difference between cognitive and critical thinking

There Are Two Types and Two Systems of Cognitive Processes

A new model of human cognitive processes is proposed..

Posted April 29, 2022 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma

• Dual processing is a major model in cognitive psychology, popularized by the book Thinking, Fast and Slow.
• The dual processes are sometimes called System 1 and System 2 and sometimes Type 1 and Type 2.
• We suggest a new picture of the human mind as consisting of two types and two systems.
• The two types of processes are framed by Vervaeke's recursive relevance realization and the two systems framed by Henriques' Unified Theory.

This post was co-authored with Professor John Vervaeke 1 .

Thinking, Fast and Slow is one of the great books written on cognition and decision making . In a clear and accessible fashion, it made popular the idea that we can divide the human mind up into two domains, which Daniel Kahneman identifies as System 1 and System 2. System 1 is a fast, automatic process that quickly sizes up a situation and jumps to a conclusion. System 2 is a slower, more deliberate process that attempts to work through the problem more systematically. An example that Kahneman uses to see these two systems is the “ball and a bat” problem: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

The “flash answer” that many people have is that the ball costs 10 cents. For Kahneman, this is an example of System 1 scanning and jumping to what seems obvious. But if you think about it more carefully and work through the logic, you realize this is an error. If the bat was $1 more than the ball and the ball was 10 cents, then the total would be $1.20. After some deliberation, most folks can figure out that the ball costs 5 cents and the bat $1.05. This correction is the work of System 2.

My graduate students and I (Henriques) read this book for cognitive psychology this semester, and we generally enjoyed it. Given my focus on the conceptual structure of psychology and its key ideas like mind, cognition, and behavior, we spent a fair amount of time discussing exactly how we should think about these two “systems.” I placed systems in quotation marks because, as Kahneman himself clearly notes, these two mental domains are not readily identifiable as two different brain systems. Rather, Kahneman used the two systems as a metaphor.

But this caveat raises the question: What exactly is being described here? Indeed, if you know the literature, you know that many scholars have proposed different terms for these cognitive processes. In addition to Kahneman's System 1 and System 2, we have Freud 's primary and secondary, Keith Stanovich advocates for Type 1 and Type 2, and many in cognitive science use "automatic" versus "deliberate" or "controlled." This diversity of framing is consistent with a central point we have repeatedly made in our work together: there is much confusion and equivocation regarding the meaning of cognitive and the ontology of the mental and we need big picture perspectives to sort out the confusion.

We have each independently developed metatheories for psychology (Henriques) and cognitive science (Vervaeke). Over the last two years, we have found that they work together in a highly synergistic fashion. Interestingly, when we combine our metatheoretical viewpoints and look at the System 1 and 2 versus Type 1 and 2 terminologies, a new picture emerges. Specifically, we contend that it makes sense to divide human mental processes into two different types and two different systems.

To see the two types of cognitive processes, we can use Vervaeke’s metatheory of cognition. As described in this post , Vervaeke has posited a general model of cognition framed as the 3 Rs of recursive relevance realization. The short summary is that the mind works to scan the inputs for relevant information and then moves to realize both what is the case and what paths of action can be taken. In addition, there is a secondary recursive process that functions to place a check on the initial grip that the relevance realization process forms on the situation. This recursive process can then update the initial inference based on how it conforms to anticipated expectations and based on how it aligns with other modeling processes held in the mind.

Applying Vervaeke’s frame to the dual processing model, we can suggest that the initial sizing up of relevance to be realized can be framed as Type 1 processes. That is, when confronted with a scene or set of stimuli, there are a group of primary cognitive processes that are quickly making inferences about what is relevant and try to “realize” a match between the model it initially makes and the incoming information. Then there are Type 2 secondary recursive processes that operate to check the match and align it with other mental models. These Type 2 recursions come online if the first type of processing results in an unexpected surprise or if it conflicts with other models. As such, they function as a kind of deliberative and corrective process.

It is helpful to note that Keith Stanovich, who emphasized the Type 1 versus Type 2 terminology, proposed that the defining difference between Type 1 and Type 2 processes is that the latter involves working memory 2 . Given the work of Hasher and others that working memory is a higher-order relevance filter where we can perform chunking and do counterfactual simulations of things, it makes sense to see working memory as an important hub of recursive relevance realization 3 . We also see that there is no clear dividing line between Type 1 and Type 2 processes, but a continuum of increasing demand placed on working memory. Such a continuum is less consistent with the idea of distinct systems. Thus, when we look at dual processing through the lens of Vervaeke’s model, we can see why a more accurate nomenclature is the Type 1 versus Type 2 processes.

However, there is another angle provided by Henriques' work on the Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTOK) 5 that can validate the System 1 versus System 2 distinction. Early in the cognitive psychology course mentioned above, we covered Seymour Epstein’s American Psychologist article on Cognitive Experiential Self Theory 5 . In it, Epstein argued his model could effectively bridge an updated Freudian analysis with modern cognitive psychology. His model makes a clear distinction between the animal-mammal-primate portion of our cognitive structure and the more verbal, rational, self-conscious, self-reflective, justifying “person” mind.

Epstein's analysis aligns well with UTOK's formulation of humans as persons and primates 6 . Via Justification Systems Theory 7 , UTOK posits that we should think of the human ego as a mental organ of justification that evolves in response to the evolution of propositional language and the resulting question-answer dynamics of justification that emerge with it. UTOK’s model of human psychology thus posits that humans have a primary animal-mammal-primate system of nonverbal cognition and a secondary, self-conscious, justifying mind that is a propositional knowing system that allows us to navigate the Culture-Person plane of existence. As such, the primate-experiential system can be framed as “System 1” and the person-propositional system as “System 2”. Of course, the fact that there are these two systems does not mean that there are not important causal and function relations between the primate-experiential system and the person-propositional system. There are important connections between the respiratory and circulation systems within the body, but we can still understand them as different systems performing different functions.

When Henriques' analysis is placed in relation to the set of analyses framed by Vervaeke’s theory of recursive relevance realization, we can see that both types of cognitive processes would be present in both systems. That is, there are Type 1 (relevance realizing) and Type 2 (recursive checking) processes in both System 1 (primate-experiential) and System 2 (justifying person). In this analysis, the example of the ball and bat would be processed in System 2 because it is propositional, but the conclusion that the bat is $1 is a function of Type 1 processes in System 2. We can also see deliberation in the animal world, such as when crows engage in systematic, novel problem-solving. Such processes would be Type 2 processes taking place in System 1.

In short, when we merge Henriques' UTOK with Vervaeke’s metatheory of cognition, a new picture emerges. It is not that there are either systems or types of cognitive processes and that scholars simply differ in terminology. Rather, our conclusion is that, when it comes to the human mind, there are two types of processes that take place in two kinds of systems.

1. Dr. John Vervaeke is an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. He currently teaches courses in the Psychology department on thinking and reasoning with an emphasis on insight problem solving, cognitive development with an emphasis on the dynamical nature of development, and higher cognitive processes with an emphasis on intelligence, rationality, mindfulness, and the Psychology of wisdom. He also teaches courses in the Cognitive Science program on the introduction to Cognitive Science, and the Cognitive Science of consciousness. He is the author and presenter of the YouTube series, "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis."

2. Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3) 223–241.

3. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 22 (pp. 193-225). New York: Academic Press.

4. Henriques, G. (2020). What is the Unified Theory Of Knowledge (UTOK). Theory of Knowledge blog post on Psychology Today.

5. Epstein, S. (1994). The integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, (8), 709-724

6. Henriques, G. (2017). Our two essences: Modern humans as primates and persons. Theory of Knowledge blog post on Psychology Today.

7. Henriques, G.(2018). From the JH to JUST: Why a Name Change is Justified. Theory of Knowledge blog post on Psychology Today.

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. , is a professor of psychology at James Madison University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Cognition and Instruction/Problem Solving, Critical Thinking and Argumentation

We are constantly surrounded by ambiguities, falsehoods, challenges or situations in our daily lives that require our Critical Thinking , Problem Solving Skills , and Argumentation skills . While these three terms are often used interchangeably, they are notably different. Critical thinking enables us to actively engage with information that we are presented with through all of our senses, and to think deeply about such information. This empowers us to analyse, critique, and apply knowledge, as well as create new ideas. Critical thinking can be considered the overarching cognitive skill of problem solving and argumentation. With critical thinking, although there are logical conclusions we can arrive at, there is not necessarily a 'right' idea. What may seem 'right' is often very subjective. Problem solving is a form of critical thinking that confronts learners with decisions to be made about best possible solutions, with no specific right answer for well-defined and ill-defined problems. One method of engaging with Problem Solving is with tutor systems such as Cognitive Tutor which can modify problems for individual students as well as track their progress in learning. Particular to Problem Solving is Project Based Learning which focuses the learner on solving a driving question, placing the student in the centre of learning experience by conducting an extensive investigation. Problem Based Learning focuses on real-life problems that motivate the student with experiential learning. Further, Design Thinking uses a specific scaffold system to encourage learners to develop a prototype to solve a real-world problem through a series of steps. Empathy, practical design principles, and refinement of prototyping demonstrate critical thought throughout this process. Likewise, argumentation is a critical thinking process that does not necessarily involve singular answers, hence the requirement for negotiation in argumentative thought. More specifically, argumentation involves using reasoning to support or refute a claim or idea. In comparison problem solving may lead to one solution that could be considered to be empirical.

This chapter provides a theoretical overview of these three key topics: the qualities of each, their relationship to each other, as well as practical classroom applications.

