teaching critical thinking online

Looking for something?

Critical Thinking in the Online Classroom

But what exactly is critical thinking? A review of the literature shows that there is no agreed-upon definition. Indeed, “critical thinking” is a vague term, leading many authors to shape their definition based on the needs they identify in their field. Fortunately, many definitions overlap when it comes to essential characteristics of critical thinking. This article provides a succinct, universal definition of critical thinking, followed by two examples of how an instructor can encourage critical thinking in the delivery of an online classroom.

Defining Critical Thinking

Leading scholars on critical thinking Richard Paul and Linda Elder (n.d.) and Denise Halpern (2013) provide a helpful basis for developing a working definition of critical thinking. Incorporating elements from their work, we can define critical thinking as:

Fair-minded thinking that is self-guided and self-disciplined, is purposeful and goal oriented, and performs at the highest level of quality.

This definition encapsulates the idea that critical thinking isn’t something that someone just does ; it also entails one’s attitude . Let’s elaborate on the components that make up critical thinking:

• Accountability : Being willing to self-correct when needed
• Flexibility : Looking at new ideas, reconsidering old ideas in a new light, or being willing to suspend judgment until you obtain more information
• Self-guided and self-disciplined : The idea behind these two words is that no one can make you practice critical thinking. You can learn what critical thinking is and how to practice critical thinking skills; however, you and you alone are responsible for using these skills.
• Purposeful and goal oriented : Thinking is not an end unto itself. Why are you thinking through a particular issue? What do you seek to accomplish? Critical thinking must have a purpose behind it.
• High quality : Not every matter requires extensive, deep thinking; there are varying degrees of effort and time put into thinking through matters. However, the point behind “highest level of quality” is that one should seek to do his or her best in every situation and avoid lazy and fallacious thinking.

Critical thinking, then, is more than a collection of skills or how one thinks. To think critically entails one’s attitude, purpose, and effort. In short, it includes one’s approach to ideas and matters.

Encouraging Critical Thinking in the Online Classroom

If critical thinking includes one’s attitude, purpose, and effort, then how can you encourage critical thinking in your online course? The online format is fertile ground for fostering critical thinking because the instructor has various avenues within the LMS to engage students in activities that foster deeper, more substantive thinking. Below are two suggestions to this end.

Create Dialogue on the Discussion Boards

In addition to elaborating on the discussion question, you can engage students by addressing their responses. In doing so, you can ask various types of questions to get students to address problematic argumentation, elaborate on incomplete ideas, or think through the implications of their assertion(s). In other words, you can help students use their initial response as a springboard into deeper and meaningful thinking. Below are various kinds of questions that you can use to stretch students to think critically (Davis as cited in McDonald, 2016):

For more tips on how to develop effective discussion board questions, see our article “ Writing Discussion Forum Questions .”

Include Supplemental Resources

Critical thinking is a hot topic in education today, but oftentimes little is said about what critical thinking is. As an online facilitator, you can help foster within students a substantive approach to critical thinking through the use of discussion board questions and supplemental materials. Instilling critical thinking in your students will not only help them master your course objectives, but also give them skills they can apply far beyond the classroom.

Cothran, M. (2018, January 7). The critical thinking skills hoax. The Classical Teacher , Winter 2018. Retrieved from https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

Halpern, D. (2013). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

McDonald, D. (2016, October 12). Writing discussion forum questions. Retrieved from http://ctl.wiley.com/writing-discussion-forum-questions/

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (n.d.). The foundation for critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/

Additional Resources

If you want to read substantive work on what critical thinking is , Richard Paul and Linda Elder have developed a society devoted to understanding the nature of critical thinking and to using critical thinking skills in a wide array of settings. Check out their site: www.criticalthinking.org .

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

Want a daily email of lesson plans that span all subjects and age groups?

Subjects all subjects all subjects the arts all the arts visual arts performing arts value of the arts back business & economics all business & economics global economics macroeconomics microeconomics personal finance business back design, engineering & technology all design, engineering & technology design engineering technology back health all health growth & development medical conditions consumer health public health nutrition physical fitness emotional health sex education back literature & language all literature & language literature linguistics writing/composition speaking back mathematics all mathematics algebra data analysis & probability geometry measurement numbers & operations back philosophy & religion all philosophy & religion philosophy religion back psychology all psychology history, approaches and methods biological bases of behavior consciousness, sensation and perception cognition and learning motivation and emotion developmental psychology personality psychological disorders and treatment social psychology back science & technology all science & technology earth and space science life sciences physical science environmental science nature of science back social studies all social studies anthropology area studies civics geography history media and journalism sociology back teaching & education all teaching & education education leadership education policy structure and function of schools teaching strategies back thinking & learning all thinking & learning attention and engagement memory critical thinking problem solving creativity collaboration information literacy organization and time management back, filter by none.

• Elementary/Primary
• Middle School/Lower Secondary
• High School/Upper Secondary
• College/University
• TED-Ed Animations
• TED Talk Lessons
• TED-Ed Best of Web
• Under 3 minutes
• Under 6 minutes
• Under 9 minutes
• Under 12 minutes
• Under 18 minutes
• Over 18 minutes
• Algerian Arabic
• Azerbaijani
• Cantonese (Hong Kong)
• Chinese (Hong Kong)
• Chinese (Singapore)
• Chinese (Taiwan)
• Chinese Simplified
• Chinese Traditional
• Chinese Traditional (Taiwan)
• Dutch (Belgium)
• Dutch (Netherlands)
• French (Canada)
• French (France)
• French (Switzerland)
• Kurdish (Central)
• Luxembourgish
• Persian (Afghanistan)
• Persian (Iran)
• Portuguese (Brazil)
• Portuguese (Portugal)
• Spanish (Argentina)
• Spanish (Latin America)
• Spanish (Mexico)
• Spanish (Spain)
• Spanish (United States)
• Western Frisian

sort by none

• Longest video
• Shortest video
• Most video views
• Least video views
• Most questions answered
• Least questions answered

How could so many people support Hitler?

Lesson duration 05:10

292,418 Views

Can you solve the magical maze riddle?

Lesson duration 04:51

354,884 Views

How to make smart decisions more easily

Lesson duration 05:16

1,126,691 Views

Can you solve a mystery before Sherlock Holmes?

Lesson duration 05:17

476,733 Views

Can you solve the secret assassin society riddle?

Lesson duration 05:01

710,404 Views

How to overcome your mistakes

Lesson duration 04:52

913,677 Views

Can you solve the cursed dice riddle?

Lesson duration 04:31

710,445 Views

Why some people don't have an inner monologue

Lesson duration 12:03

2,786,499 Views

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Lesson duration 05:48

351,671 Views

Can you solve the time traveling car riddle?

Lesson duration 05:18

635,852 Views

This one weird trick will get you infinite gold

Lesson duration 05:08

1,028,930 Views

How to quit your job — without ruining your career - Gala Jackson

Lesson duration 06:13

106,700 Views

What if you experienced every human life in history?

Lesson duration 05:21

2,829,626 Views

How to design climate-resilient buildings - Alyssa-Amor Gibbons

Lesson duration 14:12

43,416 Views

The case for free, universal basic services - Aaron Bastani

Lesson duration 19:09

80,366 Views

Can you steal the most powerful wand in the wizarding world?

