critical thinking in chemistry

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation

• Back to parent navigation item
• Collections
• Sustainability in chemistry
• Simple rules
• Teacher well-being hub
• Women in chemistry
• Global science
• Escape room activities
• Decolonising chemistry teaching
• Teaching science skills
• Get the print issue
• RSC Education

• More navigation items

Critical thinking in the lab (and beyond)

• No comments

How to alter existing activities to foster scientific skills

Although many of us associate chemistry education with the laboratory, there remains a lack of evidence that correlates student learning with practical work. It is vital we continue to improve our understanding of how students learn from practical work, and we should devise methods that maximise the benefits. Jon-Marc Rodriguez and Marcy Towns, researchers at Purdue University, US, recently outlined an approach to modify existing practical activities to promote critical thinking in students, supporting enhanced learning. [1]

Although many of us associate chemistry education with the laboratory, there remains a lack of evidence that correlates student learning with practical work. It is vital we continue to improve our understanding of how students learn from practical work, and we should devise methods that maximise the benefits. Jon-Marc Rodriguez and Marcy Towns, researchers at Purdue University, US, recently outlined an approach to modify existing practical activities to promote critical thinking in students , supporting enhanced learning.

Source: © Science Photo Library

After an experiment, rather than asking a question, task students with plotting a graph; it’ll induce critical thinking and engagement with science practices

Jon-Marc and Marcy focused on critical thinking as a skill needed for successful engagement with the eight ‘science practices’. These practices come from a 2012 framework for science education published by the US National Research Council. The eight practices are: asking questions; developing and using models; planning and carrying out investigations; analysing and interpreting data; using mathematics and computational thinking; constructing explanations; engaging in argument from evidence; and obtaining, evaluating and communicating information. Such skills are widely viewed as integral to an effective chemistry programme. Practising scientists use multiple tools simultaneously when addressing a question, and well-designed practical activities that give students the opportunity to engage with numerous science practices will promote students’ scientific development.

The Purdue researchers chose to examine a traditional laboratory experiment on acid-base titrations because of its ubiquity in chemistry teaching. They characterised the pre- and post-lab questions associated with this experiment in terms of their alignment with the eight science practices. They found only two of ten pre- and post-lab questions elicited engagement with science practices, demonstrating the limitations of the traditional approach. Notably, the pre-lab questions included numerous calculations that were not considered to promote science practices-engagement. Students could answer the calculations algorithmically, with no consideration of the significance of their answer.

Next, Jon-Marc and Marcy modified the experiment and rewrote the pre- and post-lab questions in order to foster engagement with the science practices. They drew on recent research that recommends minimising the amount of information given to students and developing a general understanding of the underlying theory.  [2] The modified set of questions were fewer, with a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding. They questioned aspects such as the suitability of the method and the central question behind the experiment. Questions were more open and introduced greater scope for developing critical thinking.

Next, Jon-Marc and Marcy modified the experiment and rewrote the pre- and post-lab questions in order to foster engagement with the science practices. They drew on recent research that recommends minimising the amount of information given to students and developing a general understanding of the underlying theory. The modified set of questions were fewer, with a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding. They questioned aspects such as the suitability of the method and the central question behind the experiment. Questions were more open and introduced greater scope for developing critical thinking.

In taking an existing protocol and reframing it in terms of science practices, the authors demonstrate an approach instructors can use to adapt their existing activities to promote critical thinking. Using this approach, instructors do not have to spend excessive time creating new activities. Additionally, instructors will have the opportunity to research the impact of their approach on student learning in the teaching laboratory.

Teaching tips

Question phrasing and the steps students should go through to get an answer are instrumental in inducing critical thinking and engagement with science practices. As noted above, simple calculation-based questions do not prompt students to consider the significance of the values calculated. Questions should:

• refer to an event, observation or phenomenon;
• ask students to perform a calculation or demonstrate a relationship between variables;
• ask students to provide a consequence or interpretation (not a restatement) in some form (eg a diagram or graph) based on their results, in the context of the event, observation or phenomenon.

This is more straightforward than it might first seem. The example question Jon-Marc and Marcy give requires students to calculate percentage errors for two titration techniques before discussing the relative accuracy of the methods. Students have to use their data to explain which method was more accurate, prompting a much higher level of engagement than a simple calculation.

As pre-lab preparation, ask students to consider an experimental procedure and then explain in a couple of sentences what methods are going to be used and the rationale for their use. As part of their pre-lab, the Purdue University research team asked students to devise a scientific (‘research’) question that could be answered using the data collected. They then asked students to evaluate and modify their own questions as part of the post-lab, supporting the development of investigative skills. It would be straightforward to incorporate this approach into any practical activity.

Finally, ask students to evaluate a mock response from another student about an aspect of the theory (eg ‘acids react with bases because acids like to donate protons and bases like to accept them’). This elicits critical thinking that can engage every student, with scope to stretch the more able.

These approaches can help students develop a more sophisticated view of chemistry and the higher order skills that will serve them well whatever their future destination.

[1] J-M G Rodriguez and M H Towns, J. Chem. Educ. , 2018, 95 , 2141, DOI: 10.1021/acs . jchemed.8b00683

[2] H Y Agustian and M K Seery, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2017, 18 , 518, DOI: 10.1039/C7RP00140A

J-M G Rodriguez and M H Towns,  J. Chem. Educ. , 2018,  95 , 2141,  DOI: 10.1021/acs . jchemed.8b00683

H Y Agustian and M K Seery,  Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,  2017,  18 , 518, DOI: 10.1039/C7RP00140A

More David Read

Unpacking representations

How best to engage students in group work

How visuospatial thinking boosts chemistry understanding

• Acids and bases
• Education research
• Evidence-based teaching
• Secondary education

Related articles

Understanding how students untangle intermolecular forces

2024-03-14T05:10:00Z By Fraser Scott

Discover how learners use electronegativity to predict the location of dipole−dipole interactions 

Why I use video to teach chemistry concepts

2024-02-27T08:17:00Z By Helen Rogerson

Helen Rogerson shares why and when videos are useful in the chemistry classroom

3 ways to boost knowledge transfer and retention

2024-02-20T05:00:00Z By David Read

Apply these evidence-informed cognitive processes to ensure your learners get ahead

No comments yet

Only registered users can comment on this article., more education research.

2024-08-06T05:04:00Z By David Read

Teach learners how to interpret and compare different chemical representations

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the chemistry of critical thinking: the pursuit to do both better.

Improving Classroom Engagement and International Development Programs: International Perspectives on Humanizing Higher Education

ISBN : 978-1-83909-473-6 , eISBN : 978-1-83909-472-9

Publication date: 28 August 2020

This chapter presents a qualitative investigation of lecturers’ perceptions of critical thinking and how this influenced how they taught. All of the participants taught the same first-year university chemistry course. This case study provides insights about how there may need to be fundamental shifts in lecturers’ perceptions about learning and the development of critical thinking skills so that they can enhance knowledge and understanding of chemistry as well as advance the students’ critical thinking. Recommendations are made for professional learning for lecturers and for changing the “chemistry” of the design of learning experiences through valuing critical thinking in assessments and making critical thinking more explicit throughout the course. The authors argue that critical thinking must be treated as a developmental phenomenon.

• Critical thinking
• Teaching strategy
• Teaching activities
• Effective teaching
• Barriers and obstacles

Conner, L. and Kolajo, Y. (2020), "The Chemistry of Critical Thinking: The Pursuit to do Both Better", Sengupta, E. , Blessinger, P. and Makhanya, M. (Ed.) Improving Classroom Engagement and International Development Programs: International Perspectives on Humanizing Higher Education ( Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 27 ), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000027009

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020 Emerald Publishing Limited

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• DOI: 10.1021/ED073P218
• Corpus ID: 95190583

Critical Thinking in General Chemistry

• Leonard S. Kogut
• Published 1 March 1996
• Chemistry, Education
• Journal of Chemical Education

32 Citations

Impact of peer-led team learning and the science writing and workshop template on the critical thinking skills of first-year chemistry students, development and validation of an instrument to measure undergraduate chemistry students’ critical thinking skills, impact of guided-inquiry-based instruction with a writing and reflection emphasis on chemistry students' critical thinking abilities., student perceptions of “critical thinking”: insights into clarifying an amorphous construct, integrating the liberal arts and chemistry: a series of general chemistry assignments to develop science literacy, defining critical thinking, training students critical thinking skills through implementation of problem solving models on reaction rate materials, hands across the divide : finding spaces for student-centered pedagogy in the undergraduate science classroom, a survey analysis of pre-service chemistry teachers' critical thinking skills, methods and issues of teaching and learning, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

‘What does the term Critical Thinking mean to you?’ A qualitative analysis of chemistry undergraduate, teaching staff and employers' views of critical thinking

First published on 13th February 2017

Good critical thinking is important to the development of students and a valued skill in commercial markets and wider society. There has been much discussion regarding the definition of critical thinking and how it is best taught in higher education. This discussion has generally occurred between philosophers, cognitive psychologists and education researchers. This study examined the perceptions around critical thinking of 470 chemistry students from an Australian University, 106 chemistry teaching staff and 43 employers of chemistry graduates. An open-ended questionnaire was administered to these groups, qualitatively analysed and subsequently quantified. When asked to define critical thinking respondents identified themes such as ‘analysis’, ‘critique’, ‘objectivity’, ‘problem solving’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘identification of opportunities and problems’. Student respondents described the smallest number of themes whereas employers described the largest number of themes. When asked where critical thinking was developed during the study of chemistry students overwhelmingly described practical environments and themes around inquiry-based learning. When teaching staff were asked this question they commonly identified critiques, research, projects and practical environments to some extent. This research highlights that there is only limited shared understanding of the definition of critical thinking and where it is developed in the study of chemistry. The findings within this article would be of interest to higher education teaching practitioners of science and chemistry, those interested in development of graduate attributes and higher order cognitive skills (HOCS) and those interested in the student and employer perspectives.

Introduction

As the need for innovation, and anticipating and leading change continues to grow, employers recognise the importance of critical thinking and critical reflection ( Desai et al. , 2016 ). It has become an expectation that graduates are able to demonstrate a range of transferable skills such as critical thinking ( Lowden et al. , 2011 ). In a survey of 400 US employers, 92% of respondents rated critical thinking as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in an undergraduate degree and the fifth most applied skill in the work place ( Jackson, 2010a ).

A recent study commissioned by the Office of the Chief Scientist of Australia surveyed 1065 employers representing a range of industries ( Prinsley and Baranyai, 2015 ). Over 80% of respondents indicated critical thinking as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ as a skill or attribute in the workplace. Critical thinking was considered the second most important skill or attribute behind active learning. In 2012 Graduate Careers Australia found that of the 45% of chemistry graduates available for full-time or part-time employment, only 66% had obtained employment in a chemistry related field ( Graduate Careers Australia, 2015 ). These findings suggest that skills which may be transferable to a range of employment settings, such as critical thinking, are worthwhile developing at the tertiary level.

