• Open supplemental data
  • Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

systematic review and critical thinking

  • Instituto de Investigación y Postgrado, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Central de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Aim: This systematic review identified systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies on the promotion and development of critical thinking in higher education students that allowed us to answer the following research questions : (1) What are the main definitions of critical thinking found in systematic reviews of critical thinking in higher education, and what are their similarities and differences? and (2) What are the most commonly used teaching strategies in higher education for teaching or promoting critical thinking, and how effective have they proven to be?

Methods: Systematic reviews were selected according to the guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes (PRISMA, 2020) and the eligibility criteria proposed by the PICOS strategy (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design), based on 23 records of scientifically identified registers in the Journal Citation Report databases of the Web of Science.

Results: The bibliometric and systematic search of reviews of empirical studies on the topic allowed the selection of five systematic reviews. The results highlighted that conceptually critical thinking is related to both dispositions and skills, and that although there is no consensus on its definition, it is established that it is a higher-order cognitive process that can be trained. However, the results show that more studies have been conducted considering critical thinking as a skill than as a disposition, that the immersion approach has been widely used, and that some instructional strategies have shown greater effectiveness than others when the disciplines are evaluated independently.

Discussion: Despite the relative consensus on the importance of critical thinking for professional development in higher education, this review highlights some difficulties in conceptualizing critical thinking, in the relationship between dispositions and skills, and in its assessment in academic disciplines.

1. Introduction

How we think has become a fundamental pedagogical discussion, in terms of the kinds of thinking skills needed in particular societies, and the role and possibilities of education in developing or fostering these skills. In this context, critical thinking has become a central notion, understood in educational institutions in the Global North as a key necessity in contemporary societies. In this regard, the UN and UNESCO have gone so far as to define critical and creative thinking, which enables innovation and knowledge sharing, as a requirement for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and therefore a priority for any educational institution ( Fejes, 2006 ; Beneitone and Yarosh, 2015 ; Organización de Naciones Unidas, 2018 ; Sabzalieva et al., 2021 ). As a result, various higher education (HE) institutions around the world have included critical thinking among their objectives ( Zahavi and Friedman, 2019 ; Cruz et al., 2021 ). However, despite broad agreement on its relevance, there is neither a single definition of critical thinking that satisfies the complex and diverse aspects that are part of critical thinking discussions, nor agreement on the best method for teaching or fostering critical thinking in HE, or on how to assess or measure it ( Halpern, 1998 ; Van Damme and Zahner, 2022 ). Moreover, recent studies show that even within HEIs that have established critical thinking as an explicit pedagogical objective and developed specific strategies for teaching it, students do not appear to become significantly more skilled as critical thinkers as a result of their education, with variables such as nationality, languages, gender and socio-economic background having varying degrees of impact in this regard. As suggested by van Damme and Zahner (2022) , given the importance that critical thinking has gained in higher education and the limited success of these critical thinking programmes, universities should make greater efforts in this regard.

In terms of its conceptualization, a specific link between critical thinking and education dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century. El Soufi and See (2019) noted that the Deweyan approach had already pointed to the role of education in strengthening critical thinking among students as a key objective. More recently, in 1980, Peter Facione gave rise to the Delphi Project ( Facione, 1990 ). This was based, on the one hand, on the observation in various cases that students did not reason adequately. And on the other, the identification of a lack of agreement about how critical thinking was defined, taught and assessed, despite its agreed relevance to higher education ( Facione, 1990 ). The Delphi project brought together 46 experts from around the world, including philosophers, scientists, and educators, with the aim of defining critical thinking and developing recommendations on how to teach and assess it ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ).

The resulting definition – and one of the most widely quoted – referred to critical thinking as: “purposeful, self-regulating judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and conclusion, as well as an explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, critical, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based. Critical thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, critical thinking is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in personal and civic life” ( Facione, 1990 , p. 651). However, despite this agreed definition, some authors have noted that there is still a lack of agreement on how to define and approach critical thinking ( Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, there is a debate about whether it is even possible to teach critical thinking. This discussion relates, on the one hand, to the argument that critical thinking is a socio-culturally specific practice that cannot be easily taught or learned ( Ramanathan and Kaplan, 1996 ; Atkinson, 1997 ). In this regard, variables such as nationality, culture, language and socio-economic background may be key to differentiating students’ critical thinking learning processes ( Giacomazzi et al., 2022 ; Van Damme and Zahner, 2022 ).

And, on the other hand, a discussion related to this academic talent from the creative perspective or the development of divergent thinking ( Crossley-Frolick, 2010 ), distinguishing nativist, deterministic or dispositional approaches from others that are more developmental or related to formal and informal learning ( Andreucci-Annunziata, 2012 , 2016 ; Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ). In this last sense, from a relational, socio-constructivist, dialogical, and critical conception, both academic talent and critical thinking are referred to from their possibilities and limitations in the field of pedagogical interaction and problem-solving ( Andreucci-Annunziata, 2016 ; Ahern et al., 2019 ). In this sense, Puig et al. (2019) suggest that the transition from ‘what to think’ to ‘how to think’ adequately summarizes the challenge of teaching critical thinking, a challenge that requires major transformations in instructional paradigms and that, in turn, questions the initial conceptions.

Given the polysemy of the concept and the divergences around it, critical thinking is generally understood as doubly constituted: on the one hand, as an ability (skill) and, on the other, as a disposition, both dimensions being closely related ( Dumitru et al., 2018 ). The former understands critical thinking as a cognitive skill, or a set of cognitive skills necessary to think critically. As a disposition, critical thinking refers to a set of basic, predetermining affective dispositions, toward life in general and toward specific thinking situations ( Cruz et al., 2021 ). These dispositions are considered necessary (as prerequisites) for the development of the cognitive skills that constitute critical thinking. Understood as dispositions, critical thinking is close to what Dewey (1910) calls “good mental habits” or what Siegel (1988) has conceptualized as “critical spirit.” Facione (1990) proposes a list of affective dispositions grouped into two categories: approaches to life in general (e.g., confidence in one’s own reasoning abilities, interest in keeping informed, openness to different world views, flexibility in considering other alternatives and opinions, etc.) and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems (e.g., clarity in formulating questions and concerns, diligence in seeking relevant information, etc.). The distinction between these two categories is important because it emphasizes that critical thinking is not developed exclusively in relation to specific aspects of reasoning but is rather a way of approaching different aspects of everyday life and questioning this process of approach ( Facione, 2000 ; Braun et al., 2020 ).

Simultaneously, critical thinking studies point out that it is not enough to teach cognitive skills, but that people should: “understand the value of critical thinking and have an interest and enthusiasm in applying it. While critical thinking skills can be explicitly taught, dispositions need to be modeled and nurtured so that students progressively adopt an identity as critical thinkers” ( Al-Ghadouni, 2021 , p. 241). However, while many educators agree that critical thinking is an important skill to teach, not all agree on the best way to teach it. The disagreement falls mainly on whether it is a generic skill that can be transferred between different dimensions and that can be taught independently of the subject or topic, or whether it is specific to each dimension and, therefore, requires positioning ( McPeck, 1981 ; Bailin et al., 1999 ; Moore, 2013 ). Therefore, a detailed analysis of how critical thinking is translated into teaching-learning processes shows several possible paths. Generally, however, there is agreement among educational researchers on the key principles that should shape teaching and learning processes to promote critical thinking, including: “facing open-ended problems, encountering real-world complexity, using multiple knowledge sources, developing knowledge artifacts to explicate thinking, utilizing collective efforts and group resources instead of favoring individual student work, and integrating rich use of modern technologies into the work processes” ( Hyytinen et al., 2019 , p. 71). Regarding these teaching-learning processes, three relevant concepts are identified in the literature: (1) approaches, (2) instructional strategies, and (3) learning materials.

The concept of approaches is usually used in critical thinking studies referring to Ennis (1989) ’s distinction between four different ways of teaching critical thinking mainly differentiated according to the explicit or implicit teaching of critical thinking ( Ahern et al., 2019 ; El Soufi and See, 2019 ). These pedagogical approaches to critical thinking have been synthesized into four types: general method; infusion; immersion and mixed method, which we briefly explain below ( Al-Ghadouni, 2021 ). The general method consists of the explicit teaching of critical thinking, to acquire or developing critical thinking skills as the sole focus. In the infusion method, critical thinking constitutes an explicit objective but in parallel to a specific topic of study. Critical thinking is taught in relation to the topic at hand, and students are encouraged to think critically about it, while the basic principles of critical thinking are explicitly taught as well. In the immersion approach, critical thinking is not an explicit teaching objective. The focus is on immersion in a specific theme or subject, which is taught in a way that provokes critical thinking. Critical thinking principles are not explicitly addressed, and students are not necessarily aware that they are being trained to think critically. Finally, the mixed method consists of a combination of the general method and the infusion or immersion method.

The second key concept in relation to critical teaching-learning processes is instructional strategies. These refer to more specific kinds of activities through which teachers expect students to develop and engage in critical thinking practices. Some of these strategies are: defining arguments, evaluating the reliability of sources, identifying fallacies and assumptions, using inductive and deductive logic, synthesizing information, making inferences, assessment techniques like peer-review, teacher evaluation, and self-evaluation, debates, brainstorming techniques, journal writing, scaffolding, active learning strategies, FRISCO ( Ennis, 1996 ), the guidelines of Elder and Paul (2003) , the ‘IDEALS’ technique of Facione (2011) , Lecture-Discussion Teaching (LDT), Problem-Based Learning (PBL) ( Ennis, 2016 ), problem-solving (inquiry), lecture discussions (argumentation), group work, role-play, self-study, self and peer-assessment, context-based learning ( Dominguez, 2018a ), constructing maps with structured arguments, concept mapping, dialog (learning through discussion), authentic instruction (presenting real problems, simulation, sequential assignments, and performance-based assessment).

The third concept, learning materials, is suggested by Puig et al. (2019) to identify relevant materials that are part of critical thinking teaching-learning processes, such as literary and narrative texts (articles, essays), E-learning activities, and authentic problems.

In addition to the conceptual and methodological discussion around the critical thinking pedagogical approach, critical thinking studies have also focused on discussing the possibility of evaluating it. Various instruments have been developed for this purpose, such as the California Test, which is based on the work of Facione (2000) and focuses on skills, or the Cornell Test, which is based on the work of Ennis and Weir (1985) and focuses on dispositions.