Lesson duration 05:20

768,003 Views

History vs. Thomas Jefferson

464,212 Views

The best way to apologize (according to science)

Lesson duration 05:06

1,460,250 Views

How do we determine the value of a life?

Lesson duration 06:06

733,577 Views

What’s the smartest age?

Lesson duration 04:53

1,575,116 Views

The Boltzmann brain paradox

Lesson duration 05:40

1,141,747 Views

The 4 greatest threats to the survival of humanity

Lesson duration 05:24

486,848 Views

Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy?

Lesson duration 06:17

817,498 Views

Can you solve the fortress riddle?

Lesson duration 05:23

1,227,481 Views

• 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.

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

In a time where deliberately false information is continually introduced into public discourse, and quickly spread through social media shares and likes, it is more important than ever for young people to develop their critical thinking. That skill, says Georgetown professor William T. Gormley, consists of three elements: a capacity to spot weakness in other arguments, a passion for good evidence, and a capacity to reflect on your own views and values with an eye to possibly change them. But are educators making the development of these skills a priority?

"Some teachers embrace critical thinking pedagogy with enthusiasm and they make it a high priority in their classrooms; other teachers do not," says Gormley, author of the recent Harvard Education Press release The Critical Advantage: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School . "So if you are to assess the extent of critical-thinking instruction in U.S. classrooms, you’d find some very wide variations." Which is unfortunate, he says, since developing critical-thinking skills is vital not only to students' readiness for college and career, but to their civic readiness, as well.

"It's important to recognize that critical thinking is not just something that takes place in the classroom or in the workplace, it's something that takes place — and should take place — in our daily lives," says Gormley.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Gormley looks at the value of teaching critical thinking, and explores how it can be an important solution to some of the problems that we face, including "fake news."

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly series of podcasts, available on the Harvard University iT unes U page, that features a 15-20 minute conversation with thought leaders in the field of education from across the country and around the world. Hosted by Matt Weber and co-produced by Jill Anderson, the Harvard EdCast is a space for educational discourse and openness, focusing on the myriad issues and current events related to the field.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Notes from Ferguson

The wisdom of data, the case for homework.

Advertisement

Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?

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

Cite this article

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

3606 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Patchwork Assessment for Learning Enrichment in the 21st Century

Measures of Success in Problem Based Learning: Triple Jump Assessments and E-Folios

Teaching Critical Thinking– A Task-Based Approach: Work in Progress

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

• Video-based learning

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

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

Precision teaching (PT)

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

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

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

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

Current study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructional framework for teaching critical thinking skills

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Instructional material

Learning videos.

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

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

Learning tasks

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

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

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

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

Testing material

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

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

Pre- and post-intervention assessments on unseen questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flowchart of the study

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

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

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

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group

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

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

Learning tasks in the PT + intervention group

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

Learning tasks in the control group

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

Pre- and post-episode tests on the learning tasks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge retention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and directions for further research

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

Angel J. Y. Tan

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angel J. Y. Tan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

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

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Critical Thinking Online Courses
• The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online

• 2019 Blog Entries
• 2020 Blog Entries
• 2021 Blog Entries
• 2022 Blog Entries
• 2023 Blog Entries
• Online Courses for Your Students
• 2023 Webinar Archives
• 2022 Webinar Archives
• 2021 Webinar Archive
• 2020 Webinar Archive
• Guided Study Groups
• Critical Thinking Channel on YouTube

Translate this page from English...

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

Fall 2024 Online Courses

All participants get complimentary semester-long access to the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online !

Courses also count toward certification in our approach .

Page Contents

• Important Deadlines

• CT700 - How to Infuse Critical Thinking Into Your Instruction

• CT800 - Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of You Learning and Your Life

• CT701 - How to Infuse Critical Thinking Into Instruction, Part II: Advanced Course

• Our Instructors

• Testimonials

• Frequently Asked Questions

Important Deadlines

August 19, 2024: Last day to drop with a full registration refund.

August 20, 2024: Instruction begins.

September 1, 2024: Last day to register .

October 15, 2024: Last day to drop with a prorated registration refund ($25 minimum refund deduction once the course begins).

December 10, 2024: Semester ends.

Course Offerings

Ct700 - how to infuse critical thinking into your instruction.

This course  introduces a substantive conception of critical thinking and how to infuse this concept throughout your instruction. It fosters understanding of how to teach critical thinking skills to students through any subject or discipline, and at any level of instruction. In this course, you will be introduced to the elements of reasoning, universal intellectual standards, and intellectual traits through readings, discussions, and practical application activities. You will redesign lessons and strategies using the concepts and principles of critical thinking. You will practice strategies for Socratic discussions. You will help students learn to consciously use critical thinking concepts and strategies in learning, and in their lives. You will redesign and teach lessons you develop for your own classes - and receive course credit for doing so! 

While applying your mind in this course, you will:

• deepen your understanding of the foundations of critical thinking;

• develop skills and abilities in placing fairminded critical thinking at the heart of teaching and learning, including explicitly emphasizing the development of Intellectual Virtues among your students;
• design instruction that fosters explicit critical thinking throughout your course(s);
• help your students learn the tools they need for developing as ethical critical thinkers;
• come to understand the role that native pathologies of human thought play in impeding intellectual development;
• explicitly use the Elements of Reasoning and Intellectual Standards to create critical thinking lessons in your subject area(s);
• help students cultivate their ability to think within key concepts in your subject(s) and discipline(s); and
• create lessons and assessment processes that dovetail with fostering critical thinking at every moment of teaching and learning.

CT800 - Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life

Since few people realize the powerful role that thinking plays in their lives, few gain significant command of it. Most people are frequently victims of their thinking; that is, they are hurt  rather than helped   by it. Most people are their own worst enemies. Their thinking is a continual source of problems, preventing them from recognizing opportunities, keeping them from exerting energy where it will do the most good, poisoning relationships, and leading them down blind alleys.

This course will introduce you to the tools the best thinkers use and will exemplify the activities and practices you can use to begin emulating them. Here are some of the qualities of the best thinkers:

• The best thinkers think about their thinking.    They do not take thinking for granted. They do not trust to fate to make them good in thinking. They    notice  their thinking. They    reflect   on their thinking. They   act  upon their thinking. 
• The best thinkers are highly purposeful.    They do not simply act. They know why they act. They know what they are about. They have clear goals and clear priorities. They continually check their activities for alignment with their goals. 

• The best thinkers distinguish their thoughts from their feelings and desires.    They know that wanting something to be so does not make it so. They know that one can be unjustifiably angry, afraid, or insecure. They do not let unexamined emotions determine their decisions. They have “discovered” their minds, and they examine the way their minds operate as a result. They take deliberate charge of those operations.
• The best thinkers routinely take thinking apart.    They “analyze” thinking. They do not trust the mind to analyze itself automatically. They realize that analyzing thinking is an art one must consciously learn. They realize that it takes knowledge of the parts of thinking, and practice in exercising control over them.
• The best thinkers routinely evaluate thinking, determining its strengths and weaknesses.    They do not trust the mind to evaluate itself automatically. They realize that the automatic ways in which the mind evaluates itself are inherently flawed. They realize that evaluating thinking is an art one must consciously learn. They realize that it takes knowledge of the universal standards for thinking, and practice in exercising control over them. 