The definition of critical thinking

The report concluded that a person who exhibits good critical thinking is in possession of a series of cognitive skills and dispositions. The consensus of the Delphi experts was that a good critical thinker is proficient in the skills of interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation ( Facione, 1990 ). Furthermore, the report stated that a good critical thinker demonstrates a series of dispositions which is required for the individual to utilise the aforementioned skills. According to the report a ‘good critical thinker, is habitually disposed to engage in, and to encourage others to engage in, critical judgement’ ( Facione, 1990 , p. 12). These dispositions were later categorised into inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity, truth seeking, critical thinking self-confidence and maturity ( Facione, 1990 ).

Cognitive psychology and education research take a more evidence based approach to defining critical thinking and the skills and dispositions that it encompasses. The term critical thinking itself is often used to describe a set of cognitive skills, strategies or behaviours that increase the likelihood of a desired outcome ( Halpern, 1996 ; Tiruneh et al. , 2014 ). Dressel and Mayhew (1954) suggested it is educationally useful to define critical thinking as the sum of specific behaviours which could be observed from student acts. These critical thinking abilities are identifying central issues, recognising underlying assumptions, evaluating evidence or authority and drawing warranted conclusions.

Psychologists typically explored and defined critical thinking via a series of reasoning schemas; conditional reasoning, statistical reasoning, methodological reasoning and verbal reasoning ( Nisbett et al. , 1987 ; Lehman and Nisbett, 1990 ). Halpern (1993) refined the cognitive psychologists' definition of critical thinking as the thinking required to solve problems, formulate inferences, calculate likelihoods and make decisions. Halpern listed a series of skills and dispositions required for good critical thought. Those skills are verbal reasoning, argument analysis, thinking as hypothesis testing, understanding and applying likelihood, uncertainty and probability, decision making and problem solving ( Halpern, 1998 ). The dispositions Halpern described are a willingness to engage and persist with complex tasks, habitually planning and resisting impulsive actions, flexibility or open-mindedness, a willingness to self-correct and abandon non-productive strategies and an awareness of the social context for thoughts to become actions ( Halpern, 1998 ). Glaser (1984) further elaborated on the awareness of context to suggest that critical thinking requires proficiency in metacognition.

In the case of science education there is often an emphasis of critical thinking as a skill set ( Bailin, 2002 ). There are concerns that from a pedagogical perspective many of the skills or processes commonly ascribed as part of critical thinking are difficult to observe and therefore difficult to assess. Consequently, Bailin suggests that the concept of critical thinking should explicitly focus on adherence to criteria and standards to reflect ‘good’ critical thinking ( Bailin, 2002 , p. 368).

Recent literature has lent evidence to the notion that there are several useful definitions of critical thinking of equally valuable meaning ( Moore, 2013 ). The findings of this work identified themes such as ‘critical thinking: as judgement; as scepticism; as originality; as sensitive reading; or as rationality.’ The emphasis with which these themes were used was dependent on the teaching practitioners' context.

Can critical thinking be taught?

In later years cognitive psychology leant evidence to the argument that critical thinking could be developed within a specific discipline and those reasoning skills were, at least to some degree, transferable to situations encountered in daily life ( Lehman et al. , 1988 ; Lehman and Nisbett, 1990 ). This led to a more pragmatic view that the best critical thinking occurs within ones area of expertise, termed domain specificity ( Ennis, 1990 ), however critical thinking can still be effectively developed with or without content specific knowledge ( McMillan, 1987 ; Ennis, 1989 ). However the debate regarding the dependence of content specific knowledge in the development of critical thinking continues to be discussed ( Moore, 2011 ; Davies, 2013 ).

Attempts to teach critical thinking are common in the chemistry education literature. These range from writing exercises ( Oliver-Hoyo, 2003 ; Martineau and Boisvert, 2011 ; Stephenson and Sadler-Mcknight, 2016 ), inquiry-based projects ( Gupta et al. , 2015 ), flipped lectures ( Flynn, 2011 ) and open-ended practicals ( Klein and Carney, 2014 ) to gamification ( Henderson, 2010 ) and work integrated learning (WIL) ( Edwards et al. , 2015 ). While this literature captures that critical thinking is being developed, it seldom discusses the perception of the students.

This study aimed to identify the perceptions of critical thinking of chemistry students, teaching staff and employers. The study investigated how each of these groups define critical thinking and where students and teaching staff believed critical thinking was developed during the study of chemistry.

Data collection instrument

A similar questionnaire was administered in hard copy to the teaching associates (TAs) and academics within the School of Chemistry at Monash University and via an online format to a different cohort from a range of institutions. The questionnaire consisted of items asking participants to identify teaching activities undertaken within the previous year, and at which year levels they taught these activities. They were asked open-ended questions which aligned with the student questionnaire: ‘What does the term “Critical Thinking” mean to you?’ (Q1) and ‘Can you provide an example of when you have provided students with the opportunity to develop their critical thinking while studying chemistry?’ (Q2b).

Employers were contacted directly via email and provided with a link to an online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of four open-ended question: ‘What does the term “Critical Thinking” mean to you?’ (Q1) and three demographic questions regarding which country the participant's organisation was based, which sector their business was in and the highest qualification the participant held.

Student participants

The second year cohort consisted of 359 students from Synthetic Chemistry I, a course focused on organic and inorganic synthetic techniques from practical and theoretical perspectives. This course is a core unit for any student pursing a chemistry major. Participants were provided with the questionnaire at the end of a practical session during the first two weeks of semester one. The practical activity conducted within this time was known to typically only take students three of the four hours allocated to the practical session. As the activity was a compulsory part of the course, and given it was an essential part of the chemistry major, this cohort could be considered a representative random sample of second year chemistry major students.

Finally, the third year cohort was drawn from 84 students studying Advanced Inorganic Chemistry. This course builds on the theoretical knowledge and practical skills developed in Synthetic Chemistry I, focusing specifically on inorganic chemistry. Typically students completing a chemistry major undertook this unit but alternative courses were available. Participants were provided with the questionnaire during practical sessions in the first four weeks of semester and encouraged to complete it during the session. Since the activities in these sessions were very demanding and time was generally scarce for these students the sampling was regarded as convenient. Furthermore as not all chemistry majors may have undertaken Advanced Inorganic Chemistry the data obtained from this cohort may be non-representative.

Teaching staff participants

A senior TAs and academics cohort consisted of academic staff and TAs with several years teaching experience. These academics and senior TAs typically taught chemistry courses other than Chemistry I or Advanced Chemistry I. 12 individuals were approached during semester one of 2015 and were advised to return the questionnaire via unlabelled internal mail.

Finally an online academic cohort consisted of around 300 members of a chemistry education email discussion group predominately from the UK and Europe. These participants received a link to an online version of the questionnaire sent via a third party.

All TAs and academic staff were advised their participation was voluntary and they could opt out by not completing the questionnaire in accordance with MUHREC regulations. All senior TAs, academics and online academics were previously known to highly value the scholarship of teaching thus increasing the likelihood of their participation. Consequently this would be considered a non-representative and convenient sample of experienced teaching staff.

Employer participants

Research theoretical framework.

The data was analysed qualitatively and the next stage involved quantification of that qualitative analysis. The qualitative data was analysed with no prior assumptions regarding the number of ways in which individuals may think about critical thinking. The qualitative analysis was then quantified to identify whether there were any common ways in which individuals experienced critical thinking. The nature of these commonalities was not assumed however a retrospective comparison with the literature informed the inferences drawn from the data.

Data analysis

The questionnaire data for each cohort was imported into Nvivo as seven separate ‘sources’: first year students (A), second year students (B), third year students (C), TAs (D), senior TAs and academics (E), online academics (F) and employers (G). These cohorts were then merged into three major groups. Students, consisting of A, B and C, teaching staff consisting of D, E and F and employers (G).

Six chemistry education researchers working within the Chemistry Education Research Group (CERG) at Monash University were provided a random selection of 10% of all responses to Q1 and Q2a/Q2b. They were asked to identify key words suggesting emergent themes in each question and from these emergent themes ‘codes’ were generated by the primary researcher for participants' responses ( Bryman and Burgess, 1994 ). Having reviewed the data once, the responses were studied in greater detail to determine whether there were any hidden themes which the initial analysis failed to identify. A third review of the emergent themes within each question was conducted and using a redundancy approach similar themes were combined. This resulted in 21 unique themes for Q1 and 19 unique themes for Q2a/Q2b to used in coding all responses.

The data from the emergent themes of each question was then analysed quantitatively. To determine the number of participants within each group describing a specific theme, the total number of responses within each theme per group was determined using Nvivo's ‘Matrix Coding’ function. This data was exported to Microsoft Excel and the number of participants describing a specific theme within each group was then expressed as a percentage. This percentage was determined using the number of responses for a theme within a group divided by the total number of participants who answered a given question from that group. These percentages were then presented graphically.

Table 1 shows the gender distribution and median age of students who chose to provide this data. As can be seen, there is a slightly larger population of male students, by 12%. The median age of students is 19 years old which is the typical age of most first or second year Australian undergraduate university students.

Table 2 shows the teaching activities and year levels taught by the various cohorts within the teaching staff group. Respondents were able to select multiple teaching activities and year levels taught. The TA cohort typically taught first year laboratory sessions whereas senior TAs and academics all taught at various year levels via laboratory, tutorial and lecture activities.

Table 3 provides the demographic data for employers. The respondents' main offices were predominantly found in Australia and the respondents themselves generally had a tertiary level qualification, with 40% of respondents holding a PhD. The most common sector in which respondents worked were chemical, pharmaceutical or petrochemicals (16%). There was also a reasonable representation of respondents from development, innovation or manufacturing (12%), life sciences (14%) and government (12%).

The 21 themes generated in response to the question: ‘What does the term “Critical Thinking” mean to you?’ (Q1) can be found in Table 4 along with a definition and brief quote to illustrate the meaning attributed to these themes. The quantitative analysis found in Fig. 1 describes the frequency with which each of these themes was expressed by students, teaching staff and employers.

It is important to note that a single response may be coded to multiple themes or in some instances none at all. Table 5 provides a breakdown of how many responses contain a given number of themes. For example 87 responses from the first year cohort contain only a single theme whereas 11 responses from employers contain three themes. The mean number of themes per response or coding density was determined for each cohort and each group. Students described a mean value of 1.73 themes per response, teaching staff described an average of 2.75 themes per response and employers described 3.98 themes per response.