Given the current relevance of critical thinking in higher education and the breadth of its conceptual approaches and the heterogeneity of pedagogical methods used to address it, this article discusses the results of a systematic review of systematic reviews that have addressed critical thinking in relation to higher education. This review responds to the need to identify the main definitions and didactic approaches that have emerged from the establishment of critical thinking as a pedagogical objective in different HE institutions worldwide, systematizing what has been learned in this process to facilitate the formulation of guidelines. Theoretical and methodological support to those academic institutions that intend to implement critical thinking among their teaching objectives and hallmarks in the present and future. In this way, the article develops by answering the following questions.

• What are the main definitions of critical thinking found in systematic reviews of critical thinking in higher education? What are their similarities and differences?

• What are the most commonly used teaching strategies in higher education to teach or promote critical thinking, and how effective have they been shown to be?

In what follows, the materials and methods of the systematic reviews are presented, and then the findings are presented and discussed.

2. Materials and methods

In this review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA, 2020) guidelines ( Page et al., 2021a , b ) were used, and the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) strategy was used to establish the eligibility criteria for the articles ( Methley et al., 2014 ). In addition, the initial search for articles was performed using bibliometric procedures ( Porter et al., 2002 ). Systematic reviews of systematic reviews and bibliometrics have recently been used separately to address educational topics related to learning in general and critical thinking competencies in HE students ( Djamnezhad et al., 2021 ; Pagán Castaño et al., 2022 ). Both methods blend allows for increased accuracy and replicability of study ( Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2022 ).

A set of articles was used as a homogeneous citation base, avoiding the impossibility of comparing indexing databases that use different calculation bases to deter-mine journals’ impact factors and quartiles ( Bakkalbasi et al., 2006 ; Falagas et al., 2008 ; Chadegani et al., 2013 ; Harzing and Alakangas, 2016 ; Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016 ), relying on the Web of Science (WoS) core collection, selecting articles published in journals indexed by WoS in the Science Citation Index Expanded (WoS-SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (WoS-SSCI), from a search vector on critical thinking TS = ((critical NEAR/0 (thinking OR perspective OR approach)) AND (Higher NEAR/0 Education)), without restricted temporal parameters, performing the extraction on 3 October 2022. The following types of documents were included: articles and review articles.

A complementary bibliometric analysis was carried out on a set article obtained for the topic under study. Using two fundamental bibliometric laws:

1. Exponential science growth or Price’s Law, through the exponential adjustment degree of the annual growth of publications, as a measure of a strong interest among the scientific community to develop studies on critical thinking in HE, conforming a critical researcher mass developing this knowledge topic ( Price, 1976 ; Dobrov et al., 1979 ), and determining the time median and its contemporary and obsolete periods.

2. Then we have excluded proceeding papers, book reviews and editorial materials and other languages, for estimate the publications concentration in journals by Bradford’s Law, distributing the journals in thirds according to the decreasing number of documents published in them, establishing as the nucleus of journals with the highest concentration that cover at least 33% of the total publications ( Bulik, 1978 ; Morse and Leimkuhler, 1979 ; Pontigo and Lancaster, 1986 ; Swokowski, 1988 ; Kumar, 2014 ).

According to the checklist of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines ( Page et al., 2021a , b ), the following quality steps for systematic reviews were verified according to the following sections: 1 (title), 2 (structured abstract), 3 (rationale), 4 (objectives), 5 (eligibility criteria), 6 (sources of information), 7 (search strategy), 8 (selection process), 9 (data extraction process), 10a and 10b (data items), 16a and 16b (study selection), 17 (study characteristics), 19 (results of individual studies), 23 (discussion), 24 (registration and protocol), 25 (support), 26 (competing interests), and 27 (availability of data, code and other materials). The following sections were excluded because, as a review of reviews or umbrella review ( Aromataris et al., 2015 ), the data from each study to satisfy their criteria were not considered pertinent within the narrative synthesis of the present review, or were not available, or were presented only in a general way after having been part of a respective protocol: 11 (study risk of bias assessment), 12 (effect measures), 13 (synthesis methods), 14 (reporting bias assessment), 15 (certainty assessment), 18 (risk of bias in studies), 20 (results of syntheses), 21 (reporting biases), and 22 (certainty of evidence).

Through PRISMA guidelines, the selection of articles was specified based on eligibility criteria: the target population (participants), the interventions (methodological techniques), the elements of comparison of these studies, the outcomes of these studies, and the study designs (the criteria of the PICOS strategy as shown in Table 1 ). Screening of the preselected systematic reviews was first performed independently by the following authors, PA-A, AR, SC, AM, and AV-M. Then, the final review of the included reviews was done in the following pairs: PA-A, AM; AR, SC; and AV-M, AM. In case of doubt, it was decided to include a third reviewer among the six authors.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1 . Eligibility criteria using PICOS (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design).

The bibliometric systematization over an unrestricted period in the WoS main collection resulted in 1999 documents between 1965 and 2022, showing a continuous publication record from 1994 onwards. Figure 1 shows an exponential publication growth between 1994 and 2022 with an R 2 adjustment of 78% (trend line and value in red). In addition to highlighting as a semi-period of more recent publications between 2018 and 2022 (green shaded area), with an analysis set reduced to 1,084 documents for this period.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1 . Publications on critical thinking between 1965 and 2022.

After the exclusions are made, 847 documents are fragmented in search of the Bradford core ( Table 2 ). This estimate narrows the core to 38 journals that concentrate the publication of 276 articles between 2018 and 2022 (See detail in Table A1 in Appendix A, and data in Supplementary Table S1 ).

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2 . Bradford zones estimation, articles by journal zones.

The absolute percentage error is estimated at 3%, therefore the adjustment achieved by the nuclear zone is considered adequate (See Equation 1 ).

This 276-document set is entered as input to the PRISMA diagram flow ( Figure 2 ), according to the eligibility criteria (PICOS) set out in Table 1 .

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2 . PRISMA 2020 diagram flow. *SSCI, Social Sciences Citation Index; SCI-E, Science Citation Index Expanded; ESCI, Emerging Sources Citation Index; BKCI-SSH, Book Citation Index Social Sciences & Humanities; A&HCI, Arts & Humanities Citation Index.

Thus, this search identified a total of 276 articles from five different databases in the collection Web of Science (SSCI, Social Sciences Citation Index; SCI-E, Science Citation Index Expanded; ESCI, Emerging Sources Citation Index; BKCI-SSH, Book Citation Index –Social Sciences & Humanities; A&HCI, Arts & Humanities Citation Index). Excluding records by type of document, particularly articles (224), book chapters (9), and early access (20), 23 records were obtained for the screening, corresponding only to systematic reviews of the subject.

Then, 17 systematic reviews were excluded because they presented literature reviews (6); critical reading and writing reviews (6); specific critical thinking teaching techniques, because they focus on how to implement a specific technique and marginally on the development of critical thinking (2) or were outside the focus of this review (3), reducing the corpus to be analyzed to six full-text systematic reviews in English, retrieved and screened using the selection criteria defined with the PICOS strategy. Finally, a last review that included studies on the assessment of critical thinking through standardized instruments was excluded at this stage. Thus, the screening made it possible to identify five systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria, as shown in Figure 2 . A summary of the general characteristics of the included systematic reviews can be found in Table 3 .

www.frontiersin.org

Table 3 . Characteristics of the included reviews.

The selected reviews included studies with different methodological designs, both quantitative (2) and a mixture of quantitative and qualitative design (3). The reviews addressed 29.8 critical thinking studies on average, all chosen following PRISMA 2020 guidelines for their respective selection. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis mainly due to the heterogeneity of the studies included in the reviews. One of them considered the Hedge’s g effect size, although not all the studies reviewed by their authors provided the necessary data to perform the calculation ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ). Another review reported three types of statistically significant gains (general, specific, and no gain) assessed from standardized tests in their studies, but without giving values or effect sizes ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ). Finally, the remaining revisions informed methodological limitations of the studies they selected and/or did not report specific statistical tests from the studies ( Ahern et al., 2019 ; Puig et al., 2019 ; Tuononen et al., 2022 ).

The narrative synthesis of the selected systematic reviews made it possible to answer the proposed research questions. For this purpose, we consulted the guidelines for narrative syntheses in systematic reviews ( Popay et al., 2006 ) suggested by the document PRISMA-P 2015 ( Shamseer et al., 2015 ).

A summary of the objectives, definition of critical thinking, associated concepts and variables, and background and/or assumptions of each of the selected reviews can be found in Table 4 , while Table 5 presents a summary of the relevance of critical thinking to HE, key findings and challenges for future research arising from each of the selected reviews.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 4 . Summary of the objectives, definition of critical thinking, associated concepts and vari-ables, assumptions, and relevant authors of each of the reviews.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 5 . Summary of the relevance of critical thinking to HE, key findings, and challenges for future research of each of the reviews.

Table 6 synthesizes the findings of the approaches and strategies applied for the development of critical thinking in HE in each of the selected reviews.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 6 . Approaches and strategies applied for the development of critical thinking in HE from selected reviews.

One of the selected reviews sought to examine the teaching of generic competencies in HE ( Tuononen et al., 2022 ) and another one examined critical thinking in different disciplines, such as biomedical sciences, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), social sciences, and humanities ( Puig et al., 2019 ). The other three studies have referred to the teaching of critical thinking in specific disciplines: English as a second language ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ), engineering ( Ahern et al., 2019 ), and health sciences ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ).

Regarding the definition of critical thinking, in two of the five systematic reviews addressed, the definition used by the authors is literally the one proposed by Facione (1990) , who led the Delphi project on this topic.

Reviews argue that the critical thinking literature suggests that critical thinking is a disposition and skill ( Ahern et al., 2019 ; Puig et al., 2019 ). However, our results - that analyzed the set of the above five systematic reviews - show that, currently, the concept of skill is more prevalent in the literature than that of disposition. Two of the five reviews do not refer to dispositions at all ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ; Tuononen et al., 2022 ), and the other three do so only narrowly ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ; Puig et al., 2019 ). In contrast, the five systematic reviews highlight the skills aspect, and two of them go deeper into it, highlighting the specific role of cognitive skills ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ; Tuononen et al., 2022 ).