This course, as a whole, will introduce you to the tools of mind that will help you reason well through the problems and issues you face - whether in the classroom, in your personal life, or in your professional life. If you take these ideas seriously, and practice using them, you can take command of the thinking that ultimately will command the quality of your life. 

As you apply your mind in this course, you can expect to do the following:

• understand what critical thinking is, how it differs from other forms of human thought, and its foundational principles and concepts;
• become explicitly aware of the barriers to critical thinking development (egocentricity and sociocentricity), as well as how to recognize and overcome their many manifestations in daily life;
• analyze thinking by breaking it down into its fundamental components (the Elements of Thought), and learn how those components work together in reasoning;

• develop Intellectual Virtues, or desirable traits of mind, through practice over time;
• formulate clear, important, relevant questions;
• differentiate between questions of fact, of preference, and of reasoned judgment, and understand the best approaches to take for each of those categories;
• read critically and writing substantively;
• recognize the problem of media bias and propaganda as barriers to critical thought in individuals and human societies;
• develop a clear framework for ethical reasoning and understand how it differs from other modes of thought, such as religious, ideological, political, and legal thinking;
• learn the importance of fairminded critical thinking in self-actualization and the cultivation of fairminded critical homes, workplaces, classrooms, and societies; and
• understand the stages of critical thinking development, as well as determine your current such stage and what is required to ascend to higher stages.

CT701 - How to Infuse Critical Thinking Into Instruction, Part II: Advanced Course

Registration Closed

• Developing effective strategies for fostering fairminded critical thinking in instruction.
• Leading more advanced Socratic dialog.
• Deepening your understanding of the foundations of critical thinking. 

• Beginning to outline a Thinker's Guide to Critical Thinking within your field of study (showing proficiency in understanding the relationship between critical thinking and your field of study).
• Understanding more deeply the concepts of close reading and substantive writing, in order to better foster these understandings in student thought. 
• Placing the concept of fairminded critical thinking at the heart of teaching and learning, including an explicit emphasis on the development of Intellectual Virtues. 
• Understanding the roles played by native human pathologies of thought in impeding intellectual development. 
• Redesigning lessons with critical thinking at the heart of teaching and learning processes.
• Designing instructional assessment processes that dovetail with fostering critical thinking at every moment in teaching and learning. 

General Information

Our instructors.

Testimonials

• 'I told my boss this week during a faculty meeting that this has been the best university course I've ever taken.'
• 'The instruction and course content was phenomenal. . . . this course has added significant value to my life.'
• 'I have really enjoyed this course. . . meetings were engaging and very informative. I plan to attend additional offerings this academic year.'

• "I would like to express my deepest appreciation to you [Dr. Linda Elder] and Richard Paul. You both created a system for life guidance through your very arduous work on critical thinking. Thank you for adding the intellectual virtues to critical thinking. Critical thinking without the intellectual virtues is still narrow-minded thinking. Thanks to [instructor] Paul Bankes [CT700], we could get familiar with fairminded critical thinking this semester in the class. Since I have also attended a couple of courses in psychology, I could better understand what majestic guidance you have created to help us have better lives by improving our way of thinking. I just wanted to say "THANK YOU" for each second you have devoted in this way. I will try to internalize fairminded critical thinking in my life and help to develop this idea as much as I possibly can. I hope one day I can claim that I am from the community of Fairminded Critical Thinking."
• "I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for allowing me to complete the CT700 Course. It has been the most humbling and enlightening experience of my academic life. . . . I will now embark on my vision to make a difference in the South African Education System. Once, again, my gratitude goes out to you . . . "
• "CT700 was an excellent course that changed my thinking and life. It was painful at times and I found it took time for me to meaningfully complete the assignments. As I worked through the first few weeks, I also wondered if I would be able to change my thinking process. By the end of the course, I grew personally and professionally in ways that I wasn’t sure were possible."

Frequently Asked Questions

How do the courses work.

Before the course begins, we email each registrant with the web address of the course and his or her login information. Everything is done through the web: viewing and submitting assignments, communication with the instructor and classmates, etc.

How long do the courses last?

How much time do the courses require each week?

The assignments, if done well, will take an average of 3-4 hours per week for most participants.

Who teaches the courses?

Each course is facilitated by an instructor educated in the Paul-Elder conception of critical thinking, under the direction of the Foundation's Senior Fellows. In recent years, some courses have been instructed by  Dr. Paul Bankes , while others have been instructed by Dr. Brian Barnes .

Our registration fee covers the cost of tuition and all course materials. This fee is $942.

Will I receive a certificate of completion?

How will I receive my materials after I register for a course?

The course materials will be available online in a digital format.

What if I need to drop the course?

Please see the 'Important Dates' section at the top of this page.

______________________________________________________________________

Course details

An introduction to critical thinking.

This is an In-person course which requires your attendance to the weekly meetings which take place in Oxford.

In print, online and in conversation, we frequently encounter conflicting views on important issues: from climate change, vaccinations and current political events to economic policy, healthy lifestyles and parenting. It can be difficult to know how to make up one’s own mind when confronted with such diverse viewpoints.

This course teaches you how to critically engage with different points of view. You are given some guidelines that will help you decide to what extent to trust the person, organisation, website or publication defending a certain position. You are also shown how to assess others’ views and arrive at your own point of view through reasoning. We discuss examples of both reasoning about facts and the reasoning required in making practical decisions. We distinguish risky inferences with probable conclusions from risk-free inferences with certain conclusions. You are shown how to spot and avoid common mistakes in reasoning. 

No previous knowledge of critical thinking or logic is needed. This course will be enjoyed by those who relish the challenge of thinking rationally and learning new skills. The skills and concepts taught will also be useful when studying other areas of philosophy.

Programme details

Term Starts:  23rd April 2024

Week 1: What is critical thinking? What is the difference between reasoning and other ways of forming beliefs?

Week 2: What is a logical argument? How do arguments differ from conditionals, explanations and rhetoric?

Week 3: Certainty versus probability: the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning.

Week 4: Deductive validity and logical form. 

Week 5: When do arguments rely on hidden premises? A closer look at probability. 

Week 6: Inductive generalisations: Reasoning from samples. 

Week 7: Reasoning about causes and inference to the best explanation.

Week 8: Practical reasoning: Reasoning about what to do.

Week 9: When is it appropriate to believe what others tell you? What is the significance of expertise?

Week 10: Putting it all together: We analyse and assess longer passages of reasoning.

Recommended reading

All weekly class students may become borrowing members of the Rewley House Continuing Education Library for the duration of their course. Prospective students whose courses have not yet started are welcome to use the Library for reference. More information can be found on the Library website.

There is a Guide for Weekly Class students which will give you further information.

Availability of titles on the reading list (below) can be checked on SOLO , the library catalogue.

Preparatory reading

• Critical Reasoning: A Romp Through the Foothills of Logic for Complete Beginners / Talbot, M
• Critical Thinking : An Introduction to Reasoning Well / Watson, J C and Arp R

Recommended Reading List

Digital Certification

To complete the course and receive a certificate, you will be required to attend at least 80% of the classes on the course and pass your final assignment. Upon successful completion, you will receive a link to download a University of Oxford digital certificate. Information on how to access this digital certificate will be emailed to you after the end of the course. The certificate will show your name, the course title and the dates of the course you attended. You will be able to download your certificate or share it on social media if you choose to do so.