In response to the question; ‘Can you provide an example of when you have had the opportunity to develop your critical thinking while studying chemistry?’ (Q2a) or ‘Can you provide an example of when you have provided students with the opportunity to develop their critical thinking while studying chemistry?’ (Q2b) 19 themes were generated. Table 6 contains these themes, their definitions and brief excerpts to convey the meaning attributed to these themes. The quantitative analysis found in Fig. 2 describes the frequency with which each of these themes was expressed in student and teaching staff responses.

Once again a single response could be coded to multiple themes or none at all. Table 7 shows how many responses contained a given number of themes. For example 108 first year responses were coded to a single theme compared to only two Senior TA/Academic responses. Students described an average of 1.32 themes per response and teaching staff described an average of 2.25 themes per response.

Data representation and limitations

A similar pattern of coding density can be observed between TAs (D) versus Senior TAs and Academics (E), Online Academics (F) and Employers (G). It would appear that those participants who were approached directly or online made a concerted effort to respond to the questions as can be seen in Tables 5 and 7 , where at least 3 themes were typically described by cohorts E, F and G. Again it is worth considering the experience that cohort D have with critical thinking. The majority of this cohort were on semester long contracts and only had teaching experience in a first year laboratory environment ( Table 2 ). It is possible these participants may not exercise their critical thinking skills as frequently as academics who routinely engage in activities such as peer reviewing journal submissions which exercise these skills more frequently. This aligns with the constructivist notion that an individual creates their meaning of a given construct from their environment ( Lemanski and Overton, 2011 ) and in this research how the participants believe that construct is applied in their daily lives.

With respect to demographic data, there was a slightly larger representation of students identifying as male compared to female. This was observed in all student cohorts, however it is important to note that there was slightly larger number of female students enrolled in chemistry at Monash University as compared to male students. As can be seen from Table 1 , the median age for students was nineteen years old. This value was skewed slightly as a result of such large numbers of respondents from first and second year cohorts.

Larger samples of first and second year students and first year TAs were obtained due to the environments in which the questionnaire was conducted (namely compulsory laboratory sessions). Aside from the slightly larger number of male student respondents, there can be some confidence that the data obtained is representative of a random sample of the respective cohorts and the findings may be generalizable.

Obtaining data from senior TAs, academics and employers was far more difficult and consequently the data collected was more reflective of non-representative convenience sampling. Therefore, the findings herein may have limited generalisability with respect to senior TAs, academics and employers.

Defining critical thinking

The theme ‘analysis’ was frequently expressed by all groups (students, teaching staff and employers). At least 20% of all responses identified analysis as part of the meaning of critical thinking. In the case of the student group it was, in fact, the most common theme, with just over 25% of respondents using it to define critical thinking. The term analysis or analysing was commonly used to describe interaction with some sort intellectual stimulus, whether it be an idea, data or a problem. Many responses referred to ‘analysing something’ to suggest a breath of critical thinking.

Students strongly identified with three other themes: ‘critique’, ‘objectivity’ and ‘problem solving’. Problem solving was the second most commonly expressed theme by student respondents with just over 23% of responses describing it. The link between critical thinking and problem solving appears to be a common association made by students ( Tapper, 2004 ). Critique and objectivity were identified in approximately 17% of responses. The relatively smaller number of themes described by students is not altogether surprising as other qualitative studies have shown students often have difficultly conceptualising critical thinking ( Duro et al. , 2013 ).

Teaching staff most commonly described the themes ‘critique’ (40%) and ‘evaluate’ (42%) when defining critical thinking. In other recent studies a similar emphasis on interpreting information via analysis and evaluation was also observed ( Duro et al. , 2013 ; Desai et al. , 2016 ). Teaching staff were much more goal orientated than students with 28% of responses describing ‘arriving at an outcome’. Outcomes were very task orientated a kin to Barnett's (1997) ‘critical being’, either developing a plan relating to experimental design or arriving at a conclusion as a result of experimental data. For example:

“The ability to examine evidence, come to a conclusion based on that evidence…”

Teaching staff also commonly described the themes ‘application of knowledge’, ‘logical approach’, ‘objectivity’ and ‘problem solving’ in approximately 20% of responses. It is worth noting that students and teaching staff express the theme of ‘objectivity’ with similar frequencies (18% and 19%, respectively). Of all three groups, teaching staff use the theme of problem solving the least when defining critical thinking (18%). While only 14% of teaching staff respondents described the theme of ‘interpreting information’ the value of this as being part of critical thinking was higher than with the student (11%) and employer (9%) groups.

As can be seen from Table 5 employers typically described the largest number themes in their responses. ‘Problem solving’ was the most common theme expressed by over 44% of employers. Employers were goal orientated much like teaching staff, commonly describing themes of ‘application of knowledge’ (19%), ‘objectivity’ (30%), ‘logical approach’ (21%), ‘evaluate’ (30%) and ‘arriving at an outcome’ (33%). Arriving at an outcome contained a wide breadth of examples in employer responses. However, there was some focus on using evidence to inform a conclusion which would lead to a course of action for the organisation to take:

“…a necessary approach to solving or answering problems, developing a product or process.”

Employers expressed four themes unique to their group: ‘context (macro)’ (12%), ‘creative’ (19%), ‘systematic approach’ (21%) and ‘identification of opportunities and problems’ (35%). The latter focused on the use of critical thinking as a method of uncovering what is not immediately apparent:

“To consider the problem to expose route cause(s) in a rationale and logical manner and apply lateral thinking to seek solutions to the problem.”

The above response also includes in its definition of critical thinking;

“The ability of a person to identify a problem that does not have a readily available or off the shelf solution.”

This is an excellent example of responses identifying creativity in conjunction with the theme of problem identification. The general sentiment of employers was that critical thinking is important to innovation within the organisation and is suggestive of what Jackson (2010b) refers to as ‘Pro-c creativity’ or the creativity associated within a professional environment.

Furthermore, employers were unique in describing critical thinking with the theme of ‘context (macro)’. What this theme references is that employers identified the application of critical thinking on a much broader social scale. For example:

“…understand the implications from an organisational perspective.”

“…collaborating the thoughts and views of others to gain a clearer insight of the real challenge.”

Employers acknowledged that the results of critical thinking can have an impact in commercial and societal contexts. While students and teaching staff have a somewhat more internalised definition of critical thinking, employers appear to have a more social application of critical thinking as seen in some the literature ( Desai et al. , 2016 ).

One of the most interesting features of this data was that the terms ‘judgement’ and ‘inference’, found in the Delphi definition of critical thinking ( Facione, 1990 ), were seldom used by respondents. In fact below are the only two student responses to use the term ‘judgement’:

“Not taking things at face value and giving topics considerable thought and analysis before coming to a conclusion/judgement on it.” – First year respondent

“Analysis of a problem to make a judgement.” – Second year respondent

It is worth noting that a similar minority of respondents used the term ‘opinion’ in their definition of critical thinking;

“Ability to objectively analyse, process and form an opinion of a particular subject.”

And a slightly larger number of respondents used the term ‘conclusion’:

“A skill to understand a thing more clearly and make conclusion.”

When the Delphi report describes core critical thinking skills the terms ‘judgement’ and ‘opinion’ are used somewhat synonymously. Similarly, ‘drawing conclusions’ is explicitly stated as a sub skill of the skill of ‘inference’ ( Facione, 1990 , p. 10). This suggests that a larger number of respondents using ‘opinion’ or ‘conclusion’ may in fact be referencing the terms ‘judgement’ or ‘inference’. However without further probing what respondents mean by ‘conclusion’ or ‘opinion’ this is not a certainty.

There is also very little emphasis around self-regulation or the metacognitive processes typically associated with ‘good’ critical thinking ( Glaser, 1984 ; Bailin, 2002 ). Perhaps this is implied when respondents described the theme of ‘objectivity’:

“Thinking about situations with an open view point and analysing what you're doing.”

What is very clear from this data is the emphasis on problem solving in the definition of critical thinking. This was a very prominent feature of the data from students and employers. With respect to the students this may be due to the perception that scientific facts are unquestionable and the algorithmic problem solving pedagogies commonly employed in science education ( Zielinski, 2004 ; DeWit, 2006 ; Cloonan and Hutchinson, 2011 ). This feature of the data was slightly less common in teaching staff, but it was very prominent with employers. This might be due to the fact that employers are typically adept at reflecting on open-ended problems and identifying any parameters or approximations required ( Randles and Overton, 2015 ). This experience with open-ended problems may also explain the description of the theme of ‘identification of problems and opportunities’ which was somewhat unique to employers.

Interestingly the Delphi report does not consider problem solving an element of critical thinking. Instead it proposes problem solving and critical thinking are ‘closely related forms of higher-order thinking’ ( Facione, 1990 , p. 5). Similarly Halpern suggests that certain behaviours are associated with critical thinking or problem solving but that these higher order cognitive skills are not mutually exclusive ( Halpern, 1996 , pp. 317–363). This cognitive psychology view is more reflective of the data that has emerged from respondents in this study which might otherwise be considered misconceptions with respect to critical thinking.

Regardless of this interpretation, it would be interesting to ask students, teachers and professionals from other disciplines to define critical thinking. It is quite possible that an emphasis on judgement may occur in humanities, commerce or arts and perhaps there would be less use of the theme of problem solving. For example when a group of business academics were asked to describe which critical thinking skills were important to graduates entering the workforce within their discipline, 47% of responses described problem solving and 34% of responses described analysis ( Desai et al. , 2016 ).

The other interesting feature of this data are the points of difference between groups and what these may be attributed to. For example teaching staff emphasised the themes of ‘critique’ and ‘evaluate’. A common aspect of an academics role is to be involved in peer review and academic writing so it is not surprising that these themes arise so frequently. Likewise employers' frequency of themes around identification, innovation and context are reflective of a competitive commercial environment. Given the respondents association between critical thinking and problem solving, these perceptions around evaluation and identifying problems could also be a reflection of behaviours typical of expert open-ended problem solvers ( Randles and Overton, 2015 ). Both employers and teaching staff have a goal oriented definition of critical thinking which may be a product of maturity and/or their exposure to professional environments. Again this may be an example of constructivism ( Lemanski and Overton, 2011 ).

As can be seen in Table 8 , all groups used themes around analysis, critiquing, objectivity and problem solving to define critical thinking. In addition teaching staff and employers use themes relating to the application of knowledge, arriving at an outcome, evaluation and using a logical approach. Employers further expand on their definition to include themes regarding creativity, considering the broader context, taking a systematic approach and identifying opportunities and problems. These themes regarding the definition of critical thinking can be synthesised thus:

To analyse and critique objectively when solving a problem . – Students

To analyse, critique and evaluate through the logical and objective application of knowledge to arrive at an outcome when solving a problem . – Teaching staff

To analyse, critique and evaluate problems and opportunities through the logical, systematic, objective and creative application of knowledge so as to arrive at an outcome and recognise the large scale context in which these problems and opportunities occur . – Employers

While there are some similarities between the definitions of critical thinking it would be inaccurate to suggest that there is a shared definition. Furthermore, the depth to which critical thinking was defined appears to reflect the constructivist phenomena. Employers most commonly reflect definitions found in the literature ( Facione, 1990 ; Halpern, 1996 ; Tiruneh et al. , 2014 ). Employers appear to have a broader definition of critical thinking and this may be related to the fact that employers work in very broad contexts and a range of experiences, going beyond chemistry to deal with issues such as budgets, policies and human resources.