Learning Outcomes:

• Defining Critical Thought and its interaction with knowledge
• Defining Problem Solving and how it uses Critical Thought to develop solutions to problems
• Introduce a Cognitive Tutor as a cognitive learning tool that employs problem solving to enhance learning
• Explore Project Based Learning as a specific method of Problem Solving
• Examine Design Thinking as a sub-set of Project Based Learning and its scaffold process for learning
• Define Argumentation and how it employs a Critical Though process
• Examine specific methodologies and instruments of application for argumentation
• 1.1 Defining critical thinking
• 1.2 Critical thinking as a western construct
• 1.3 Critical thinking in other parts of the world
• 1.4 Disposition and critical thinking
• 1.5 Self-regulation and critical thinking
• 1.6.1 Venn Diagrams
• 1.6.2.1 The classroom environment
• 1.6.3.1 Socratic Method
• 1.6.3.2 Bloom’s Taxonomy
• 1.6.3.3 Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
• 1.6.3.4 Williams Model
• 1.6.3.5 Wiggins & McTighe’s Six Facets of Understanding
• 2.1.1.1.1 Structure Of The Classroom
• 2.2.1.1 Instructional Implications
• 2.2.2.1 Instructional Implications
• 2.3.1 Mind set
• 2.3.2.1.1 Instructional Implications
• 2.4 Novice Versus Expert In Problem Solving
• 2.5.1 An overview of Cognitive Tutor
• 2.5.2.1 ACT-R theory
• 2.5.2.2 Production rules
• 2.5.2.3 Cognitive model and model tracing
• 2.5.2.4 Knowledge tracing
• 2.5.3.1 Cognitive Tutor® Geometry
• 2.5.3.2 Genetics Cognitive Tutor
• 2.6.1 Theorizing Solutions for Real World Problems
• 2.6.2 Experience is the Foundation of Learning
• 2.6.3 Self-Motivation Furthers Student Learning
• 2.6.4 Educators Find Challenges in Project Based Learning Implementation
• 2.6.5 Learner Need for Authentic Results through Critical Thought
• 2.7.1 Using the Process of Practical Design for Real-World Solutions
• 2.7.2 Critical Thought on Design in the Artificial World
• 2.7.3 Critical Thinking as Disruptive Achievement
• 2.7.4 Designers are Not Scientific?
• 2.7.5 21st Century Learners and the Need for Divergent Thinking
• 3.1 Educators Find Challenges in Project Based Learning Implementation
• 3.2 Learner Need for Authentic Results through Critical Thought
• 3.3 Critical Thinking as Disruptive Achievement
• 3.4.1 Argumentation Stages
• 3.5 The Impact of Argumentation on Learning
• 4.1.1 Production, Analysis, and Evaluation
• 4.2 How Argumentation Improves Critical Thinking
• 5.1 Teaching Tactics
• 5.2.1 The CoRT Thinking Materials
• 5.2.2 The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program (FIE)
• 5.2.3 The Productive Thinking Program
• 5.2.4 The IDEAL Problem Solver
• 5.3.1 Dialogue and Argumentation
• 5.3.2 Science and Argumentation
• 5.3.3.1 Historical Thinking - The Big Six
• 5.4 Instructing through Academic Controversy
• 7.1 External links
• 8 References

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is an extremely valuable aspect of education. The ability to think critically often increases over the lifespan as knowledge and experience is acquired, but it is crucial to begin the process of this development as early on as possible. Research has indicated that critical thinking skills are correlated with better transfer of knowledge, while a lack of critical thinking skills has been associated with biased reasoning [1] . Before children even begin formal schooling, they develop critical thinking skills at home because of interactions with parents and caregivers [2] . As well, critical thinking appears to improve with explicit instruction [3] . Being able to engage in critical thought is what allows us to make informed decisions in situations like elections, in which candidates present skewed views of themselves and other candidates. Without critical thinking, people would fall prey to fallacious information and biased reasoning. It is therefore important that students are introduced to critical thought and are encouraged to utilize critical thinking skills as they face problems.

Defining critical thinking

In general, critical thinking can be defined as the process of evaluating arguments and evidence to reach a conclusion that is the most appropriate and valid among other possible conclusions. Critical thinking is a dynamic and reflective process, and it is primarily evidence-based [4] . Thinking critically involves being able to criticize information objectively and explore opposing views, eventually leading to a conclusion based on evidence and careful thought. Critical thinkers are skeptical of information given to them, actively seek out evidence, and are not hesitant to take on decision-making and complex problem solving tasks [5] . Asking questions, debating topics, and critiquing the credibility of sources are all activities that involve thinking critically. As outlined by Glaser (1941), critical thinking involves three main components: a disposition for critical thought, knowledge of critical thinking strategies, and some ability to apply the strategies [6] . Having a disposition for critical thought is necessary for applying known strategies.

Critical thinking, which includes cognitive processes such as weighing and evaluating information, leads to more thorough understanding of an issue or problem. As a type of reflection, critical thinking also promotes an awareness of one's own perceptions, intentions, feelings and actions. [7]

Critical thinking as a western construct

In modern education, critical thinking is taken for granted as something that people universally need and should acquire, especially at a higher educational level [8] [9] . However, critical thinking is a human construct [10] - not a scientific fact - that is tied to Ancient Greek philosophy and beliefs [11] .

The link to Ancient Greece relates both to Ancient Greek priorities of logic over emotion [11] , as well as its democratic principles. Various authors, including Elder & Paul [12] , Moon [8] , and Stanlick & Strawser [13] share the view that critical thinking questioning back to the time of Socrates . Likewise, Morgan & Saxton (2006) associate critical thinking with a fundamental requirement of all democratic citizens [14] .

An additional connection with Ancient Greece involves the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method involves a conversation between two or more people in which they ask and answer questions to challenge each other’s theses using logic and reason [15] . Such debates are subject to the issue of objective/subjective dualism in that the purpose of debate is the belief that there is a ‘right answer’, yet the ability to conduct such a debate demonstrates the subjectivity of any thesis [15] .

Because of this strong connection to Ancient Greece, critical thinking is generally considered to be a western construct. This is further amplified another western construct called Bloom’s Taxonomy , which is considered to be the essence of critical thinking in modern education [16] .

Since critical thinking is a human construct, notions of what constitutes critical thinking vary considerably from person to person. Moon (2007) lists 21 common notions of critical thinking provided by people from her workshops, and then provides her own 2-page definition of the term [8] . One view of critical thinking is that it involves a set of skills that enables one to reach defensible conclusions and make decisions in a domain or context in which one has some prior knowledge [10] . Another view is that critical thinking involves the use of systematic logic and reasoning, which while not necessarily producing empirical answers nevertheless uses a rational and scientific approach [17] . Ultimately, Moon concludes that there is no right or wrong definition [8] .

Critical thinking in other parts of the world

Scholars argue that while the critical thinking construct is linked to western, democratic nations, that does not mean that other non-western cultures do not possess or use similar constructs that involve critical thinking [18] . Instead, “there are different ways or forms of reasoning” [19] ; for example, Asian approaches to debates involve finding connections between conflictive arguments in order for such ideas to coexist [18] . This is due to eastern values regarding face-saving [8] . In contrast, western approaches are often viewed as being competitive: attacking the views of others while defending one's own position. Despite this dichotomous generalisation, eastern and western approaches have more similarities than they would first seem. With regards to the diplomatic Asian approach to debating, western approaches also involve compromise and negotiation for the very reason that ideas are often complex and that there can be many ‘right’ answers [14] . Similarly, the extent to which other cultures adopt western notions of critical thinking is determined by cultural values. In Muslim cultures, for example, the value of critical thinking is link to views on the appropriateness of voicing one’s views [20] .

Disposition and critical thinking

It has been suggested that critical thinking skills alone are not sufficient for the application of critical thinking – a disposition for critical thinking is also necessary [5] . A disposition for critical thought differs from cognitive skills. A disposition is better explained as the ability to consciously choose a skill, rather than just the ability to execute the skill [4] . Having a disposition for critical thinking can include such things as genuine interest and ability in intellectual activities. Perkins et al. (2000) expand on the idea of the necessity for a critical thinking disposition, and indicate three aspects involved in critical thinking disposition: an inclination for engaging in intellectual behaviours; a sensitivity to opportunities, in which such behaviours may be engaged; and a general ability for engaging in critical thought [5] . Halpern (1998) suggests that this critical thinking disposition must include a willingness to continue with tasks that seem difficult, openmindedness, and a habit of planning [5] . In fact, in a cognitive skills study conducted by Clifford et al. (2004), they discovered that a disposition for critical thinking was associated with better overall critical thinking skills [4] .

These are characteristics of one's attitude or personality that facilitate the process of developing CT skills:

• Inquisitive
• Truthseeking
• Open-minded
• Confidence in reasoning

There are many factors that can influence one's disposition towards CT; the first of these is culture [5] . There are many aspects of culture that can impact the ability for people to think critically. For instance, religion can negatively impact the development of CT [5] . Many religions are founded upon faith, which often requires wholehearted belief without evidence or support. The nature of organized religion counters the very premise of CT, which is to evaluate the validity and credibility of any claim. Growing up in an environment such as this can be detrimental to the development of CT skills. This kind of environment can dampen dispositions that question religious views or examine the validity of religion. Another cultural factor that can be detrimental to a CT disposition is that of authority [5] . When a child is raised under the conditions of an authoritarian parenting style, it can be detrimental to many aspects of their lives, but especially to their CT skills, as they are taught not to question the credibility of authority and often receive punishment if they do. This is also applicable in the classroom [5] . Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking in which teachers who do not foster an atmosphere of openness or allow students to question what they are taught can impact CT development as well. Classrooms where questions are rejected or home environments in which there is a high level of parental power and control can all affect the ability of students to think critically. What is more, students will have been conditioned not to think this way for their entire lives [5] . However, despite these cultural limitations, there are ways in which a disposition for CT can be fostered in both the home and the classroom.

Classroom structure is a primary way in which CT dispositions can be highlighted. Fostering a classroom structure in which students are a part of the decision making process of what they are studying can be very helpful in creating CT dispositions [5] . Such structures help students become invested in what they are learning as well as promote a classroom atmosphere in which students may feel free to question the teacher, as well as other students' opinions and beliefs about different subjects. Allowing the freedom to scrutinize and evaluate information that has been given to students is an effective way of creating a classroom environment that can encourage students to develop CT dispositions. This freedom allows for the students to remain individuals within the larger classroom context, and gives them the power to evaluate and make decisions on their own. Allowing the students to share power in the classroom can be extremely beneficial in helping the students stay motivated and analytical of classroom teachings [5] . Teachers can also employ a variety of techniques that can help students become autonomous in the classroom. Giving students the opportunity to take on different roles can be effective in creating CT dispositions, such as making predictions and contemplating problems [5] . Allowing students to engage with problems that are presented, instead of just teaching them what the teacher or textbook believes to be true, is essential for students to develop their own opinions and individual, though. In addition to this, gathering data and information on the subject is an important part of developing CT dispositions. Doing so allows for students to go out and find resources that they themselves can analyze and come to conclusions on their own [5] . Using these aspects of CT students can most effectively relate to the predictions that were first made and critique the validity of the findings [5] .

Self-regulation and critical thinking

In conjunction with instructing CT, teachers also need to keep in mind the self-regulation of their students. Students need to be able to maintain motivation and have a proactive attitude towards their own learning when learning a new skill. In an article by Phan (2010), he argues that self-regulated students that have better goal setting have more personal responsibility for their learning, can maintain their motivation, are more cognitively flexible, and hence are more inclined to utilize CT. Since CT skills are highly reflective, they help in self-regulated learning (SRL), and in turn, self-regulatory strategies aid in developing CT skills. These two cognitive practices are assets to students’ growth and development [7] .

Self-Regulation provides students with the basic meta-cognitive awareness required for proactive learning. This pro-activity allows students to engage in the cognitive processes of CT, such as evaluation, reflection and inference. Through one’s meta-cognitive ability to assess one’s own thoughts, one develops the capability to become autonomous in one’s learning [7] . Instead of having a supervisor overlook every task, the learner can progress at their own pace while monitoring their performance, thereby engaging in SRL. Part of this process would include periodic reflection upon the strategies that one uses when completing a task. This reflection can facilitate the student’s learning by using CT to evaluate which strategies best suit their own learning based on their cognitive needs.