If you are in receipt of a UK state benefit, you are a full-time student in the UK or a student on a low income, you may be eligible for a reduction of 50% of tuition fees. Please see the below link for full details:

Concessionary fees for short courses

Dr Andrea Lechler

Andrea Lechler holds a degree in Computational Linguistics, an MSc in Artificial Intelligence, and an MA and PhD in Philosophy. She has extensive experience of teaching philosophy for OUDCE and other institutions. Her website is www.andrealechler.com. 

Course aims

To help students improve their critical thinking skills.    

Course Objectives:

• To help students reflect on how people reason and how they try to persuade others of their views.
• To make students familiar with the principles underlying different types of good reasoning as well as common mistakes in reasoning.
• To present some guidelines for identifying trustworthy sources of information.

Teaching methods

The tutor will present the course content in an interactive way using plenty of examples and exercises. Students are encouraged to ask questions and participate in class discussions and group work. To consolidate their understanding of the subject they will be assigned further exercises as homework.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the course students will be expected to:

• be able to pick out and analyse passages of reasoning in texts and conversations
• understand the most important ways of assessing the cogency of such reasoning
• know how to assess the trustworthiness of possible sources of information.

Assessment methods

Assessment is based on a set of exercises similar to those discussed in class. One set of homework exercises can be submitted as a practice assignment.

Students must submit a completed Declaration of Authorship form at the end of term when submitting your final piece of work. CATS points cannot be awarded without the aforementioned form - Declaration of Authorship form

Application

To earn credit (CATS points) for your course you will need to register and pay an additional £10 fee per course. You can do this by ticking the relevant box at the bottom of the enrolment form or when enrolling online.

Please use the 'Book' or 'Apply' button on this page. Alternatively, please complete an  enrolment form (Word)  or  enrolment form (Pdf) .

Level and demands

Students who register for CATS points will receive a Record of CATS points on successful completion of their course assessment.

To earn credit (CATS points) you will need to register and pay an additional £10 fee per course. You can do this by ticking the relevant box at the bottom of the enrolment form or when enrolling online.

Coursework is an integral part of all weekly classes and everyone enrolled will be expected to do coursework in order to benefit fully from the course. Only those who have registered for credit will be awarded CATS points for completing work at the required standard.

Students who do not register for CATS points during the enrolment process can either register for CATS points prior to the start of their course or retrospectively from the January 1st after the current full academic year has been completed. If you are enrolled on the Certificate of Higher Education you need to indicate this on the enrolment form but there is no additional registration fee.

Most of the Department's weekly classes have 10 or 20 CATS points assigned to them. 10 CATS points at FHEQ Level 4 usually consist of ten 2-hour sessions. 20 CATS points at FHEQ Level 4 usually consist of twenty 2-hour sessions. It is expected that, for every 2 hours of tuition you are given, you will engage in eight hours of private study.

Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme (CATS)

Terms & conditions for applicants and students

Information on financial support

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, critical thinking resources for middle school teachers.

Middle school teachers of all subjects are interested in fostering critical thinking in their classroom, but it’s not always an easy task to incorporate in the never-ending quest to match lesson plans to state learning standards. Here are seven resources that will easily add critical thinking to your lesson plans.

The Critical Thinking Community

The Critical Thinking Community is a resource site designed to encourage critical thinking in students. There are teaching strategies, a glossary of important terms, as well as articles by thought leaders in critical thinking, such as one by Bertrand Russell on the importance of developing critical thinking skills. Visit the site.

Here are some recommended pages for critical thinking strategies for the middle school classroom.

• Teaching tactics : Strategies teachers can use to encourage critical thinking in class. For example, asking students to read the instructions of an assignment and then repeat them in their own words. Visit the page.
• Remodeled lessons: How to take a routine lesson plan and remodel it to foster critical thinking. The page has five standard lesson plans, a critique of why they should be changed, and suggestions for improving the lesson plan. Visit the page.
• 35 dimensions of critical thought: Strategies are organized into three groups: Affective, Cognitive Macro-Abilities, and Cognitive Micro-Skills. Each strategy details its importance for student development. Visit the page.

Success story: tips for teaching critical thinking

KIPP King Collegiate High School has developed 10 ideas for teaching critical thinking. These methods are applicable for middle school aged students, giving them exposure to thinking critically before arriving to high school. One notable technique from KIPP is to teach students to constantly ask questions. Visit the page.

Critical thinking in the 21 st century

Microsoft Education offers material for teaching critical thinking for the 21 st -century student. What’s special about this guide is its focus on thinking critically on the Internet. Lesson plans focus on fine-tuning search skills, how to evaluate discoveries and then incorporate findings in student work. Visit the site.

Creative and critical thinking activities

On teachers.net Gazette, a teacher named Emmy recommends five specific activities that are easy to use, take little preparation, and stimulate creative thinking. The most popular feature of this site is its teacher collaboration. Visit the page.

Back to basics

This site details the basics about critical thinking: what it is, the characteristics, and why it should be taught. It also provides several differing perspectives about critical thinking for readers to consider. Different teaching strategies are also discussed, plus links to helpful resources. Visit the site.

Riddle me that

BrainDen.com has a large number of critical-thinking riddles and brain teasers that can be used in the classroom. The answers are provided for the teacher as well as tips for stimulating further discussion on the topic. Teachers can use the exercises as warmup activities at the beginning of class, or at the end of class on days when work is unexpectedly completed early. Visit the site.

Brain boosters

Discovery Education has a “Brain Boosters” section listing specific logical thinking challenges and brain teasers that students love. The activities can be done with groups or individually. The answers are provided for the teacher. Visit the site.

You may also like to read

• Critical Thinking Resources for High School Teachers
• African-American Literature for Middle School
• 4 Topics for Middle School Biology Projects
• Middle School Classroom Management Strategies
• 4 Prompts To Get Middle School Kids Writing
• Online Resources for High School Calculus

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Engaging Activities ,  Middle School (Grades: 6-8)

• Math Teaching Resources | Classroom Activitie...
• Online & Campus Master's in Secondary Educati...
• Degrees and Certificates for Teachers & Educa...

• Top Courses
• Online Degrees
• Find your New Career
• Join for Free

Critical Thinking Skills for the Professional

This course is part of Professional Skills for the Workplace Specialization

Taught in English

Some content may not be translated

Instructor: Diane Davidson

Financial aid available

34,767 already enrolled

(781 reviews)

Recommended experience

Beginner level

At least 1-2 years of experience.

What you'll learn

Apply critical thinking skills to complex problems.

Apply a model for solving problems and pose questions to further understanding of specific problems.

Skills you'll gain

• Critical Thinking
• Decision-Making
• Problem Solving
• Brainstorming

Details to know

Add to your LinkedIn profile

See how employees at top companies are mastering in-demand skills

Build your subject-matter expertise

• Learn new concepts from industry experts
• Gain a foundational understanding of a subject or tool
• Develop job-relevant skills with hands-on projects
• Earn a shareable career certificate

Earn a career certificate

Add this credential to your LinkedIn profile, resume, or CV

Share it on social media and in your performance review

There are 3 modules in this course

Have you ever tried to find a solution to a problem only to realize you’ve been focusing on the wrong problem from the very beginning? Or you’ve proposed a solution only to have it shut down by your boss or coworkers? How stressful and defeating is that? With massive changes in our world that seem to create the most difficult of circumstances, both personally and professionally, your skills as a critical thinker and problem solver need to be further developed now more than ever.