Where is critical thinking developed while studying chemistry at university?

With respect to the teaching staff, the wording of the question they received must be considered to put the responses in context: ‘Can you provide an example of when you have provided students with the opportunity to develop their critical thinking while studying chemistry?’ (Q2b) This wording elicited responses which were drawn from the respondents' recent teaching activities and may actually differ from where the respondent believes students develop their critical thinking most. For example many TAs from cohort A only have practical experience to draw on whereas cohorts B and C also have lecture and/or tutorial actives to base their response on ( Table 2 ). Conversely some respondents from cohorts B and C only had lecture or tutorial experience to draw on.

When asked to provide an example of where they believed they developed their critical thinking while studying chemistry, 45% of students identified an activity relating to a practical environment. The second most common theme was ‘inquiry based learning’ (17%). What was most interesting was that 36% of second year students and 14% of third year students specifically mentioned ‘IDEA pracs’. These practicals were guided inquiry activities the students performed as part of their first year laboratory program ( Rayner et al. , 2013 ). The fact that after two years in some cases students identified these activities demonstrates the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning in developing transferable skills such as critical thinking.

It is important to recognise that students do not identify activities that make the teaching of critical thinking explicit. Students in other studies identified courses around scientific communication as opportunities where critical thinking was explicitly taught ( Tapper, 2004 ). Beyond these courses, much like the students in the current study, the development of critical thinking became more implicit and students became dependent on feedback from writing activities ( Tapper, 2004 ; Duro et al. , 2013 ). It is clear from the literature, without a deliberate effort to make critical thinking goals explicit in discipline specific courses, students find it difficult to conceptualise, and perceive critical thinking as an intuitive skill that develops over time ( Tapper, 2004 ; Beachboard and Beachboard, 2010 ; Duro et al. , 2013 ; Loes et al. , 2015 ).

Teaching staff also identified practical environments (26%) as to when they developed students' critical thinking. However, four additional themes were also prominent in their responses: ‘application of knowledge’ (21%), ‘critique’ (33%), ‘project work’ (21%) and ‘research’ (19%). These themes are reflective of activities described in recent literature designed to elicit higher order cognitive skills ( Cowden and Santiago, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-Mcknight, 2016 ; Toledo and Dubas, 2016 ). Critique activities ranged from critiquing experimental design to writing literature reviews:

“I may provide students with some experimental evidence and they need to evaluate whether these are consistent with specific mechanisms.”

“Choosing and researching a topic to conduct a literature review on. Writing a review to include critical appraisal of the information covered.”

“Research paper-based assessments in which students are asked to locate and extract information, analyse data and critically assess aspects of experimental design.”

“…paper analysis which requires use of many variables in understanding change factors and outcomes in reaction.”

The ‘application of knowledge’ most often described activities taking place predominantly in a lecture environment and in some instances in a practical environment. Themes of ‘project work’ and ‘research’ often described activities in practical environments. Many of these responses focus on final year research projects:

“Mainly this comes from the crucial role of the research project, generally in the final year of study when the student has had the opportunity to build up their knowledge base across a broad range of chemistry.”

The above statement would suggest that critical thinking can only be achieved with a solid foundation of discipline specific knowledge. While it holds true that an individual is a better critical thinker within their discipline specific knowledge ( McPeak, 1981 ; Moore, 2011 ) it is not true that a large body knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to develop critical thinking ( Ennis, 1989 ; Davies, 2013 ).

According to this data students and teaching staff have some limited agreement that critical thinking is developed in a practical environment. However, that is where the similarities end. Despite teaching staff believing that they develop critical thinking through the application of knowledge this is not apparent to the students.

Implications for practice

Teaching staff commonly acknowledge that students develop their critical thinking in active environments in accordance with the literature ( Biggs, 2012 ). However the research projects the respondents commonly describe are often elective subjects or offered as vacation internships, the numbers of which are limited and will only become scarcer as student numbers continue to grow. It would be useful to determine if teaching staff believed project work is an opportunity to measure student critical thinking or whether it is better measured via other activities (if at all) and compare this to the literature ( Desai et al. , 2016 ).

A recent meta-analysis would suggest, a combination of teaching activities afford the greatest effect with respect to the development of critical thinking ( Abrami et al. , 2015 ). These teaching activities according to Abrami and colleagues are described as ‘authentic instruction’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘mentoring’. These findings are reflective of the present work where practical inquiry based learning, discussions and research projects were commonly described as opportunities to develop critical thinking. It is advisable for chemistry educators wishing to develop critical thinking in students that the activities described by students and teaching staff within this research form a foundation within their practice, emphasising authentic problem solving and Socratic dialogue ( Abrami et al. , 2015 ).

Future work

When asked to define critical thinking via an open ended questionnaire students, teaching staff and employers all described the themes of analysis, critique, objectivity and problem solving. Teaching staff and employers commonly expressed themes around evaluation, goal orientation and use of logic. Employers also believed creativity, larger scale contexts, taking a systematic approach and identifying of opportunities and problems are important aspects of critical thinking. This would suggest there is only a limited shared definition of critical thinking between students, teaching staff and employers which centres on analysis and problem solving.

In the same open ended questionnaire students and teaching staff described where they believed they developed student critical thinking. Overwhelmingly students described practical environments and inquiry based learning activities developed critical thinking. Teaching staff expressed themes around the application and critiquing of knowledge and to some extent practical environments and research projects. Again there appeared to be limited overlap between the perceptions of students and teaching staff and the need for more immersive student experiences, such as inquiry-based learning and work integrated learning ( Edwards et al. , 2015 ), is apparent in the development of transferable skills such as critical thinking.

If the workplace is expecting tertiary institutes to provide chemistry graduates for the workforce, a shared definition of critical thinking is imperative. However, there appears to be a somewhat limited shared understanding as to what critical thinking skills entail. If there are so many facets to critical thinking how can universities accommodate the development of these? Initiatives such work integrated learning ( Edwards et al. , 2015 ) aim to give students experience in commercial environments and perhaps in combination with inquiry-based pedagogies, a shared understanding of critical thinking and how to develop it can occur.