The complex nature of CT suggests that it requires a long developmental process requiring guidance, practice and reinforcement. To facilitate this process, self-monitoring as a first step to self-regulation can jump-start reflective thought through assessing one’s own educational performance. This assessment promotes self-efficacy through generating motivational beliefs about one’s academic capabilities [7] . From there, through practice, students can extend their CT skills beyond themselves and into their educational contexts. With practice, students use their meta-cognitive strategies as a basis for developing CT in the long run.

Critical thinking strategies

Psychologists and educators have discovered many different strategies for the development of critical thinking. Among these strategies are some that may be very familiar, such as concept maps or Venn diagrams , as well as some that may be less familiar, such as appeal-question stimuli strategies [21] . Concept mapping is particularly useful for illustrating the relationships between ideas and concepts, while Venn diagrams are often used to represent contrasting ideas [21] .

Venn Diagrams

Venn diagrams are used frequently in elementary grade levels and continue to be used as a contrast/compare tool throughout secondary school. An example of a situation in which a Venn diagram activity may be appropriate is during a science class. Instructors may direct students to develop a Venn diagram comparing and contrasting different plants or animals. Concept maps may be introduced in elementary grades, although they are most often used in the secondary and post-secondary levels. Concept maps are an interactive and versatile way to encourage students to engage with the course material. A key aspect of concept mapping is how it requires students to reflect on previously learned information and make connections. In elementary grades, concept maps can be introduced as a project, while later, possibly in college or university, students may use them as a study strategy. At the elementary level, students can use concept maps to make connections about the characters, settings, or plot in a story they have read. When introducing concept maps, teachers may provide students with a list of words or phrases and instruct the students to illustrate the connections between them in the form of a concept map. Asking questions can also be a simple and engaging way to develop critical thought. Teachers may begin by asking the students questions about the material, and then encouraging students to come up with their own questions. In secondary and post-secondary education, students may use questions as a way to assess the credibility of a source. At the elementary school level, questions can be used to assess students' understanding of the material, while also encouraging them to engage in critical thought by questioning the actions of characters in a story or the validity of an experiment. Appeal-question stimuli, founded by Svobodová, involves a process of students asking questions regarding their reading comprehension [21] .

Discussions

Using discussions as a way to develop students’ critical thinking skills can be a particularly valuable strategy for teachers. Peer interactions provide a basis for developing particular critical thinking skills, such as perspective taking and cooperation, which may not be as easily taught through instruction. A large part of discussions, of course, is language. Klooster (2002) suggested that critical thinking begins with asking questions [21] . Similarly, Vygotsky has claimed that language skills can be a crucial precursor for higher level thought processes [2] . As children develop larger vocabularies, they are better able to understand reading material and can then begin to think abstractly about the material and engage in thoughtful discussions with peers about what they understood [2] .

Studies have indicated that cross-age peer discussions may be particularly helpful in facilitating the development of critical thinking. Cross-age peer groups can be effective because of the motivation children tend to have when working with peers of different ages [2] . Younger children often look up to the older children as mentors and valuable sources of knowledge and experience, while older children feel a sense of maturity and a responsibility to share their knowledge and experience with younger students [2] . These cross-age peer discussions also provide students with the challenge of tailoring their use of language to the other group members in order to make their points understandable [2] . An example of cross-age peer groups that is relatively common in Canadian schools is the big buddy programs, where intermediate grade students are assigned a primary grade buddy to help over the course of the school year. Big buddies may help their little buddies with projects, advice, or school events. The big buddy/little buddy programs can be effective as younger students look up to their big buddies, and the big buddies feel a responsibility to help their little buddy. One important factor to be considered with cross-age peer discussions, as noted by Hattie (2006), is that these discussions should be highly structured activities facilitated by a teacher in order to ensure that students understand their group responsibilities [2] .

The classroom environment

Having an environment that is a safe place for students to ask questions and share ideas is extremely valuable for creating a classroom that encourages critical thinking. It has been suggested that students are more likely to develop a disposition for critical thinking when they are able to participate in the organization and planning of their classroom and class activities [5] . In these classrooms, students are legitimately encouraged by their teacher to engage in the decision making process regarding the functioning of the classroom [5] . It is also important for teachers to model the desired types of critical thought, by questioning themselves and other authorities in a respectful and appropriate manner [5] . Studies have indicated higher levels of cognitive engagement among students in classrooms with teachers who are enthusiastic and responsive [22] . Therefore, teachers should be encouraging and inclusive, and allow student engagement in classroom planning processes when possible.

Critical questions

Research is increasingly supporting the idea that critical thinking can be explicitly taught [23] . The use of critical questioning in education is of particular importance, because by teaching critical questioning, educators are actively modelling critical thinking processes. One of the key issues with teaching critical thinking in education is that students merely witness the product of critical thinking on the part of the teacher, i.e. they hear the conclusions that the teacher has reached through critical thinking [9] . Whereas an experienced critical thinker uses critical questions, these questions are implicit and not normally verbalised. However, for students to understand critical questioning and critical thinking strategies, the students must see the process of critical thinking. Modelling the formation and sequencing of critical questions explicitly demonstrates the thought process of how one can reach a logical conclusion.

There various methods of teaching critical questioning. The frameworks discussed below are among the most famous of these. All have their own strengths and weaknesses in terms of ease-of-use, complexity, and universality. Each of these methods approaches critical thinking with a specific definition of this human concept. As such, one’s own definition of critical thinking will likely affect one’s receptiveness to a specific critical questioning framework.

Socratic Method

One of the key features of western approaches to critical thinking involves the importance of critical questioning, which is linked to the Socratic Method from Ancient Greece traditions. Whether answering existing questions posed or creating new questions to be considered, critical thinking involves questions, whether explicitly / implicitly, consciously / unconsciously [13] . Browne & Keeley (2006) base their definition of critical thinking specifically on the involvement of critical questions [24] .

Answers to critical questions are not necessarily empirical. They may involve reasoning and be logical, but are nevertheless subject to alternative views from others, thus making all views both subjective and objective at the same time. Elder & Paul (2009) separate such critical questions into three categories [12] :

• Questions that have a correct answer, which can be determined using knowledge
• Questions that are open to subjective answers that cannot be judged
• Questions that produce objective answers that are judged based the quality of evidence and reasoning used

Books on critical questioning tend to be influenced heavily by the Socratic Method, and they make a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ questions. Good questions are those that are relevant to the topic at hand and that take a logical, systematic approach [14] [13] , while bad questions are those that are not relevant to the topic, are superficial, and are sequenced haphazardly. Elder & Paul (2009) argue that “[i]t is not possible to be a good thinker and a poor questioner.” [25] In other words, if a person cannot thinking of relevant and logical questions, they will be unable to reach any rational conclusions.

Additionally, as indicated above, critical thinking requires more than just asking the right questions. There is a direct relationship between critical thinking and knowledge [23] . One can possess knowledge, but not know how to apply it. Conversely, one can have good critical questioning skills, but lack the knowledge to judge the merits of an answer.

In terms of teaching critical questioning using the Socratic Method, it is essential to appreciate that there is no set of questions that one can follow, since the type of critical questions needed is based on the actual context. Consequently, the examples presented by different authors vary quite considerably. Nevertheless, there are specific guidelines one can follow [26] :

• Use critical questions to identify and understand the situation, issues, viewpoints and conclusions
• Use critical questions to search for assumptions, ambiguity, conflicts, or fallacies
• Use critical questions to evaluate the effects of the ideas

Part 1 of the Socratic Method is more of an information gathering stage, using questions to find out essential details, to clarify ideas or opinions, and to determine objectives. Part 2 uses the information from Part 1 and then uses questions to probe for underlying details that could provide reasons for critiquing the accuracy of the idea. Part 3 uses questions to reflect upon the consequences of such ideas.

Conklin (2012) separates the above three parts into six parts [27] :

• Using questions to understand
• Using questions to determine assumptions
• Using questions to discover reasons / evidence
• Using questions to determine perspectives
• Using questions to determine consequences
• Using questions to evaluate a given question

Here are some sample questions for each part [28] :

Questions for understanding:

• Why do you think that?
• What have you studied about this topic so far?
• How does this relate to what you are studying now?

Questions that determine assumptions

• How could you check that assumption?
• What else could be assumed?
• What are your views on that? Do you agree or disagree?

Questions that discover reasons / evidence

• How can you be sure?
• Why is this happening?
• What evidence do you have to back up your opinion?

Questions that determine perspectives

• How could you look at this argument another way?
• Which perspective is better?

Questions that determine consequences

• How does it affect you?
• What impact does that have?

Questions that evaluate a given question

• Why was I asked this question?
• Which questions led to the most interesting answers?
• What other questions should be asked?

Depending on the text, the Socratic Method can be extraordinarily elaborate, making it challenging for educators to apply. Conklin (2012) states that a teacher would need to spend time planning such questions in advance, rather than expect to produce them during a lesson [27] .

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy was originally designed in 1956 to determine cognitive educational objectives and assess students’ higher-order thinking skills [29] . Since then, though, it has become adapted and used as a useful tool for promoting critical thinking skills, particularly through critical questioning [30] . These critical questions involve Bloom’s categories of understanding, applying, analysing, synthesising and evaluating. Such categories can be seen to relate to the Socratic Method promoted by other authors, i.e. the importance of questioning to understanding, analyse and evaluate. Moon (2007) believes that “‘evaluation’, ‘reflection’ and ‘understanding’” are key aspects of critical thinking [8] , which should therefore appear in any notion of critical thinking. At the same time, Bloom’s Taxonomy generates a natural set of questions that can be adapted to various contexts [31] .

In one example, a teacher uses a picture of a New York speakeasy bar. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, the teacher could ask and model the following critical questions [14] :

• KNOWLEDGE: What do you see in the picture?
• COMPREHENSION: What do people do in places like that?
• ANALYSIS: Why are there so many policemen in the picture?
• APPLICATION: What similar situations do we see nowadays?
• SYNTHESIS: What if there were no laws prohibiting such behaviour?
• EVALUATION: How would you feel if you were one of these people? Why?

Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) taxonomy was produced in 2002 in response to Bloom’s Taxonomy [32] . In contrast with Bloom’s Taxonomy, Webb’s DOK focuses on considering thinking in terms of complexity of thinking rather than difficulty [32] .

Webb’s DOK has four levels:

• Recall & reproduction
• Working with skills & concepts
• Short-term strategic thinking
• Extended strategic thinking

Level 1 aligns with Bloom’s level of remembering and recalling information. Example critical questions in this level would include:

• What is the name of the protagonist?
• What did Oliver Twist ask Fagin?

Level 2 involves various skills, such as classifying, comparing, predicting, gathering, and displaying. Critical questions can be derived from these skill sets, including the following:

• How do these two ideas compare?
• How would you categorise these objects?
• How would you summarize the text?

Level 3 involves analysis and evaluation, once again aligning with Bloom’s Taxonomy.