The different existing conceptualizations of critical thinking in the academic field have in common that it is a type of thinking that enables a reflective process and the ability to make evidence-based judgments. In addition to reflexivity and judgment, other terms and verbs highlighted in the conceptualizations are competence, ability, disposition, understanding, analyzing, inferring, and concluding, among others.

Regarding the approaches and methodologies used to teach critical thinking, the first reassuring finding is that the greatest effect is in the explicit teaching of general critical thinking skills ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ). In relation to teaching English, the methodologies identified as effective are the use of literary and narrative texts, assessment techniques such as peer review, teacher assessment and self-assessment, and approaches such as conducting debates, brainstorming, daily writing, scaffolding and active learning strategies ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ). In relation to engineering education, it is concluded that to date there has been no quantifiable evaluation of interventions implemented to enhance critical thinking ( Ahern et al., 2019 ). This review, which looked at critical thinking in different professional fields, concludes that the most commonly used teaching approach across all fields is the so-called immersion approach ( Puig et al., 2019 ). This finding suggests that the teaching of critical thinking is more effective when it is integrated transversely into the teaching of different fields than when it is treated as a separate subject. The reviews that have addressed critical thinking in the health sector are consistent with this review in highlighting the high use of the immersion approach. Within this approach, the most effective strategies appear to be simulation, reflective writing, concept mapping, problem-based learning [PBL] and case-based learning [CBL] ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ). Finally, this review, which focused on the learning of generic skills in higher education, shows that active learning methods, i.e., those that promote students’ activity and role in their learning process, are factors that enhance the learning of critical thinking ( Tuononen et al., 2022 ).

These systematic reviews agree that the development of critical thinking skills is a key objective of different higher education programmes. They also agree that critical thinking contributes to the integration and performance of professionals in different work settings. Two of the reviews offer arguments to support this relevance. Firstly, a pedagogical argument suggests that, given the large amount of information available today, it is relevant that students can distinguish facts from opinions and evaluate and judge the credibility of the evidence presented to them ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ). In the same vein, it is pointed out that health science students should complement scientific and technical knowledge with advanced thinking dispositions and reasoning and decision-making skills ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ). A second argument, of a more technical nature, relates to the requirements of university accreditation processes with assessment agencies ( Ahern et al., 2019 ).

4. Discussion

This systematic review of critical thinking in HE with PRISMA 2020 guidelines identified the main definitions of critical thinking, their commonalities, and differences, instructional strategies, and their effectiveness. The revision was conducted with five reviews from WoS databases which allowed focusing the search according to the PICOS strategy ( Porter et al., 2002 ; Liberati et al., 2009 ; Moher et al., 2009 ; Methley et al., 2014 ; Andreucci-Annunziata et al., 2022 ).

This work has shown that there are several definitions of critical thinking, which has implications for the formulation of theoretical and methodological guidelines in the teaching and learning process in higher education. Through the analysis ( Table 4 ), we found that critical thinking involves complex cognitive activities, which in turn need to be applied to specific contexts in which HE students operate.

Facione’s (1990) definition appears to be the most comprehensive, emphasizing critical thinking as evaluation carried out in a self-regulatory manner through sequential cognitive processes. There are nuances in what constitutes a skill, which implies a situated and evaluative implementation ( Cruz et al., 2017 ; Tuononen et al., 2022 ). El Soufi and See’s (2019) definition is more focused on evidence-based reasoning. Cruz et al. (2017) emphasize dispositions that point to mental and character qualities inherent in a person, which extends the definition to look beyond cognitive abilities.

Comparing these definitions, there is no complete consensus on what needs to be done in order to think critically, except that it involves higher order cognitive processes. The literature emphasizes the fact that students should move from what to learn to how to learn from a socio-constructivist perspective ( Andreucci-Annunziata, 2012 , 2016 ).This means that students must be able to make sense of the task they are doing, because at this level of complex thinking it is not enough to follow instructions or perform tasks: critical thinking necessarily implies students’ ability to evaluate.

Since the information in Table 4 , the question would be how to approach critical thinking, considering two related aspects: one has to do with the training of cognitive tasks in an instructional setting; the other requires aspects more linked to the affective/emotional being, a comprehensive quality that is trained according to the idiosyncrasy and background of each person. The five selected papers do not provide a common answer on how to do this. Critical thinking is associated with formal education in certain fields, such as engineering, language teaching, etc. This means that it is generally approached from specific problem situations and generalized to broader aspects where competences are demonstrated.

The review by El Soufi and See (2019) highlights specific teaching methods that enable critical thinking to be exercised. However, when looking for an answer, they suggest studies with larger populations and add that not all studies agree on a common definition of critical thinking so that different aspects of the process could be measured. Ahern et al. (2019) add that studies should be longer and integrate critical thinking into the curriculum, which would make it possible to evaluate a period of training. They question the assessment of critical thinking in the absence of a more consensual definition of the term. Finally, they suggest that stakeholders interested in demonstrating or assessing critical thinking, such as employers, should be involved.

Payan-Carreira et al. (2019) also discuss the difficulties in studying critical thinking, arguing that no consistent results are obtained from studies using the same teaching strategies. Nor are conclusive results obtained from different strategies. Puig et al. (2019) state that the conceptualization of critical thinking as both a set of skills and a set of dispositions lacks more specific information on how and to what extent learning strategies enhance critical thinking skills and dispositions.

There are several unresolved issues. There is still no consensus on what is meant by critical thinking. On the one hand, reference is made to formal teaching factors provided by universities, which recommend different strategies to acquire the necessary cognitive skills. On the other hand, there is recognition of defined dispositions, which are attributed to action tendencies, personality traits and positive qualities of individuals. Although the authors agree on the existence of both, studies on strategies for training during higher education prevail and the discussion on individual factors of students would appear in disposition or aspects of it. From the selected reviews, it can be seen that the definition of critical thinking obtained by the Delphi project ( Facione, 2011 ) is still valid, although this project was carried out three decades ago. It is worth noting that in the current discussion of critical thinking, the high cognitive skills are most often mentioned, more often than the dispositions, which raises a question. Is this because dispositions are more difficult to study or measure than skills?

It is recognized that critical thinking or reasoning requires dispositions; however, the relationship between dispositions and skills is not yet clear in light of these recent reviews. That is, critical thinking can be developed in students whose dispositions in terms of personal attributions favor this process ( Cruz et al., 2017 ; Wechsler et al., 2018 ). A possible question that arises is whether critical thinking skills are developed from motivational, attitudinal and other dispositions. From the perspective of individual development, there would be environmental conditions and people’s emotional world that favor the acquisition of critical thinking.

Another relevant finding of our analysis is that several of the reviews emphasize the need for methodologically sound studies to advance knowledge about critical thinking in general and how to teach it. For example, Tuononen et al. (2022) found that active learning occurs in learning environments. However, they found conflicting results regarding methodological issues such as study design, methods and sample size.

One question is whether there should be more research on the dispositional aspects of successful critical thinking students, taking into account socio-cultural factors. For example, it is easier to compare individuals with similar educational opportunities (e.g., Finland), as in the study included in this systematic review ( Tuononen et al., 2022 ), which alludes to methodological shortcomings.

If a framework definition of critical thinking training for higher education students were to be proposed, a high level of training in cognitive skills and a complex and comprehensive view of the conditions that make this possible would be paramount. These, as well as aspects of human talent, have been addressed as a condition that favours the development of critical approaches whenever pedagogical scenarios make it possible ( Andreucci-Annunziata, 2012 , 2016 ).

Looking more closely at the strategies that promote the development of critical thinking, and with a view to contributing to the construction of theory in this area, the emphasis on training in cognitive tasks in discipline-based teaching scenarios in four of the five reviews examined stands out. Focusing on the second question guiding this review, Table 6 shows that, with the exception of Tuononen et al. (2022) , who do not mention this aspect, the authors agree on strategic approaches such as the general approach, the infusion approach, the immersion approach or the mixed approach, depending on the specificity of the students.

When considering the specificity of the student, it seems appropriate not to forget the specificity of the teacher. Only the study by Ahern et al. (2019) shows that, from the perspective of the educator, there is a disconnect between the theory of critical thinking and the practice of teaching critical thinking in engineering. The above seems to be relevant to the repair of teacher education beyond techniques. In other words, although some techniques have demonstrated their effectiveness, the interventions carried out in all areas, such as the immersion approach and the infusion approach ( Payan-Carreira et al., 2019 ; Puig et al., 2019 ), followed by general critical thinking skills ( El Soufi and See, 2019 ), operate in a specific interactional framework between teacher and student ( Andreucci-Annunziata, 2016 ; Salas et al., 2021 ).

This interactional framework seems to be relevant for further research. It is within this framework that the teaching-learning process takes place. In turn, this teaching-learning process, of which the development of critical thinking becomes a fundamental part, is inserted into a defined institutional educational and strategic project with guiding guidelines. The guidelines for the process of restructuring and strategic planning of universities in the world, and especially in Latin America, have emphasized the review of the integration of the respective institutional educational projects into the general academic task. This has implications not only for the objectives of academic quality, but also for a rigorous analysis of the curricular models postulated in institutional educational projects. In this sense, the approaches that pay attention to critical thinking because of and in the process of development, focus on the students and enable them to insert themselves in the framework of the challenges imposed by global citizenship, the strengthening of academic skills (cognitive, affective and/or bonding) and life skills, sustainable development, the inclusion of diverse perspectives and openness to internationalization ( Delors et al., 1996 ; Sabzalieva et al., 2021 ). According to Molina et al. (2018) , an educational model in a university setting expresses “synthetic visions of theories or pedagogical approaches that guide specialists and teachers from the development and analysis of study programmes to the systematization of the teaching-learning process in university classrooms” (p. 153). It is this last process that is particularly highlighted in this review.

