right to withdraw from the study whenever they want. Administration time for the CTST was about 40 min and for the CTDI was about 20 min.

Data analysis

SPSS 20 statistical software was used to analyze the data. Firstly, each variable was reviewed to see if there were any missing data, and no missing data were found. Then, normality was tested for data distribution. In this study, we used z transformation to determine outliers for each variable. Tabachnick & Fidell ( 2012 ) suggest that z -scores with values higher than 3.29 can be seen as potential outliers, but no outliers were found in this study. We also checked multivariate outliers with Mahalanobis Distance scores (Mahalanobis D 2 ), but no influential outliers were seen in the dataset. In this study, paired samples t tests were used to determine the effect of time on CT skills and dispositions of high school students in the groups with normally-distributed data, while the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was utilized in other groups. Furthermore, one-way ANOVA was conducted to analyze the effects of general, immersion, and mixed approaches on the CT skills and dispositions of students in the groups with normally-distributed data, while the Kruskal-Wallis H test was utilized in other groups.

Results on CT skills

The results of the paired-samples t test results for the CTST pretest and posttest scores of EG I students are shown in Table  5 , which indicates a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of EG I students ( t 29 =-10.482; p  < 0.05) in favor of the posttest. Moreover, the CT teaching with the general approach greatly improved CT skills of the high-school students ( d  = 3.04).

As shown in Table  6 , a significant difference was found between the CTST pretest and posttest scores of EG II ( z =-4.335; p < 0.05) and EG III students ( z =-4.717; p < 0.05) in favor of the posttest. Both the immersion approach ( d  = 3.22) and the mixed approach ( d  = 3.52) to CT teaching greatly improved the CT skills of high-school students. There was no significant difference between the CTST pretest and posttest scores for the control group ( z =-0.480; p  > 0.05). In other words, the teaching in the control group did not improve students’ CT skills.

Kruskal-Wallis H test results for the CTST posttests of students in three EGs and one control group are provided in Table  7 . A significant difference can be observed among the CTST posttest scores of the students in EG I, EG II, EG III and the control group (χ 2 (sd=3, n=114)  = 79.544, p  < 0.05). CT posttest scores of the EG I students to whom CT was taught with the general approach ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :47.41) had higher scores than EG II students ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :39.61) and EG III students ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :44.06), which accounted for a significant difference. In addition, EG III students to whom CT was taught with the mixed approach ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :44.06) had higher and significantly different CTST posttest scores than EG II students ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :39.61). The CTST posttest scores of students in three EGs were higher than the scores of the control group students, and these differences were significant. The intergroup difference had a large effect size for CT skills ( η 2  = 0.69). Thus, 69% of the change in the CT skills of the students was attributable to the intergroup difference.

Results on CT dispositions

The results of the paired-samples t test results for the CTDI pretest and posttest scores of all groups are shown in Table  8 . This table shows a significant difference between CTDI pretest and posttest scores of EG I ( t 29 =-9.272, p  < 0.05), EG II ( t 26 =-5.872, p  < 0.05) and EG III ( t 29 =-4.167, p  < 0.05). CT teaching with the general approach had a large effect ( d  = 1.12), CT teaching with the immersion approach had a moderate effect ( d  = 0.74), and CT teaching with the mixed approach had a small effect ( d  = 0.44) on improving students’ CT dispositions. There was no significant difference between the CTDI pretest and posttest scores for the control group ( t 30 =-0.019, p  > 0.05).

One-way ANOVA results for the CTDI posttest scores of the high-school students in three EGs and one control group are presented in Table  9 . A statistically-significant difference was found among the CTDI posttest scores of EG I, EG II, EG III, and the control group ( F (114)  = 18.125; p  < 0.05), with the intergroup difference having a large effect size for CT dispositions of students ( η 2  = 0.26). To put it another way, 26% of the change in students’ CT dispositions was attributable to the intergroup difference. There were significant differences between the posttest scores of EG I students ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :4.28) compared with EG II ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :3.94), EG III ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :4.00) and control group ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :3.60) students. CT teaching with the general approach was more effective in improving students’ CT dispositions than teaching with the immersion approach and mixed approaches. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the effects of CT teaching with the immersion approach ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :3.94) and with the mixed approach ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :4.00) in terms of improving students’ CT dispositions. This suggests that these two approaches were similarly effective in terms of students’ CT dispositions. Moreover, there was a significant difference between the CTDI posttest scores of EG I ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :4.28), EG II ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :3.94), EG III ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :4.00) and the control group ( \({\rm{\bar X}}\) :3.60) in favor of the EGs. Hence, all three approaches to CT teaching improved high-school students’ CT dispositions more than the usual courses and activities practised in the school.

Conclusion and discussion

Discussion on ct skills.

Whereas general, immersion, and mixed approaches to CT teaching improved the CT skills of high-school students, no improvement was observed in the skills of the control group. General, immersion, and mixed approaches were found to have a large effect size for the improvement of high-school students’ CT skills. As shown by meta-analysis seeking a general effect size by combining the results of experimental studies in the literature, the general approach (Çeviker Ay & Orhan, 2020 ; Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990 ) and immersion approach (Çeviker Ay & Orhan, 2020 ) to CT teaching are largely effective in improving the CT skills.

In line with the results of the present study, there are several experimental studies suggesting that CT teaching with the general approach (Al-Edwan, 2011 ; Alwehaibi, 2012 ; Arı, 2020 ; Arısoy & Aybek, 2021 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Karadağ & Demirtaş, 2018 ; Lou, 2018 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Rahdar et al., 2018 ; Smith et al., 2018 ; Taghinezhad & Riasati, 2020 ), immersion approach (Bağ, 2020 ; Fung & Howe, 2012 ; Jensen Jr., 2015 ; Lopez et al., 2020 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Reed & Kromrey, 2001 ; Zulkifli & Hashim, 2020 ) and mixed approach (Ku et al., 2014 ; Plath et al., 1999 ; Welch et al., 2015 ) significantly improved CT skills. Also, after examining experimental studies of CT teaching, Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 ) concluded that CT skills or dispositions were significantly improved in 80% of studies conducted with the general approach to CT teaching, 55% of studies conducted with the immersion approach to CT teaching and 67% of studies conducted with the mixed approach to CT teaching. Payan-Carreira et al. ( 2019 ) state that 70% of the studies utilizing the immersion approach and three of the four studies utilizing the mixed approach included in their research significantly improved CT skills and dispositions.

Most of the experimental studies concluding that CT teaching with different approaches significantly affected CT skills failed to report the effect size associated with this teaching. Therefore, in order to compare the results of our study with previous research in the literature, the effect sizes associated with the studies with the necessary data were calculated. According to the results of these studies whose effect size was calculated, the general approach (Alwehaibi, 2012 ; Aybek, 2006 ; Lou, 2018 ; Yıldırım, 2010 ) and the immersion approach (Aybek, 2006 ; Şahin, 2016 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ) had a large effect on CT skills.

The fact that all three approaches utilized in the present study significantly improved students’ CT skills with a large effect size coincides with the results of several studies in the literature. According to Kennedy et al., ( 1991 ), everyone can be taught CT skills through an appropriate education. Moreover, the success of CT teaching does not vary with whether individuals are gifted (Lewis & Smith, 1993 ) or with their age (Bailin et al., 1999 ; Kennedy et al., 1991 ). Indeed, various experimental studies conducted at different educational levels including primary education (Bayrak, 2014 ; Jensen, 2015 ) and undergraduate education (Aybek, 2006 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Welch et al., 2015 ) and with different age groups showed that CT skill is teachable. The fact that all of the CT teaching performed with different approaches in three EGs were effective in improving high-school students’ CT skills coincides with these considerations in the literature.

This study revealed that CT teaching with the general approach was more effective in improving students’ CT skills than CT teaching with the immersion and mixed approaches. Moreover, CT teaching with the mixed approach improved CT skills of high-school students more than CT teaching with the immersion approach. In improving CT skills of high-school students, the most-effective approach to CT teaching was the general approach, which was followed by the mixed and immersion approach, respectively.

In line with these results, several studies comparing the effects of immersion and general approaches to CT teaching on students’ CT skills indicated that the general approach was more effective than the immersion approach to CT teaching (Aybek, 2006 ; Kurnaz, 2007 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Williams & Worth, 2001 ). Behar-Horenstein & Niu ( 2011 ) suggest that when compared with other approaches, the immersion approach to CT teaching is the least effective in improving students’ CT skills. As argued by Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 ), the most-effective approach to improving students’ CT skills is the general approach followed by the mixed, infusion, and immersion approaches, respectively. According to Abrami et al. ( 2008 ), the least effective approach to improving students’ CT skills is the immersion approach. It is possible to say that the results obtained in the present study coincide with the results achieved by Behar-Horenstein & Niu ( 2011 ), Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 ) and Abrami et al. ( 2008 ).