Acknowledgements

• Abrami P. C., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D. I., Wade C. A. and Persson T., (2015), Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res. , 85 (2), 275–314.
• Australian National University, (2015), Chemistry major , retrieved from http://programsandcourses.anu.edu.au/2016/major/CHEM-MAJ.
• Bailin S., (2002), Critical thinking and science education, Sci. Educ. , 11 , 361–375.
• Barnett R., (1997), Higher education: a critical business , Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Beachboard M. R. and Beachboard J. C., (2010), Critical-thinking pedagogy and student perceptions of university contributions to their academic development. (report), Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline , 13 , 53–71.
• Biggs J., (2012), What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. , 31 (1), 39–55.
• Bryman A. and Burgess R. G., (1994), Reflections on qualitative data analysis, in Bryman A. and Burgess R. G. (ed.), Analyzing qualitative data , London: Sage.
• Cloonan C. A. and Hutchinson J. S., (2011), A chemistry concept reasoning test, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 12 , 205–209.
• Cowden C. D. and Santiago M. F., (2016), Interdisciplinary explorations: promoting critical thinking via problem-based learning in an advanced biochemistry class, J. Chem. Educ. , 93 , 464–469.
• Davies M., (2013), Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. , 32 (4), 529–544.
• Desai M. S., Berger B. D. and Higgs R., (2016), Critical thinking skills for business school graduates as demanded by employers: a strategic perspective and recommendations, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal , 20 (1), 10–31.
• DeWit D. G., (2006), Predicting inorganic reaction products: a critical thinking exercise in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. , 83 , 1625–1628.
• Dressel P. L. and Mayhew L. B., (1954), General education: explorations in evaluation , Washington, D.C.: American Council on Eduction.
• Duro E., Elander J., Maratos F. A., Stupple E. J. N. and Aubeeluck A., (2013), In search of critical thinking in psychology: an exploration of student and lecturer understandings in higher education, Psychology Learning & Teaching , 12 , 275–281.
• Edmunds S. and Brown G., (2013), Section 6: undertaking pedagogic research using qualitative methods, in Groves M. and Overton T. (ed.), Getting started in pedagogic research within the stem disciplines , Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham STEM Education Centre, pp. 21–26.
• Edwards D., Perkins K., Pearce J. and Hong J., (2015), Work intergrated learning in stem in Australian universities: Australian Council for Education Research.
• Ennis R. H., (1989), Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research, Educ. Res. , 18 (3), 4–10.
• Ennis R. H., (1990), The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: further clarification, Educ. Res. , 19 (4), 13–16.
• Facione P. A., (1990), Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction, Executive summary. “The delphi report”. Millbrae, CA.
• Flynn A. B., (2011), Developing problem-solving skills through retrosynthetic analysis and clickers in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. , 88 , 1496–1500.
• Ghulam R. N. and David B., (1999), Graduates' perceptions of transferable personal skills and future career preparation in the UK, Education + Training , 41 (4), 184–193.
• Glaser R., (1984), Education and thinking: the role of knowledge, Am. Psychol. , 39 (2), 93–104.
• Graduate Careers Australia, (2015), Chemistry – bachelor graduates (all) , retrieved from http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/Research/GradJobsDollars/BachelorAll/Chemistry/index.htm.
• Gupta T., Burke K. A., Mehta A. and Greenbowe T. J., (2015), Impact of guided-inquiry-based instruction with a writing and reflection emphasis on chemistry students' critical thinking abilities, J. Chem. Educ. , 92 (1), 32–38.
• Halpern D. F., (1993), Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction, J. Gen. Educ. , 50 (4), 238–254.
• Halpern D. F., (1996), Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking , Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Halpern D. F., (1998), Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring, Am. Psychol. , 53 , 449–455.
• Henderson D. E., (2010), A chemical instrumentation game for teaching critical thinking and information literacy in instrumental analysis courses, J. Chem. Educ. , 87 , 412–415.
• Inhelder B. and Piaget J., (1958), The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: an essay on the construction of formal operational structures , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Jackson D., (2010a), An international profile of industry-relevant competencies and skill gaps in modern graduates, International Journal of Management Education, 8 (3), 29–58.
• Jackson N., (2010b), Developing creativity for professional capability through lifewide education, in Jackson N. (ed.), Learning to be Professional through a Higher Education , retrieved from http://learningtobeprofessional.pbworks.com/f/JACKSON+A4.pdf.
• Jones S., Yates B. and Kelder J.-A., (2011), Learning and teaching academic standards project, science: learning and teaching academic standards statement September 2011 , retrieved from http://www.acds-tlcc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/02/altc_standards_SCIENCE_240811_v3_final.pdf.
• Klein G. C. and Carney J. M., (2014), Comprehensive approach to the development of communication and critical thinking: bookend courses for third- and fourth-year chemistry majors, J. Chem. Educ. , 91 , 1649–1654.
• Leggett M., Kinnear A., Boyce M. and Bennett I., (2004), Student and staff perceptions of the importance of generic skills in science, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. , 23 , 295–312.
• Lehman D. R. and Nisbett R. E., (1990), A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning, Dev. Psychol. , 26 , 952–960.
• Lehman D. R., Lempert R. O. and Nisbett R. E., (1988), The effects of graduate training on reasoning: formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events, Am. Psychol. , 43 , 431–442.
• Lemanski T. and Overton T., (2011), An introduction to qualitative research , retrieved from http://https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/assets/hull:4506/content.
• Loes C. N., Salisbury M. H. and Pascarella E. T., (2015), Student perceptions of effective instruction and the development of critical thinking: a replication and extension, Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research , 69 , 823–838.
• Lowden K., Hall S., Elliot D. and Lewin J., (2011), Employers' perceptions of the employability skills of new graduates: research commissioned by the edge foundation , retrieved from http://www.educationandemployers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/employability_skills_as_pdf_-_final_online_version.pdf.
• Mann L., (1979), On the trail of process: a historical perspective on cognitive processes and their training , New York: Grune & Stratton.
• Martineau E. and Boisvert L., (2011), Using wikipedia to develop students' critical analysis skills in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, J. Chem. Educ. , 88 , 769–771.
• Matthews M. R., (1993), Constructivism and science education: some epistemological problems, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. , 2 (1), 359–370.
• McMillan J., (1987), Enhancing college students' critical thinking: a review of studies, J. Assoc. Inst. Res. , 26 (1), 3–29.
• McPeak J. E., (1981), Critical thinking and education , Oxford: Martin Roberston.
• Monash University, (2015), Undergraduate - area of study. Chemistry , retrieved from http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/2015handbooks/aos/chemistry/.
• Moore T., (2013), Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a concept, Studies in Higher Education , 38 (4), 506–522.
• Moore T. J., (2011), Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: a continuing debate, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. , 30 (3), 261–274.
• Nisbett R. E., Fong G. T., Lehman D. R. and Cheng P. W., (1987), Teaching reasoning, Science , 238 , 625–631.
• Oliver-Hoyo M. T., (2003), Designing a written assignment to promote the use of critical thinking skills in an introductory chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ. , 80 , 899–903.
• Pithers R. T. and Soden R., (2000), Critical thinking in education: a review, Educ. Res. , 42 (3), 237–249.
• Prinsley R. and Baranyai K., (2015), Stem skills in the workforce: what do employers want? retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS09_02Mar2015_Web.pdf.
• Randles C. A. and Overton T. L., (2015), Expert vs. novice: approaches used by chemists when solving open-ended problems, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 16 (4), 811–823.
• Rayner G. M., Charlton-Robb K.-M., Thompson C. D. and Hughes T., (2013), Interdisciplinary collaboration to integrate inquiry-oriented learning in undergraduate science practicals, Int. J. Innovation Sci. Math. Educ. , 21 (5), 1–11.
• Sarkar M., Overton T., Thompson C. and Rayner G., (2016), Graduate employability: views of recent science graduates and employers, Int. J. Innovation Sci. Math. Educ. , 24 (3), 31–48.
• Stephenson N. S. and Sadler-Mcknight N. P., (2016), Developing critical thinking skills using the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 17 (1), 72–79.
• Tapper J., (2004), Student perceptions of how critical thinking is embedded in a degree program, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. , 23 (2), 199–222.
• The University of Adelaide, (2015), University of Adelaide graduate attributes , retrieved from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/learning/strategy/gradattributes/.
• The University of Melbourne, (2015), Handbook – chemistry , retrieved from http://https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/2015/!R01-AA-MAJ%2B1007.
• Thorndike E. L. and Woodworth R. S., (1901a), The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I), Psychol. Rev. , 8 (3), 247–261.
• Thorndike E. L. and Woodworth R. S., (1901b), The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. II. The estimation of magnitudes, Psychol. Rev. , 8 (4), 384–395.
• Thorndike E. L. and Woodworth R. S., (1901c), The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions: functions involving attention, observation and discrimination, Psychol. Rev. , 8 (6), 553–564.
• Tiruneh D. T., Verburgh A. and Elen J., (2014), Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: a systematic review of intervention studies, Higher Educ. Stud. , 4 (1), 1–17.
• Toledo S. and Dubas J. M., (2016), Encouraging higher-order thinking in general chemistry by scaffolding student learning using Marzano's taxonomy, J. Chem. Educ. , 93 (1), 64–69.
• Wason P. C., (1966), New horizons, in Foss B. (ed.), Psychology , Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
• Wilson K. L., Lizzio A. and Ramsden P., (1997), The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire, Stud. Higher Educ. , 22 (1), 33–53.
• Zielinski T. J., (2004), Critical thinking in chemistry using symbolic mathematics documents, J. Chem. Educ. , 81 (10), 1533.

Critical Thinking Skills Profile of High School Students in AP Chemistry Learning

• Open Access
• First Online: 11 May 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Gilan Raslan 12  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 320))

5563 Accesses

From classrooms to workplaces, educators and policy makers have emphasized the necessity of graduating students who are strong critical thinkers for nearly 50 years and more (Forawi 2016). Critical thinking skills are a vital pillar skill to tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Critical thinking is defined as a set of fundamental skills that must be mastered before one may progress to more complicated thinking. Aiming to obtain more insight into the aspects of critical thinking, the present study particularly examines quantitively the critical thinking skills level of grade 12 students in a scientific learning context. Over a 35-min test, based on Danczak DOT criteria, data was collected and analyzed. The study’s findings revealed that the students’ critical thinking abilities are in medium range. However, other implications regarding curriculum modifications, educational teaching strategies and teachers’ readiness are needed to foster students’ critical thinking skills.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Is Critical Thinking a Skill or a Way to Develop Skills? An Overview in Engineering Education

Enhancing Scientific Thinking Through the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education.

• Critical thinking
• Scientific learning
• Teachers’ readiness

1 Introduction

Skills matter, and poor skills severely hinder access to better-paying and more gratifying professions, according to a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2016, 2018). Unsurprisingly, critical thinking skills, or CTS, have become a fundamental educational focus in recent decades (OECD 2016; Forawi 2020 ; Starichkova, Moskovskaya and Kalinovskaya 2022). Because CTS acts as a catalyst, students are able to go beyond simply gathering knowledge to developing a deep grasp of the information offered to them (Amin and Adiansyah 2018 ; Setyawan and Mustadi 2020 ). As a result, its most significant contribution is to promote good decision-making and problem-solving in real-world settings (Perez 2019; Forawi 2020 ).

Critical thinking CT is a reflective decision-making process that includes critical analysis based on relevant and accountable evidence and justifications (Hasan et al. 2020 ). Critical thinking is not the same as just thinking. It’s metacognitive, meaning it includes thinking about your own thoughts (Mai 2019).

According to Hidayati and Sinaga ( 2019 ), critical thinking necessitates logical and interpretative cohesiveness in order to detect prejudices and incorrect reasoning, and it is essential that students learn it.

Learning in the twenty-first century requires a shift in learning orientation, meaning mastering the content of knowledge, skills, expertise (Miterianifa et al. 2021 ). Students must also have thinking ability, action, and living skills in order to learn in the twenty-first century. One of the life skills is the ability to think critically, and students must have this ability in the twenty-first century, according to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Saleh 2019 ). In addition, students at the postsecondary level and in the workplace require learning assessment and critical thinking abilities in the 21 st century (Forawi 2020 ).

The major interest of future-oriented scientific, current, and chemical education is to develop students’ potential to think critically in all aspects of life (Sadhu et al. 2019). Critical thinking is also important because it allows students to successfully deal with problems and make a tangible contribution to society. It is one of the most important and well-known skills because it is required of everyone in the workplace of different fields such as leadership, and professions that require making decisions and clinical judgment. As a result, critical thinking is an important talent to be taught and educated (Abazar 2020).

In 1955, College Board established the Advanced Placement (AP) program as a non-profit organization that allows willing and academically qualified students to seek studies in the college-level while still in high school, with the chance of obtaining college credit, advanced placement, or both. Through AP classes in 38 disciplines, students learn to think critically, build good arguments, and understand different sides of a problem, all of which culminate in a hard test. These are abilities that will help them succeed in college and beyond (Conger et al. 2021 ). The AP Chemistry course gives students a college-level foundation in chemistry that will help them succeed in advanced chemistry courses in the future (College Board 2020 ; Conger et al. 2021 ). Students learn about chemistry through inquiry-based inquiries that cover topics including the structure of atoms, interactions and bonding between molecules, chemical reactions, reaction rates and thermodynamics equivalent of a college course (College Board 2020 ). The AP Chemistry course is meant to be a substitute for the general chemistry course that most students take their freshman year of college. Science practices are essential components of the course framework. These practices are; (1) models and representations, (2) question and method, (3) representing data and phenomena, 4) model analysis, (5) mathematical routines, and (6) argumentation; and they explain what a student should be able to do while discovering course concepts (College Board 2020 , p. 13–15). Practices are divided into skills, which serve as the foundation for the AP exam’s tasks (College Board 2020 ).

However, the extent to which those science practice skills help in improving the critical thinking skills of the students, not only to comprehend course and to pass the AP exam, but also for them to spot difficulties, solve those problems, and solve problems in everyday life, is still a question to be answered.

Therefore, the research has a purpose to examine the profile of critical thinking skills of high school students studying AP Chemistry course adopted in an American curriculum school in Dubai, using Danczak-Overton-Thompson Chemistry Critical Thinking Test or DOT test.

The study attempts to answer the following question:

To what extent do the AP Chemistry course foster the development of 12th grade students’ critical thinking skills?

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 bloom’s taxonomy theory of learning.

Bloom’s Taxonomy and critical thinking go hand in hand (see Fig.  1 ). Bloom’s taxonomy walks students through the process of evaluating material or knowledge critically (Wilson 2016 ).