5. Conclusion

Not surprisingly, since critical thinking is the foundation of integral education in complex times, there has been much research and study on this topic. The recent bibliometric analysis of critical thinking ( Pagán Castaño et al., 2022 ) allowed us to support a review of reviews with current and updated data. Our review shows that dispositions and skills are key concepts in the promotion of critical thinking, and Giancarlo and Facione (2001) point out that the disposition to think critically is conceptually different from having the skills to think critically. Although all the authors reviewed agree in recognizing the importance and influence of dispositions in the area of critical thinking, there has been more research on skills than on dispositions. When turning to the aspect of teaching strategies for critical thinking, there was no consensus on how this should be done. In fact, the common recommendation to conduct further research on how to teach critical thinking raises the question of whether it is possible to teach this disposition or skill at all.

Further concerns arise about the conditions under which critical thinking can be developed in contexts that do not sufficiently validate it, or in higher education institutions that do not explicitly define it in their policies, although they require it in academic outcomes, and vice versa. The strategies derived from the methodologies reviewed do not fully respond to the development of critical thinking because they focus almost exclusively on the evaluation of outcomes rather than on the process of constructing this type of thinking and its applicability. It would be helpful to update paradigms in this area that support both study and teaching practice. A possible alternative is to consider complex paradigms ( Delors et al., 1996 ; Elfert, 2015 ) that support life skills in this 21st century and are concerned with placing students at the center of their learning process, in close contact with their interactional dialog environment (family members, teachers and classmates), which challenges them and proposes joint problem solving.

In the context of educational transformation, which is the purpose of this type of study, the elements to be considered are (1) the institutional educational project (mission, vision, objectives), (2) the institutional strategic plan (strategic quality objectives in the areas of teaching, management, research and links with the environment), (3) the study plan (degree programmes, undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and their respective curricula), and (4) the teaching-learning process. At this last level, which is also the first (the micro-genesis of educational transformations), the development of critical thinking is considered key in two senses: as training in cognitive tasks (instructional scenario) and as “training” in affective-relational attitudinal skills (expressive scenario). It is clear, in the opinion of the authors of this review, that this second approach is the one that requires further study and constitutes a line of research to be deepened and strengthened in future research. The conclusive analysis presented is consistent with the potential of complexity theory to address the challenges, at the micro- and macro-genetic levels, in establishing a new field of research in higher education from the perspective of educational psychology, and to provide possible solutions for the implementation of complex and creative thinking as a developmental goal for students and a strategic goal for higher education institutions. ( Davis and Sumara, 2014 ; Scott et al., 2018 ; Harmat and Herbert, 2020 ).

On the other hand, the main limitation of this review is that there is not enough information to explore the different weight of the methodologies implemented for the development of cognitive, affective-attitudinal, creativity, talent and academic performance skills in higher education in academic programmes. Likewise, given the origin of the systematic reviews found and analyzed in this study, there is no information on the application of critical thinking conceptualizations and teaching practices in Latin America ( Beneitone and Yarosh, 2015 ), which constitutes a challenge and line of research for a working team such as ours.

Author contributions

PA-A: original idea and institutional link. PA-A, AR, SC, and MR: conceptualization and writing—original draft preparation. AM and AV-M: methodology. AM and AR: formal analysis. PA-A, AM, and AV-M: writing—review and editing. PA-A: funding acquisition. PA-A: proofreading and final editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The article processing charge (APC) was funded by Instituto de Investigación y Postgrado, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Central de Chile (Code: ACD 219201).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1141686/full#supplementary-material

Aglen, B. (2016). Pedagogical strategies to teach bachelor students evidence-based practice: a systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 36, 255–263. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.08.025

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahern, A., Dominguez, C., McNally, C., O’Sullivan, J. J., and Pedrosa, D. (2019). A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education. Stud. High. Educ. 44, 816–828. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahern, A., O’Connor, T., Mac Ruairc, G., McNamara, M., and O’Donnell, D. (2012). Critical thinking in the university curriculum: the impact on engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 37, 125–132. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2012.666516

Al-Ghadouni, A. (2021). Instructional approaches to critical thinking: an overview of reviews. Rev. AR. de Clin. Psicol. 30, 240–246. doi: 10.24205/03276716.2020.2020

Andreucci-Annunziata, P. (2012). El Talento: Una Construcción en y Desde la Pedagogía Dialógica. Psicoperspectivas 11, 185–205. doi: 10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol11-Issue2-fulltext-200

Andreucci-Annunziata, P. (2016). Talento y argumentación: Una alianza dialógica en el aula. Profesorado Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado 20, 2–17. doi: 10.30827/profesorado.v20i2.10405

Andreucci-Annunziata, P., Mellado, A., and Vega-Muñoz, A. (2022). Telesupervision in psychotherapy: a bibliometric and systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19:16366. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192316366

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., and Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evid. Implement. 13, 132–140. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2004). Liberal Education Outcomes: A Preliminary Report on Student Achievement in College . Washington, DC, Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Google Scholar

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2015). Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success . Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey

Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking. TESOL Q. 31, 71–94. doi: 10.2307/3587975

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J., and Daniels, L. (1999). Common misconceptions of critical thinking. J. Curric. Stud. 31, 269–283. doi: 10.1080/002202799183124

Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., and Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 3:7. doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., and Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: a review of the literature. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 8, 25–42. doi: 10.19030/tlc.v8i2.3554

Beneitone, P., and Yarosh, M. (2015). Tuning impact in Latin America: is there implementation beyond design? Tuning. J. High. Educ. 3, 187–216. doi: 10.18543/tjhe-3(1)-2015pp187-216

Braun, H. I., Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Borowiec, K. (2020). Performance assessment of critical thinking: conceptualization, design, and implementation. Front. Educ. 5:156. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00156

Bulik, S. (1978). Book use as a Bradford-Zipf phenomenon. Coll. Res. Libr. 39, 215–219. doi: 10.5860/crl_39_03_215

Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., et al. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 9:5. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Claris, L., and Riley, D. (2012). Situation critical: critical theory and critical thinking in engineering education. Eng. Stud. 4, 101–120. doi: 10.1080/19378629.2011.649920

Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., and Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 524–535. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005

Crossley-Frolick, K. A. (2010). Beyond model UNITED NATIONS: simulating multi-level, multi-actor diplomacy using the millennium development goals. Int. Stud. Perspect. 11, 184–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2010.00401.x

Cruz, G., Payan-Carreira, R., and Dominguez, C. (2017). Critical thinking education in the Portuguese higher education institutions: a systematic review of educational practices. Rev. Lusofona Educ. 38, 43–61. doi: 10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle38.03

Cruz, G., Payan-Carreira, R., Dominguez, C., Silva, H., and Morais, F. (2021). What critical thinking skills and dispositions do new graduates need for professional life? Views from Portuguese employers in different fields. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 40, 721–737. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1785401

Davis, B., and Sumara, D. (2014). Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research . Lawrence Erlbaum. Routledge.

Delors, J., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Gorham, W., et al. (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro: informe para la UNESCO de la Comisión Internacional sobre la Educación para el Siglo Veintiuno . París, Santillana Ediciones UNESCO.

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think . D.C. Heath & Co. Publishers: Boston, United States.

Djamnezhad, D., Koltcheva, N., Dizdarevic, A., Mujezinovic, A., Peixoto, C., Coelho, V., et al. (2021). Social and emotional learning in preschool settings: A systematic map of systematic reviews. Front. Educ. 6:691670. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.691670

Dobrov, G. M., Randolph, R. H., and Rauch, W. D. (1979). New options for team research via international computer networks. Scientometrics 1, 387–404. doi: 10.1007/bf02016658

Dominguez, C. (2018a). A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in higher Education Institutions. UTAD/EU: Vila Real

Dominguez, C. (2018b). A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century . ERASMUS + Programme/EU UTAD: Vila Real

Dumitru, D., Bigu, D., Elen, J., Jiang, L., Railienè, A., Penkauskienè, D., et al. (2018). A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century . UTAD: Vila Real, Portugal.

El Soufi, N., and See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence. Stud. Educ. Eval. 60, 140–162. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006

Elder, L., and Paul, R. (2003). Critical thinking: teaching students how to study and learn. J. Dev. Educ. 27, 36–38.

Elfert, M. (2015). UNESCO, the Faure report, the Delors report, and the political utopia of lifelong learning. Eur. J. Educ. 50, 88–100. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12104

Ennis, R. (1996). Critical Thinking . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research. Educ. Res.. 18, 4–10. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018003004

Ennis, R. H. (2016). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision. Topoi 37, 165–184. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Ennis, R. H., and Weir, E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test . Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software.

European Parliament Council (2008). The establishment of the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning. Official Journal of European Union: EU. Available at: https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/projects/european-qualifications-framework-eqf

Eurydice (2011). Science Education in Europe: National policies, practices and research . EACEA: Brussels, Belgium.

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

Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Log. 20, 61–84. doi: 10.22329/il.v20i1.2254

Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts . San Jose: California Academic Press.

Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., and Sanchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. J. Nurs. Educ. 33, 345–350. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19941001-05

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G., and Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 22, 338–342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

Fejes, A. (2006). The Bologna process-governing higher education in Europe through standardisation. Revista Española de Educación Comparada 12, 203–232.

Giacomazzi, M., Fontana, M., and Camilli Trujillo, C. (2022). Contextualization of critical thinking in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic integrative review. Think. Ski. Creat 43:100978. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100978

Giancarlo, C. A., and Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. J. Gen. Educ. 50, 29–55. doi: 10.1353/jge.2001.0004

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol. 53, 449–455. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.4.449

Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J. Gen. Educ. 50, 270–286. doi: 10.1353/jge.2001.0024

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking , 5th. Psychology Press: New York, United States.

Harmat, L., and Herbert, A. (2020). Complexity thinking as a tool for understanding the didactics of psychology. Front. Psychol. 11:542446. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.542446

Harzing, A. W., and Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, scopus and the web of science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 106, 787–804. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Hildenbrand, K. J., and Schultz, J. A. (2012). Development of a rubric to improve critical thinking. Athl. Train. Educ. J. 7, 86–94. doi: 10.4085/070386

Hoskins, B., and Deacon Crick, R. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship: different currencies or two sides of the same coin? Eur. J. Educ. 45, 121–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01419.x

Hyytinen, K., Saari, E., and Elg, M. (2019). “Human-centered co-evaluation method as a means for sustainable service innovations,” in Human-centered digitalization and services . eds. M. Toivonen and E. Saari (Springer), 57–75.