Criticism of the immersion approach to CT teaching is based on the assumption that students who have neither learned CT skills explicitly nor had any explicit knowledge and understanding of those skills have difficulty in transferring their skills to other areas (Ennis, 1993 ). Accordingly, as for the students who acquired CT skills with the immersion approach through environmental education in this study, their skills would be limited to that subject area and they would fail to transfer their skills to everyday life and real-life situations (Ennis, 1989 ). Hence, the fact that the least-effective approach improving CT skills among high-school students was the immersion approach in the present study can be explained with these considerations that underpins the relevant criticism. The test used to measure CT skill in the research includes questions that are independent of environmental education and about real events derived from everyday life. Thus, one can argue that the students who had acquired CT skills within the scope of environmental education might have found it difficult to transfer their skills to everyday life compared with students who received CT teaching with general approach. Although CT teaching with the immersion approach improved the CT skills of high-school students effectively and significantly, that might explain why general and mixed approaches to CT teaching were more effective in enhancing students’ CT skills.

Discussion on CT dispositions

In this study, while the general, immersion, and mixed approaches to CT teaching improved the CT dispositions of high-school students, no improvement was observed in the dispositions of the control-group students. CT teaching with general, immersion, and mixed approaches had large, moderate, and small effects on improving students’ CT dispositions, respectively. In most of the experimental studies examining the effect of CT teaching with the general approach (Arısoy & Aybek, 2021 ; Aybek, 2006 ; Bayrak, 2014 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Lou, 2018 ) and the immersion approach (Aybek, 2006 ; Yıldırım & Şensoy, 2011 ) on the CT skills and dispositions of students, CT teaching with the general and immersion approaches improved students’ CT dispositions. Thus, as found in the present study, significant improvement of students’ CT dispositions through CT teaching with the general and immersion approaches is consistent with the results of previous research. In line with this study, in studies that have reported sufficient data to calculate the effect size value, the general approach to CT teaching (Aybek, 2006 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Lou, 2008; Yıldırım, 2010 ) had large effect on improving CT dispositions. Also, according to results of most studies (Aybek, 2006 ; Yıldırım & Şensoy, 2011 ), the immersion approach to CT teaching had large effect size for improving CT dispositions. Therefore, it can be said that previous studies reported larger effect sizes than this study for immersion approach. Also, it was found that CT teaching with the general approach was more effective in improving the CT dispositions of the students compared with the CT teaching with immersion and mixed approaches. Furthermore, CT teaching with mixed approach improved the CT dispositions of high-school students more than CT teaching with the immersion approach, but the difference between these two approaches was not significant. One can therefore argue that the most-effective approach to improving the CT dispositions of high-school students was the general approach, which was followed by the mixed approach and the immersion approach, respectively.

It is possible to speak of a significant correlation between CT skills and CT dispositions (Bailey et al., 2020 ; Facione & Facione, 1997 ; Profetto-McGrath, 2003 ). Accordingly, when one of them is improved, the other one also will be improved. Hence, it is an unsurprising but important result that CT teaching with the high-school students based on general, immersion, and mixed approaches improved both their CT skills and dispositions. Indeed, having high CT skills alone is not enough for using those CT skills in life (Paul & Elder, 2001 ) and what makes an individual a good critical thinker is having both high CT skills and high CT dispositions (Profetto-McGrath, 2003 ). It is therefore important that CT teaching using different approaches in the present study significantly improved both skills and dispositions. That is exactly why effective CT teaching should be designed to improve both CT skills and CT dispositions. Individuals can only become good critical thinkers after they acquire CT skills, are willing to use them when necessary, make such willingness into a habit, and attach value and importance those skills (Fisher, 2001 ).

In short, this study revealed that the CT skills and dispositions of ninth-grade students can be enhanced with general, immersion, and mixed approach. However, the general approach was more effective than the other two teaching approaches for enhancing CT skills and dispositions. These results, which are confirmed by previous literature and in line with theoretical background and expectations derived from previous research, are noteworthy because they provide important evidence about how to teach CT best in learning environments. The results obtained in this study can guide educators, researchers, and professionals in organizing learning environments to provide individuals with the best opportunity to enhance CT. According to the results of this study, CT teaching can be performed with the general, immersion, or mixed approach. However, it is recommended to give weight to CT teaching with general approach in learning environments via workshops and club activities because it has the largest effect on the improvement of both CT skills and dispositions. In other words, learning environments designed to enhance CT with the general approach are more effective in developing individuals’ CT skills and dispositions.

This study contributes to the relevant literature on CT teaching because, although there are other experimental studies that examined the effect of different CT teaching approaches, studies comparing the effectiveness of these CT teaching approaches are scarce. Therefore, a novelty of this study is that it included the mixed approach, which has been investigated less compared with the other two teaching approaches, and it compared how the three most-basic approaches to CT teaching affect CT skills and dispositions.

Limitations and future studies

There were certain limitations in the present study. The first limitation is that the study was conducted with four ninth-grade classes of one high school in northern Turkey. Similar experimental studies in the future could be carried out with student groups from different educational levels to compare the effects of different CT teaching approaches with the results of this study. Also, because this study compared only three CT teaching approaches (general, immersion, and mixed), the omission of the infusion approach can be seen another limitation of this study. Future experimental studies could compare the effect of the infusion approach with other CT teaching approaches. Another limitation is that the duration of CT teaching was limited to ten weeks in the study. Future longer-term studies could compare the effects of different CT teaching approaches. Lastly, because the research data were only collected with quantitative measures, future qualitative or mixed research could allow an in-depth investigation of the effect of CT teaching approaches in fostering the CT skills and/or dispositions of students.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., 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.

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Edwan, Z. S. M. (2011). The effectiveness of a training program based on cognitive research trust strategies to develop seventh grade students’ critical thinking in history course. Journal of Social Sciences , 7 (3), 436–442.

Al-Zou’bi, R. (2021). The impact of media and information literacy on acquiring the critical thinking skill by the educational faculty’s students. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 39 , 1–7.

Google Scholar  

Alwehaibi, H. (2012). Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher education students: Empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science , 8 (11), 193–204.

Arı, D. (2020). The effect of skills-based critical thinking education on critical thinking skills of 4th grade students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Çukurova University, Adana.

Arısoy, B., & Aybek, B. (2021). The effects of subject-based critical thinking education in mathematics on students’ critical thinking skills and virtues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research , 92 , 99–120.

Aybek, B. (2006). The Effect of content and skill based critical thinking teaching on prospective teachers’ disposition and level in critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Çukurova University, Adana.

Bailey, K. G. D., Rembold, L., & Abreu, C. M. (2020). Critical thinking dispositions and skills in the undergraduate research methods classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology , 6 (2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000158 .

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31 (3), 285–302.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990, April). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking . Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Bağ, H. K. (2020). The effect of critical thinking embedded English course curriculum to the improvement of critical thinking skills of the 7th grade secondary school learners. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Uludağ University, Bursa.

Bayrak, Ç. (2014). The effects of using the expanding (CoRT 1) thinking program in the unit ‘electricity in our lives’ in primary education 7th -grade lesson, science and technology, to students’ academic achievement, scientific creativity and tendency of critical thinking. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning , 8 (2), 25–42.

Bellaera, L., Weinstein-Jones, Y., Ilie, S., & Baker, S. T. (2021). Critical thinking in practice: The priorities and practices of instructors teaching in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 41 , 100856, 1–16.

Beyer, B. (1991). Teaching thinking skills: A handbook for elementary school teachers . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific Research Models] (16th ed.). Pegem Publishing.

Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., & Ortiz, J. (2020). Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 37 , 1–18.

Chang, C. Y., Kao, C. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Facilitating students’ critical thinking and decision making performances: A flipped classroom for neonatal health care training. Educational Technology & Society , 23 (2), 32–46.

Çeviker Ay, Ş., & Orhan, A. (2020). The effect of different critical thinking teaching approaches on critical thinking skills: A meta-analysis study. Pamukkale University Journal of Education , 49 , 88–111.

Daniel, M., & Auriac, E. (2011). Philosophy, critical thinking and philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 43 (5), 415–435.

De Bono, E. (2019). What is CoRT?. http://www.cortthinking.com/front-page-aims-cort .

Eldeleklioğlu, J., & Özkılıç, R. (2008). The effect of critical thinking education on critical thinking skills of psychological guidance and counseling students. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal , 3 (29), 25–36.

Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi , 37 (1), 165–184.

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher , 18 (3), 4–10.

Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice , 32 (3), 179–186.

Ennis, R. H. (1991). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking . Ascd.

Ennis, R. H. (1997). Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to some basic issues. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 16 (3), 1–9.

Epstein, R. L., & Kernberger, C. (2012). Critical thinking . Advanced Reasoning Forum.

Facione, N. C., & Facione, P. A. (1997). Critical thinking assessment in nursing education programs: An aggregate data analysis . California Academic Press.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods , 39 (2), 175–191.

Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction . Cambridge University Press.

Fung, D., & Howe, C. (2012). Liberal studies in Hong Kong: A new perspective on critical thinking through group work. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 7 , 101–111.

Gann, D. (2013). A few considerations on critical thinking instruction . http://www.saitamacityeducators.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/A-Few-Considerations-on-CriticalThinking-Instruction.pdf .