By the end of this course you will have learned and memorized a practical model to solve problems on your own and with others. These 7 critical steps will ensure that you have looked at a problem from every angle and considered multiple solutions. In fact, this dynamic and holistic approach will help you solve problems once and for all!

Getting Started and Introduction to Problem Solving

In this module, you will be able to apply a model for solving any problem, large or small, in a creative and collaborative way. You will also be able to identify all aspects of a problem and examine role in the problem. You will be able to reframe a goal oriented question.

What's included

5 videos 2 readings 2 quizzes 3 discussion prompts

5 videos • Total 27 minutes

• Introduction to Problem Solving • 4 minutes • Preview module
• Why So Many Problems? • 6 minutes
• Kinetic Memorization • 3 minutes
• Identify the Problem • 6 minutes
• Reframe • 6 minutes

2 readings • Total 70 minutes

• A Note From UC Davis • 10 minutes
• Recommended Readings • 60 minutes

2 quizzes • Total 30 minutes

• Identifying Problems Quiz • 15 minutes
• Problem Solving Steps Quiz • 15 minutes

3 discussion prompts • Total 50 minutes

• Learning Goals • 10 minutes
• Identifying the Problem • 30 minutes
• Reframe Your Problem • 10 minutes

Brainstorming and Analyzing Options

In this module, you will be able to brainstorm solutions to your possible problem. You will choose 3 possible options and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each option. You will be able to generate more effective solutions.

5 videos 2 readings 1 quiz 2 discussion prompts

5 videos • Total 21 minutes

• Module Introduction • 4 minutes • Preview module
• Individual vs. Group Brainstorming • 4 minutes
• Brainstorming Guidelines • 4 minutes
• Choose 3 • 3 minutes
• Advantages and Disadvantages • 5 minutes

2 readings • Total 100 minutes

• Brainstorm Using Jamboard • 10 minutes
• Recommended Readings • 90 minutes
• Module 2 Quiz • 0 minutes

2 discussion prompts • Total 45 minutes

• Brainstorm Possible Solutions to Your Problem • 15 minutes
• Choose 3 and Analyze the Advantages & Disadvantages • 30 minutes

Recommending and Engaging Feedback

In this module, you will be able to explore your own triggers and how they may show up in our reactions. You'll be able to identify potential responses that could trigger negative reactions. You will be able to prepare and make a recommendation to your problem. You will also be able to engage in feedback.

6 videos 1 reading 1 quiz 1 discussion prompt

6 videos • Total 19 minutes

• Introduction to Prepare and Recommend • 1 minute • Preview module
• Prepare and Recommend Example • 2 minutes
• Applying Your Recommendation • 3 minutes
• Be and Avoid • 5 minutes
• Engage Feedback • 3 minutes
• Course Summary and Wrap-up • 3 minutes

1 reading • Total 60 minutes

1 quiz • total 30 minutes.

• Module 3 Quiz • 30 minutes

1 discussion prompt • Total 15 minutes

• Analyze Your Triggers • 15 minutes

Instructor ratings

We asked all learners to give feedback on our instructors based on the quality of their teaching style.

UC Davis, one of the nation’s top-ranked research universities, is a global leader in agriculture, veterinary medicine, sustainability, environmental and biological sciences, and technology. With four colleges and six professional schools, UC Davis and its students and alumni are known for their academic excellence, meaningful public service and profound international impact.

Recommended if you're interested in Business Essentials

University of California, Davis

Adaptability and Resiliency

The Growth Mindset

Professional Skills for the Workplace

Specialization

University of Michigan

Mindware: Critical Thinking for the Information Age

Why people choose coursera for their career.

Learner reviews

Showing 3 of 781

781 reviews

Reviewed on Jan 30, 2021

This is a great course I was really interested in spending my time to learn and build critical thinking and problem-solving skill stronger.

Reviewed on Apr 5, 2022

One of the greatest online courses I have ever taken. The instructor was much knowledgeable and engaging. I gained a lot from this course. Thank You so much!

Reviewed on Oct 1, 2023

It is great course to learn and improve your critical thinking and taking decision based on procedure and principles laind down .

New to Business Essentials? Start here.

Open new doors with Coursera Plus

Unlimited access to 7,000+ world-class courses, hands-on projects, and job-ready certificate programs - all included in your subscription

Advance your career with an online degree

Earn a degree from world-class universities - 100% online

Join over 3,400 global companies that choose Coursera for Business

Upskill your employees to excel in the digital economy

Frequently asked questions

When will i have access to the lectures and assignments.

Access to lectures and assignments depends on your type of enrollment. If you take a course in audit mode, you will be able to see most course materials for free. To access graded assignments and to earn a Certificate, you will need to purchase the Certificate experience, during or after your audit. If you don't see the audit option:

The course may not offer an audit option. You can try a Free Trial instead, or apply for Financial Aid.

The course may offer 'Full Course, No Certificate' instead. This option lets you see all course materials, submit required assessments, and get a final grade. This also means that you will not be able to purchase a Certificate experience.

What will I get if I subscribe to this Specialization?

When you enroll in the course, you get access to all of the courses in the Specialization, and you earn a certificate when you complete the work. Your electronic Certificate will be added to your Accomplishments page - from there, you can print your Certificate or add it to your LinkedIn profile. If you only want to read and view the course content, you can audit the course for free.

What is the refund policy?

If you subscribed, you get a 7-day free trial during which you can cancel at no penalty. After that, we don’t give refunds, but you can cancel your subscription at any time. See our full refund policy Opens in a new tab .

Is financial aid available?

Yes. In select learning programs, you can apply for financial aid or a scholarship if you can’t afford the enrollment fee. If fin aid or scholarship is available for your learning program selection, you’ll find a link to apply on the description page.

More questions

A Fresh Take on Digital Media Literacy and Online Critical Thinking Skills 

In the age of AI and online misinformation, how do we prepare incoming students for effectively navigating today’s online spaces? 

The concept .

Promoting digital literacy as a central focus for incoming college students is not a recent development. Digital literacy as a concept was first introduced in 1997 as “the skill to exploit the technology for reading, writing, and living in the digital age” (Bawden, 2008). While this standard definition of digital literacy holds true, how we define computer literacy in today’s digital landscape looks very different from basic computer skills of the early 2000s.  

While understanding word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software continues to be a required basic skillset for new college students, today’s online landscape has led to an added need for fostering critical thinking skills that allow students to discern reliable sources of information.  

Recent studies have found that students “commonly determined a source’s credibility not based on its expertise and trustworthiness but instead through factors like a website’s contents, URL, or popularity” McGrew, S., Reynolds, E. C., & Glass, A. C. (2024).  

“higher education sectors and government have an important role to play in encouraging greater use of digital learning technology. Future learners should be equipped with the operation and critical thinking skills when using the technology and it should be a weapon for improving learning and outcomes for individuals” Khan, Nasreen, et al. (2022). 