Kumar, S. (2014). Application of Bradford’s law to human-computer interaction research literature. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 34, 223–231.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, e1–e34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136

Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., and Roohr, K. C. (2014). Assessing critical thinking in higher education: current state and directions for next-generation assessment. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2014, 1–23. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12009

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical Thinking and Education . St. Martin's Press: New York, United States.

Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., and Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14:579. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., Johnston, B., and Ford, P. (2003). “Criticality and the ‘key skills’ agenda in undergraduate linguistics” in Notes of Talk given at Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics, and Area Studies Seminar: ‘Key Skills Linguistics’. University of Southampton, London (Southampton, London, England: CILT)

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for sstematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Molina, J. M., Lavandero, J., and Hernández, L. M. (2018). El modelo educativo como fundamento del accionar universitario: Experiencia de la Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Ecuador [the educational model as the Foundation of University Action.: the experience of the technical University of Manabi, Ecuador]. Revista Cubana de Educación Superior 37, 151–164.

Mongeon, P., and Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, 213–228. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a concept. Stud. High. Educ. 38, 506–522. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.586995

Moore, T. (2014). Wittgenstein, Williams and the terminologies of higher education: a case study of the term ‘critical’. J. Acad. Lang. Learn. 8, A95–A108.

Morse, P. M., and Leimkuhler, F. F. (1979). Technical note—exact solution for the Bradford distribution and its use in modeling infor-mational data. Oper. Res. 27, 187–198. doi: 10.1287/opre.27.1.187

Naimpally, A., Ramachandran, H., and Smith, C. (2012). Lifelong Learning for Engineers and Scientists in the Information Age . Elsevier: Amsterdam, Holland.

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

Organización de Naciones Unidas (2018). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2018/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2018-es.pdf

Pagán Castaño, J., Arnal-Pastor, M., Pagán-Castaño, E., and Guijarro-García, M. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of the literature on critical thinking: an increasingly important competence for higher education students. Econ. Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja , 1–22. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2125888

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021a). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 88:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021b). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003). Learning for the 21st Century . Partnership for 21st Century Learning. Washington, DC, USA.

Payan-Carreira, R., Cruz, G., Papathanasiou, I. V., Fradelos, E., and Jiang, L. (2019). The effectiveness of critical thinking instructional strategies in health professions education: a systematic review. Stud. High. Educ. 44, 829–843. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586330

Pontigo, J., and Lancaster, F. W. (1986). Qualitative aspects of the Bradford distribution. Scientometrics 9, 59–70. doi: 10.1007/BF02016608

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme . Institute for Health Research, University of Lancaster.

Porter, A. L., Kongthon, A., and Lu, J. C. (2002). Research profiling: improving the literature review. Scientometrics 53, 351–370. doi: 10.1023/A:1014873029258

Price, D. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 27, 292–306. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630270505

Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., Bargiela, I., and Crujeiras Pérez, B. (2019). A systematic review on critical thinking intervention studies in higher education across professional fields. Stud. High. Educ. 44, 860–869. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586333

Ramanathan, V., and Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: some implications for ESL student writers. J. Second. Lang. Writ. 5, 21–34. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90013-2

Sabzalieva, E., Chacon, E., Bosen, L. L., Morales, D., Mutize, T., Nguyen, H., et al. (2021). Thinking higher and beyond perspectives on the futures of higher education to 2050. UNESCO IESALC. ISBN: 978-980-7175-57-9. Available at: https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:90677

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. (2008). Assessment in critical thinking: a proposal for differentiating ways of thinking. Ergo Nueva Época 22, 25–66.

Salas, M., Díaz, A., and Medina, L. (2021). Mentorías en Chile: De la política diseñada a la puesta en acto [Mentoring in Chile: from policy design to implementation.]. Rev. Mex. Investig. Educ. 26, 449–474.

Scott, A., Woolcott, G., Keast, R., and Chamberlain, D. (2018). Sustainability of collaborative networks in higher education research projects: why complexity? Why now? Public Manag. Rev. 20, 1068–1087. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1364410

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 349:g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education . Routledge: New York, United States.

Swokowski, E.W. (1988). Calculus with Analytic Geometry , 4th; Grupo Editorial Planeta: Mexico City, Mexico.

Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Kleemola, K., Hailikari, T., Männikkö, I., and Toom, A. (2022). Systematic review of learning generic skills in higher education—enhancing and impeding factors. Front. Educ. 7:885917. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.885917

Van Damme, D., and Zahner, D. (2022). Does Higher Education Teach Students to Think Critically? OECD Publishing: Paris, France

Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundim, M. C., et al. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: independent or overlapping components? Think. Skills Creat. 27, 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003

Zahavi, H., and Friedman, Y. (2019). The Bologna process: an international higher education regime. Eur. J. High. Educ. 9, 23–39. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1561314

Keywords: critical thinking, higher education, teaching strategies, skills, dispositions

Citation: Andreucci-Annunziata P, Riedemann A, Cortés S, Mellado A, del Río MT and Vega-Muñoz A (2023) Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Front. Educ . 8:1141686. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1141686

Received: 10 January 2023; Accepted: 20 February 2023; Published: 09 March 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Andreucci-Annunziata, Riedemann, Cortés, Mellado, del Río and Vega-Muñoz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Augusto Mellado, [email protected] ; Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Probability and its Paradoxes for Critical Thinking

E-learning for the development of critical thinking: A systematic literature review

Ieee account.

  • Change Username/Password
  • Update Address

Purchase Details

  • Payment Options
  • Order History
  • View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

  • Communications Preferences
  • Profession and Education
  • Technical Interests
  • US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
  • Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
  • Contact & Support
  • About IEEE Xplore
  • Accessibility
  • Terms of Use
  • Nondiscrimination Policy
  • Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

A systematic review on critical thinking in medical education

Affiliation.

  • 1 School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Phone: +852 2766 6426, Fax: +852 2364 9663.
  • PMID: 27089400
  • DOI: 10.1515/ijamh-2015-0117

Background: Critical thinking is the ability to raise discriminating questions in an attempt to search for better ideas, a deeper understanding and better solutions relating to a given issue.

Objective: This systematic review provides a summary of efforts that have been made to enhance and assess critical thinking in medical education.

Design: Nine databases [Ovid MEDLINE(R), AMED, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, JSTOR, SCOPUS and PsycINFO] were searched to identify journal articles published from the start of each database to October 2012.

Results: A total of 41 articles published from 1981 to 2012 were categorised into two main themes: (i) evaluation of current education on critical thinking and (ii) development of new strategies about critical thinking. Under each theme, the teaching strategies, assessment tools, uses of multimedia and stakeholders were analysed.

Discussion: While a majority of studies developed teaching strategies and multimedia tools, a further examination of their quality and variety could yield some insights. The articles on assessment placed a greater focus on learning outcomes than on learning processes. It is expected that more research will be conducted on teacher development and students' voices.

Keywords: critical thinking; learning outcomes; medication education; teacher development.

Publication types

Cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal deeper learning domains: A systematic review of computational thinking

  • Published: 16 May 2024

Cite this article

systematic review and critical thinking

  • Hao-Yue Jin 1 &
  • Maria Cutumisu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-9647 2  

Computational thinking (CT) is considered to be a critical problem-solving toolkit in the development of every student in the digital twenty-first century. Thus, it is believed that the integration of deeper learning in CT education is an approach to help students transfer their CT skills beyond the classroom. Few literature reviews have mapped deeper learning in CT, especially from the perspective of measuring deeper learning domains in CT. This systematic review uses the PRISMA approach to identify and analyze peer-reviewed, empirical studies on deeper learning domains in CT: cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The following characteristics of the 21 included CT assessment studies were examined: learning domain, sample size, educational level, deeper learning domain, and assessment tool. The results show that most studies: (1) sampled elementary- and middle-school students; (2) focused on STEM disciplines, especially in programming and computer science; (3) targeted cognitive domains; (4) employed knowledge tests and portfolios to measure cognitive domains; (5) used block-based programming such as Scratch as the most common intervention; and (6) indicated that even short interventions could contribute to deeper learning in CT. This review also identified current trends and gaps in the research on assessing deeper learning domains in CT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

systematic review and critical thinking

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. The study is a systematic literature review.

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education , 11 (3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003

Arfé, B., Vardanega, T., & Ronconi, L. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers & Education, 148 , 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103807

Article   Google Scholar  

Arslanyilmaz, A., & Sullins, J. (2021). Eye-gaze data to measure students’ attention to and comprehension of computational thinking concepts. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 100414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100414

Aryadoust, V., Foo, S., & Ng, L. Y. (2022). What can gaze behaviors, neuroimaging data, and test scores tell us about test method effects and cognitive load in listening assessments? Language Testing, 39 (1), 56–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211026876

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2 (1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905

Basu, S., Biswas, G., Kinnebrew, J., & Rafi, T. (2015). Relations between modeling behavior and learning in a Computational Thinking based science learning environment. In H. Ogata (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 184–189). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0

Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a Computational Thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27 (1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0

Bati, K. (2021). A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (2), 2059–2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10700-2

Bender, J., Zhao, B., Dziena, A., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Integrating Parsons puzzles within Scratch enables efficient computational thinking learning.  Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning ,  18 , 022–022. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2023.18022

Berikan, B., & Özdemir, S. (2020). Investigating “problem-solving with datasets” as an implementation of computational thinking: A literature review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58 (2), 502–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119845694

Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24 (5), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72 , 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education-Implications for policy and practice . Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/792158

Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151 , 103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819

Borchia, R., Carbonaro, A., Casadei, G., Forlizzi, L., Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2018). Problem Solving Olympics: An inclusive education model for learning Informatics. International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives , 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02750-6_25

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting . Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Butler-Henderson, K., & Crawford, J. (2020). A systematic review of online examinations: A pedagogical innovation for scalable authentication and integrity. Computers & Education, 159 , 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104024

Calao, L. A., Moreno-León, J., Correa, H. E., & Robles, G. (2015). Developing mathematical thinking with scratch an experiment with 6th grade students. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World: 10th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_2

Cator, K., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2014). Preparing teachers for deeper learning . Harvard Education Press.

Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109 , 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001

Chen, G., & Shen, J. (2018). Student learning of computational thinking in a robotics curriculum: Transferrable skills and relevant factors. In Proceedings of 2018 International Society of the Learning Sciences . 1439–1440. https://doi.dx.org/ https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2018.1439

Chichekian, T., Trudeau, J., Jawhar, T., & Corliss, D. (2023). Experimenting with computational thinking for knowledge transfer in engineering robotics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning . 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12921

CSTA & ISTE. (2011). Computational thinking in K–12 education leadership toolkit . Retrieved on 7 May 2024, from https://www.iste.org/explore/computational-thinking/computational-thinking-all

Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., & Lu, C. (2019). A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28 (6), 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3

Deng, W., Pi, Z., Lei, W., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, W. (2020). Pencil Code improves learners’ computational thinking and computer learning attitude. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28 (1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22177

Dietz, G., Le, J. K., Tamer, N., Han, J., Gweon, H., Murnane, E. L., & Landay, J. A. (2021). StoryCoder: Teaching computational thinking concepts through storytelling in a voice-guided app for children. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445039

Ellis, R. A., Han, F., & Pardo, A. (2018). When does collaboration lead to deeper learning? Renewed definitions of collaboration for engineering students. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 12 (1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2836942

Espinal, A., Vieira, C., & Guerrero-Bequis, V. (2023). Student ability and difficulties with transfer from a block-based programming language into other programming languages: A case study in Colombia. Computer Science Education, 33 (4), 567–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2079867

Ezeamuzie, N. O., Leung, J. S., & Ting, F. S. (2022). Unleashing the potential of abstraction from cloud of computational thinking: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60 (4), 877–905.

Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2023). Abstractive-based programming approach to computational thinking: Discover, extract, create, and assemble. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61 (3), 605–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221134423

Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29 (1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning . London, UK: Pearson.

Government of Canada. (2022, January 11). Education in Canada: Types of schooling . Retrieved on 7 May 2024, from https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/new-life-canada/education/types-school.html

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2016). Designing a blended, middle school computer science course for deeper learning: A design-based research approach. In Proceedings of 2016 International Society of the Learning Sciences (pp. 695–702). https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2016.90

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25 (2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–37). Bloomsbury Academic.

Hershkovitz, A., Sitman, R., Israel-Fishelson, R., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2019). Creativity in the acquisition of computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments , 27 (5–6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610451

Hooshyar, D., Lim, H., Pedaste, M., Yang, K., Fathi, M., & Yang, Y. (2019). AutoThinking: An adaptive computational thinking game. International Conference on Innovative Technologies and Learning , 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-8_41

Hooshyar, D., Pedaste, M., Yang, Y., Malva, L., Hwang, G.-J., Wang, M., Lim, H., & Delev, D. (2021). From gaming to computational thinking: An adaptive educational computer game-based learning approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (3), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120965919

Hoppe, H. U., Manske, S., & Werneburg, S. (2019, June). Supporting representational flexibility in computational thinking: Transitions between reactive rule-based and block-based programming. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, The Education University of Hong Kong (pp. 37–40).

Howland, K., Good, J., Robertson, J., & Manches, A. (2015). Every child a coder? Research challenges for a 5—18 programming curriculum. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children , 470–473. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771954

Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126 , 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004

Israel-Fishelson, R., Hershkovitz, A., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2021). A log-based analysis of the associations between creativity and computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (5), 926–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/073563312097342

Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011–2020). Computers & Education, 176 , 104353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353

Ioannou, A., & Makridou, E. (2018). Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education and Information Technologies, 23 , 2531–2544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9729-z

Jantakoon, T., Wannapiroon, P., & Nilsook, P. (2019). Virtual immersive learning environments (VILEs) based on digital storytelling to enhance deeper learning for undergraduate students. Higher Education Studies, 9 (1), 144–150. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n1p144

Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). In Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting . Orlando, FL.

Kao, Y., Matlen, B., & Weintrop, D. (2022). From one language to the next: Applications of analogical transfer for programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3487051

Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2 (4), 429–458. https://doi.org/10.2190/BKML-B1QV-KDN4-8ULH

Laurent, M., Crisci, R., Bressoux, P., Chaachoua, H., Nurra, C., de Vries, E., & Tchounikine, P. (2022). Impact of programming on primary mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 82 , 101667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101667

Li, F., Wang, X., He, X., Cheng, L., & Wang, Y. (2022). The effectiveness of unplugged activities and programming exercises in computational thinking education: A Meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (6), 7993–8013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10915-x

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Liu, Z., & Jeong, A. C. (2022). Connecting learning and playing: The effects of in-game cognitive supports on the development and transfer of computational thinking skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70 (5), 1867–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10145-5

Lv, L., Zhong, B., & Liu, X. (2023). A literature review on the empirical studies of the integration of mathematics and computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (7), 8171–8193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11518-2

Lyon, J. A., Magana, J., & A. (2020). Computational thinking in higher education: A review of the literature. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28 (5), 1174–1189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22295

Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014, June). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 1–29). ACM.

Mauldin, R. L. (2020). Foundations of Social Work Research . Mavs Open Press.

McCormick, K. I., & Hall, J. A. (2022). Computational thinking learning experiences, outcomes, and research in preschool settings: A scoping review of literature. Education and Information Technologies , 27 , 3777–3812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10765-z

McTighe, J., & Silver, H. (2020). Instructional shifts to support deep learning. Educational Leadership , 78 (1). Retrieved on 7 May 2024, from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/instructional-shifts-to-support-deep-learning

Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2015). The why, what, where, and how of deeper learning in American secondary schools . Students at the Center, Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Mladenović, M., Mladenović, S., & Žanko, Ž. (2020). Impact of used programming language for K-12 students’ understanding of the loop concept. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12 (1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2020.103817

Montuori, C., Pozzan, G., Padova, C., Ronconi, L., Vardanega, T., & Arfé, B. (2023). Combined unplugged and educational robotics training to promote computational thinking and cognitive abilities in preschoolers. Education Sciences, 13 (9), 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090858

Murrant, C. L., Dyck, D. J., Kirkland, J. B., Newton, G. S., Ritchie, K. L., Tishinsky, J. M., Bettger, W. J., & Richardson, N. S. (2015). A large, first-year, introductory, multi-sectional biological concepts of health course designed to develop skills and enhance deeper learning. Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 45 (4), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v45i4.184758

Nardelli, E. (2019). Do we really need computational thinking? Communications of the ACM, 62 (2), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231587

Nelson Laird, T., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. (2011, November). Deeply affecting first-year students’ thinking: The effects of deep approaches to learning on three outcomes . In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.

Nigam, A., Pasricha, R., Singh, T., & Churi, P. (2021). A systematic review on AI-based proctoring systems: Past, present and future. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 6421–6445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10597-x

Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). A systematic review of computational thinking in science classrooms. Studies in Science Education, 58 (2), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580

Otto, S., Körner, F., Marschke, B. A., Merten, M. J., Brandt, S., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2020). Deeper learning as integrated knowledge and fascination for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (5), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1730476

Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas . Basic books.

Parsazadeh, N., Cheng, P.-Y., Wu, T.-T., & Huang, Y.-M. (2021). Integrating computational thinking concept into digital storytelling to improve learners’ motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (3), 470–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967315

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). (2014). Grade 8 English Language Arts/Literacy Performance Based Assessment Practice Test . Retrieved on 7 May 2024, from https://osse.dc.gov/parcc

Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2 (2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7

Pea, R. D., Soloway, E., & Spohrer, J. C. (1987). The buggy path to the development of programming expertise. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9 (1), 5–30.

Google Scholar  

Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged design of algorithmic explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56 (7), 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21545

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century . National Academies Press.

Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education, 169 , 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222

Robledo-Castro, C., Castillo-Ossa, L. F., & Hederich-Martínez, C. (2022, July). Is it possible to improve the development of executive functions in children by teaching computational thinking?. In M. Temperini et al. (Eds.), Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 12th International Conference (pp. 7–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20617-7_2

Ryan, A. W., & Aasetre, J. (2021). Digital storytelling, student engagement and deep learning in Geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45 (3), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1833319

Saba, J., Hel-Or, H., & Levy, S. T. (2023). Promoting learning transfer in science through a complexity approach and computational modeling. Instructional Science, 51 (3), 475–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09624-w

Selby, C. C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition . In Paper Presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Canterbury.

Sergis, S., & Sampson, D. (2019). Unraveling the research on deeper learning: A review of the literature. In Learning technologies for transforming large-scale teaching, learning, and assessment (pp. 257–288). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15130-0_13

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22 , 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education. Computers and Education Open , 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122

Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148 , 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

Tabet, N., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., & Razak, S. (2016). From Alice to Python. Introducing text-based programming in middle schools. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education , 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899462

Tekdal, M. (2021). Trends and development in research on computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 6499–6529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10617-w

Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 162 , 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083

Turvey, K. (2006). Towards deeper learning through creativity within online communities in primary education. Computers & Education, 46 (3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.004

UNESCO. (2021). Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all . Retrieved on 7 May 2024, from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/Goal-04/

Yolcu, V., & Demirer, V. (2023). The effects of educational robotics in programming education on students’ programming success, computational thinking, and transfer of learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31 (6), 1633–1647. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22664

Yunusa, A. A., & Umar, I. N. (2021). A scoping review of critical predictive factors (CPFs) of satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes in E-learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 1223–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10286-1

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

William & Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2013, April 23). Deeper learning defined . Retrieved on 7 May 2024, from https://hewlett.org/library/deeper-learning-defined/

Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49 (3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The Link Magazine, 6, 20–23.

Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141 , 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607

Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve K-12 students’ computational thinking and STEM attitudes: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (7), 1450–1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331219940

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers. We are also grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada—Insight Development Grant (SSHRC IDG) RES0062310, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada—Insight Grant (SSHRC IG) RES0048110, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant (NSERC DG) RES0043209, the Killam Cornerstone Operating Grant RES0043207, the Government of Canada CanCode – Cybera Inc. (Callysto) Grant RES0059331, and Alberta Innovates for supporting this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Research in Applied Measurement and Evaluation, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Hao-Yue Jin

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Maria Cutumisu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Cutumisu .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors have no conflicts of interest or competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jin, HY., Cutumisu, M. Cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal deeper learning domains: A systematic review of computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12744-6

Download citation

Received : 06 March 2022

Accepted : 25 April 2024

Published : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12744-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Computational thinking
  • Deeper learning
  • Deep learning
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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

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

  • Publications
  • Account settings

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

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Educ Health Promot
  • PMC10243435

A study of the effects of blended learning on university students’ critical thinking: A systematic review

Alireza mortezaei haftador.