Hager, P., & Kaye, M. (1992). Critical thinking in teacher education: A process-oriented research agenda. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 17 (2), 26–33.

Halpern, D. (2003). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning . Academic Press.

Ian, W. (2002). Challenging students with the tools of critical thinking. Social Studies , 93 (6), 257–261.

Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., Ricketts, J., Friedel, C., & Rhoades, E. (2007). Critical thinking instrumentation manual . http://step.ufl.edu/resources/critical_thinking/ctmanual.pdf .

Jensen, R. D. Jr. (2015). The effectiveness of the socratic method in developing critical thinking skills in English language learners. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Grace University, Nebraska.

Kaeppel, K. (2021). The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 40 , 100809, 1–9.

Karadağ, F., & Demirtaş, V. Y. (2018). The effectiveness of the philosophy with children curriculum on critical thinking skills of pre-school children. Education & Science , 43 (195), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7268 .

Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol, & B. Fly Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kılıç, H. E., & Şen, A. (2014). Turkish adaptation study of UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument. Education and Science , 39 (176), 1–12.

Ku, K. Y. L., Ho, I. T., Hau, K. T., & Lai, E. C. M. (2014). Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study. Instructional Science , 42 , 251–269.

Kurnaz, A. (2007). Effects of skill and content-based critical thinking training on students’ critical thinking skills, achievement and attitudes in the fifth grade course of social knowledge of primary school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Selçuk University, Konya.

Larsson, K. (2017). Understanding and teaching critical thinking—A new approach. International Journal of Educational Research , 84 , 32–42.

Lee, Y. L. (2018). Nurturing critical thinking for implementation beyond the classroom: Implications from social psychological theories of behaviour change. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 27 , 139–146.

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice , 32 (3), 131–137.

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education . Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking–What can it be? Educational Leadership , 46 (1), 38–43.

Lombardi, L., Thomas, V., Rodeyns, J., Mednick, F. J., Backer, F. D., & Lombaerts, K. (2021). Primary school teachers’ experiences of teaching strategies that promote pupils’ critical thinking. Educational Studies , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1990017 .

Lou, J. (2018). Improvement in university students’ critical thinking following a strategic thinking training program. NeuroQuantology , 16 (5), 91–96.

Lopez, M., Jimenez, J. M., Martin-Gil, B., Fernandez-Castro, M., Cao, M. J., Frutos, M., & Castro, M. J. (2020). The impact of an educational intervention on nursing students’ critical thinking skills: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today , 85 , 104305, 1–6.

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 6 , 1–13.

Mason, M. (2008). Critical thinking and learning . Blackwell Publishing.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education . St Martins Press.

Nicholas, M., & Raider, M. (2011, November). Approaches used by faculty to assess critical thinking–Implications for general education. 36th ASHE annual conference, North Carolina, the USA.

Orhan, A., & Çeviker Ay, Ş. (2022). Developing the Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9 (1), 130-142.

Özgenel, M. (2018). Modeling the relationships between school administrators’ creative and critical thinking dispositions with decision making styles and problem solving skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice , 18 , 673–700.

Paul, R., Binker, A. J. A., Jensen, K., & Kreklau, H. (1990). Critical thinking handbook: 4th – 6th grades: A guide for remodeling lesson plans in language, arts, social studies & science . Foundation for Critical Thinking, Sonoma State University.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life . Prentice Hall.

Presseisen, B. Z. (1985). Thinking skills throughout the K-12 curriculum: A conceptual design . Research for Better Schools.

Payan-Carreira, R., Cruz, G., Papathanasiou, I. V., Fradelos, E., & Jiang, L. (2019). The effectiveness of critical thinking instructional strategies in health professions education: a systematic review. Studies in Higher Education , 44 (5), 829–843.

Plath, D., English, B., Connors, L., & Beveridge, A. (1999). Evaluating the outcomes of intensive critical thinking instruction for social work students. Social Work Education , 18 (2), 207–217.

Profetto-McGrath, J. (2003). The relationship of critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 43 (6), 569–577.

Profetto-McGrath, J., Hasketh, K. L., Lang, S., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2003). A study of critical thinking and research utilization among nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research , 25 (3), 322–337.

Rahdar, A., Pourghaz, A., & Marziyeh, A. (2018). The impact of teaching philosophy for children on critical openness and reflective skepticism in developing critical thinking and self-efficacy. International Journal of Instruction , 11 (3), 539–556.

Reed, J. H., & Kromrey, J. D. (2001). Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal , 35 (2), 201–215.

Ruggerio, V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum . Harper & Row.

Şahin, E. (2016). The effect of argumentation based science learning approach on academic success, metacognition and critical thinking skills of gifted students . Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.

Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform: Lessons from around the World, International Summit on the Teaching Profession . OECD Publishing.

Schreglmann, S., & Karakuş, M. (2017). The effect of educational interfaces on the critical thinking and the academic achievement. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education , 13 (3), 839–855.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2005). The critical thinking community . Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org .

Smith, T. E., Rama, P. S., & Helms, J. R. (2018). Teaching critical thinking in a GE class: A flipped model. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 28 , 73–83.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

Taghinezhad, A., & Riasati, M. J. (2020). The interplay of critical thinking explicit instruction, academic writing performance, critical thinking ability, and critical thinking dispositions: An experimental study. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation , 13 , 143–165. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.4594 .

Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies , 4 (1), 1–17.

Van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching , 53 (1), 41–48.

Watson, G., & Glaser, M. E. (1994). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal form S manual . The Psychological Corporation.

Welch, K. C., Hieb, J., & Graham, J. (2015). A systematic approach to teaching critical thinking skills to electrical and computer engineering undergraduates. American Journal of Engineering Education , 6 (2), 113–123.

Williams, R. L., & Worth, S. L. (2001). The relationship of critical thinking to success in college. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 21 (1), 5–16.

Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review , 109 (4), 21–32.

World Economic Forum (2020). The future of jobs report. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf .

Yıldırım, B. (2010). The effect of skill based critical thinking education on the development of critical thinking in nurse students. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ege University, İzmir.

Yıldırım, H., & Şensoy, Ö. (2011). The effect of science instruction based on critical thinking skills on critical thinking disposition of the 7th -grade primary school students. Kastamonu Education Journal , 19 (2), 523–540.

Yuan, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Klunklin, A., & Williams, B. A. (2008). Improvement of nursing students’ critical thinking skills through problem based learning in the People’s Republic of China: A quasi-experimental study. Nursing and Health Sciences , 10 , 70–76.

Zulkifli, H., & Hashim, R. (2020). Philosophy for children (P4C) in improving critical thinking in a secondary moral education class. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research , 19 (2), 29–45.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is based on Ali ORHAN’s PhD thesis which was supervised by Şule ÇEVİKER AY.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey

Faculty of Education, Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey

Şule Çeviker Ay

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Orhan .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Orhan, A., Çeviker Ay, Ş. How to teach critical thinking: an experimental study with three different approaches. Learning Environ Res 26 , 199–217 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09413-1

Download citation

Received : 07 July 2021

Revised : 04 March 2022

Accepted : 03 May 2022

Published : 25 June 2022

Issue Date : April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09413-1

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 teaching
• General approach
• High-school students
• immersion approach
• Mixed approach
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Inquiry: A dialectical approach to teaching critical thinking

Related Papers

John P. Portelli

Educational Theory

Mark Weinstein

Rebecca Tallent

Using the Maieutic Socratic Method throughout a semester can be a useful pedagogical approach for generating critical thinking through cognitive dissonance in general education, humanities and media-related education courses. By using the Maieutic Method, many important lessons and truths can be transferred through a question and answer that aims to create cognitive dissonance and encourage independent critical thought. In essence, the student learns not by listening to the instructor, but by interacting with the instructor and other participants.

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Jennifer W Mulnix

As a philosophy professor, one of my central goals is to teach students to think critically. However, one difficulty with determining whether critical thinking can be taught, or even measured, is that there is widespread disagreement over what critical thinking actually is. Here, I reflect on several conceptions of critical thinking, subjecting them to critical scrutiny. I also distinguish critical thinking from other forms of mental processes with which it is often conflated. Next, I present my own conception of critical thinking, wherein it fundamentally consists in acquiring, developing, and exercising the ability to grasp inferential connections holding between statements. Finally, given this account of critical thinking, and given recent studies in cognitive science, I suggest the most effective means for teaching students to think critically.

Michael DeCesare

Peter Ellerton

Critical thinking is an educational priority, a foundational 21st century skill and essential to building cultures of innovation and responsible citizenship. While critical thinking is often incorporated into curricula—for example, as “general capabilities” (Australia), “common core” (USA) or “core competencies” (Canada)—little guidance is provided to regular classroom teachers about how to teach critical thinking or how to embed it in classroom practice. This paper outlines the theoretical and practical approach to teaching critical thinking developed by the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project (UQCTP), a professional learning program that has for the past decade assisted thousands of teachers across hundreds of schools, nationally and internationally, in developing pedagogical expertise in ‘teaching for thinking’. In this paper research findings from one Australian secondary school’s ‘whole-of-school’ commitment to pedagogical transformation are presented as proof of...