• What conclusions can you reach?
• What theory can you generate to explain this?
• What is the best answer? Why?

At the same time, Level 3 of DOK shares similarities with the Socratic Method in that the individual must defend their views.

Level 4 is the most elaborate and challenging level. It involves making interdisciplinary connections and the creation of new ideas / solutions.

Since DOK becomes increasingly elaborate with levels and leads to the requirement to defend one’s position using logic and evidence, there are parallels with the Socratic Method. At the same time, because is used to develop standards in assessing critical thinking, it shares similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Williams Model

The Williams Model was designed by Frank Williams in the 1970s [27] . Unlike other methods, the Williams Model was designed specifically to promote creative thinking using critical questioning [27] . This model involves the following aspects:

• Flexibility
• Elaboration
• Originality
• Risk taking
• Imagination

Critical questions regarding fluency follow a sort of brainstorming approach in that the questions are designed to generates ideas and options [27] . For ‘flexibility’, the questions are designed to produce variations on existing ideas. ‘Elaboration’ questions are about building upon existing ideas and developing the level of detail. As the name suggests, critical questions for ‘originality’ are for promoting the development of new ideas. The ‘curiosity’ aspect of the Williams Model bears a similarity with that of the ‘Wonder’ stage of the Know Wonder Learn (KWL) system [33] . ‘Risk taking’ questions are designed to provoke experimentation. Although the name ‘complexity’ may sound similar to ‘elaboration’, it is instead about finding order among chaos, making connections, and filling in gaps of information. The final aspect is ‘Imagination’, which involves using questions to visualise.

Wiggins & McTighe’s Six Facets of Understanding

Wiggins & McTighe’s ‘Six Facets of Understanding’ are all based on deep understanding aspects of critical thinking [34] . The method is used for teachers to design questions for students to promote critical thinking [34] . The six facets are Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge [35] .

‘Why’ and ‘How’ questions dominate the ‘Explanation’ facet in developing theory and reasoning [36] :

• How did this happen? Why do you think this?
• How does this connect to the other theory?

Interpretation questions encourage reading between the lines, creating analogies or metaphors, and creating written or visual scenarios to illustrate the idea. Questions include:

• How would you explain this idea in other words?
• Why do you think that there is conflict between the two sides?
• Why is it important to know this?

Application questions are about getting students to use knowledge. Part of this comes from predicting what will happen based on prior experience. Another aspect involves learning from the past. Critical questions in this facet include:

• How might we prevent this happening again?
• What do you think will happen?
• How does this work?

Perspective questions involves not only looking at ideas from other people’s perspectives, but also determining what people’s points of views are. In comparison with Empathy questions, though, Perspective questions involve more of an analytical and critical examination [35] . Here are some example questions:

• What are the different points of view concerning this topic?
• Whose is speaking in the poem?
• Whose point of view is being expressed?
• How might this look from the other person’s perspective?

Empathy questions involve perspective-taking, including empathy, in order to show an open mind to considering what it would feel like to walk in another person’s shoes.

• How would you feel in the same situation?
• What would it be like to live in those conditions?
• How would you react if someone did that your family?

Self-knowledge questions are primarily designed to encourage self reflection and to develop greater self awareness [35] . In particular, Self-Knowledge questions reveal one’s biases, values, and prejudices and how they influence our judgment of others. Critical questions in this facet include:

• How has my life shaped my view on this topic?
• What do I really know about the lives of people in that community?
• What knowledge or experience do I lack?
• How do I know what I know? Where did that information / idea come from?

Questions within the Six Facets of Understanding all incorporate the following attributes [36] :

• They are open ended
• They require deep thought
• They require critical thinking
• They promote transfer of knowledge
• They are designed to lead to follow-up questions
• They require answers that are substantiated

For examples of critical questioning in action in a classroom environment, view the External Link section at the bottom of this page.

Problem Solving

In everyday life we are surrounded by a plethora of problems that require solutions and our attention to resolve them to reach our goals [37] . We may be confronted with problems such as: needing to determine the best route to get to work, what to wear for an interview, how to do well on an argumentative essay or needing to find the solution to a quadratic equation. A problem is present in situations where there is a desire to solve the problem, however the solution is not obvious to the solver [38] . Problem solving is the process of finding the solutions to these problems. [39] . Although they are related, critical thinking differs fundamentally from problem solving. Critical thought is actually a process that can be applied to problem solving. For example, students may find themselves engaging in critical thought when they encounter ill-defined problems that require them to consider many options or possible answers. In essence, those who are able to think critically are able to solve problems effectively [40] .

This chapter on problem solving will first differentiate between Well-defined Problems and Ill-defined Problems , then explain uses of conceptualizing and visually representing problems within the context of problem solving and finally we will discuss how mental set may impede successful problem solving.

Well-defined and Ill-defined Problems

Problems can be categorized into two types: ill-defined or well-defined [37] Cognitive Psychology and Instruction (5th Ed). New York: Pearson.</ref> to the problem at hand. An example of a well-defined problem is an algebraic problem (ex: 2x - 29 = 7) where one must find the value of x. Another example may be converting the weight of the turkey from kilograms to pounds. In both instances these represent well-defined problems as there is one correct solution and a clearly defined way of finding that solution.

In contrast, ill-defined problems represent those we may face in our daily lives, the goals are unclear and they have information that is conflicting, incomplete or inconclusive [41] . An example of an ill-defined problem may be “how do we solve climate change?” or “how should we resolve poverty” as there is no one right answer to these problems. These problems yield the possibility to many different solutions as there isn’t a universally agreed upon strategy for solving them. People approach these problems differently depending on their assumptions, application of theory or values that they use to inform their approach [42] . Furthermore, each solution to a problem has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. [42] .

Table 1. Summarizes the difference between well-defined and ill-defined problems.

Differences in Solving Ill-defined and Well-defined Problems

In earlier times, researchers assumed both types of problems were solved in similar ways [44] , more contemporary research highlights some distinct differences between processes behind finding a solution.

Kitchener (1983) proposed that well-defined problems did not involve assumptions regarding Epistemological Beliefs [37] because they have a clear and definite solution, while ill-defined problems require these beliefs due to not having a clear and particular solution [45] . In support of this idea, Schraw, Dunkle and Bendixen conducted an experiment with 200 participants, where they found that performance in well-defined problems is not predictive of one's performance on ill-defined problems, as ill-defined problems activated different beliefs about knowledge. [46]

Furthermore Shin, Jonassen and McGee (2003), [43] found that solving ill-defined problems brought forth different skills than those found in well-structured problems. In well-structured problems domain knowledge and justification skills highly predicted problem-solving scores, whereas scores on ill-structured tasks were predictive of argumentation, attitudes and metacognition in an astronomy simulation.

Aligned with these findings, Cho and Jonassen (2002) [47] found that groups solving ill-structured problems produced more argumentation and problem solving strategies due to the importance of considering a wide variety of solutions and perspectives. In contrast, the same argumentation technique distracted the participant's activities when they dealt with well-defined problems. This research highlights the potential differences in the processes behind solving ill-defined and well-defined problems.

Implications Of The Classroom Environment

The fundamental differences between well-structured and ill-structured problems implicate that solving ill-structured problems calls for different skills, strategies, and approaches than well-structured problems [43] . Meanwhile, most tasks in the educational setting are designed around engaging learners in solving well-structured problems that are found at the end of textbook chapters or on standardized tests. [48] . Unfortunately the strategies used for well-defined problems have little application to ill-defined problems that are likely to be encountered day to day [49] as simplified problem solving strategies used for the well-structured designs have been found to have almost no similarities to real-life problems [48]

This demonstrates the need to restructure classrooms in a way that facilitates the student problem solving of ill-structured problems. One way we may facilitate this is through asking students questions that exemplify the problems found in everyday life [50] . This type of approach is called problem based learning and this type of classroom structure students are given the opportunity to address questions by collecting and compiling evidence, data and information from a plethora of sources [51] . In doing so students learn to analyze the information,data and information, while taking into consideration the vast interpretations and perspectives in order to present and explain their findings [51] .

Structure Of The Classroom

In problem-based learning, students work in small groups to where they explore meaningful problems, identify the information needed to solve the given problem, and devise effective approaches for the solution [50] . Students utilize these strategies, analyze and consider their results to devise new strategies until they have come up with an effective solution [50] . The teacher’s role in this classroom structure is to guide the process, facilitate participation and pose questions to elicit reflections and critical thinking about their findings [50] . In addition teachers may also provide traditional lectures and explanations that are intended to support student inquiry [50] .

In support of the argument to implement a problem-based approach to problem solving, a meta-analysis conducted by Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels (2003), found problem-based learning to be superior to traditional styles of learning though in supporting flexible problem solving, application of knowledge, and hypothesis generation. [52] Furthermore, Williams, Hemstreet, Liu, and Smith (1998) found that this approach fostered greater gains in conceptual understanding in science [53] . Lastly Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal (1992), found that in comparing traditional vs. project-based approaches students in problem-based learning demonstrate an ability to define problems. [54] These findings highlight the benefits of problem-based learning on understanding and defining problems in science. Given the positive effects of defining problems this education approach may also be applied to our next sub-topic of conceptualizing problems.

Steps to Problem Solving

There have been five stages consistently found within the literature of problem solving: (1) identifying the problem, (2) representing the problem, (3) choosing the appropriate strategy, (4) implementing the strategy, and (5) assessing the solutions [37] . This overview will focus on the first two stages of problem solving and examine how they influence problem solving.

Conceptualizing Problems

One of the most tedious and taxing aspects of problem solving is identifying the problem as it requires one to consider the problem through multiple lenses and perspectives without being attached to one particular solution to early on in the task [39] . In addition it is also important to spend time clearly identifying the problem due to the association between time spent "conceptualizing a particular problem and the quality of one's solutions". [37] For example consider the following problem:

Becka baked a chocolate cake in her oven for twenty five minutes. How long would it take her to bake three chocolate cakes?

Most people would jump to the conclusion to multiply twenty five by three, however if we place all three cakes in the oven at a time we find it would take the same time to bake three cakes as it would take to bake one. This example highlights the need to properly conceptualize the problem and look at it from different viewpoints, before rushing to solutions.

Taking this one step further, break down the five steps as the would be used to conceptualize the problem:

Stage 1 - Define the Problem

Stage 2 - Brainstorm Solutions

Stage 3 - Pick a Solution

Stage 4 - Implement the Solution

Stage 5 - Review the Result

Research also supports the importance of taking one's time to clearly identifying the problem before proceeding to other stages. In support of this argument, Getzel and Csikszentmihalyi found that artist students that spend more time identifying the problem when producing their art were rated as having more creative and original pieces than artists who spent less time at this stage [37] . These researchers postulated that in considering a wider scope of options during this initial stage they were able to come up with more original and dynamic solutions.