1 Master Science of Nursing, Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Banafsheh Tehranineshat

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran

Zahra Keshtkaran

3 Associate Professor, Community Based Psychiatric Care Research Center, Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Zinat Mohebbi

4 Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

One of the basic, constructive needs of humans, which plays a major part in their development is critical thinking. As education is one of the factors in shaping individuals’ critical thinking, the present study addresses the effects of blended learning and its subcategories on university students’ critical thinking (and its subcategories). The present article is a review study. Data were collected using valid search engines and databases. The keywords which were used included blended learning, integrated learning, blended training, integrated training, critical thinking, critical thinking disposition, and critical thinking skills, as well as the subcategories of blended learning, that is, the flex model, the self-blended model, the enriched virtual model, and the rotation model and its subcategories (the station rotation model, the lab rotation model, the flipped classroom model, and the individual rotation model). The results of 14 sources, out of the selected 15 sources, showed that blended learning and its subcategories, that is, the flex model, the self-blended model, the enriched virtual model, and the rotation model and its subcategories contribute to university students’ critical thinking of disposition and skill. One of the essential skills which must be given more serious attention in learning in the twenty-first century is critical thinking. Having the benefits of both lecturing and e-learning, blended learning is a more effective and practical method for promoting critical thinking in university students.

Introduction

In today's competitive world, critical thinking is one of the abilities which all individuals must have.[ 1 ] Critical thinking is a vast, comprehensive process that begins with a problem and continues until a solution is found.[ 2 ] Regarded as one of the primary skills in the twenty-first century,[ 3 ] critical thinking is an essential competence in all professional and academic fields.[ 4 ] Critical thinking consists of the two domains of disposition and skill. The importance of creativity is high in order to provide innovative solutions for decision-making and problem solving.[ 5 , 6 ] A critical thinker can accurately analyze data to arrive at correct conclusions or use alternative methods to solve problems.[ 4 ] Thus, development and evaluation of critical thinking are significant in teaching and learning.[ 7 ] However, due to information overload and quick advances in technology, the goal of education has moved toward mere transfer of information at the cost of raising intelligent and creative individuals.[ 8 ] Karakoc Najafi et al . concluded in their study that critical thinking skills should be emphasized in university education.[ 9 ]

The integration of technology into face-to-face learning has raised great interest. Due to its efficacy in allowing for flexible, timely, and continuing learning, blended learning is regarded as the most effective and popular approach to learning.[ 10 ] As blended learning combines classroom learning with online learning,[ 11 , 12 ] it has the benefits of both conventional learning and electronic learning.[ 10 ] Blended learning is regarded as a practical learning model for increasing the skills of learners in the twenty-first century.[ 13 ] This type of learning transforms students from passive learners to active learners who seek knowledge.[ 14 ] Blended learning consists of the subcategories of the flex model, self-blended model, enriched virtual model, and rotation model and its subcategories.[ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] These modern, dynamic methods of learning promote students’ ability to investigate and identify their own learning needs, to perform critical thinking, to play an active role in their learning process, to have better initiative in different situations, and to improve their problem solving skills.[ 19 ] According to Wahyuni, blended learning had a significant impact on improving students’ critical thinking skills.[ 20 ] However, the results of the study of Hajrezayi et al . showed that the contribution of blended learning to students’ critical thinking was not significant.[ 21 ] Harrington et al . suggested that there was need for more research into the effects of the flipped classroom model (one of the subcategories of blended learning) on students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills.[ 22 ] Teaching critical thinking is the most important effort that should be made in nursing education.[ 1 , 2 ] Some experts believe that education is just teaching thinking to the learner. On the other hand, there is a need to review current educational strategies and making more use of active learning strategies has been repeatedly emphasized.[ 19 ] Accordingly, in the present study, the researchers conducted an extensive systematic review of previous studies of the effects of blended learning and its subcategories on critical thinking (and its subcategories) which are among the essential skills in the twenty-first century.

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting.

The present systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the QUOROM statement checklist,[ 23 ] an evidence-based system which controls reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.[ 24 ]

Information sources and search strategy

The researchers looked for relevant studies published between 2010 and 2020 in the databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Google, Scopus, Magiran, SID, and ElmNet. The search was carried out within the framework of PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study).[ 25 ] “P” represented the students, “I” represented the effects of blended learning and its subcategories on critical thinking (and its subcategories) in students, “C” represented a comparison between the effects of blended learning (and its subcategories) and conventional learning on critical thinking (and its subcategories) in students, “O” represented the efficacy or non-efficacy of blended learning and its subcategories in improving critical thinking (and its subcategories) in students, and “S” represented quantitative, experimental, and semi-experimental studies and systematic reviews. The search syntax and keywords in the database are presented in Table 1 .

The outline of the conducted search in all the databases (2010-2020)

Search concepts and keywords

The keywords were selected from MeSH and the keywords used in published systematic reviews. The keywords which were used in the search in Iranian and foreign databases consisted of blended learning, blended training, integrated learning, integrated training, combined learning, combined training, hybrid learning, hybrid training, critical thinking, critical thinking disposition, and critical thinking skills, as well as the subcategories of blended learning, that is, the flex model, the self-blended model, the enriched virtual model, and the rotation model and its subcategories (the station rotation model, the lab rotation model, the flipped classroom model, and the individual rotation model).

Selection of studies

After a search on the databases, the articles which met the inclusion criteria were selected for review. To be included, the articles had to (1) be about the effects of blended learning and its subcategories or compare blended learning and conventional learning in terms of their impact on critical thinking (and its subcategories) in students, (2) have been conducted on university students of any major, (3) have been conducted between 2010 and 2020, and (4) be in English (the articles which were in other languages were translated by professional translators). The exclusion criteria were the article (1) being a letter to the editor, a review, a lecture, or a poster, (2) having been conducted on other-than-college-student learners, (3) having addressed blended learning and its subcategories in combination with other methods of learning, and (4) having a low impact factor. After selecting articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two of the authors checked the titles and abstracts of the articles. In the next stage, the selected articles were closely read. All possible disagreements over the selection of articles were discussed until the authors reached an agreement. When the selection of the articles was finalized, one of the authors extracted data from the articles that met the inclusion criteria.

Extracting the data

The quality of the selected articles was evaluated according to the criteria suggested by Gifford et al .: 6 criteria for quantitative studies, 11 criteria for qualitative studies, 8 criteria for semi-experimental studies, and 7 criteria for experimental studies. The criteria were measured on a 2-score scale (0 and 1). The cutoff point was 4 and below for quantitative studies, 6 and below for experimental and semi-experimental studies, and 8 and below for qualitative studies.[ 26 , 27 ]

Quality assessment of articles

The checklist of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme was used to evaluate the quality of studies. This checklist included eight different items, and the selected checklist here consisted of 10 questions that divided articles into three levels of quality: high, medium, and low.

Of the 256 articles which were found, 67 were repeated and, therefore, omitted. After examining the titles and abstracts of the remaining 189 articles, the researchers omitted 96 articles. The remaining 93 articles were read closely and finally 15 articles were verified [ Figure 1 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is JEHP-12-95-g001.jpg

The process of systematic review

Of the 15 selected articles, the majority had been conducted in Asian countries—South Korea (4), Indonesia (4), Iran (3), Malaysia (1), and Saudi Arabia (1)—and 2 were American studies. Most of the studies had been conducted on nursing students (7 articles) and the rest had addressed English students (2 articles), dental technology (1 article), electronic engineering (1 article), educators (1 article), chemistry (1 article), plant tissue culture (1 article), and aeronautics (1 article). Information about the articles is presented in Table 2 under the following headings: author, year and country, type of study and method of data collection, participants and research results. Of the 15 articles which were examined, 14 reported that blended learning and the subcategory of flipped classroom were effective methods for developing university students’ critical thinking and 1 article reported the opposite.

A summary of the reviewed articles

The majority of the studies had been conducted in Asian countries. These studies address the effects of blended learning—a combination of traditional learning and electronic learning—on university students’ critical thinking. As mentioned above, most of the reviewed studies[ 11 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ] showed that blended learning was an effective method for improving students’ critical thinking. The results of studies by Hasanah,[ 11 ] Bolandifar,[ 34 ] Nasution,[ 37 ] Hajrezayi,[ 39 ] and Mosalanejad.[ 40 ] verified that blended learning had a significant positive impact on university students’ critical thinking skills.[ 41 ] These studies showed that, compared to traditional methods of learning, blended learning was more effective in improving students’ critical thinking skills. The greater effectiveness of blended learning could be attributed to the fact that it allowed students to participate more in the learning process, as well as the fact that it possessed the benefits of both traditional learning and electronic learning, which enabled students to better analyze, interpret, and evaluate subjects. However, Alotaibi's study reported that the contribution of blended learning to university students’ critical thinking skills was insignificant. In this study, a lack of proper teaching material and the students’ lack of interest might have led to the learners’ poor critical thinking skills.[ 42 ] The students’ insufficient familiarity with blended learning, unavailability of computers, and infrastructure issues might also explain the results of the above-mentioned study.

Addressing the effects of flipped classrooms on university students’ critical thinking disposition, the studies of Cha,[ 28 ] Kim,[ 29 ] Dehghanzadeh,[ 32 ] Jung,[ 33 ] Lee,[ 35 ] and Dusenbury[ 38 ] showed that flipped classroom learning, a subcategory of blended learning, had a more significant positive impact on university students’ critical thinking disposition than traditional learning does. Moreover, the results of the studies of Asmara,[ 30 ] Munzil,[ 31 ] and Matthews[ 36 ] verify that flipped classroom learning is a more effective method than traditional learning for improving students’ critical thinking skills. The effectiveness of the approach could be attributed to the fact that, being a subcategory of blended learning, flipped classroom learning had the advantages of both traditional and electronic learning; also, by removing the limitations of those two methods, flipped classroom learning made a greater contribution to the improvement of students’ critical thinking skills. The findings of these studies showed that flipped classroom learning had a positive impact on the critical thinking of students of different majors[ 11 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ] and could, therefore, be employed in various academic fields.