Argumentation

Harvey Siegel

Gary Richmond

Critical thinking can help its practitioners understand the issues in society. The authors discuss the method involved in evaluating the validity of arguments and the need for teaching and using critical thinking skills across the curriculum. Introduction Critical thinking, simply stated, is arriving at conclusions based on the legitimacy of one&#39;s research. &quot;Legitimacy&quot; is the operative word here, for the critical thinking process eradicates faulty thinking patterns and, in particular, those known as fallacies. Why is this process important in today&#39;s teaching climate? With controversies like the 2000 Presidential election, the McVeigh execution, the Megan&#39;s Law Internet connection, and, above all, the September 11th tragedy, there can be little doubt that improved critical thinking could provide a means of combating tendencies that might undermine some basic democratic rights on no firmer foundation than raw emotion, popular opinion, ideology and certain infle...

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

Martin Davies

A rehearsal of a new way of teaching critical thinking by means of computer-aided argument mapping and a procedural method by which to do so.

Stuart Hanscomb

RELATED PAPERS

VII. Ulusal Mekanik Kongresi

Oguz C. Celik

Luiza Fernandes

Applied Economics Letters

Serdar Sayan

Solange Rutz

Journal of the American …

Ahvie Herskowitz

Maria Rita Assumpção

Analia De Jesus Moreira

Giuseppa Tanda

BMC Nursing

deniz harputlu

Laurent LACHERY

Rafael Oliveira

Escola Anna Nery

Alex Sandro das Chagas

Dwi agustina

Journal of the Optical Society of America B

Ubaid Ullah

Educere et Educare

Luiz Novaes

rachmi fanani hakim

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Fernando Frei

Journal of Pediatric Nursing

Barbara Peace

Osman Demirdogen

BMC Research Notes

Francisco Hernández-Bernal

African Health Sciences

Diana Tuekpe

International Journal of Business Strategies

Willy Muturi

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Jeong Beom Kim

Yaima de la Caridad Vazquez Torres

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

How to teach critical thinking: an experimental study with three different approaches

1 School of Foreign Languages, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey

Şule Çeviker Ay

2 Faculty of Education, Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of critical thinking (CT) teaching involving general, immersion, and mixed approaches on the CT skills and dispositions of high-school students. The study, which had three experimental groups (EG) and one control group, employed a pretest–posttest control-group quasi-experimental design. CT teaching was initiated with a general approach in EG I, an immersion approach in EG II, and a mixed approach in EG III. The Critical Thinking Skill Test and UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument were used to collect the data. General, immersion, and mixed approaches improved CT skills and dispositions, with a large effect size for the improvement of CT skills. CT teaching with general, immersion, and mixed approaches had large, moderate, and small effects, respectively, on improving CT dispositions. In terms of improving CT skills and dispositions, the most effective approach, respectively, was the general, mixed, and immersion approach.

Introduction

Critical thinking (CT), in many classifications of higher-order thinking skills in the literature (Lipman, 2003 ; Presseisen, 1985 ), is a functional and sensible way of thinking that is employed by individuals for deciding what to believe or to do in the face of problems (Ennis, 1991 ). CT is basically individuals’ act of defending themselves against the world in an era when a great amount of information is easily accessible or several people try to influence us or our thoughts (Epstein & Kernberger, 2012 ). Individuals acquire healthy and accurate information about their surroundings through CT by questioning, examining, and evaluating information. That evaluation is the task of reviewing the underlying reasons and looking for sound evidence to decide whether the information is accurate or not (Mason, 2008 ). Thanks to CT, individuals evaluate the sensibility and accuracy of information, claims and judgements and, after that, come to conclusion (Lewis & Smith, 1993 ).

Another major point about CT is that it involves not only skills such as inference, deduction or interpretation, but also a disposition towards using those skills such as being open-minded, systematic, or willing to seek the truth (Ennis, 2018 ). According to Paul & Elder ( 2001 ), CT dispositions are regarded as vital as CT skills because having high CT skills is not enough to use those skills in everyday life. Therefore, it can be said that individuals can be seen as good critical thinkers only when they have high CT skills and dispositions together (Profetto-McGrath, 2003 ). If the individual does not have a strong inclination towards using CT skills, these skills might not be used by the individual; on the other hand, without having high CT skills, having high CT dispositions might be meaningless (Profetto-McGrath et al., 2003 ). Therefore, it is important for individuals to have high CT skills and strong dispositions together.

As one of the most essential skills that students from all educational levels should possess (Ennis, 2018 ; Kaeppel, 2021 ), CT attracts much-deserved attention in the business world as well (Al-Zou’bi, 2021 ). The Future of Jobs Report (World Economic Forum, 2020 ) lists CT among the top ten skills to be required in the business world in 2025. Moreover, the International Summit on the Teaching Profession held in 2016 listed CT as being among the most-important skills for elementary-school students who are still studying and will start their careers approximately in 2030 (Schleicher, 2016 ).

In this century, there is consensus on the importance of CT for societies, but debate on how it is to be taught is still in progress (Bellaera et al., 2021 ; Lombardi et al., 2021 ). CT skills can be taught to everyone through an appropriate education (Kennedy et al., 1991 ; Scriven & Paul, 2005 ) regardless of age (Bailin et al., 1999 ) or level of intelligence (Lewis & Smith, 1993 ). However, there are different opinions on how such appropriate education of CT will be performed. In the literature, approaches to CT teaching are addressed under the four topics of infusion, immersion, general, and mixed approaches (Ennis, 1991 ).

The main point in the infusion approach is to teach CT skills and the subject area explicitly. Hence, the teacher has two main objectives which are to teach the subject area and foster CT skills. Students utilize their CT skills by adapting them to the subject area (Gann, 2013 ). In the immersion approach, CT skills should not be taught explicitly when information on the subject area is conveyed to students (Hager & Kaye, 1992 ). Therefore, its significant difference from the infusion approach is that the students are not taught CT skills directly. In the immersion approach, it is considered that CT skills develop automatically through activities such as discussion, pair work, group work, and problem solving which are utilized when teaching the subject area (Gann, 2013 ). The main assumption which underlies this approach is that CT skills depend on given content and that, without acquiring information about the subject area first, individuals cannot utilize their CT skills on that specific area (McPeck, 1981 ; Willingham, 2008 ). Thus, teaching CT skills along with the subject area yields more-effective results than teaching skills independently of the subject area (Daniel & Auriac, 2011 ; Mason, 2008 ). Having a deep relationship with the subject area, CT skills cannot be converted into behavior by students who do not possess sufficient knowledge on the subject area (Willingham, 2008 ). The CT process is about the content of thinking, and these skills cannot be learned at once and easily transferred to different areas. According to Ruggerio ( 1988 ), there are two main reasons why CT is taught along with content. One reason is the challenge of ensuring that CT skills become retentive in students, and the other reason is that infusion of CT skills across the course content increases interest, desire, and motivation with regards to the course.

In the general approach, CT should be taught independently of the subject area. Accordingly, there is no need for any content in CT teaching (Ennis, 1997 ) and one should attempt to teach students CT skills within the scope of a separate course (Ennis, 1997 ; Ian, 2002 ). Content in the general approach is the CT skills itself. Indeed, when CT skills are taught in a separate course, it is ensured that students’ only focus is those skills (Gann, 2013 ; Lipman, 1988 ). Instead of struggling with learning information in the subject area, students spend their energy and effort on acquiring the CT skills (Ian, 2002 ). In addition, for a student who has acquired CT skills independently of a subject area, it is easier to transfer those skills to different subject areas, outside-school contexts, or the real world (Ennis, 1997 ; Haskell, 2001 ). While fostering CT skills, students need well-planned practices, which are only possible through CT teaching in a separate course (Van Gelder, 2005 ).

The mixed approach utilizes general and infusion or immersion approaches to CT teaching together (Nicholas & Raider, 2011 ). In this approach, CT teaching starts with the general approach and continues with the infusion or immersion approach, or the infusion or immersion approach is followed by the general approach (Gann, 2013 ). Reviewing the studies that involve CT teaching with several approaches, Kennedy et al., ( 1991 ) state that, because those approaches are not superior to each other, one should use the mixed approach. Indeed, the mixed approach allows combining the strengths of general, infusion and immersion approaches.

Previous studies on teaching CT

Arısoy & Aybek ( 2021 ) conducted an experimental study to examine the effect of CT teaching with the general approach on students’ CT skills and dispositions and concluded that it enhanced students’ CT skills ( η ²=0.52) and dispositions ( η ²=0.66) with large effect sizes. Also, in their study aiming to investigate the effect of CT teaching with the immersion approach on CT skills, Schreglmann & Karakuş ( 2017 ) concluded that it enhanced students’ CT skills with a large effect size. Besides, in their study investigating the effect of CT teaching with general approach on CT skills and dispositions, Taghinezhad & Riasati ( 2020 ) found that teaching CT explicitly enhanced students’ CT skills ( d  = 2.83) and dispositions ( d =  0.80) with large effects. Aybek ( 2006 ) conducted a study with two experimental groups and one control group to compare the effect of immersion and general approaches on CT skills and dispositions. In her study with university students, Aybek ( 2006 ) used CoRT 1 program to teach CT skills explicitly and used the immersion approach in social sciences lesson. CT teaching both with the general approach (skills d  = 2.19, dispositions d  = 2.01) and the immersion approach (skills d  = 1.10, dispositions d  = 1.08) enhanced students’ CT skills and dispositions. Also, it is possible to say that CT teaching with the general approach enhances students’ CT skills and dispositions more than the immersion approach (skills η 2  = 0.43, dispositions η 2  = 0.19).