Furthermore, when comparing the approaches of experienced teachers and novice post-secondary students studying to be teachers, it was found that experienced teachers spent a greater amount of time lesson planning in comparison to post-secondary students when in a placed in a hypothetical classroom. [37] In addition these teachers offered significantly more solutions to problems posed in both ill-defined and well-defined problems. Therefore it is implicated that successful problem solving is associated with the time spent finding the correct problem and the consideration of multiple solutions.

Instructional Implications

One instructional implication we may draw from the literature that supports that the direct relationship between time spent on conceptualizing a problem and the quality of the solution, is that teachers should encourage students to spend as much time as possible at this stage [37] . In providing this knowledge and by monitoring student’s problem solving processes to ensure that they “linger” when conceptualizing problems, we may facilitate effective problem solving [37] .

Representing the Problem

Problem Representation refers to how the known information about a particular problem is organized [37] . In abstract representation of a problem, we merely think or speak about the problem without externally visually representing [37] . In representing a problem tangibly this is done by creating a visual representation on paper, computer, etc. of the data though graphs, stories, symbols, pictures or equations. These visual representations [37] may be helpful they can help us keep track of solutions and steps to a problem, which can particularly be useful when encountering complex problems.

For example if we look at Dunker's Buddhist Monk example [37]  :

In the morning a Buddhist monk walks outside at sunrise to climb up the mountain to get to the temple at the peak. He reaches the temple just prior to sunset. A couple days later, he departs from the temple at sunrise to climb back down the mountain, travelling quicker than he did during his ascent as he is going down the mountain. Can you show a location along the path that the monk would have passed on both at the exact time of the day? [37]

In solely using abstraction, this problem is seemingly impossible to solve due to the vast amount of information, how it is verbally presented and the amount of irrelevant information present in the question. In using a visual representation we are able to create a mental image of where the two points would intersect and are better able to come up with a solution [55] .

Research supports the benefits of visual representation when confronted with difficult problems. Martin and Schwartz [56] found greater usage of external representations when confronted with a difficult task and they had intermittent access to resources, which suggests that these representations are used as a tool when problems are too complex without external aids. Results found that while creating the initial visual representation itself took up time, those who created these visual representations solved tasks with greater efficiency and accuracy.

Another benefit is that these visual representations may foster problem solving abilities by enabling us to overcome our cognitive biases. In a study conducted by Chambers and Reisberg [57] , participants were asked to look at the image below then close their eyes and form a mental image. When asked to recall their mental image of the photo and see if there were any alternate possibilities of what the photo could be, none of the participants were able to do so. However when participants were given the visual representation of the photo they were quickly able to manipulate the position of the photo to come up with an alternate explanation of what the photo could be. This shows how visual representations may be used in education by learners to counteract mental sets, which will be discussed in the next section.

As shown above, relying on abstraction can often overload one’s cognitive resources due to short- term memory being limited to seven items of information at a time [37] . Many problems surpass these limits disabling us being able to hold all the relevant information needed to solve a problem in our working memory [37] . Therefore it is implicated that in posing problems teachers should represent them written or visually in order to reduce the cognitive load. Lastly another implication is that as teachers we may increase problem-solving skills through demonstrating to students different types of external representations that can be used to show the relevant information pertaining to the problem. These representations may include different types of graphs, charts and imagery, which all can serve as tools for students in coming up with an effective solution, representing relevant information and reducing cognitive load

Challenges of Problem Solving

As discussed above there are many techniques to facilitate the problem solving process, however there are factors that can also hinder this process. For example: one’s past experiences can often impede problem solving as they can provide a barrier in looking at novel solutions, approaches or ideas [58] .

A mind set refers to one's tendency to be influenced by one's past experiences in approaching tasks. [58] Mental set refers to confining ourselves to using solutions that have worked in the past rather than seeking out alternative approaches. Mental sets can be functional in certain situation as in using strategies that have worked before we are quickly able to come up with solutions. However, they can also eliminate other potential and more effective solutions.

Functional Fixedness

Functional Fixedness is a type of mental set that refers to our tendency to focus on a specific function of an object (ie. what we traditionally use it for) while overlooking other potential novel functions of that object. [37]

A classic example of functional fixedness is the candle problem [59] . Consider you are at a table with a box full of tacks, one candle, and matches, you are then asked to mount the lit candle on the wall corkscrew board wall as quickly as possible, and make sure that this doesn't cause any wax to melt on the table. Due to functional fixedness you might first be inclined to pin the candle to the wall as that is what tacks are typically used for, similar to participants in this experiment. However, this is the incorrect solution as it would cause the wax to melt on the table.

The most effective solution requires you to view the box containing the tacks as a platform for the candle rather than it's traditional use as a receptacle. In emptying the box, we may use it as a platform for the candle and then use the tacks inside to attach the box to the wall. It is difficult to initially arrive at this solution as we tend to fixate on the function of the box of holding the tacks and have difficulty designating an alternate function to the box (ie. as a platform as opposed to a receptacle). This experiment demonstrates how prior knowledge can lead to fixation and can hinder problem solving.

Techniques to Overcome Functional Fixedness

As proposed by McCaffrey (2012), [60] one way to overcome functional fixedness is to break the object into parts. In doing so we may ask two fundamental questions “can it be broken down further” and “does my description of the part imply a use”. To explain this we can use McCaffrey’s steel ring figure-8 example. In this scenario the subject is given two steel rings, a candle and a match, they are asked to make the two steel rings into a figure 8. Looking at the tools provided to the subject they might decide that the wax from the candle could potentially hold the two pieces of steel together when heated up. However the wax would not be strong enough. It leaves them with a problem, how do they attach the two steel rings to make them a figure eight.

In being left with the wick as a tool, and labelling it as such we become fixated on seeing the primary function of the wick as giving off light, which hinders our ability to come up with a solution for creating a figure-8. In order to effectively solve problem we must break down our concept of the wick down further. In seeing a wick as just a waxed piece of string, we are able to get past functional fixedness and see the alternate functions of the string. In doing so we may come to the conclusion and see the waxed string as being able to be used to tie the two rings together. In showing the effectiveness of this approach McCaffrey (2012) found that people trained to use this technique solved 67% more problems than the control group [60] .

Given the effectiveness of this approach, it is implicated that one way we may promote Divergent Thinking is through teaching students to consider: "whether the object may be broken down further" [60] and "whether the description of the part imply a use" in doing so we may teach students to break down objects to their purest form and make salient the obscure features of a problem. This connects to the previously discussed idea of conceptualization where problem solving effectiveness can be increased through focusing time on defining the problem rather than jumping to conclusions based on our own preconceptions. In the following section we will discuss what strategies experts use when solving problems.

Novice Versus Expert In Problem Solving

Many researchers view effective problem solving as being dependent on two important variables: the amount of experience we have in trying to solve a particular category of problems [61] , which we addressed earlier by demonstrating that in practicing problem solving through engaging in a problem-based approach we may increase problem solving skills. However, the second factor to consider is the amount of domain-specific knowledge that we have to draw upon [61] . Experts possess a vast amount of domain knowledge, which allows them to efficiently apply their knowledge to relevant problems. Experts have a well-organized knowledge of their domain, which impacts they notice and how they arrange, represent and interpret information, this in turn enables them to better recall, reason and solve problems in comparison to novices. [62]

In comparing experts to novices in their problem strategies, experts are able to organize their knowledge around the deep structure in important ideas or concepts in their domain, such as what kind of solution strategy is required to solve the problem [63] . In contrast novices group problems based on surface structure of the problems, such as the objects that appear in the problem. [63]

Experts also spend more time than novices analyzing and identifying problems at the beginning of the problem-solving process. Experts take more time in thinking and planning before implementing solutions and use a limited set of strategies that are optimal in allowing them to richer and more effective solutions to the given problem. [64]

In addition experts will engage in deeper and more complete problem representation novices, in using external representations such as sketches and diagrams to represent information and solve problems. In doing so they are able to solve problems quicker and come up with better solutions. [65]

Given the literature above it is evident that problem solving and expertise overlap as the key strategies that experts utilize are also provided as effective problem solving strategies. Therefore, we may conclude that experts not only have a vast knowledge of their domain, they also know and implement the most effective strategies in order to solve problem more efficiently and effectively in comparison to novices. [65] In the next section we will discuss the connection between problem solving and critical thinking.

Cognitive Tutor for Problem Solving

Cognitive Tutor is a kind of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. [66] It can assign different problems to students according to their individual basis, trace users’ solution steps, provide just-in-time feedback and hint, and implement mastery learning criteria. [67]

According to Anderson and colleague, [67] the students who worked with LISP tutors completed the problems 30% faster and 43% outperformed than their peers with the help of teachers in mini-course. Also, college students who employed ACT Programming Tutor (APT) with the function of immediate feedback finished faster on a set of problems and 25% better on tests than the students who received the conventional instruction. [68] In addition, in high school geometry school settings, students who used Geometry Proof Tutor (GPT) for in- class problem solving had a letter grade scores higher than their peers who participated in traditional classroom problem-solving activities on a subsequent test. [69]

An overview of Cognitive Tutor

In 1985, Anderson, Boyle, and Reigser added the discipline of cognitive psychology to the Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Since then, the intelligent tutoring system adopted this approach to construct cognitive models for students to gain knowledge was named Cognitive Tutors. [67] The most widely used Cognitive Tutor is Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I. [69] Carnegie Learning, Inc., the trademark owner, is developing full- scale Cognitive Tutor®, including Algebra I, II, Bridge to Algebra, Geometry, and Integrated Math I, II, III. Cognitive Tutor® now includes Spanish Modules, as well.

Cognitive Tutors support the idea of learning by doing, an important part of human tutoring, which to provide students the performance opportunities to apply the objective skills or concepts and content related feedback. [69] To monitor students’ performance, Cognitive Tutors adopt two Algorithms , model tracing and knowledge tracing. Model tracing can provide immediate feedback, and give content-specific advice based on every step of the students’ performance trace. [67] Knowledge tracing can select appropriate tasks for every user to achieve mastery learning according to the calculation of one’s prior knowledge. [67] [69]

Cognitive Tutors can be created and applied to different curriculum or domains to help students learn, as well as being integrated into classroom learning as adaptive software. The curriculum and domains include mathematics in middle school and high school, [66] [68] [70] genetics in post-secondary institutions, [71] and programming. [67] [68] [72] [73]

Cognitive Tutors yielded huge impacts on the classroom, student motivation, and student achievement. [74] Regarding the effectiveness of Cognitive Tutors, research evidence supports more effectiveness of Cognitive Tutors than classroom instruction. [67] [75] [76] [68]

The Theoretical Background of Cognitive Tutor

Act-r theory.

The theoretical background of Cognitive Tutors is ACT-R theory of learning and performance, which distinguishes between procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge. [67] According to the ACT-R theory, procedural knowledge cannot be directly absorbed into people’s heads, and it can be presented in the notation of if-then Production rules. The only way to acquire procedural knowledge is learning by doing.