Learners should be proficient in using digital technology for communication, interaction, and collaboration, and to contribute to society through digital services. But more to the point, students should be capable of using specialized digital tools to assess and evaluate information and digital environments in their respective fields.  

To support this, several higher education institutions, including Florida State University, the University of North Dakota, and the Kentucky Community College System, have begun to require courses in Digital Literacy for incoming college freshmen. Whether through the introduction of standalone courses or infused throughout a program’s curriculum, the goal is to set the stage for students to be able to use technology and communicate with others effectively throughout their studies. 

In Practice

How can colleges and universities effectively incorporate digital literacy into curricula? And how do we make sure graduates not only understand digital literacy but also put digital skills into practice in real-world situations? 

Here are a few strategies: 

• Integrate Digital Literacy Holistically: Rather than confining digital literacy to a single course, institutions should aim to integrate it across various disciplines. This would better prepare students by helping them develop critical thinking skills in a digital space across industries. Faculty can lead these efforts for their institutions by organizing forums to discuss the urgent need for enhanced digital literacy, urging for the integration of digital literacy modules into course curricula. Additionally, they can spearhead initiatives to collaborate with IT departments to develop comprehensive digital literacy workshops and resources for both faculty and students. 
• Real World Applications: Faculty should provide students with hands-on experiences to think critically in digital contexts. Some ways to do this include creating opportunities for students to evaluate the credibility of online sources, analyze data for biases, and think critically about the implications of technology on society. 
• Embrace New Tools and Technology: Faculty should embrace new technologies rather than shy away from them, particularly AI tools. Instructors can encourage students to become familiar with these tools in various ways, such as using AI-powered chatbots to simulate conversational practice in language classes, analyze large datasets to help draw conclusions in social sciences, and further develop writing and communication skills through AI-powered writing assistants. 
• Faculty Development and Support: In an ever-evolving digital landscape, institutions should provide faculty with training and resources to effectively teach digital literacy. Faculty development programs can help instructors stay updated on new technologies and teaching methods. 
• Promote Lifelong Learning: To ensure that learners maintain digital literacy skills as online landscapes continue to evolve, institutions should continually work toward instilling a mindset of lifelong learning in students by emphasizing the importance of continuously updating their digital skills. Encourage students to seek out online courses, certifications, and professional development opportunities even after graduation. The same goes for faculty and staff.  

In Closing:

The concept of digital literacy has been around for decades, its definition has evolved significantly with the changing digital landscape. Today, it encompasses not only basic computer skills but also the ability to discern reliable information sources in an online environment.  

In response to the challenges posed by the age of AI and online misinformation, educational institutions are reevaluating their approach to digital literacy and critical thinking skills. By implementing the strategies listed above, institutions can better prepare students to navigate the complexities of today’s digital world and apply critical thinking skills in real-world situations. 

References: 

• Khan, Nasreen, et al. “Connecting Digital Literacy in Higher Education to the 21st Century Workforce.” Knowledge Management & E-Learning 14.1 (2022): 46-61. 
• McGrew, Sarah, Elizabeth C. Reynolds, and Alex C. Glass. “The Problem With Perspective: Students’ and Teachers’ Reasoning About Credibility During Discussions of Online Sources.” Cognition and Instruction (2024): 1-27. 
• Joshua Irvine “University of North Dakota to Require Digital Literacy Classes” The Grand Forks Herald. (2024) 
• Lauren Coffey “Digital Media Literacy Becoming a Graduation Requirement” Inside Higher Ed. (2024) 
• Images sourced from freepik.com 
• Email this article
• Print this article

Christina Schettini

Christina Schettini is a Project Manager for the FIU Online Learning Design team. Through her work, she supports the development of effective and engaging learning experiences in the online modality.

Related posts

How Game Elements Can Supercharge Course Design: Measurement and Feedback in Games and Learning 

Bridging the Gap: Virtual Office Hours in Online Courses 

Online LIVE and Surprise Graduate Benefits 

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.

Leveraging LLMs to assess soft skills in lifelong learning

Leadership and critical-thinking skills are difficult to measure. Here, Jonna Lee offers case studies that test the idea of integrating LLMs into assessment practices as a feedback tool to empower both students and instructors

• More on this topic

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

Is it time to turn off turnitin, use ai to get your students thinking critically, taming anxiety around public speaking, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

Lifelong learning has emerged as a guiding principle for individuals who seek to adapt and thrive in a world of rapid technological advancements and shifting economic paradigms. However, this commitment to ongoing personal and professional growth and cultivating 21st-century skills, such as leadership and critical thinking, is challenging in a context of physical and time constraints, even in online learning environments. 

Leveraging large language models (LLMs) can enable educators to assess and improve students’ soft skills. Through prompt engineering , LLMs can capture nuanced leadership and critical-thinking attributes based on text-based data sources. In their ongoing research project, researchers from Georgia Tech’s Center for 21st Century Universities test the idea of integrating LLMs into assessment practices in a lifelong learning context as a feedback tool to empower both students and instructors. 

Case study 1: automated detection tool for leadership assessment 

By leveraging LLMs, we developed an AI-powered tool to analyse text data collected from letters of recommendation submitted by referees to an online master’s programme. We detected clues for leadership skills , including teamwork, communication and creativity, with precision and efficiency. Initially developed to streamline the document review process for admissions staff, this tool ultimately aims to offer constructive feedback for the professional development of the admitted applicants by using various student-generated text data such as writing assignments and peer reviews. 

•   Is it time to turn off Turnitin?
• Give educators the skills to bring assessment into the future
• Can academics tell the difference between AI-generated and human-authored content?

Based on the fundamental data work, which includes creating a library of leadership vocabulary, pre-processing data and training transformer-based models, we adopted the reasoning and acting (ReAct) technique. ReAct combines reasoning and acting with LLMs. Using the given data sources, we first prompted the Llama2 model, a family of pre-trained and fine-tuned LLMs, to extract potential phrases that contain linguistic markers indicating leadership attributes. Then, we further incorporated a second LLM to validate the extracted phrases by the first LLM. This approach illustrates how to craft effective prompts to attain consistent and reliable feedback regarding individual students’ leadership attributes reflected in letters of recommendation.

Case study 2: critical thinking in online discussion forums 

Online discussion forums are vital platforms for collaborative learning and knowledge exchange . However, assessing critical-thinking skills within these forums can present significant challenges for educators, especially in large classes. In our second case study, we investigated the feasibility of using LLMs to detect elements of critical thinking from discussion forum data. 

Drawing upon the community of enquiry framework , we developed a coding scheme to categorise more than 850 discussion posts generated from an introductory computer programming massive open online course (Mooc) into distinct levels of cognitive presence , focusing on critical-thinking progression . These levels include non-cognitive (socialising comments, Q&As   about logistics, deadlines or technical difficulties), triggering event (disagreement in one’s understanding or approach to a problem), exploration (active investigation of a problem or concept), integration (synthesis of information or resources to solve a problem) and resolution (validation or application of the solutions). 

Using an approach like the one described in the previous case study, we fed the LLM detailed guidance on the coding scheme and context (for example, whether a student or instructor generated a post). Then we prompted the model to analyse discussion posts and identify instances of critical thinking, along with a brief explanation. This model allowed us to gain valuable insights into the prevalence and distribution of critical thinking among students. Our preliminary findings highlight the potential of LLMs in offering instructors real-time feedback on student engagement and providing actionable insights to foster critical-thinking skills in online learning environments. 