(Adopted from: https://bcc-cuny.libguides.com/c.php?g=824903&p=5897590 )

Interconnection between Critical Thinking and Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s taxonomy begins with knowledge or memory and progresses through a series of levels of questions and keywords that encourage the learner to act. Education and meta-cognition which is the master level of thinking, require both critical thinking and Bloom’s taxonomy (Wilson 2016 ). Critical thinkers can dissect their own reasoning, draw inferences from available data or apply their understanding of a concept in a variety of ways. They can rephrase questions, divide down tasks into parts, apply information, and generate new data. This is a set of skills that can be taught and learned (Arievitch 2020 ). Critical thinking, according to Paul, is thinking about one’s thinking while he/she is already thinking in order to improve your his/ her thinking.

2.2 Critical Thinking and ZPD

Cognitive psychologists were particularly interested in deep thinking and the internal understanding process.

Critical thinking is a cognitive activity that involves the use of the intellect. The ability to transfer knowledge from one discipline to another is referred to as critical thinking. Critical thinking has been linked to the development of individual pondering skills such as logical reasoning and personal judgment, as well as the support of suspicious thoughts (Santos 2017 ). According to Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory, cognitive skills like critical thinking are socially guided and produced (Stetsenko and Selau 2018 ). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky, often known as scaffolding, is a concept used in schools to help students learn new skills. The expert gradually withdraws help as the learner achieves competency, until the student is capable of doing the activity on his or her own. This used to be accomplished by offering the student some suggestions and tips to help him solve the problem, while the teacher remained mute until the solver came up with his own hypothesis after properly understanding the problem. Close observation and reason-guide tests would be followed by hypothesis modifications as essential CT phases (Shah and Rashid 2018 ).

2.3 Guided Inquiry Model

The guided inquiry learning model is a teaching approach that can be used to help students build problem-solving skills through experience (Nisa et al. 2017 ). This paradigm has been found to be useful in training and guiding students in their grasp of concrete topics as well as their capacity to create higher-order thinking patterns (Seranica et al. 2018 ). The goal of inquiry-based learning is to educate learners how to research and explain an event. Orientation, formulation of the problem, formulation of hypotheses, data collection, hypothesis testing, and formulation of conclusions, are the guided inquiry learning phases (Putra et al. 2018 ) which go along with the CT aspects to be assessed in this study (see Table 1 ) (Hasan and Pri 2020 ).

3 Literature Review

3.1 defining critical thinking.

‘Critical,’ ‘Criticicism’, and ‘Critic’ are all derivatives of the ancient Greek term ‘Kritikos’, which means ‘able to authorise, perceive, or decide’. In modern English, a ‘critic’ is someone whose job it is to pass judgment on things like movies, novels, music, and food. It entails expressing an objective and unprejudiced view about anything (Padmanabha 2021 ).

Philosophy, cognitive psychology, and educational research are the three domains that dominate the debate over the meaning of critical thinking (see Table 2 ). The philosophy literature focuses on the generation of an argument or opinion (Hitchcock 2018 ). The critical thinking process is found to encourage problem solving and deciding what to do, according to the literature in psychology (Sternberg and Halpern 2020 ). While the majority of education research concentrates on observing behaviors. Critical thinking, according to these experts, is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based” (Danczak 2018 ).

3.2 Development of Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills are developed at a young age, and the effectiveness of educational strategies for enhancing these skills does not vary by grade level (Abrami et al. 2015).

This conclusion is startling from the perspective of Piaget, which considers young children’s cognitive processes to be underdeveloped in comparison to those of older people. Thinking is dependent on experience,” Piaget says. “Intelligence is the result of an individual’s natural potential interacting with their surroundings,” he says, adding that small children know more than he can express. The term “development” refers to the general mechanics of action and thought. However, research reveals that there is no specific age at which a child is cognitively equipped to learn more complicated strategies of thinking (Silva 2008), which is in line with both sociocultural and cognitive learning theories. Social connection, according to Vygotsky, is crucial in the cognitive development process (Padmanabha 2021 ).

3.3 Approaches for Teaching Critical Thinking

Many studies have found that the best teaching effects occur when students’ critical thinking skills are explicitly taught and developed over the course of their studies rather than in a single course or semester (Haber 2020 ). At K-12 education institutions, pedagogical techniques to developing critical thinking range from writing exercises, inquiry-based projects, flipped lectures, and open-ended practical to gamification and work integrated learning WIL (Danczak 2018 ). Chemical learning necessitates a thorough grasp of concepts, which serves as a basis for grasping later topics (Taber 2019 ). Students’ knowledge is built based on their learning experiences and is linked to their developmental stage as well as the influence of their surroundings. Linking existing understandings with new insights is one strategy to achieve learning success. The constructivist approach is concerned with this process, which focuses on the learners, fostering inventive thinking and allowing them to reach their full potential (Yezierski 2018 ).

The guided inquiry learning methodology outperforms traditional learning in terms of critical thinking skills, according to many studies (Mulyana et al. 2018 and Seranica et al. 2018 ). Students will be engaged in learning and will be taught how to tackle environmental problems through guided inquiry. They claim that students’ critical thinking abilities develop step by step in inquiry-based learning, including the processes of recognizing and defining issues, generating hypotheses, designing and performing experiments, and formulating conclusions based on the experimental data. Guided inquiry promotes students to develop scientific thinking habits (see Fig.  2 ) by encouraging them to be more receptive to new ideas in the group and by teaching them critical thinking skills when teachers engage in question-and-answer sessions and guide students in formulating relevant facts. Students consider the entire process rather than simply the final result (Suardana et al. 2019 and Rambe et al. 2020 ).

(Adopted from: Crockett, L. 2018)

Scientific thinking habits

Moreover, cooperative Learning is a set of teaching/learning approaches for assisting students in developing critical thinking skills. Students work together to acquire and practice subject matter aspects and achieve common learning objectives. It entails much more than simply grouping students and hoping for the best. These strategies necessitate greater teacher control. Students are asked to discuss a specific topic or participate in brainstorming exercises. Cooperative Learning is a very formal manner of organizing activities in a learning environment that contains specific features aimed at increasing the participants’ ability to learn richly and deeply. Examples of these strategies: Think-Pair-Share, Circle-the-Sage, Timed-Pair-Share, Agree-Disagree Line-ups and Rally Coach (Macpherson 2019).

3.4 Importance of Critical Thinking

Is it necessary for us to develop critical thinking skills? What about knowing how to acquire knowledge? In fact, acquiring information is a harmful habit that stands in the way of any discovery. Because, as de Bono puts it, “the illusion of knowledge” will imprison people in what they think they know and prevent them from being open to new ideas (Abazar 2020).

Developing our thoughts is an important element of being educated; it is crucial to a person’s development, and every human being has the right to do so. To grow as a well-educated person, our minds must think critically and creatively (Forawi 2020 ).

Solving complex problems and complicated life issues that necessitate quick and effective solutions is a feature of the 21 st century (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019 ). The development of students’ abilities and competences is in high demand all around the world. Major concerns concerning the capacities of the next generation are regularly acknowledged among educators. Critical thinking, communication, and teamwork abilities are especially important. Schools are obligated to give students with relevant learning opportunities in order for them to develop the skills and competences necessary to succeed in the workplace (Carson 2017 ).

One of the UAE’s main challenges is guaranteeing that its system of education equips students with the skills that the country’s developing private market requires, consequently assisting in the diversification of the country’s industries and correcting the country’s manpower population imbalance. In an innovative economy, the circumstances demonstrate how critical it is for the government to have highly skilled Emirati laborers with significant skill sets available (Forawi 2020 ). As a result, students’ critical thinking skills should be practiced as soon as possible. Junior high school children, with an average age of 11–13 years, are included in the concrete operational cognitive stage, according to Piaget’s (1927–1980) cognitive development theory. The idea is that youngsters of that age have been able to use their cognitive skills to identify tangible objects but have not been able to identify abstract objects (Ibda 2015). As a result, kids can begin practicing critical thinking abilities as soon as they enter high school (Hasanah et al. 2020 ).

3.5 The Assessment of Critical Thinking

According to certain research findings around the world, students’ CT skills are still in the poor category (Fadhlullah et al. 2017; OECD 2019; Haber 2020 ).

The critical thinking assessment is critical because there are various objectives to be met, particularly in science education. Because grasping science information necessitates additional reasoning, CT abilities are required. The importance of critical thinking assessment, according to Ennis, is diagnosing students’ CT skills, providing constructive feedback and encouraging students to improve their ability to think critically, as well as inspiring teachers about the suitable teaching strategies needed to teach students CT skills (Hidayati 2019).

The significance of developing students’ critical thinking skills at higher education institutions can be seen in its inclusion as a graduate criterion for universities. In addition, research emphasizes the importance of exhibiting critical thinking skills to employers, instructors, and students (Danczak 2018 ).

The learning outcome can be used to assess the effectiveness of a learning process (Panter and Williford 2017). Critical thinking is difficult to assess. There are features of critical thinking that are both domain-specific and generic (Rashel and Kinya 2021).

The main point of contention in the assessment of CT is whether it is best taught in broad or in specialized disciplines such as history, medicine, law, and education. Critical thinking has been considered as a global, general skill that can be used to any practice of teaching by the ‘generalists’. The ‘specialists’, on the other hand, perceive critical thinking as a skill unique to a certain context and specialty. The discussion over this long-running topic is vital for gaining an insight into the nature of human thought; yet, taking one side or the other is not required. The idea of combining the two approaches has a lot of support. The authors endorse the idea of preparing students for ‘multifaceted critical thinking’ and the concept of CT that strikes a chord with the pioneers of ‘infusion’. (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019 ).

At universities, critical thinking skills are rarely directly assessed. There are infomercial CT assessments available, which are frequently broad in nature. However, research suggests that evaluations that use a context appropriate to the students’ CT skills quite effectively represent their abilities (Chevalier et al. 2020 ; Wei et al. 2021 ).

A variety of commercial tools that evaluate critical thinking are available (AssessmentDay Ltd. 2015; Ennis and Weir 1985; Insight Assessment 2013; The Critical Thinking Co. 2015). The setting of these examinations is generally broad or abstract, and they are created for recruitment purposes. When students, on the other hand, assign meaning to the test environment, a more reliable reflection of students’ critical thinking can be derived (Bhutta et al. 2019 ).

Therefore, for the context of this study, a critical thinking evaluation that tests critical thinking especially from chemistry study is required. According to Suwandi (2011), attainment of advanced thinking skills should not be isolated from assessment, and must be conducted as an integral component of the learning environment to identify students’ cognitive growth and learning outcomes, as well as to improve the learning process (Nurfatihah et al. 2021 ).

4 Methodology

4.1 design and methods.

This study is quantitative in nature, and aims to examine the critical thinking abilities of class 12 students.

Quantitative research involves the collection of numerical data, and the use of statistics. (Bhandari 2020 ).