In their study with two experimental and one control groups, Marin & Halpern ( 2011 ) examined the effect of the general and immersion approaches on the CT skills of high-school students. According to Marin & Halpern ( 2011 ), both general ( d  = 0.67) and immersion approaches ( d  = 0.25) increase students’ CT skills. Also, the general approach is more effective than the immersion approach to enhance CT skills ( d  = 0.51). When Kurnaz (2017) compared the effect of general and immersion approaches on CT skills, the general approach was more effective than the immersion approach in enhancing CT skills ( η 2  = 0.23). Also, there have been many other experimental studies which concluded that the general approach (Arı, 2020 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Karadağ & Demirtaş, 2018 ; Rahdar et al., 2018 ; Zulkifli & Hashim, 2020 ), the immersion approach (Bağ, 2020 ; Fung & Howe, 2012 ; Reed & Kromrey, 2001 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ) and the mixed approach (Ku et al., 2014 ; Plath et al., 1999 ) enhances CT. Although there have been several experimental studies of the effectiveness of these approaches, there is no consensus about which approach is more effective (Cáceres et al., 2020 ; Larsson, 2017 ). Moreover, there are a few studies that compared the effect of immersion and general approaches to CT teaching (Aybek, 2006 ; Kurnaz, 2007 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Williams & Worth, 2001 ).

Thus, with the aim of comparing the effects of immersion, general, and mixed approaches on CT, this study is important. Also, our study is important for addressing the mixed approach in addition to the immersion and general approaches which have been studied more frequently, thus making it possible to compare how the three most basic approaches to CT teaching affect CT. Besides, this study is important for learning environments that aim to enhance CT because it provides some important evidence for the best approach for teaching CT.

Research questions

Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of CT teaching involving general, immersion, and mixed approaches on the CT skills and dispositions of high-school students. To this end, answers to the following questions were sought for:

• Are there any significant differences in the Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students (CTST) pretest and posttest scores between a control group and (a) the experimental group (EG) I for which CT teaching involved the general approach, (b) the EG II group for which CT teaching involved the immersion approach, and (c) the EG III group for which CT teaching involved the mixed approach?
• Are there any significant differences among the CTST posttest scores of the students in the EG I, II, III, and control groups?
• Are there any significant differences between EG I, II, III and the control groups in terms of students’ scores on the UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument (CTDI) pretest and posttest?
• Are there any significant differences between the EG I, II, III, and the control groups in terms of students’ CTDI posttest scores?

Research design

In this study, a pretest–posttest control-group quasi-experimental design was employed. While CT skills and CT dispositions were the dependent variables, the general, immersion, and mixed approaches to CT teaching were the independent variables. In this research design, groups are randomly assigned (Büyüköztürk et al., 2014 ). Our study was quasi-experimental because the existing classes were utilized at the high school where the study was carried out. Of four randomly-chosen classes, three were assigned as EGs, and one was assigned as the control group. Table  1 presents the design used in the research.

Design used in the research

EG I: general approach

EG II: immersion approach

EG III: mixed approach

CG: control group

CTST: Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students

CTDI: UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument

CT teaching was initiated with the general approach in EG I, with the immersion approach in EG II, and with the mixed approach in EG III. In EG III, CT teaching was started with general approach and finished with the immersion approach. No experimental procedures were followed in the control group, and the students in this group continued their curriculum being practiced in their school. The CTST and CTDI were implemented as pretests and posttests in all groups.

Study group

The study group consisted of 114 ninth-grade students studying in four different classes of a high school in northern Turkey in the academic year of 2019–2020. There were six ninth-grade classes in the high school and four of them were randomly chosen. After that, the classes were randomly assigned as EGs and a control group. All students voluntarily participated in the study and none of them had received any previous training on CT. Ninth-grade high-school students were chosen as the study group because generating positive attitudes and behaviors including CT skills and dispositions is easier with younger ages (Lee, 2018 ; Lombardi et al., 2021 ). Before the study, when a priori power analysis for conducting a one-way ANOVA with 4 groups was carried out using Faul et al.’s ( 2007 ) G*Power 3 software program, it was found that the minimal sample size of students needed for this study (alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95) to have a large effect ( η 2  = 0.25) was 56 based on the previous experimental studies (Aybek, 2006 ; Kurnaz, 2017; Marin & Halpern 2011 ). Therefore, the sample size of 114 in this study was adequate.

As it can be seen in Table  2 , there were 29 students in EG I, 26 students in EG II, 29 students in EG III, and 30 students in the control group. Of the students in EG I, 65.5% are females and 34.5% are males. Mothers of those students are graduates of high school (31%), university (27.6%), primary school (20.7%), and secondary school (20.7%), respectively. The majority of their fathers are graduates of high school (41.4%) and university (41.4). Of the students in EG II, 61.5% are females and 38.5% are males. The majority of their mothers are graduates of primary school and secondary school (53.8%) and 23.1% of the mothers are university graduates. Fathers of EG II students are graduates of high school (38.5%), university (26.9%) and secondary school (19.2%). Of the students in EG III, 55.2% are females and 44.8% are males. The majority of their mothers are high school graduates (44.8%), with 20.75% of mothers who are university graduates (20.7%) and 20.7% of mothers who are graduates of primary school. The majority of their fathers are graduates of high school and university (69%). Of the control group students, 53.3% are females and 46.7% are males, with 33.3% of their mothers being university graduates while 30% of them graduated from high school. 33.3% of their fathers are university graduates, whereas 30% of them graduated from high school.

Demographic characteristics of students in EGs and control group

The students can enroll and study in the high school in which the study was conducted after a nationwide examination. Therefore, it is possible to say that the students in four groups are comparable to each other in terms of academic success. Also, because it is a public high school, families of the students in all groups had similar socio-economic backgrounds.

As presented in Table  3 and ​ and4, 4 , there was no statistically-significant difference between the three EGs and one control group for the pretest scores of students for the CTST ( X 2 (sd=3, n=114)  = 6.555, p  > 0.05) and the CTDI ( F (114)  = 2.273; p  > 0.05).

Kruskal-Wallis H test results for CTST pretest scores

One-Way ANOVA test results for CTDI pretest scores for four groups

In the EGs, the courses were held for two class hours a week for ten weeks in total. The duration of the courses was 40 min. The researcher was the instructor of the courses for all EGs. Control group students continued the curriculum being taught in their school and no experimental procedures were followed in this group. The researcher did not have any extra teaching motivation when implementing CT activities in three EGs not to influence the results of the current study. Besides, the researcher did not perform any extra activities to increase student motivation in any EGs and just followed the pre-prepared lesson plans. The activities and materials related to CT teaching were conducted in all groups just as planned by the researcher. The researcher formed a democratic classroom environment as much as possible during the teaching and organized the classroom to allow group work and 10–15 min breaks between two courses in all groups.

CT teaching with general approach

In CT teaching with the general approach in EG I, six steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) and part one of CoRT thinking program developed by De Bono ( 2019 ) were utilized. In those courses of EG I, CT skills were taught explicitly, with the students being informed of the objective. Beyer ( 1991 ) suggests six steps for CT teaching with the general approach: introduction, guided practice, independent practice, transfer, guided practice, and autonomous practice. In fact, it is possible to consider the steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) in two groups because the first three steps and the last three steps are similar to each other. While the first three steps are related to the learning of the skill, the last three steps are related to the transfer of the skill to different areas. Both three-step sections start with guided practices and end with autonomous practices of the skill. Six steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) start with informing students of the skill and end with students’ autonomous use of the skill. In this process, progression starts in company with a guide and continues as an independent practice. The instructional plan used in the present study was prepared in consideration of the steps suggested by Beyer ( 1991 ) and using the CoRT 1 thinking program for CT teaching with the general approach. In the courses, students were explicitly taught about CT skills before being asked to use these skills in five distinct activities. During those activities, teacher guidance was gradually reduced, with the last activity being completed independently by the student. Next, the process was discussed with the students and the principles for using the skills were agreed upon mutually.

CT teaching with immersion approach

Because the content used for CT teaching in EG II was environmental education, students were taught the CT skills indirectly through immersion in environmental education rather than explicitly. The instructional plans used for CT teaching with immersion approach were prepared based on the instructional plan development process developed by Paul et al., ( 1990 ) which involves CT strategies. When designing the instructional plans, the three CT strategies identified by Paul et al., ( 1990 ) (affective strategies, macro-abilities, and micro-skills) were embedded into the plans. In the courses, students’ attention was drawn to the subject, the students were informed of that day’s objective, and the stimulating material was presented. Then, the subject was presented to students and learning was guided. Finally, activities were performed to allow students to exhibit the target behaviors, and the course was completed with an activity which made it easier for the student to recall the subject. During the courses, activities such as group work, discussion, pair work, and problem solving were utilized a lot to teach the subject related to environmental education.