As our next step, we plan to pilot-test the implementation of this tool into Mooc learning environments and assess its effectiveness in providing instructors and teaching assistants with helpful information about students’ cognitive engagement and learning.  

Using LLMs to transform learning

LLMs are powerful tools that offer a window into the intricate web of data, presenting educators with opportunities to understand students’ learning processes and outcomes deeply. As illustrated in the two case studies above, integrating LLMs into educational practices can transform learning by providing personalised feedback on crucial skills such as leadership and critical thinking. Moving forward, higher education institutions must embrace LLMs and leverage data-driven insights to assess and enhance soft skills among lifelong learners.

Jonna Lee is director of research for education innovation in the Center for 21st Century Universities at Georgia Tech.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

A framework to teach library research skills, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools, chatgpt’s impact on nursing education and assessments, how to tackle the phd dissertation.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

• Augsburg.edu
• Inside Augsburg

Search Strommen Center for Meaningful Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Your Career

☑ problem-solving mastery.

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

☑ Refined Decision-Making

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

☑ Enhanced Teamwork Dynamics

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

☑ Communication Prowess

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

☑ Adaptability and Resilience

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

☑ Fostering Innovation

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

☑ Confidence Amplification

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

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

✅ developing curiosity and inquisitiveness:.

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

✅ Practice Reflection and Self-Awareness:

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

✅ Strengthening Analytical Skills:

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

✅ Engaging in Active Listening and Observation:

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

✅ Encouraging Intellectual Humility and Open-Mindedness:

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

✅ Practicing Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

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

✅ Continuous Learning and Exposure to Varied Content:

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

✅ Engage in Constructive Disagreement and Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Types of Nursing Degrees and Careers
• Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/LVN)
• Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN)
• Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN)
• Master of Science in Nursing (MSN)
• Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
• Nursing Bridge Programs
• Registered Nurse (RN)
• Nurse Practitioner (NP)
• Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA)
• Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM)
• Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)
• Certified Medical Assistant (CMA)
• Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS)
• Pediatric Nurse
• Neonatal Nurse
• Critical Care Nurse
• Psychiatric Nurse
• Forensic Nurse
• Flight Nurse
• Travel Nurse
• Public Health Nurse
• Nurse Administration
• Nursing Informatics
• Nursing Instructor
• Nurse Researcher
• Connecticut
• How to Find the Right Nursing Program
• How to Pay for Nursing School
• Is Nursing For Me?
• Online Resources for Nurses
• Paths to Becoming a Registered Nurse
• How to Pass the NCLEX-RN: 7 Key Tips
• News & Advice
• NCLEX Prep Course
• News & Advice

Nurse Insights: How Can Nurses Develop Clinical Judgment?

Written by NursingEducation Staff

May 7, 2024

As healthcare professionals, nurses play a crucial role in patient care. To provide the best care possible, registered nurses (RNs) must have strong clinical judgment skills. In this article, we’ll explore how nurses can develop their clinical judgment through understanding the nursing process and continuous learning and education.

How Can Nurses Develop Clinical Judgment?

In our Nurse Insights series, experienced nurses offer an insider’s perspective on the nursing profession by addressing common questions, challenges, and triumphs of their careers.

Understanding the Nursing Process

The nursing process includes five main steps: assessment, diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in each of these stages. Nurses use critical thinking to gather and analyze data during assessment, identify patient problems during diagnosis, develop effective care plans during planning, make informed decisions during implementation, and evaluate the outcomes of care during evaluation.

The first step of the nursing process involves a comprehensive gathering of information about the patient. As a nurse, you’ll collect data about their physiological, psychological, sociological, and spiritual states. Your critical thinking skills play an important role here as you interpret and prioritize this data to form a comprehensive and holistic picture of your patient’s overall health.

The second step, diagnosis, involves interpreting the information you’ve gathered during the assessment. Here, you will identify the patient’s health problems and risks, and decide on the appropriate nursing diagnosis. Critical thinking in this stage requires you to make evidence-based and logical decisions based on the patient’s symptoms and the data collected.

The planning step includes drafting a tailored care plan to address the nursing diagnoses identified. As a nurse, you would identify patient goals and desired outcomes, and choose appropriate nursing interventions. Your critical thinking skills help you to prioritize these interventions based on the severity and potential impact on the patient’s health.

Implementation

During the implementation stage, you will carry out the outlined care plan. This requires your critical thinking skills to adapt to potential changes in the patient’s condition, and make informed judgments about the course of care should new information or problems arise.

The final step, evaluation, allows you to review the patient’s progress toward the set goals and outcomes. It is a continuous process that enables you to determine if your plan needs to be modified or adjusted. In this step, critical thinking aids you in interpreting the results of your interventions, making necessary adjustments, or acknowledging a completed goal.

Role of Continuous Learning and Education in Clinical Judgment

To develop strong clinical judgment as a nurse, you must commit to continuous learning and skill enhancement. You will often find that new research, techniques, and technology are regularly emerging in healthcare. This constant evolution requires you to update and enhance your knowledge and skills to provide the best care to your patients.

Wisdom is Power

The more knowledge and skill you acquire, the better your ability to analyze situations and make appropriate decisions. Whether it’s learning about a newly recognized syndrome or mastering a new procedure, you’re not just acquiring information or skill for the sake of it. Rather, you’re honing that skill to discern what’s relevant in a patient’s presentation and management, to identify patterns, to predict outcomes, and to effectively intervene.

Uncertainty is Part of the Job

Clinical practice often presents you with uncertain situations. Continuous learning equips you with up-to-date medical knowledge, helping you navigate uncertain situations with confidence. By expanding your educational boundaries and strengthening your problem-solving skills, you’re better prepared to handle unexpected or complex medical cases.

The Evolution of Technology

The rapid growth of technology in healthcare can be overwhelming. By keeping current in your learning, you can ensure you know how to use the latest tools and equipment, understand the newest research, and adapt to changing protocols and standards. Without continuous education, you risk falling behind and not delivering the quality of care your patients deserve.

Beyond Books—The Learning Spectrum

Remember, continuous learning goes beyond formal education. It includes attending workshops, participating in professional networks, self-directed study, and utilizing online resources. Never overlook the informal learning that takes place through your daily interactions with colleagues, mentors, and patients.

Every investment you make in your education propels you toward becoming a highly skilled and competent nurse with top-notch clinical judgment. It’s an ongoing journey and an integral part of your nursing career. So, embrace the challenge, pursue knowledge, and never stop learning.

Incorporating Evidence-Based Practice

Incorporating evidence-based practice (EBP) into your nursing practice requires that you integrate research findings into patient care. Doing this will vastly improve your clinical judgment as it allows for the application of the most up-to-date, patient-specific, and evidence-based information.

Using Research Findings

Research findings are derived from scholarly studies conducted by experts, and they often provide in-depth insights and new approaches to patient care. By reviewing these studies and understanding the outcomes, you can better tailor your patient care measures, leading to increased patient care.