Production rules

Production rules characterize how students, whether they beginning learners or advanced learners, think in a domain or subject. [67] Production rules can represent students' informal or intuitive thinking. [77] The informal or intuitive forms of thinking are usually different from what textbook taught, and students might gain such patterns of thinking outside from school. [78] Heuristic methods, such us providing a plan of actions for problem-solving instead of giving particular operation; [79] and non-traditional strategies, such as working with graphics rather than symbols when solving equation, [69] can be represented in production rules as well.

Cognitive model and model tracing


Cognitive model is constructed on both ACT-R theory and empirical studies of learners. [69] All the solutions and typical misconceptions of learners are represented in the production system of the cognitive model.

For example, there are three strategies of solving an algebra equation, 2(3+X)=10. Strategy 1 is multiplying 2 across the sum (3+X); Strategy 2 is dividing both sides of the equation by 2; Strategy 3 shows the misconception of failing to multiply 2 across the sum (3+X). Since there are various methods of each task, students can choose their way of solving problems.

Model tracing is an algorithm that can run forward along every student’s learning steps and provide instant context-specific feedback. If a student chooses the correct answer, for example, using strategy 1 or strategy 2 to solve the equation, the Cognitive Tutor® will accept the action and provide the student next task. If the student’s mistake match a common misconception, such as using strategy 3, the Cognitive Tutor will highlight this step as incorrect and provide a just-in- time feedback, such as you also need to multiply X by 2. If the student’s mistake does not match any of the production rule in the cognitive model, which means that the student does not use any of the strategies above, the Cognitive Tutor® will flag this step as an error in red and italicized. Students can ask for advice or hint any time when solving problems. According to Corbett, [68] there are three levels of advice. The first level is to accomplish a particular goal; the second level is to offer general ideas of achieving the goal, and the third level is to give students detailed advice on how to solve the problem in the current context.

Knowledge tracing

Knowledge tracing can monitor the growing number of production rules during the problem solving process. Every student can choose one production rule every step of his or her way of solving problems, and Cognitive Tutors can calculate an updated estimate of the probability of the student has learned the particular rule. [68] [69] The probability estimates of the rules are integrated into the interface and displayed in the skill-meter. Using probability estimates, the Cognitive Tutors can select appropriate tasks or problems according to students’ individual needs.

Effectiveness

Cognitive tutor® geometry.

Aleven and Koedinger conducted two experiments to examine whether Cognitive Tutor® can scaffold self-explanation effectively in high school geometry class settings. [66] The findings suggested that “problem-solving practice with a Cognitive Tutor® is even more effective when the students explain their steps by providing references to problem-solving principles.” [80]

In geometry learning, it could happen when students have over-generalized production rules in their prior knowledge, and thus leading shallow encoding and learning. For instance, a student may choose the correct answer and go to next step base on the over-generalized production rule, if an angle looks equal to another, then it is , instead of real understanding. According to Aleven & Koedinger, self-explanation can promote more general encoding during problem-solving practice for it can push students to think more and reflect explicitly on the rules in the domain of geometry. [66]

All the geometry class in the experiments includes classroom discussion, small-group activities, lectures, and solving problems with Cognitive Tutor®. In both of the experiments, students are required to solve problems with the help of the Cognitive Tutor®. However, the Cognitive Tutor® were provided with two different versions, the new version can support self-explanation which is also called guided learning by doing and explaining, [66] and the other cannot. Theses additional features of the new version required students to justify each step by entering geometry principles or referring the principles to an online glossary of geometry knowledge, as well as providing explanations and solutions according to students’ individual choice. Also, the form of explanation in the new version is different from speech-based explanations mentioned in another experiment on self-explanation. The researchers found that students who use the new version of the Cognitive Tutor® were not only better able to give accurate explanation, but also able to deeper understand the domain rules. Thus, the students were able to transfer those learned rules to new situations better, avoiding shallow encoding and learning.

Genetics Cognitive Tutor

Corbett et al. (2010) conducted two evaluations of the Genetics Cognitive Tutor in seven different kinds of biology courses in 12 universities in America. The findings suggested the effectiveness of implementing Genetics Cognitive Tutor in post-secondary institution genetic problem-solving practice settings. [81]

In the first evaluation, the participants used the Genetics Cognitive Tutor with their class activities or homework assignments. The software has 16 modules with about 125 problems in five general genetic topics. Genetics Cognitive Tutor utilized the cognitive model of genetics problem solving knowledge to provide step-by-step help, and both model tracing and knowledge tracing. With the average correctness of pretest (43%) and post-test (61%), the average improvements of using Genetic Cognitive Tutors was 18%. In the second empirical evaluations, the researchers examined whether the knowledge tracing can correctly predict students’ knowledge. The finding suggested that the algorithm of knowledge tracing is capable of accurately estimating every student performance on the paper- and-pencil post-test.

Project Based Learning and Design Thinking

Theorizing solutions for real world problems.

Project Based Learning is a concept that is meant to place the student at the center of learning. The learner is expected to take on an active role in their learning by responding to a complex challenge or question through an extended period of investigation. Project Based Learning is meant for students to acknowledge the curriculum of their class, but also access the knowledge that they already have to solve the problem challenge. At its roots, project-based learning is an activity in which students develop an understanding of a topic based on a real-life problem or issue and requires learners to have a degree of responsibility in designing their learning activity [82] . Blummenfeld et al. (1991) states that Project Based Learning allows students to be responsible for both their initial question, activities, and nature of their artifacts [83] .

Project based learning is based on five criteria [84]

Challenges are based on authentic, real-world problems that require learners to engage through an inquiry process and demonstrate understanding through active or experiential learning. An example would be elementary or secondary students being asked by their teacher to solve a school problem – such as how to deal with cafeteria compost. Students would be encouraged to work in groups to develop solutions for this problem within specific criteria for research, construction, and demonstration of their idea as learners are cognitively engaged with subject matter over an extended period of time keeping them motivated [83] . The result is complex learning that defines its success is more than as more than the sum of the parts [85] . Project Based Learning aims at learners coordinating skills of knowledge, collaboration, and a final project presentation. This type of schema construction allows learners to use concrete training to perform concrete results. The learner uses previous knowledge to connect with new information and elaborate on their revised perception of a topic [85] . In Project Based Learning this would constitute the process of information gathering and discussing this information within a team to decide on a final solution for the group-instructed problem.

Unlike Problem-Based Learning, experiential learning within a constructivist pedagogy, is the basis of Project Based Learning, and learners show their knowledge, or lack there of, by working towards a real solution through trial and error on a specific driving question. The philosophy of Experiential experiential learning education comes from the theories developed by John Dewey in his work Education and Experience. Dewey argues that experience is shown to be a continuous process of learning by arousing curiosity, strengthen initiative, and is a force in moving the learner towards further knowledge [86] . The experiential aspect of Project Based Learning through working towards solutions for real world problems ties learner’s solutions to practical constructs. Learners must make up the expected gap in their knowledge through research and working together in a collaborative group. The experiential learning through Project Based Learning is focused on a driving question usually presented by the teacher. It is this focus that students must respond to with a designed artifact to show acquired knowledge.

The constructivist methodology of Project Based Learning is invoked through the guided discovery process set forth by the instructor, unlike pure discovery which has been criticised for student having too much freedom [87] , Project Based Learning involves a specific question driven by the instructor to focus the process of investigation. This form of constructivist pedagogy has shown to promote cognitive processing that is most effective in this type of learning environment [87] . Project Based Learning provides a platform for learners to find their own solutions to the teacher driven question, but also have a system in which to discover, analyze, and present. Therefore, Project Based Learning delivers beneficial cognitive meaningful learning by selecting, organizing, and integrating knowledge [87] .

Experience is the Foundation of Learning

Project Based Learning is a branch of education theory that is based on the idea of learning through doing. John Dewey indicated that teachers and schools should help learners to achieve greater depth in correlation between theory and real-world through experiential and constructivist methods. Dewey stated that education should contain an experiential continuum and a democratization of education to promote a better quality of human experience [86] . These two elements are consistent with Project Based Learning through the application of authentic, real world problems and production of artifacts as solutions, and the learner finding their own solutions through a collaborative effort with in a group. Blumenfeld et al. mentions that the value in Project Based Learning comes from questions that students can relate to including personal health and welfare, community concerns, or current events [83] .

Project Based Learning has basis also in the work of Jean Piaget who surmised that the learner is best served to learn in a constructivist manner – using previous knowledge as a foundation for new learning and connections. The learner’s intelligence is progressed from the assimilation of things in the learner’s environment to alter their original schema by accommodating multiple new schema and assimilating all of this experienced knowledge [88] . Piaget believed in the learner discovering new knowledge for themselves, but that without collaboration the individual would not be able to coherently organize their solution [87] . Project Based Learning acknowledges Piaget’s beliefs on the need for collective communication and its use in assembling new knowledge for the learner.

Self-Motivation Furthers Student Learning

Project Based Learning is perceived as beneficial to learners in various ways including gained knowledge, communication, and creativity. While engaging on a single challenge, learners obtain a greater depth of knowledge. Moreover, abilities in communication, leadership, and inter-social skills are strengthened due to the collaborative nature of Project Based Learning. Students retain content longer and have a better understanding of what they are learning. There are at least four strands of cognitive research to support Project Based Learning [84] – motivation, expertise, contextual factors, and technology.

Motivation of students that is centred on the learning and mastery of subject matter are more inclined to have sustained engagement with their work [89] . Therefore, Project Based Learning discourages public competition in favour of cooperative goals to reduce the threat to individual students and increase focus on learning and mastery [84] . Project Based Learning is designed to allow students to reach goals together, without fear of reprisal or individual criticism. For instance, Helle, et al. completed a study of information system design students who were asked to work on a specific assignment over a seven-month timeline. Students were given questionnaires about their experience during this assignment to determine their motivation level. Helle, et al. examined the motivation of learners in project groups and found intrinsic motivation increased by 0.52 standard deviations, showing that Project Based learner groups used self-motivation more often to complete assignments. Further, the study implied intrinsic motivation increase substantially for those who were lowest in self-regulation [90] .

Learner metacognitive and self-regulation skills are lacking in many students and these are important to master in student development in domains [84] . In the Project Based Learning system the relationship between student and teacher allows the instructor to use scaffolding to introduce more advance forms of inquiry for students to model, thus middle school students and older are very capable of meaningful learning and sophisticated results [91] . Learners would then become experts over time of additional skills sets that they developed on their own within this system.

Contextually, situated cognition is best realized when the material to be used resembles real-life as much as possible [84] , therefore, Project Based Learning provides confidence in learners to succeed in similar tasks outside of school because they no longer associate subjects as artificial boundaries to knowledge transfer. Gorges and Goke (2015) investigated the relationship between student perception of their abilities in major high school subjects and their relating these skills to real-world problem application through an online survey. Learners showed confidence in problem-solving skills and how to apply their learning to real-life situations, as Gorges and Goke [92] report, and that students who used Project Based Learning style learning have increased self-efficacy and self-concepts of ability in math (SD .77), history (SD .72), etc. [92] . Therefore, students are more likely to use domain-specific knowledge outside of an academic setting through increased confidence. Further, a comparison between students immediately after finishing a course and 12 weeks to 2 years provided effect sizes that showed Project Based Learning helped retain much knowledge [92] .