CT teaching with mixed approach

The CT teaching in EG III was conducted with the general approach in the first five weeks and the immersion approach with environmental education in the last five weeks. The same lesson plans used for CT teaching with general and immersion approach were also used in mixed CT teaching.

Control group

No procedures were followed for the control group students other than the implementation of the measures as pretests and posttests. These students experienced the courses within their curriculum, which was checked to see whether the control group students took any courses or carried out activities about CT in the spring term of 2019–2020 academic year. It was understood that no effort had been made regarding the CT teaching.

After the pretests had been implemented in four groups in the first week of the spring term in 2019–2020 academic year, the experimental procedure was started in the second week of the term. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, instructional materials and plans were adapted to distant education so that the final four weeks of the experimental procedure were completed with online classes.

Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students (CTST)

The CTST developed by Orhan & Çeviker Ay ( 2022 ) was utilized to measure students’ CT skills. This test was based on the CT skills classification by Watson & Glaser ( 1994 ). It has 51 items in total and five sub-skills, namely, inference (10 items), evaluating arguments (8 items), deduction (11 items), recognizing assumptions (12 items) and interpretation (10 items). The test has multiple-choice items and was developed to evaluate students’ CT skills. Its mean item difficulty value and mean item discrimination value was 0.52 and 0.42, respectively. For the test’s criterion validity, the decision-making skill was used based on the previous literature (Chang et al., 2020 ; Halpern, 2003 ; Özgenel, 2018 ), and the students who were cautious and picky when making a decision were found to have significantly higher scores than students who acted complacently, panicked and tended to avoid taking responsibility when making a decision. KR20 reliability coefficients ranged between 0.62 and 0.76 for the sub-tests and was 0.87 for the total test. Students receive 0 point for their incorrect response and 1 point for correct answers, with the maximum score being 51 and minimum score being 0 for CTST.

UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument

The CTDI developed by Irani et al. ( 2007 ) and adapted to Turkish language by Kılıç & Şen ( 2014 ) was used to determine students’ CT dispositions. The instrument has the three sub-dimensions of engagement, maturity, and innovativeness. In adaptation study with 342 high school students by Kılıç & Şen ( 2014 ), one item was omitted from the instrument, but the other items were consistent with the original construct. Reliability estimates of the CTDI’s sub-dimensions ranged from 0.70 to 0.88 and it was 0.91 for the total scale. CFA conducted for the present study confirmed the three-factor structure of the instrument (χ 2 /sd = 2.05; RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.10). The reliability coefficients calculated for the present study were 0.85, 0.68, 0.70, and 0.86 for engagement, maturity, innovativeness, and total scale, respectively.

Data collection

Upon ethical committee approval (No. 2019/86 dated 5.11.2019) and research approval (No. E23489630 dated 27.11.2019), data were collected in the spring term of the 2019–2020 academic year. Pretests were administered in the first week of the term before the CT teaching started in all groups, whereas posttests were administered after the CT teaching finished in all groups. Students were informed about privacy and confidentiality issues, as well as their right to withdraw from the study whenever they want. Administration time for the CTST was about 40 min and for the CTDI was about 20 min.

Data analysis

SPSS 20 statistical software was used to analyze the data. Firstly, each variable was reviewed to see if there were any missing data, and no missing data were found. Then, normality was tested for data distribution. In this study, we used z transformation to determine outliers for each variable. Tabachnick & Fidell ( 2012 ) suggest that z -scores with values higher than 3.29 can be seen as potential outliers, but no outliers were found in this study. We also checked multivariate outliers with Mahalanobis Distance scores (Mahalanobis D 2 ), but no influential outliers were seen in the dataset. In this study, paired samples t tests were used to determine the effect of time on CT skills and dispositions of high school students in the groups with normally-distributed data, while the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was utilized in other groups. Furthermore, one-way ANOVA was conducted to analyze the effects of general, immersion, and mixed approaches on the CT skills and dispositions of students in the groups with normally-distributed data, while the Kruskal-Wallis H test was utilized in other groups.

Results on CT skills

The results of the paired-samples t test results for the CTST pretest and posttest scores of EG I students are shown in Table  5 , which indicates a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of EG I students ( t 29 =-10.482; p  < 0.05) in favor of the posttest. Moreover, the CT teaching with the general approach greatly improved CT skills of the high-school students ( d  = 3.04).

Paired samples t test for the CTST pretest and posttest scores of EG I students

As shown in Table  6 , a significant difference was found between the CTST pretest and posttest scores of EG II ( z =-4.335; p < 0.05) and EG III students ( z =-4.717; p < 0.05) in favor of the posttest. Both the immersion approach ( d  = 3.22) and the mixed approach ( d  = 3.52) to CT teaching greatly improved the CT skills of high-school students. There was no significant difference between the CTST pretest and posttest scores for the control group ( z =-0.480; p  > 0.05). In other words, the teaching in the control group did not improve students’ CT skills.

Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test for CTST pretest and posttest scores of EG II, III, and control groups

Kruskal-Wallis H test results for CTST posttest scores of the students in three EGs and control group

EG I = A EG II = B EG III = C Control Group = D

Results on CT dispositions

The results of the paired-samples t test results for the CTDI pretest and posttest scores of all groups are shown in Table  8 . This table shows a significant difference between CTDI pretest and posttest scores of EG I ( t 29 =-9.272, p  < 0.05), EG II ( t 26 =-5.872, p  < 0.05) and EG III ( t 29 =-4.167, p  < 0.05). CT teaching with the general approach had a large effect ( d  = 1.12), CT teaching with the immersion approach had a moderate effect ( d  = 0.74), and CT teaching with the mixed approach had a small effect ( d  = 0.44) on improving students’ CT dispositions. There was no significant difference between the CTDI pretest and posttest scores for the control group ( t 30 =-0.019, p  > 0.05).

Paired-samples t test for CTDI pretest and posttest scores of students in three EGs and control group

One-Way ANOVA test results for CTDI posttest scores of students in three EGs and control group

Conclusion and discussion

Discussion on ct skills.

Whereas general, immersion, and mixed approaches to CT teaching improved the CT skills of high-school students, no improvement was observed in the skills of the control group. General, immersion, and mixed approaches were found to have a large effect size for the improvement of high-school students’ CT skills. As shown by meta-analysis seeking a general effect size by combining the results of experimental studies in the literature, the general approach (Çeviker Ay & Orhan, 2020 ; Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990 ) and immersion approach (Çeviker Ay & Orhan, 2020 ) to CT teaching are largely effective in improving the CT skills.

In line with the results of the present study, there are several experimental studies suggesting that CT teaching with the general approach (Al-Edwan, 2011 ; Alwehaibi, 2012 ; Arı, 2020 ; Arısoy & Aybek, 2021 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Karadağ & Demirtaş, 2018 ; Lou, 2018 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Rahdar et al., 2018 ; Smith et al., 2018 ; Taghinezhad & Riasati, 2020 ), immersion approach (Bağ, 2020 ; Fung & Howe, 2012 ; Jensen Jr., 2015 ; Lopez et al., 2020 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Reed & Kromrey, 2001 ; Zulkifli & Hashim, 2020 ) and mixed approach (Ku et al., 2014 ; Plath et al., 1999 ; Welch et al., 2015 ) significantly improved CT skills. Also, after examining experimental studies of CT teaching, Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 ) concluded that CT skills or dispositions were significantly improved in 80% of studies conducted with the general approach to CT teaching, 55% of studies conducted with the immersion approach to CT teaching and 67% of studies conducted with the mixed approach to CT teaching. Payan-Carreira et al. ( 2019 ) state that 70% of the studies utilizing the immersion approach and three of the four studies utilizing the mixed approach included in their research significantly improved CT skills and dispositions.

Most of the experimental studies concluding that CT teaching with different approaches significantly affected CT skills failed to report the effect size associated with this teaching. Therefore, in order to compare the results of our study with previous research in the literature, the effect sizes associated with the studies with the necessary data were calculated. According to the results of these studies whose effect size was calculated, the general approach (Alwehaibi, 2012 ; Aybek, 2006 ; Lou, 2018 ; Yıldırım, 2010 ) and the immersion approach (Aybek, 2006 ; Şahin, 2016 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ) had a large effect on CT skills.

The fact that all three approaches utilized in the present study significantly improved students’ CT skills with a large effect size coincides with the results of several studies in the literature. According to Kennedy et al., ( 1991 ), everyone can be taught CT skills through an appropriate education. Moreover, the success of CT teaching does not vary with whether individuals are gifted (Lewis & Smith, 1993 ) or with their age (Bailin et al., 1999 ; Kennedy et al., 1991 ). Indeed, various experimental studies conducted at different educational levels including primary education (Bayrak, 2014 ; Jensen, 2015 ) and undergraduate education (Aybek, 2006 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Welch et al., 2015 ) and with different age groups showed that CT skill is teachable. The fact that all of the CT teaching performed with different approaches in three EGs were effective in improving high-school students’ CT skills coincides with these considerations in the literature.