Reflecting on the research question, which focuses on fostering students’ critical thinking skills, an assessment tool is used to collect data quantitatively from the students’ test results. Then, the test results are analyzed into percentages to measure the causal relation between the quality of the science practice skills implemented in AP Chemistry course and the development of CT skills of high school students.

The paradigm of the study, which is the philosophy that underpins it, is post positivism. Only “fact based” information obtained through using the senses to observe and monitor, including measurement, is considered reliable by this philosophy (Bloomfield and Fisher 2019 ). In the context of this study, the DOT test results of students are the measurement on which the study’s outcomes rely on. In positivism studies, the researcher’s role is confined to gather data and analyze it objectively. In other words, while conducting research, the researcher acts as an unbiased analyst who disconnects himself or herself from personal preferences (Bloomfield and Fisher 2019 ).

4.2 Participants and Ethical Considerations

The participants in this study are 30 twelfth grade students from an American curriculum school in Dubai, adopting American curriculum and AP courses.

Participants were informed that participating in the study was completely voluntary, anonymous, and would have no bearing on their academic records, and that they had the option to withdraw at any moment. All students have been acknowledged with the informed consent. In addition, all techniques were authorized and acknowledged by the school principal.

4.3 Data Collection Instrument

The tool used in this study in a test designed using Google Forms. The test’s questions are constructed based on the Danczak-Overton-Thompson Chemistry Critical Thinking Skills Test (Danczak 2018 ), which is a tool that can be used to assess a student’s CT ability at any point during their study of Chemistry. Within a range of quantitative and qualitative reliability and validity testing phases, the DOT test was developed and evaluated throughout three versions. According to the studies, (Li et al. 2020 , Salirawati et al. 2021 ; Susetyo et al. 2021 and Helix et al. 2021 ) the final version of the DOT test has good internal reliability, strong test–retest reliability, moderate convergent validity, and is independent of past academic success and university of study (Danczak et al. 2016 ).

The DOT test consists of multiple-choice questions in Chemistry topics to assess five main aspects of CT including: (1) making assumptions: 7 questions (2) analyzing arguments: 7 questions (3) developing hypotheses: 6 questions (4) testing hypotheses: 5 questions (5) drawing conclusions: 5 questions.

A debriefed and revised form of DOT is used in this study, including 15 questions to examine the five critical thinking indicators with three questions for each indicator.

5 Data Analysis and Results

This section depicts the results derived from the DOT examination of student responses.

Data is gathered by including each student’s responses to each of the five aspects of the DOT Test.

The students’ grades in each of the five key areas are subsequently transformed into percentages (Fig. 3 ).

Percentage of the students’ CT skills aspects in DOT-Test

The students’ critical thinking percentage score is then transformed into qualitative values (categories) based on the following (see Table 3 ).

The graph (see Fig. 3 ) below shows the results of students’ critical thinking skills exam, which reveal that three components categorized as medium score including ‘Developing Hypotheses’ (56,6%), ‘Testing Hypothesis’ (54.4%), and ‘Drawing Conclusion’ (46.6%), while two components receive scores categorized as low, including ‘Making Assumptions’ (38.8%) and ‘Analyzing Arguments’ (36.6%).

The graph displays the average proportion of students’ CT skills from the five components, which is 46.6% which is considered medium. According to the findings, the average outcomes of 12th grade students’ critical thinking abilities exams are medium, at 46.6%. This is not in accordance with other studies, which claim that high school students’ CT skills are poor (Fadhlullah et al. 2017; Haber 2020 ).

In the aspects of developing and testing hypothesis of the DOT test, the students demonstrated the ability to predict what will happen in a specific context of interest based on existing evidence and reasoning, then seeking information to confirm or refute this prediction, and lastly drawing a conclusion.

On the other hand, students struggled a bit to postulate and decide the validity of an argument in the aspects of making assumptions and analyzing arguments.

6 Discussion

In discussing the results of the study, three keys with high order abilities were determined to be the greatest in the results of the DOT test: developing hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and drawing conclusion.

Critical thinking skills in the ‘Developing Hypotheses’ component of students were rated at [49%].

In scientific reasoning, scientists make conclusions based on data, observations, and assumed facts while developing hypotheses. To make a connection or find the intended meaning, an inference is employed to fill in the gaps. These conclusions are not certain, but the hypothesis being constructed has a high level of confidence based on the evidence supplied (Danczak 2018 ).

The results of the tests suggest that this element is medium, which indicates that students are trained to design a hypothesis through applying the guided inquiry teaching technique as discussed in the literature review.

Results obtained in the section of ‘Testing Hypothesis’, reflect the same analysis as in the ‘Developing Hypothesis’ section. With a score of 54.4%, students were able to decide if the idea presented in the passage was supported by the evidence presented, or the deduction had nothing to do with the hypothesis, and there wasn’t enough data to back it up.

In a guided inquiry approach, experiments are carried out to test hypotheses (Putra et al. 2018 ).

Students start with a theory or assertion that they believe is correct and then seek information to corroborate or contradict it. As a result, a premise is formed that is thought to be correct or true (Danczak 2018 ). This area is very fundamental in science education.

By 46.6% in the area of ‘Drawing Conclusion’, these results are considered medium; however, it could be considered as ‘low’ medium. Students may struggle to formulate a conclusion due to a lack of comprehension and inability to make connections. A conclusion’s strength is defined by how well the deductions, inferences, and/or premises support it. To reach a conclusion, a scientist will combine multiple pieces of knowledge, such as deductions, inferences, or premises (Danczak 2018 ). This indicator is consistent with the constructivist approach discussed earlier in the literature review, which emphasizes learners using prior knowledge, encouraging inventive thinking, and allowing them to grow and thrive (Yezierski 2018 ).

Moreover, formulation of conclusions is one of its essential learning phases in the guided inquiry model (Putra et al. 2018 ).

The test findings revealed that the area with the lowest score, 36.6%, is ‘Analyzing Arguments’.

Students must decide whether or not an argument is valid as part of the scientific process. This necessitates distinguishing assumptions (spoken or implicit), inferences, deductions, and premises, conclusions (certain conclusions in a statement may be implied), and if the argument is relevant to the topic being addressed.

Even if there is sufficient evidence, reliable sources, and supporting material, an argument might be regarded weak if it is unimportant and unrelated to the question being presented (Danczak 2018 ).

In summary, the average of all components of critical thinking skills is 46.6%, demonstrating a medium category, according to the criteria used. Referring to this research question, this 46.6% average indicates that the science practice implemented in the AP Chemistry course can assist in fostering the CT skills of the high school students.

Whereas, it contradicts the results of the three-year PISA research conducted from 2009 to 2015, which revealed low scores due to students’ lack of familiarity with higher-order thinking (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019 ).

7 Recommendations and Limitations

The exam results are influenced by a number of other factors, such as the process of teaching and learning in the classroom, which is not attuned to developing CT skills in conformance with the expectations of the twenty-first century. Students’ inadequate critical thinking abilities are attributable to a lack of activity and training, as well as restricted resources and time, which limit the environment’s ability to build critical thinking skills (Fadhlullah et al. 2017).

Memorization should not be prioritized in learning activities (DuDevoir 2018 ). To solve problems and make judgments, students should be able to derive, interpret, and evaluate information. In the learning process, teamwork and collaboration are also stressed while solving difficulties (Hagemann and Kluge 2017 ). Learning must also shift from a focus on low-level thinking abilities to one that prioritizes high-level thinking skills (Hasanah et al. 2020 ).

The study’s limitations include the small sample size, making it difficult to generalize the findings and draw firm conclusions based on such a small sample size. To confirm the study results, tt is necessary to conduct a larger sample size study on a broader scope. For example, conduct the study on all grades 10, 11 and 12 students who study Chemistry.

Also, the gender factor can be included in the results and the data analysis. The study conducted by the researcher was on two sets of students, 20 students from the girls’ high school section and 10 students from the boys’ high school section. Moreover, confounding variables should have been taken into consideration (Jeske and Yao 2020 ). The environmental conditions of the exam were not identical, since another instructor teaches in the boys section. This instructor may have influenced the students’ responses.

Lastly, the study’s instrumental tool did not include all the components of the original DOT exam. These metrics may not be able to fully represent all characteristics of an instance.

In summary, the way science curricula are developed will have an impact on future science instruction. This concept is further backed by a significant requirement to incorporate critical thinking skills into science training in order to improve learning outcomes in schools and beyond.

8 Conclusion

The learning experiences that students have, have a big impact on their critical thinking skills. Students will acquire critical thinking abilities if they are frequently offered training to carry out CT activities during the learning process. As a result, future study should emphasize the significance of teaching critical thinking skills to students at an early age, and making it a main priority educational objective. Moreover, teachers should devise teaching techniques that allow students’ engagement in activities that assess in the development of critical thinking skills (Chu et al., 2017 ; Emerson 2019 ). It is the role of the institutes to keep a closer eye on actual teaching in the classrooms.

Once educated, creative and critical thinking need to be assessed (Abazar 2020). Several instruments are available to help with this, but evaluators must ensure that these instruments are used appropriately in a correct setting, because changes in testing techniques can impact the result’s accountability (Forwai 2020). In addition, a study of how science teachers integrate reasoning and critical thinking abilities into teaching and increasing students’ learning should be conducted.

Finally, we may firmly admit at the end that critical thinking in science education is the magic wand that will usher in a knowledge-actions based society. That knowledge-actions based society, whether in the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere in the world, will be able to maintain control over the present while deciding on and planning for the future with the adherence to high ethical and moral standards.

Amin, A., & Adiansyah, R. (2018). Lecturers’ perception on students’ critical thinking skills development and problems faced by students in developing their criticalthinking skills . Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia.

Google Scholar  

Arievitch, I. (2020). Reprint of: the vision of developmental teaching and learning and Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact., 27 , 100473.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhandari, P. (2020). What is quantitative research? | Definition, uses and methods.

Bhutta, S., Chauhan, S., Ali, S., Gul, R., Cassum, S. & Khamis, T. (2019). Developing a rubric to assess critical thinking in a multidisciplinary context in higher education .

Bloomfield, J. & Fisher, M. (2019). Quantitative research design. J. Australas. Rehabil. Nurses Assoc.

Carson, A. (2017). Problem with problem solving: teaching thinking without teaching knowledge the mathematics educator, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.7–14.

Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A. & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: a model for creative computational problem solving. Int. J. STEM Educ., 39 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z

Chu, S., Reynold, R., Tavares, N. & Notari, M. (2017). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning; from theory to practice . Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2481-8

College Board. (2020). AP Chemistry course and exam description .

Conger, D., Long, M. & McGhee, R. (2021). Advanced placement and initial college enrollment: evidence from an experiment. Educ. Financ. Policy . https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00358

Danczak, S. (2018). Development and validation of an instrument to measure undergraduate chemistry students’ critical thinking skills . PhD. Thesis. Monash University.