Technology use allows learners to have a more authentic experience by providing users with an environment that includes data, expanded interaction and collaboration, and emulates the use of artifacts [84] . The learner, in accessing technology, can enhance the benefits of Project Based Learning by having more autonomy is finding knowledge and connecting with group members. Creativity is enhanced as students must find innovative solutions to their authentic problem challenges. For instance, using digital-story-telling techniques through Project Based Learning, as stated by Hung and Hwang [93] , to collect data (photos) in elementary class to help answer a specific project question on global warming in science provided a significant increase in tests results (SD 0.64). As well, in order to find answers, learners must access a broad range of knowledge, usually crossing over various disciplines. The end result is that projects are resolved by student groups that use their knowledge and access to additional knowledge (usually through technology) to build a solution to the specific problem.

Educators Find Challenges in Project Based Learning Implementation

One of the main arguments against this type of learning is that the project can become unfocused and not have the appropriate amount of classroom time to build solutions. Educators themselves marginalized Project Based Learning because they lack the training and background knowledge in its implementation. Further financial constraints to provide effective evaluation through technology dissuades teachers as well [94] . The information gained by students could be provided in a lecture-style instruction and can be just as effective according to critics. Further, the danger is in learners becoming off-task in their time spent in the classroom, and if they are not continually focused on the task and the learning content, then the project will not be successful. Educators with traditional backgrounds in teaching find Project Based Learning requires instructors to maintain student connection to content and management of their time – this is not necessarily a style that all teachers can accomplish [94] .Blumenfeld et al. (1998) state that real success from Project Based Learning begins and ends with a focused structure that allows teacher modelling, examples, suggested strategies, distributing guidelines, giving feedback during the activity, and allowing for revision of work [91] .

Learner Need for Authentic Results through Critical Thought

Project Based Learning is applicable to a number of different disciplines since it has various applications in learning, and is specifically relevant with the 21st century redefinition of education (differentiated, technologically-focused, collaboration, cross-curricular). STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) is one form of 21st century education that benefits from instructors using Project Based Learning since it natural bridges between domains. The focus of STEM is to prepare secondary students for the rigors of post-secondary education and being able to solve complex problems in teams as would be expected when performing these jobs in the real world after graduation. Many potential occupational areas could benefit from Project Based Learning including medical, engineering, computer design, and education. Project Based Learning allows secondary students the opportunity to broaden their knowledge and become successful in high-stakes situation [95] . Moreover, these same students then develop a depth in knowledge when it comes to reflecting upon their strengths and limitations [95] . The result would be a learner who has developed critical thinking and has had a chance to apply it to real situations. Further the construction of a finished product is a realistic expectation in presenting an authentic result from learning. The product result demands accountability, and learner adherent to instructor expectations as well as constraints for the project [95] .

The learner is disciplined to focus on specific outcomes, understand the parameters of the task, and demonstrate a viable artifact. The implication is that students will be ready to meet the challenges of a high-technology, fast-paced work world where innovation, collaboration, and results-driven product is essential for success. Technology is one area where Project Based Learning can be applied by developing skills in real-world application, thus cognitive tools aforded by new technology will be useful if perceived as essential for the project (as is the case in many real-world applications) [83] .. For example, designers of computer systems with prior knowledge may be able to know how to trouble-shoot an operating system, but they do not really understand how things fit or work together, and they have a false sense of security about their skills [96] .

Design-Thinking as a Sub-set of Project-Based Learning

Using the process of practical design for real-world solutions.

Design Thinking is a pedagogical approach to teaching through a constructionist methodology of challenge-based problem solving branching off of Project Based learning. It should be understood as a combination of sub-disciplines having design as the subject of their cognitive interests [97] .

An example of design-thinking would be learners engaged with finding a solution to a real-world problem. However, unlike Project Based Learning, design-thinking asks the learner to create a practical solution within a scaffolding process (Figure 3) such as finding a method to deliver clean drinking water to a village. Designers would consider social, economic, and political considerations, but would deliver a final presentation of a working prototype that could be marketable. Hence a water system could be produced to deliver water to villagers, but within the limits of the materials, finances, and local policies in mind. It designates cores principles of empathy, define, ideate, prototype, and test to fulfill the challenges of design. Starting with a goal (solution) in mind, empathise is placed upon creative and practical decision making through design to achieve an improved future result. It draws upon a thinking that requires investigation into the details of a problem to find hidden parameters for a solution-based result. The achieved goal then becomes the launching point for further goal-setting and problem solving. [97]

This type of approach to education is based on the premise that the modern world is full of artificial constructs, and that our civilization historically has relied upon these artifacts to further our progress in technological advances. Herbert Simon, a founder of design-thinking, states that the world that students find themselves in today is much more man-made and artificial that it is a natural world [98] . The challenge of design-thinking is to foster innovation by enhancing student creative thinking abilities [99] . Design-thinking is a tool for scaffolding conventional educational projects into Project Based thinking. Van Merrienbroer (2004) views design-learning as a scaffolding for whole-task practice. It decreases intrinsic cognitive load while learners can practice on the simplest of worked-out examples [87] . Therefore, Design-thinking is currently becoming popular due to its ability to bridge between the justification of what the learner knows and what the learner discovers within the context of 21st century skills and learning. A further example of this process is the design of a product that children will use to increase their physical activity (see video on Design Thinking) and can be explained using the scaffold of Design Thinking:

Critical Thought on Design in the Artificial World

Design-thinking is can be traced back to a specific scholars including Herbert Simon, Donald Schon, and Nigel Cross. Simon published his findings on the gap he found in education of professions in 1969. He observed that techniques in the natural sciences and that just as science strove to show simplicity in the natural world of underlying complex systems, and Simon determined the it was the same for the artificial world as well [100] . Not only should this include the process behind the sciences, but the arts and humanities as well since music, for example involves formal patterns like mathematics (Simon, 136). Hence, the creative designs of everyone is based upon a common language and its application. While Schon builds upon the empathetic characteristics of design-thinking as a Ford Professor of Urban Planning and Education at MIT, referring to this process as an artistic and intuitive process for problem-solving [101] . Schon realized that part of the design process was also the reflection-in-action that must be involved during critical thinking and ideating. Moreover, the solutions for problems do not lie in text-books, but in the designer’s ability to frame their own understanding of the situation [100] . Cross fuses these earlier ideas into a pedagogy surrounding education stating that design-thinking should be part of the general education of both sciences and humanities [97] . He implies that students encouraged to use this style of thinking will improve cognitive development of non-verbal thought and communication [97] .

Critical Thinking as Disruptive Achievement

Design-thinking follows a specific flow from theoretical to practical. It relies upon guided learning to promote effective learner solutions and goes beyond inquiry which has been argued does not work because it goes beyond the limits of long-term memory [97] . Design-thinking requires the learner to have a meta-analysis of their process. Creativity (innovative thought) is evident in design thinking through studies in defocused and focused attention to stimuli in memory activation [97] . Hu et al. (2010) developed a process of disrupted thinking in elementary students by having them use logical methods of critical thought towards specific design projects, over a four-year period, through specific lesson techniques. The results show that these students had increased thinking ability (SD .78) and that these effects have a long-term transfer increasing student academic achievement [102] . This shows use of divergent and convergent thinking in the creative process, and both of these process of thought has been noted to be important in the process of creativity (Goldschmidt, 2016, p 2) and demonstrates the Higher Order Thinking that is associated with long-term memory. Design-thinking specifically demonstrates the capability of having learners develop

Designers are Not Scientific?

Design-thinking critics comment that design is in itself not a science or cognitive method of learning, and is a non-scientific activity due to the use of intuitive processes [97] . The learner is not truly involved within a cognitive practice (scientific process of reasoning). However, the belief of Cross is that design itself is a science to be studied, hence it can be investigated with systematic and reliable methods of investigation [97] . Further, Schon states that there is connection between theory and practice that in design thinking means that there is a loyalty to developing a theoretical idea into a real world prototype [101] . Design-thinking is a process of scientific cognitive practice that does constitute technical rationality [101] and using this practice to understand the limits of their design that includes a reflective practice and meta. Further, this pedagogy is the application for the natural gap between theory and practice for most ideas, by allowing the learner to step beyond normal instruction and practice to try something new and innovative to come up with a solution. Design-thinking rejects heuristically-derived responses based on client or expert appreciation to take on an unforeseen form [101] .

21st Century Learners and the Need for Divergent Thinking

Design-thinking is exceptionally positioned for use with 21st century skills based around technological literacy. Specifically, it is meant to assist the learner in developing creative and critical skills towards the application of technology. Designing is a distinct form of thinking that creates a qualitative relationship to satisfy a purpose [103] . Moreover, in a world that is rapidly becoming technologized, design-thinking the ability to make decisions based upon feel, be able to pay attention to nuances, and appraise the consequences of one’s actions [103] . The designer needs to be able to think outside the perceived acceptable solution and look to use current technology. Therefore, learners using design thinking are approaching all forms of technology as potential applications for a solution. Prototyping might include not just a hardware application, but also the use of software. Cutting-edge technologies such as Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality would be acceptable forms of solutions for design challenges. Specific application of design-thinking is, therefore applicable to areas of study that require technological adaptation and innovation. Specifically, the K-12 BC new curriculum (2016) has a specific focus on Applied Design, Skills, and Technologies that calls for all students to have knowledge of design-thinking throughout their entire education career and its application towards the advancement of technology. Therefore, Design Thinking is a relative and essential component to engaging student critical thought process.

Argumentation

Argumentation is the process of assembling and communicating reasons for or against an idea, that is, the act of making and presenting arguments. CT in addition to clear communication makes a good argument. It is the process through which one rationally solves problems, issues and disputes as well as resolving questions [104] .

The practice of argumentation consists of two dimensions: dialogue and structure [105] . The dialogue in argumentative discussions focus on specific speech acts – actions done through language (i.e. accept, reject, refute, etc.) – that help advance the speaker’s position. The structure of an argument helps distinguish the different perspectives in discussion and highlight positions for which speakers are arguing [105] .

One of the main arguments against this type of learning is that the project can become unfocused and not have the appropriate amount of classroom time to build solutions. Educators themselves marginalize PBL* because they lack the training and background knowledge in its implementation. Further financial constraints to provide effective evaluation through technology dissuades teachers as well (Efstratia, 2014, p 1258). The information gained by students could be provided in a lecture-style instruction and can be just as effective according to critics. Further, the danger is in learners becoming off-task in their time spent in the classroom, and if they are not continually focused on the task and the learning content, then the project will not be successful. Educators with traditional backgrounds in teaching find Project Based Learning requires instructors to maintain student connection to content and management of their time – this is not necessarily a style that all teachers can accomplish (Efstratia, 2014, p 1258).