This study revealed that CT teaching with the general approach was more effective in improving students’ CT skills than CT teaching with the immersion and mixed approaches. Moreover, CT teaching with the mixed approach improved CT skills of high-school students more than CT teaching with the immersion approach. In improving CT skills of high-school students, the most-effective approach to CT teaching was the general approach, which was followed by the mixed and immersion approach, respectively.

In line with these results, several studies comparing the effects of immersion and general approaches to CT teaching on students’ CT skills indicated that the general approach was more effective than the immersion approach to CT teaching (Aybek, 2006 ; Kurnaz, 2007 ; Marin & Halpern, 2011 ; Williams & Worth, 2001 ). Behar-Horenstein & Niu ( 2011 ) suggest that when compared with other approaches, the immersion approach to CT teaching is the least effective in improving students’ CT skills. As argued by Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 ), the most-effective approach to improving students’ CT skills is the general approach followed by the mixed, infusion, and immersion approaches, respectively. According to Abrami et al. ( 2008 ), the least effective approach to improving students’ CT skills is the immersion approach. It is possible to say that the results obtained in the present study coincide with the results achieved by Behar-Horenstein & Niu ( 2011 ), Tiruneh et al. ( 2014 ) and Abrami et al. ( 2008 ).

Criticism of the immersion approach to CT teaching is based on the assumption that students who have neither learned CT skills explicitly nor had any explicit knowledge and understanding of those skills have difficulty in transferring their skills to other areas (Ennis, 1993 ). Accordingly, as for the students who acquired CT skills with the immersion approach through environmental education in this study, their skills would be limited to that subject area and they would fail to transfer their skills to everyday life and real-life situations (Ennis, 1989 ). Hence, the fact that the least-effective approach improving CT skills among high-school students was the immersion approach in the present study can be explained with these considerations that underpins the relevant criticism. The test used to measure CT skill in the research includes questions that are independent of environmental education and about real events derived from everyday life. Thus, one can argue that the students who had acquired CT skills within the scope of environmental education might have found it difficult to transfer their skills to everyday life compared with students who received CT teaching with general approach. Although CT teaching with the immersion approach improved the CT skills of high-school students effectively and significantly, that might explain why general and mixed approaches to CT teaching were more effective in enhancing students’ CT skills.

Discussion on CT dispositions

In this study, while the general, immersion, and mixed approaches to CT teaching improved the CT dispositions of high-school students, no improvement was observed in the dispositions of the control-group students. CT teaching with general, immersion, and mixed approaches had large, moderate, and small effects on improving students’ CT dispositions, respectively. In most of the experimental studies examining the effect of CT teaching with the general approach (Arısoy & Aybek, 2021 ; Aybek, 2006 ; Bayrak, 2014 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Lou, 2018 ) and the immersion approach (Aybek, 2006 ; Yıldırım & Şensoy, 2011 ) on the CT skills and dispositions of students, CT teaching with the general and immersion approaches improved students’ CT dispositions. Thus, as found in the present study, significant improvement of students’ CT dispositions through CT teaching with the general and immersion approaches is consistent with the results of previous research. In line with this study, in studies that have reported sufficient data to calculate the effect size value, the general approach to CT teaching (Aybek, 2006 ; Eldeleklioğlu & Özkılıç, 2008 ; Lou, 2008; Yıldırım, 2010 ) had large effect on improving CT dispositions. Also, according to results of most studies (Aybek, 2006 ; Yıldırım & Şensoy, 2011 ), the immersion approach to CT teaching had large effect size for improving CT dispositions. Therefore, it can be said that previous studies reported larger effect sizes than this study for immersion approach. Also, it was found that CT teaching with the general approach was more effective in improving the CT dispositions of the students compared with the CT teaching with immersion and mixed approaches. Furthermore, CT teaching with mixed approach improved the CT dispositions of high-school students more than CT teaching with the immersion approach, but the difference between these two approaches was not significant. One can therefore argue that the most-effective approach to improving the CT dispositions of high-school students was the general approach, which was followed by the mixed approach and the immersion approach, respectively.

It is possible to speak of a significant correlation between CT skills and CT dispositions (Bailey et al., 2020 ; Facione & Facione, 1997 ; Profetto-McGrath, 2003 ). Accordingly, when one of them is improved, the other one also will be improved. Hence, it is an unsurprising but important result that CT teaching with the high-school students based on general, immersion, and mixed approaches improved both their CT skills and dispositions. Indeed, having high CT skills alone is not enough for using those CT skills in life (Paul & Elder, 2001 ) and what makes an individual a good critical thinker is having both high CT skills and high CT dispositions (Profetto-McGrath, 2003 ). It is therefore important that CT teaching using different approaches in the present study significantly improved both skills and dispositions. That is exactly why effective CT teaching should be designed to improve both CT skills and CT dispositions. Individuals can only become good critical thinkers after they acquire CT skills, are willing to use them when necessary, make such willingness into a habit, and attach value and importance those skills (Fisher, 2001 ).

In short, this study revealed that the CT skills and dispositions of ninth-grade students can be enhanced with general, immersion, and mixed approach. However, the general approach was more effective than the other two teaching approaches for enhancing CT skills and dispositions. These results, which are confirmed by previous literature and in line with theoretical background and expectations derived from previous research, are noteworthy because they provide important evidence about how to teach CT best in learning environments. The results obtained in this study can guide educators, researchers, and professionals in organizing learning environments to provide individuals with the best opportunity to enhance CT. According to the results of this study, CT teaching can be performed with the general, immersion, or mixed approach. However, it is recommended to give weight to CT teaching with general approach in learning environments via workshops and club activities because it has the largest effect on the improvement of both CT skills and dispositions. In other words, learning environments designed to enhance CT with the general approach are more effective in developing individuals’ CT skills and dispositions.

This study contributes to the relevant literature on CT teaching because, although there are other experimental studies that examined the effect of different CT teaching approaches, studies comparing the effectiveness of these CT teaching approaches are scarce. Therefore, a novelty of this study is that it included the mixed approach, which has been investigated less compared with the other two teaching approaches, and it compared how the three most-basic approaches to CT teaching affect CT skills and dispositions.

Limitations and future studies

There were certain limitations in the present study. The first limitation is that the study was conducted with four ninth-grade classes of one high school in northern Turkey. Similar experimental studies in the future could be carried out with student groups from different educational levels to compare the effects of different CT teaching approaches with the results of this study. Also, because this study compared only three CT teaching approaches (general, immersion, and mixed), the omission of the infusion approach can be seen another limitation of this study. Future experimental studies could compare the effect of the infusion approach with other CT teaching approaches. Another limitation is that the duration of CT teaching was limited to ten weeks in the study. Future longer-term studies could compare the effects of different CT teaching approaches. Lastly, because the research data were only collected with quantitative measures, future qualitative or mixed research could allow an in-depth investigation of the effect of CT teaching approaches in fostering the CT skills and/or dispositions of students.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on Ali ORHAN’s PhD thesis which was supervised by Şule ÇEVİKER AY.