In a practical sense, this could mean adopting new procedures established as effective by research for wound care or adopting a recently proven effective communication technique with dementia patients. Remember to evaluate the validity and reliability of your sources to ensure that this information is credible and beneficial to patient outcomes.

Improving Clinical Judgment

Your clinical judgment, the process by which you interpret and respond to patient needs, changes as you incorporate research findings. With more evidence-based knowledge at hand, you are more capable of identifying symptoms, making accurate diagnoses, and carrying out suitable interventions.

For instance, consider a scenario in which a patient presents with atypical symptoms of a common disease. If you are up to date with recent research demonstrations of these atypical presentations, your clinical judgment in diagnosing and treating may be more precise, thus improving the patient outcome.

Benefits to Patient Care

The core aim of nursing practice is to ensure patient welfare and recovery. Integrating research findings into patient care enhances patient outcomes by employing methods that have been analytically proven to be effective. This could mean quicker recovery times, fewer complications, and an overall increase in patient satisfaction.

Use of Reflective Practice for Improving Clinical Judgment

Reflective practice is a fundamental part of nursing that encourages you to use experiences and observations as valuable learning opportunities. It involves revisiting your actions, decisions, and outcomes, and assessing them critically to discover better methods or strategies.

Reflecting on Actions

As you encounter various patient scenarios, you’ll take a series of actions to address them. Reflecting on these actions, and identifying their effectiveness over time, can help you understand why certain methods work, and why others do not. Consider creating a journal or log of your actions to facilitate this process, ensuring patient confidentiality while doing so.

Assessing Decisions

Every moment in nursing involves decision-making. By taking the time to assess your choices and their rationale, you can better align your decisions with evidence-based practices moving forward. This kind of reflective decision-making forms the backbone of strong nursing judgment skills.

Examining the Outcomes

The results of your decisions and actions are crucial points for reflection. You can learn if the methods you’ve used were effective and adjust your future steps based on these outcomes. A pattern of successful outcomes may point you toward tactics you should continue using, while less successful outcomes can suggest areas where change is needed.

Strengthened Judgment Over Time

Over time, regularly reflecting on your actions, decisions, and outcomes will inevitably improve your clinical judgment. You’ll be able to anticipate patient needs more accurately, adapt to unexpected changes, and foster trust and communication with your patients and colleagues.

When it comes to strengthening your nursing judgment through reflective practice, keep in mind that it’s an ongoing process. It’s okay not to have all the answers right away. Even the most experienced nurses continue to learn and grow through reflective practice.

Role-Play and Simulation as Training Tools

Simulation-based education is a great tool in your nursing career. By engaging in role-play and simulation exercises, you can practice nursing skills, learn how different patient scenarios unfold, and, more importantly, focus on honing your clinical decision-making abilities.

Role-Play as an Active Learning Strategy

Through role-play, you don’t just learn about nursing; you actively participate in it. These exercises immerse you in scenarios requiring you to engage with ‘patients,’ analyze their situations, utilize your knowledge, and decide on appropriate nursing interventions. You learn not only from what goes right but also from the mistakes you make in a safe, controlled environment.

Role-play can also help alleviate the fear of real-world patient encounters by familiarizing yourself with typical patient presentations, effective communication strategies, and appropriate reactions to different scenarios. This active learning strategy enhances your ability to think on your feet, a vital trait for nurses in fast-paced healthcare settings.

Simulation—A Replication of the Real World

Simulation-based (SIM-based) training takes this experience a step further. With the use of high-fidelity mannequins that simulate real patient responses, you get a near real-world experience of nursing care. These mannequins can mimic a wide range of health conditions and complications. They can ‘respond’ to your nursing interventions, and their ‘condition’ can improve or deteriorate based on your actions.

Simulations are often conducted in settings resembling hospital rooms or emergency departments, adding another layer of realism. This immersive environment enhances your understanding of the clinical implications of your decisions. You can then reflect on these simulated experiences, scrutinizing your actions, clinical judgments, and areas for improvement.

Feedback and Debriefing—The Backbone of Improvement

A key factor in both role-play and simulation exercises is the feedback and debriefing process following each scenario. Constructive feedback from your instructor or peers helps identify your areas of improvement, strengthening your clinical decision-making abilities. Debriefings not only focus on your actions but also on the decision-making process leading to those actions, fortifying your critical thinking skills.

In conclusion, role-play and simulations are not just about mastering nursing procedures. They’re about replicating the unpredictability and critical decision-making involved in nursing, preparing you to become an effective nurse.

Cultivating Emotional Intelligence in Nursing Practice

Emotional intelligence is fundamental in nursing as it deeply resonates with patient care. It is the ability to recognize, understand, and manage our own emotions and the emotions of others. This helps in establishing a beneficial nurse-patient relationship, making it easier for you to convey empathy for your patients’ needs, fears, and concerns. Showing empathy not only offers comfort to patients, but also provides insights into their emotional state, aiding in your assessment and treatment decisions.

Emotional intelligence can be categorized into five areas:

• Self-Awareness: Recognizing your own emotions and how they impact your actions.
• Self-Regulation: Managing your impulses and emotions and adapting to changing circumstances.
• Motivation: The drive to achieve beyond expectations.
• Empathy: Understanding and sharing the feelings of others.
• Social Skills: Managing relationships to get along with others.

Among these, empathy and social skills are particularly crucial in patient care as they enable you to effectively communicate and collaborate with patients, their families, and the healthcare team.

The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making

When it comes to making sound clinical decisions, emotional intelligence allows you to balance both the emotional and the factual aspects of the situation. During intense clinical scenarios where patients are experiencing distress, your ability to understand and manage emotions can help you remain calm, think clearly, and make rational decisions.

You can practice active listening when patients share their feelings or concerns. This gives you valuable insights into the patients’ perspectives which, along with the factual clinical information, can contribute to effective care planning and decision-making.

Moreover, being emotionally intelligent helps manage the stress that comes with the job. It enables you to effectively handle demanding situations, ensuring your decision-making is not hampered by your emotional state.

Emotional intelligence can be fostered and elevated through continuous education, workshops, and regular self-reflection. Focusing on improving your emotional intelligence will genuinely enhance not only your nursing practice, but the overall healthcare experience for your patients.

Our Commitment to Accuracy

NursingEducation strives to provide information that is up-to-date and unbiased. By engaging professionals from multiple healthcare perspectives, we ensure our content contains accurate information that helps our readers.

We have combined decades of experience teaching, publishing research, and working with patients in all fields of medicine to create accurate and straightforward online education. Once written, each article undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to bring you the highest quality, most comprehensive content possible.

Our writers receive feedback from reviewers to clarify content, prevent misleading statements, and identify areas that would benefit from more information. Our subject matter experts and reviewers generally work full-time in their professions and work for NursingEducation part-time.

How Can a New Nurse Manage Stress and Burnout?

Read Article

Do Credits From Nursing School Ever Expire?

How Do Nurses Handle Professional Boundaries?

Looking to obtain your nursing degree online.

If you're seeking to gain your pre-licensure degree or advance your professional path, the tuition may be more reasonable than you think. Discover the nursing program that's perfect for you!

Nursing Careers

Nursing degrees.

• Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
• Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP)
• NCLEX Qbank
• NCLEX Pretest
• NCLEX Categories
• NCLEX Preparation

© 2024 NursingEducation. All Rights Reserved.