Danczak, S., Thompson, C. & Overton, T. (2016). Development of a chemistry critical thinking test: initial reliability and validity studies.

Danczak, S., Thompson, C., & Overton, T. (2017). What does the term critical thinking mean to you? A qualitative analysis of chemistry undergraduate, teaching staff and employers’ views of critical thinking. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18 , 420–434.

Dressel, P. L., & Mayhew, L. B. (1954). General education: Explorations in evaluation . Washington, D.C.: American Council on Eduction.

Dudevoir, C. (2018). It’s not a memory test; education needs to focus on critical thinking.

Emerson, K. (2019). A model for teaching critical thinking. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540588.pdf

Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive summary. “The delphi report”.Millbrae, CA: T. C. A. Press

Forawi, S. (2020). Science and mathematics education in multicultural contexts: new directions in teaching and learning . Champaign, IL:Common Ground ResearchNetworks

Book   Google Scholar  

Haber, J. (2020). It’s time to get serious about teaching critical thinking. The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series

Hagemann, V. & Kluge, A. (2017). Complex problem solving in teams: the impact of collective orientation on team process demands. Front. Psychol., 8 , 1730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730

Halpern, D. F. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J. Gen. Educ. , 50 (4), 238–254.

Hasan, M. & Pri, S. (2020). Implementation of guided inquiry learning oriented to green chemistry to enhance students’ higher-order thinking skills. J. Phys. . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339680788_Implementation_of_guided_inquiry_learning_oriented_to_green_chemistry_to_enhance_students'_higher-order_thinking_skills

Helix, M., Coté, L., Stachl, C. & Baranger, A. (2021). Measuring integrated understanding of undergraduate chemistry research experiences: Assessing oral and written research artifacts. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Hidayati, Y. & Sinaga, P. (2019). The profile of critical thinking skills students on science learning. J. Phys.

Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking/

Jeske, D. & Yao, W. (2020). Sample size calculations for mixture alternatives in a control group vs. treatment group design. Stat. J. Theor. Appl. Stat., 54 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02331888.2020.1715407

Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology , 26 , 952–960.

Li, Y., Li, X., Zhu, D. & Guo, H. (2020). Cultivation of the students’ critical thinking ability in numerical control machining course based on the virtual simulation system teaching method. IEEE Access, 8 , 173584–173598. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3025079 .

Li, Z., Cai, X., Kuznetsova, M., & Kurilova, A. (2022). Assessment of scientific thinking and creativity in an electronic educational environment. Int. Sci. Educ. , 1–24.

Miterianifa, M. & Ashadi, A. & Saputro, S. (2021). A Conceptual framework for empowering students’ critical thinking through problem based learning in chemistry. J. Phys. 012046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012046 .

Mulyana, S., Rusdi, R. & Vivanti, D. (2018). The effect of guided inquiry learning model and scientific performance on student learning outcomes. Indones. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 2 , 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02331888.2020.1715407

Nisa, E. T., Koestiari, T., Habibbulloh, M. & Jatmiko, B. (2017). Effectiveness of guided inquiry learning model to improve students’ critical thinking skills at senior high school. J. Phys .

Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W. (1987). Teaching reasoning. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 238 , 625–631.

Nurfatihah, R., Nahadi, N., & Firman, H. (2021). Development of chemistry tests for students on reaction rate subject matter based on critical thinking skills using framework DOT test. J. Educ. Sci., 5 (4), 702–711.

Padmanabha, C. (2021). Critical thinking: conceptual framework. J. Educ. Psychol., 11 (4), 45–53, (2018). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3772743

Planter, A. & Williford, L. (2017). Introduction to Student Learning Outcomes Assessment for Continuing Program Improvement: study guide. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Putra, B., Prayitno, B., & Maridi, M. (2018). The effectiveness of guided inquiry and INSTAD towards students critical thinking skills on circulatory system materials. J. Pendidik. IPA Indones., 7 (4), 476–482.

Rambe, Y., Silalahi, A. & Sudrajat, A. (2020). The effect of guided inquiry learning model and critical thinking skills on learning outcomes. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201124.033 .

Rashel, U., & Shimuzu, K. (2021). Development and validation of a test to measure the secondary students’ critical thinking skills: a focus on environmental education in Bangladesh. Int. J. Educ. Res. Rev., 6 , 264–274.

Saleh, S. (2019). Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: conceptions, implementation, and challenges in the EFL classroom. Eur. J. Foreign Lang. Teach., 4 (1), 1–16.

Salirawati, D., Priyambodo, E., Nugraheni, A. & Basuki, R. (2021). Critical thinking ability of high school students in daily life acid-base concept. J. Pendidik. SAINS (JPS) , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.26714/jps.9.1.2021.1-13 .

Santos, F. (2017). The role of critical thinking. J. Educ. Pract,. 8 (20). http://archive.org/stream/ERIC

Seranica, C., Purwoko, A., & Hakim, A. (2018). Influence of guided inquiry learning model to critical thinking skills. IOSR J. Res. Method Educ., 8 (1), 28–31.

Seranical, C. & Purwoko, A. (2018). Influence of guided inquiry learning model to critical thinking skills. J. Res. Method Educ., 8 (2), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0801022831

Setyawan, D., & Mustadi, A. (2020). Is hidrorium able to improve the students’ critical thinking skills? Jurnal Prima Edukasia. , 8 , 20–28.

Seventika, S., Sukestiyarno, Y. & Mariani, S. (2018). Critical thinking analysis based on Facione (2015). J. Phys. Conf. Ser . https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012067

Shah, T. & Rashid, S. (2018). Applying Vygotsky to adult learning.

Sternberg, R. & Halpern, D. (2020). Critical thinking in psychology (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternod. L., & French. B. (2015). The Watson–Glaser™ II critical thinking appraisal. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Pullman , USA: Washington StateUniversity.

Stetsenko, A., & Selau, B. (2018). Presentation–Vygotsky’s approach to disability in the context of contemporary debates and challenges: charting the next steps (special issue–Vygotsky’s defectology). Educação, 41 (3), 315–333.

Suardana, I., Selamet, K., Sudiatmika, A., Putri, S. & Devi, N. (2019). Guided inquiry learning model effectiveness in improving students’ creative thinking skills in science learning. J. Phys . https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012215

Susetyo, B., Siswaningsih, W. & Fizky, F. (2021). Development of critical thinking test instruments with problem solving context on the salt hydrolysis material. Indones. J. Sci. Math. Educ .

Taber, S. (2019). Progressing chemistry education research as a disciplinary field. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0011-z

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 results combined executive summaries Volume I, II & III . https://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm

Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S. & Kinshuk. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ Computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Comput. Educ., 160 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023

Wilson, L. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised. Understanding the new version of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Yezierski, K. (2018). Complexity in thinking: constructivism within chemistry learning.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Master in Education, Faculty of Education, British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Gilan Raslan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilan Raslan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Khalid Al Marri

Farzana Mir

Solomon David

Aos Aljuboori

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Raslan, G. (2023). Critical Thinking Skills Profile of High School Students in AP Chemistry Learning. In: Al Marri, K., Mir, F., David, S., Aljuboori, A. (eds) BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 320. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27462-6_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27462-6_8

Published : 11 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-27461-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-27462-6

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

You can (and probably already do) use scientific ways of thinking in your everyday life.

Think science!

You might imagine that scientific thinking differs from the sorts of reasoning tools that you use in your everyday life — that scientists go around with a head full of equations through which they view the world. In fact, many aspects of scientific thinking are just extensions of the way you probably think everyday:

• Ever seen something surprising and tried to figure out how it happened? Perhaps you’ve seen a magician make his assistant disappear from a box and wondered if the trick involved a trap door ….
• Ever sought out more ​​ evidence  (e.g., by looking for a joint in the floor beneath the box)?
• Ever come up with a new explanation for a mystery? Perhaps the trick used a mirror to reflect an image of an empty wall ….

These might seem like trivial examples, but in fact, they represent scientific habits of mind applied to an everyday situation. Scientists use such ways of thinking to scrutinize their topics of study — whether that’s human behavior or neutron stars — and you can use the same tools in your own life.

Want to develop  your  scientific outlook? Try to consciously apply these habits of mind to the ​​ natural world  around you:

• Question what you observe . How does bleach lighten your clothes? How do bees find their way back to the hive? What causes the phases of the moon?
• Investigate further . Find out what is already known about your ​​ observations . Your sister says that bleach washes chemicals out of fabric, while your chemistry book says that bleach is good at breaking molecular bonds that cause chemicals to appear colored.
• Be skeptical . You’ve heard that honeybees use the sun to navigate, but does that really make sense? What would they do on cloudy days?
• Try to refute your own ideas . Look at things from the other side of the ​​ argument . You’d always assumed that the phases of the moon were caused by the shadow of the Earth falling on the moon — but if that were really the case, then how is it that we can sometimes see both the moon and the sun in the sky overhead?
• Seek out more evidence . Does bleach work better on some sorts of stains than others? Do bees leave the hive on cloudy days? Is there any relationship between the phase of the moon and where it appears in the night sky?
• Be open-minded . Change your mind if the evidence warrants it. If everything you learn about the moon clashes with the idea of lunar phases being caused by the Earth’s shadow, perhaps you should give up that idea and look for other explanations.
• Think creatively . Try to come up with alternate explanations for what you observe. Maybe bees also use landmarks to get back to their hives, maybe they use the Earth’s magnetic field, maybe they follow some sort of scent trail, or maybe they use a combination of navigation methods …

In terms of answering your original questions, some of these strategies are bound to be dead ends. At the end of the day, you’ll have learned a lot but may still be without solid answers. And if so, congratulations — you’re really thinking like a scientist! Scientific investigations, like your own exploration, often lead in unexpected directions and lack tidy endpoints. Nevertheless, these ways of thinking illuminate the world around us in ways that are often useful and always fascinating, revealing the inner workings of our everyday experiences — whether that’s a walk past a garden, a moonlit night, or just doing a load of laundry.

• Take a sidetrip
• Teaching resources

Taking a scientific outlook on life makes the world an interesting place — but on a more practical level, you can also use scientific knowledge and ways of thinking to make informed decisions. To learn more, visit  Getting personal  in our section on the applications of science.

You can help your students appreciate the excitement of scientific discoveries in many ways — for example, by discussing science news stories, new and compelling research, or the announcement of the Nobel prizes in science. Most importantly, you should model the excitement and curiosity for science that you want to inspire in your students. One way to do this is to take time to legitimately engage student questions about science topics, even if they stray somewhat from the designated content. After all, scientists do not limit their curiosity to topics narrowly defined by their previous work.

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Understanding Science 101
• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool
• Misconceptions