Limitations and recommendation

The present study was one of the first review studies that investigated the effects of blended learning on critical thinking as reported by articles in several databases. All the subcategories of blended learning were examined in this study. The researchers also tried to include a variety of academic fields. However, blended learning was not compared with other modern methods of learning. Accordingly, it is suggested that future studies compare the effectiveness of blended learning with other modern methods of learning.

In the present study, 15 articles related to the effects of blended learning and its subcategories on critical thinking (and its subcategories) in university students were reviewed. The results showed that, by combining the two methods of lecturing and electronic learning, blended learning and its subcategory of flipped classroom enable teachers to use the advantages of both approaches and encourage student-centered learning. This causes blended learning to be a more effective method for improving students’ critical thinking, in terms of both disposition and skills.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was funded by a grant (no: 22240) from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

The present study was approved by the ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences and registered at IR.SUMS.REC.1399.1252. The authors would like to thank all the participants, whose experiences have made this study possible.

  • Augsburg.edu
  • Inside Augsburg

Search Strommen Center for Meaningful Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Your Career

☑ problem-solving mastery.

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

☑ Refined Decision-Making

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

☑ Enhanced Teamwork Dynamics

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

☑ Communication Prowess

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

☑ Adaptability and Resilience

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

☑ Fostering Innovation

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

☑ Confidence Amplification

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

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

✅ developing curiosity and inquisitiveness:.

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

✅ Practice Reflection and Self-Awareness:

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

✅ Strengthening Analytical Skills:

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

✅ Engaging in Active Listening and Observation:

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

✅ Encouraging Intellectual Humility and Open-Mindedness:

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

✅ Practicing Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

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

✅ Continuous Learning and Exposure to Varied Content:

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

✅ Engage in Constructive Disagreement and Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMAGES

  1. What is the difference between systematic review and critical review?

    systematic review and critical thinking

  2. systematic literature review use cases

    systematic review and critical thinking

  3. 25 Critical Thinking Examples (2024)

    systematic review and critical thinking

  4. (PDF) Measuring Critical Thinking in Science: Systematic Review

    systematic review and critical thinking

  5. (PDF) A Systematic Literature Review on Critical Thinking in an

    systematic review and critical thinking

  6. (PDF) A Systematic Review on Instruments to Assess Critical Thinking

    systematic review and critical thinking

VIDEO

  1. Systematic review & Critical Appraisal

  2. Voice of Meditation[In Hindi]

  3. Meta-analysis and RevMan

  4. Critical thinking Vs Creative think explained

  5. Why Critical Thinking Is So Important In Today's World @TheIcedCoffeeHour

  6. Pt. 4/10

COMMENTS

  1. A systematic review of critical thinking instructional pedagogies in

    A systematic review of critical thinking incorporated instruction in English as a foreign language writing classroom. • Macro settings need to be considered in critical thinking pedagogical syllabus: critical thinking models, teaching implementations and assessments.

  2. Conceptualising critical thinking and its research in teacher education

    This systematic review examines 43 empirical studies to gain deeper insights into the concept of critical thinking in teacher education. We identified two primary definitions of critical thinking: the logical sense and value sense, both rooted in a discipline-oriented framework.

  3. Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in

    Then, 17 systematic reviews were excluded because they presented literature reviews (6); critical reading and writing reviews (6); specific critical thinking teaching techniques, because they focus on how to implement a specific technique and marginally on the development of critical thinking (2) or were outside the focus of this review (3 ...

  4. Situating Higher-Order, Critical, and Critical-Analytic Thinking in

    Critical thinking (CT) is widely regarded as an important competence to obtain in education. Students' exposure to problems and collaboration have been proven helpful in promoting CT processes. These elements are present in student-centered instructional environments such as problem-based and project-based learning (P(j)BL). Next to CT, also higher-order thinking (HOT) and critical-analytic ...

  5. Systematic review of problem based learning research in fostering

    2.1. Eligibility requirements. The enhancement of critical thinking abilities in problem-based learning was the subject of all initial studies. Studies were identified by viewing relevant publications from the five most recent years, from 2018 to December 2022, in the Scopus electronic databases and the SINTA 1-2 journal.

  6. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

    Systematic Review Critical Appraisal Sheet: Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2005 A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) Shea 2007 ... Thinking early and carefully about all the steps of a systematic review is pragmatic and logical and may mitigate the influence of the authors' prior knowledge of the ...

  7. Critical thinking in the preschool classroom

    This paper reports on a systematic literature review of 25 empirical studies which address various ways of teaching for thinking focusing on children attending early years services. ... the focus of this review is on critical thinking in early childhood education, however, the research defining the age children develop critical thinking is ...

  8. Critical Thinking Skills in Education: A Systematic Literature Review

    Critical Thinking Skills in Education: A Systematic Literature Review. October 2021. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) 11,2021 (11):2222-6990. DOI: 10. ...

  9. A systematic review on critical thinking intervention studies in higher

    This study provides a systematic review on the Critical Thinking (CT) intervention studies reported in the national literature of the countries involved in the CRITHINKEDU project. The aim of this paper is to characterise critical thinking intervention studies in higher education institutions across different fields. The review process has been ...

  10. Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in

    Aim This systematic review identified systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies on the promotion and development of critical thinking in higher education students that allowed us to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the main definitions of critical thinking found in systematic reviews of critical thinking in higher education, and what are their ...

  11. The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News: A Systematic

    A systematic literature review (SLR) has been performed to identify previous studies on evaluating the credibility of news, and in particular to see what has been done in terms of the use of critical thinking to evaluate online news. During the SLR's sifting process, 22 relevant studies were identified. Although some of these studies referred ...

  12. A systematic review on critical thinking ...

    ABSTRACT This study provides a systematic review on the Critical Thinking (CT) intervention studies reported in the national literature of the countries involved in the CRITHINKEDU project. The aim of this paper is to characterise critical thinking intervention studies in higher education institutions across different fields. The review process has been carried out by applying content analysis ...

  13. E-learning for the development of critical thinking: A systematic

    Abstract: E-learning is increasingly frequent, with greater emphasis since COVID-19, which generated a high migration to virtual learning environments, requiring educational innovation with ICT to continue guaranteeing the development of life skills, such as Critical thinking (CT), Given this, the present systematic review of literature in Scopus and Web of Science, aimed to systematize ...

  14. Review Exploring mobile mixed reality for critical thinking in nursing

    This systematic review investigated how mobile mixed reality facilitates critical thinking in nursing and healthcare higher education. The research questions (RQ) include: ... Critical thinking. Recent scoping reviews have identified (i) that due to the breadth of multiple definitions, the term 'critical thinking' is not well defined in ...

  15. Measuring Critical Thinking in Science: Systematic Review

    The review aims to explore possible methods for critical thinking assessment in science from previous studies. For a long time, critical thinking has been among most talked topics among researchers and academicians, due to its nature in improving one's quality of life such as becoming an effective problem solver and logical thinkers. In this study, literature search for related studies was ...

  16. Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content

    It also covers systematic review reporting standards such as PRISMA-P and PRISMA, critical appraisal and tools and resources to support the review and ensure it is conducted efficiently and effectively. Finally, it summarizes the requirements when screening search results for inclusion in the review, and the statistical synthesis of included ...

  17. Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in

    Abstract. Read online. AimThis systematic review identified systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies on the promotion and development of critical thinking in higher education students that allowed us to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the main definitions of critical thinking found in systematic reviews of critical thinking in higher education ...

  18. Simulation-Based Learning Supported by Technology to Enhance Critical

    Chan ZC. A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today. 2013 Mar; 33 (3):236-240. doi: ... Sharifi N. Effect of simulation training on the development of nurses and nursing students' critical thinking: A systematic literature review. Nurse Education Today.

  19. A systematic review on critical thinking in medical education

    Abstract. Background: Critical thinking is the ability to raise discriminating questions in an attempt to search for better ideas, a deeper understanding and better solutions relating to a given issue. Objective: This systematic review provides a summary of efforts that have been made to enhance and assess critical thinking in medical education.

  20. Full article: A Systematic Review of the Limitations and Associated

    The review identifies five key limitations: accuracy and reliability concerns, limitations in critical thinking and problem-solving, multifaceted impacts on learning and development, technical constraints related to input and output, and ethical, legal, and privacy concerns. ... This systematic review aims to address this gap by critically ...

  21. A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education

    Although previous literature reviews have been conducted relative to CT in nursing education, few recent systematic reviews have been conducted. This systematic review aims to review qualitative studies from 2002 to 2011, in order to explore how critical thinking is perceived in the studies of nursing education, and the obstacles and strategies ...

  22. A Systematic Review on Instruments to Assess Critical Thinking

    Critical Think ing an d Problem Solving (CTPS) are soft skills essential to be equipped among students according to. 21st-century learning. Several instruments have bee n dev eloped to measure ...

  23. Cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal deeper learning ...

    Computational thinking (CT) is considered to be a critical problem-solving toolkit in the development of every student in the digital twenty-first century. Thus, it is believed that the integration of deeper learning in CT education is an approach to help students transfer their CT skills beyond the classroom. Few literature reviews have mapped deeper learning in CT, especially from the ...

  24. A study of the effects of blended learning on university students

    Introduction. In today's competitive world, critical thinking is one of the abilities which all individuals must have.[] Critical thinking is a vast, comprehensive process that begins with a problem and continues until a solution is found.[] Regarded as one of the primary skills in the twenty-first century,[] critical thinking is an essential competence in all professional and academic fields.[]

  25. Critical Thinking: A Simple Guide and Why It's Important

    Apply critical thinking in real-life situations whenever possible. This could involve analyzing news articles, evaluating product reviews, or dissecting marketing strategies to understand their underlying rationale. In conclusion, critical thinking is the linchpin of a successful career journey.

  26. Effectiveness of training actions aimed at improving critical thinking

    A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 33 (3) (2013), pp. 236-240, 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.007. ... A European review on critical thinking educational practices in higher education institutions. UTAD (2018) Retrieved June 01, 2022, from.