Publisher’s note

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

• Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Surkes MA, Tamim R, Zhang D. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 (4):1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Edwan ZSM. The effectiveness of a training program based on cognitive research trust strategies to develop seventh grade students’ critical thinking in history course. Journal of Social Sciences. 2011; 7 (3):436–442. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2011.436.442. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Zou’bi R. The impact of media and information literacy on acquiring the critical thinking skill by the educational faculty’s students. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021; 39 :1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alwehaibi H. Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher education students: Empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science. 2012; 8 (11):193–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arı, D. (2020). The effect of skills-based critical thinking education on critical thinking skills of 4th grade students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Çukurova University, Adana.
• Arısoy B, Aybek B. The effects of subject-based critical thinking education in mathematics on students’ critical thinking skills and virtues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2021; 92 :99–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aybek, B. (2006). The Effect of content and skill based critical thinking teaching on prospective teachers’ disposition and level in critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Çukurova University, Adana.
• Bailey KGD, Rembold L, Abreu CM. Critical thinking dispositions and skills in the undergraduate research methods classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 2020; 6 (2):133–149. doi: 10.1037/stl0000158. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR, Daniels LB. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 1999; 31 (3):285–302. doi: 10.1080/002202799183133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990, April). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking . Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
• Bağ, H. K. (2020). The effect of critical thinking embedded English course curriculum to the improvement of critical thinking skills of the 7th grade secondary school learners. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Uludağ University, Bursa.
• Bayrak, Ç. (2014). The effects of using the expanding (CoRT 1) thinking program in the unit ‘electricity in our lives’ in primary education 7th -grade lesson, science and technology, to students’ academic achievement, scientific creativity and tendency of critical thinking. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
• Behar-Horenstein LS, Niu L. Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning. 2011; 8 (2):25–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bellaera L, Weinstein-Jones Y, Ilie S, Baker ST. Critical thinking in practice: The priorities and practices of instructors teaching in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021; 41 :1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100856. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beyer B. Teaching thinking skills: A handbook for elementary school teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific Research Models] (16th ed.). Pegem Publishing.
• Cáceres M, Nussbaum M, Ortiz J. Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 :1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100674. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang CY, Kao CH, Hwang GJ. Facilitating students’ critical thinking and decision making performances: A flipped classroom for neonatal health care training. Educational Technology & Society. 2020; 23 (2):32–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Çeviker Ay Ş, Orhan A. The effect of different critical thinking teaching approaches on critical thinking skills: A meta-analysis study. Pamukkale University Journal of Education. 2020; 49 :88–111. doi: 10.9779/pauefd.561742. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel M, Auriac E. Philosophy, critical thinking and philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2011; 43 (5):415–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00483.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Bono, E. (2019). What is CoRT?. http://www.cortthinking.com/front-page-aims-cort .
• Eldeleklioğlu J, Özkılıç R. The effect of critical thinking education on critical thinking skills of psychological guidance and counseling students. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal. 2008; 3 (29):25–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis RH. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi. 2018; 37 (1):165–184. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis RH. Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher. 1989; 18 (3):4–10. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018003004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis RH. Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice. 1993; 32 (3):179–186. doi: 10.1080/00405849309543594. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, R. H. (1991). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking . Ascd.
• Ennis RH. Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to some basic issues. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines. 1997; 16 (3):1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein, R. L., & Kernberger, C. (2012). Critical thinking . Advanced Reasoning Forum.
• Facione, N. C., & Facione, P. A. (1997). Critical thinking assessment in nursing education programs: An aggregate data analysis . California Academic Press.
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39 (2):175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction . Cambridge University Press.
• Fung D, Howe C. Liberal studies in Hong Kong: A new perspective on critical thinking through group work. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gann, D. (2013). A few considerations on critical thinking instruction . http://www.saitamacityeducators.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/A-Few-Considerations-on-CriticalThinking-Instruction.pdf .
• Hager P, Kaye M. Critical thinking in teacher education: A process-oriented research agenda. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 1992; 17 (2):26–33. doi: 10.14221/ajte.1992v17n2.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern, D. (2003). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning . Academic Press.
• Ian W. Challenging students with the tools of critical thinking. Social Studies. 2002; 93 (6):257–261. doi: 10.1080/00377990209600175. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., Ricketts, J., Friedel, C., & Rhoades, E. (2007). Critical thinking instrumentation manual . http://step.ufl.edu/resources/critical_thinking/ctmanual.pdf .
• Jensen, R. D. Jr. (2015). The effectiveness of the socratic method in developing critical thinking skills in English language learners. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Grace University, Nebraska.
• Kaeppel K. The influence of collaborative argument mapping on college students’ critical thinking about contentious arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021; 40 :1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100809. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karadağ F, Demirtaş VY. The effectiveness of the philosophy with children curriculum on critical thinking skills of pre-school children. Education & Science. 2018; 43 (195):1–22. doi: 10.15390/EB.2018.7268. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research. In L. Idol, & B. Fly Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kılıç HE, Şen A. Turkish adaptation study of UF/EMI Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument. Education and Science. 2014; 39 (176):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku KYL, Ho IT, Hau KT, Lai ECM. Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study. Instructional Science. 2014; 42 :251–269. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurnaz, A. (2007). Effects of skill and content-based critical thinking training on students’ critical thinking skills, achievement and attitudes in the fifth grade course of social knowledge of primary school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Selçuk University, Konya.
• Larsson K. Understanding and teaching critical thinking—A new approach. International Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 84 :32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.05.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee YL. Nurturing critical thinking for implementation beyond the classroom: Implications from social psychological theories of behaviour change. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018; 27 :139–146. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis A, Smith D. Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice. 1993; 32 (3):131–137. doi: 10.1080/00405849309543588. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education . Cambridge University Press.
• Lipman M. Critical thinking–What can it be? Educational Leadership. 1988; 46 (1):38–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lombardi, L., Thomas, V., Rodeyns, J., Mednick, F. J., Backer, F. D., & Lombaerts, K. (2021). Primary school teachers’ experiences of teaching strategies that promote pupils’ critical thinking. Educational Studies , 1–19. 10.1080/03055698.2021.1990017.
• Lou J. Improvement in university students’ critical thinking following a strategic thinking training program. NeuroQuantology. 2018; 16 (5):91–96. doi: 10.14704/nq.2018.16.5.1310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez M, Jimenez JM, Martin-Gil B, Fernandez-Castro M, Cao MJ, Frutos M, Castro MJ. The impact of an educational intervention on nursing students’ critical thinking skills: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today. 2020; 85 :1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104305. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marin LM, Halpern DF. Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2011; 6 :1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason, M. (2008). Critical thinking and learning . Blackwell Publishing.
• McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education . St Martins Press.
• Nicholas, M., & Raider, M. (2011, November). Approaches used by faculty to assess critical thinking–Implications for general education. 36th ASHE annual conference, North Carolina, the USA.
• Orhan, A., & Çeviker Ay, Ş. (2022). Developing the Critical Thinking Skill Test for High School Students: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9 (1), 130-142.
• Özgenel M. Modeling the relationships between school administrators’ creative and critical thinking dispositions with decision making styles and problem solving skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 2018; 18 :673–700. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul, R., Binker, A. J. A., Jensen, K., & Kreklau, H. (1990). Critical thinking handbook: 4th – 6th grades: A guide for remodeling lesson plans in language, arts, social studies & science . Foundation for Critical Thinking, Sonoma State University.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life . Prentice Hall.
• Presseisen, B. Z. (1985). Thinking skills throughout the K-12 curriculum: A conceptual design . Research for Better Schools.
• Payan-Carreira R, Cruz G, Papathanasiou IV, Fradelos E, Jiang L. The effectiveness of critical thinking instructional strategies in health professions education: a systematic review. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (5):829–843. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586330. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plath D, English B, Connors L, Beveridge A. Evaluating the outcomes of intensive critical thinking instruction for social work students. Social Work Education. 1999; 18 (2):207–217. doi: 10.1080/02615479911220201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Profetto-McGrath J. The relationship of critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2003; 43 (6):569–577. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02755.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Profetto-McGrath J, Hasketh KL, Lang S, Estabrooks CA. A study of critical thinking and research utilization among nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2003; 25 (3):322–337. doi: 10.1177/0193945902250421. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahdar A, Pourghaz A, Marziyeh A. The impact of teaching philosophy for children on critical openness and reflective skepticism in developing critical thinking and self-efficacy. International Journal of Instruction. 2018; 11 (3):539–556. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.11337a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed JH, Kromrey JD. Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal. 2001; 35 (2):201–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggerio, V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum . Harper & Row.
• Şahin, E. (2016). The effect of argumentation based science learning approach on academic success, metacognition and critical thinking skills of gifted students . Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
• Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform: Lessons from around the World, International Summit on the Teaching Profession . OECD Publishing.
• Schreglmann S, Karakuş M. The effect of educational interfaces on the critical thinking and the academic achievement. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 2017; 13 (3):839–855. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2005). The critical thinking community . Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org .
• Smith TE, Rama PS, Helms JR. Teaching critical thinking in a GE class: A flipped model. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018; 28 :73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Taghinezhad A, Riasati MJ. The interplay of critical thinking explicit instruction, academic writing performance, critical thinking ability, and critical thinking dispositions: An experimental study. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation. 2020; 13 :143–165. doi: 10.46661/ijeri.4594. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiruneh DT, Verburgh A, Elen J. Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies. 2014; 4 (1):1–17. doi: 10.5539/hes.v4n1p1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Gelder T. Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching. 2005; 53 (1):41–48. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, G., & Glaser, M. E. (1994). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal form S manual . The Psychological Corporation.
• Welch KC, Hieb J, Graham J. A systematic approach to teaching critical thinking skills to electrical and computer engineering undergraduates. American Journal of Engineering Education. 2015; 6 (2):113–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams RL, Worth SL. The relationship of critical thinking to success in college. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines. 2001; 21 (1):5–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham DT. Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review. 2008; 109 (4):21–32. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Economic Forum (2020). The future of jobs report. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf .
• Yıldırım, B. (2010). The effect of skill based critical thinking education on the development of critical thinking in nurse students. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ege University, İzmir.
• Yıldırım H, Şensoy Ö. The effect of science instruction based on critical thinking skills on critical thinking disposition of the 7th -grade primary school students. Kastamonu Education Journal. 2011; 19 (2):523–540. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan H, Kunaviktikul W, Klunklin A, Williams BA. Improvement of nursing students’ critical thinking skills through problem based learning in the People’s Republic of China: A quasi-experimental study. Nursing and Health Sciences. 2008; 10 :70–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2007.00373.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zulkifli H, Hashim R. Philosophy for children (P4C) in improving critical thinking in a secondary moral education class. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research. 2020; 19 (2):29–45. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.19.2.3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]