Project Based Learning is applicable to a number of different disciplines since it has various applications in learning, and is specifically relevant with the 21st century redefinition of education (differentiated, technologically-focused, collaboration, cross-curricular). STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) is one form of 21st century education that benefits from instructors using Project Based Learning since it natural bridges between domains. The focus of STEM is to prepare secondary students for the rigors of post-secondary education and being able to solve complex problems in teams as would be expected when performing these jobs in the real world after graduation. Many potential occupational areas could benefit from Project Based Learning including medical, engineering, computer design, and education.

Project Based Learning allows secondary students the opportunity to broaden their knowledge and become successful in high-stakes situation (Capraro, et al., 2013, p 2). Moreover, these same students then develop a depth in knowledge when it comes to reflecting upon their strengths and limitations (Capraro, et al., 2013, p 2). The result would be a learner who has developed critical thinking and has had a chance to apply it to real situations. Further the construction of a finished product is a realistic expectation in presenting an authentic result from learning. The product result demands accountability, and learner adherent to instructor expectations as well as constraints for the project (Capraro, et al., 2013, p 2). The learner is disciplined to focus on specific outcomes, understand the parameters of the task, and demonstrate a viable artifact. The implication is that students will be ready to meet the challenges of a high-technology, fast-paced work world where innovation, collaboration, and results-driven product is essential for success. Technology is one area where Project Based Learning can be applied by developing skills in real-world application. For example, designers of computer systems with prior knowledge may be able to know how to trouble-shoot an operating system, but they do not really understand how things fit or work together, and they have a false sense of security about their skills (Gary, 2013, p 1).

Design-thinking follows a specific flow from theoretical to practical. It relies upon guided learning to promote effective learner solutions and goes beyond inquiry which has been argued does not work because it goes beyond the limits of long-term memory (Lazonder and Harmsen, 2016, p 2). Design-thinking requires the learner to have a meta-analysis of their process. Creativity (innovative thought) is evident in design thinking through studies in defocused and focused attention to stimuli in memory activation (Goldschmidt, 2016, p 1). Hu et al. (2010) developed a process of disrupted thinking in elementary students by having them use logical methods of critical thought towards specific design projects, over a four-year period, through specific lesson techniques. The results show that these students had increased thinking ability (SD .78) and that these effects have a long-term transfer increasing student academic achievement (Hu, et al. 2010, p 554). This shows use of divergent and convergent thinking in the creative process, and both of these process of thought has been noted to be important in the process of creativity (Goldschmidt, 2016, p 2) and demonstrates the Higher Order Thinking that is associated with long-term memory. Design-thinking specifically demonstrates the capability of having learners develop.

The Process of Argumentation

Argumentation stages.

The psychological process of argumentation that allows one the produce, analyze and evaluate arguments [106] . These stages will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

The Impact of Argumentation on Learning

Argumentation does not only impact the development of CT and vice versa, it affects many other aspects of learning as well. For instance, a study conducted in a junior high school science class showed that when students engaged in argumentation, they drew heavily on their prior knowledge and experiences [107] . Not only did argumentation enable the students to use their prior knowledge, it also helped them consolidate knowledge and elaborate on their understanding of the subject at a higher level [107] . These are just a few of the ways in which argumentation can be seen to impact aspects of learning other than the development of CT.

Video: Argumentation in Education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHm5xUZmCDg

The Relationship between Critical Thinking and Argumentation

Argumentation and CT appear to have a close relationship in instruction. Many studies have shown the impact that both of these elements can have on one another. Data suggests that when CT is infused into instruction it impacts the ability of students to argue [108] tasks that involve both critical thinking and creative thinking must be of an argumentative nature [109] , and that argument analysis and storytelling can improve CT [110] . In other words it would appear that both CT and argumentation impact the development of each other in students and that both impact other aspects of learning and cognition.

How Critical Thinking Improves Argumentation

CT facilitates the evaluation of the information necessary to make an argument. It aids in the judgement of the validity of each position. It is used to assess the credibility of sources and helps in approaching the issue from multiple points of view. The elements of CT and argumentation have many common features. For example, examining evidence and counter-evidence of a statement and the information that backs up these claims are both facets of creating a sound argument and thinking critically.

The impact of how CT explicitly impacts one’s ability to argue and reason with reference to the aforementioned four CT components will be examined in this section. First, there needs to be an examination of the aspects of CT and how they can be impacted by argumentation. The first component, knowledge, as stated by Bruning et. al (2011), actively shapes the way in which one resolves problems [111] . Therefore, it is essential that students have a solid foundation of knowledge of whatever it is that they are arguing. The ability to use well founded information in order to effectively analyze the credibility of new information is imperative for students who wish to increase their argumentative abilities. The second component of CT that is important for argumentation is inference . As Chesñevar and Simari (2007) discuss in their examination of how we develop arguments, inference and deduction are essential aspects of reaching new conclusions from knowledge that is already known or proven [112] .

In other words, the ability to reach conclusions from known information is pivotal in developing and elaborating an argument. As well, the use of induction , a part of the CT process, is important to argumentation. As Bruning et al. suggest, the ability to make a general conclusion from known information is an essential part of the CT process [111] . Ontañón and Plaza (2015) make the argument that induction can be used in argumentation through communication with one another. Moreover, making inductions of general conclusions using the complete information that every member of the group can provide shows how interaction can be helpful through the use of induction in argumentation [113] . Therefore, it can be seen how induction, an important part of CT, can have a significant impact on argumentation and collaboration. The final component of CT, that may be the most important in its relationship to argumentation, is evaluation . The components of Evaluation indicated by Bruning et al. are analyzing, judging and weighing. These are three essential aspects of creating a successful argument [111] . Hornikx and Hahn (2012) provide a framework for three key elements of argumentation that are heavily attached in these Bruning et al.'s three aspects of CT [106] .

Production, Analysis, and Evaluation

The three aspects of argumentation that Hornikx and Hahn focus on in their research is the production , analysis and evaluation of arguments [106] . Producing an argument uses the key aspects of CT; there must be evaluation, analysis, judgement and weighing of the argument that one wishes to make a stand on. Analysis of arguments and analysis in CT go hand in hand, there must be a critical analysis of information and viewpoints in order to create a successful and fully supported argument. As well, evaluation is used similarly in argumentation as it is derived from CT. Assessing the credibility of sources and information is an essential part in finding articles and papers that can assist someone in making an informed decision. The final aspect of evaluation in critical thinking is metacognition, thinking about thinking or monitoring one's own thoughts [111] . Monitoring one's own thoughts and taking time to understand the rationality of the decisions that one makes is also a significant part of argumentation. According to Pinto et al.’s research, there is a strong correlation between one's argumentation ability and metacognition. [114] In other words, the ability to think about one’s own thoughts and the validity of those thoughts correlates positively with the ability to formulate sound arguments. The transfer of thoughts into speech/argumentation shows that CT influences argumentation dramatically, however some research suggests that the two interact in different ways as well. It can clearly be seen through the research presented that argumentation is heavily influenced by CT skills, such as knowledge, inference, evaluation and metacognition. However there are also strong implications that instruction of CT in a curriculum can bolster argumentation. A study conducted by Bensley et. al (2010) suggests that when CT skills are directly infused into a course compared to groups that received no CT instruction, those who received CT instruction showed significant gains in their ability of argument analysis [115] . There can be many arguments made for the implication of specific CT skills to impact argumentation, but this research shows that explicit teaching of CT in general can increase the ability of students to more effectively analyze arguments as well. This should be taken into account that Skills Programs mentioned later in this chapter should be instituted if teachers wish to foster argumentation as well as CT in the classroom.

How Argumentation Improves Critical Thinking

Argumentation is a part of the CT process, it clarifies reasoning and the increases one's ability to assess viable information. It is a part of metacognition in the sense that one needs to evaluate their own ideas. CT skills such as induction and/or deduction are used to create a structured and clear argument.

Research by Glassner and Schwarz (2007) shows that argumentation lies at the intersection of critical and creative thinking. They argue that reasoning, which is both critical and creative, is done through argumentation in adolescents. They suggest that reasoning is constantly being influenced by other perspectives and information. The ability to think creatively as well as critically about new information is managed by argumentation [116] . The back and forth process of accommodating, evaluating, and being open minded to new information can be argued as critical and creative thinking working together. However, the way in which one reaches conclusions from information is created from the ability to weigh this information, and then to successfully draw a conclusion regarding the validity of the solution that students come to. There is also a clear correlation of how argumentation helps students to nurture CT skills as well.

It is clear that CT can directly impact argumentation, but this relationship can also be seen as bidirectional, with argumentation instruction developing the CT skills. A study by Gold et al. shows that CT skills can be fostered through the use of argument analysis and storytelling in instruction [117] . This research suggests that argumentation and argument analysis are not only be beneficial to students, but also to older adults. This study was conducted using mature adult managers as participants. The article outlines four skills of CT that can be impacted by the use of argument analysis and storytelling: critique of rhetoric, tradition, authority, and knowledge. These four skills of CT are somewhat deeper than many instructed in high schools and extremely important to develop. The ability of argumentation to impact CT in a way that enables a person to gain a better perspective on their view about these things is essential to developing personal values as well as being able to use argumentation and CT to critique those values when presented with new information. The ability of argumentation to influence the ability of individuals to analyze their own traditions and knowledge is important for all students as it can give them better insight into what they value.

Argumentation is beneficial to CT skills as well as creative thinking skills in high school students. Research done by Demir and İsleyen (2015) shows that argumentation based a science learning approach in 9th graders improves both of types of thinking [118] . The ability of students to use argumentation to foster CT as well as creative thinking can be seen as being very beneficial, as mentioned earlier creative and CT skills use argumentation as a means of reasoning to draw conclusions, it is therefore not surprising that argumentation in instruction also fosters both of these abilities. In summation, it can clearly be seen that there is a link between both argumentation and CT along with many skills in the subset of CT skills. Explicit instruction of both of these concepts seems to foster the growth of the other and can be seen as complementary. In the next sections of this chapter how these aspects can be beneficial if taught within the curriculum and how they go hand in hand in fostering sound reasoning as well as skills that will help students throughout their lives will be examined.

Instructional Application of Argumentation and Critical Thinking

Teaching Tactics

An effective method for structuring the instruction of CT is to organize the thinking skills into a clear and sequential steps. The order in which these steps aid in guiding the student towards internalizing those steps in order to apply them in their daily lives. By taking a deductive approach, starting from broader skills and narrowing them down to task-specific skills helps the student begin from what they know and generate something that they hadn't known before through CT. In the spirit of CT, a student's awareness of their own skills also plays an important role in their learning. In the classroom, they should be encouraged to reflect upon the process through which they completed a goal rather than just the result. Through the encouragement of reflection, students can become more aware of the necessary thinking skills necessary for tasks, such as Argumentation.

Instructing CT and Argumentation predisposes the instruction to using CT skills first. In designing a plan to teach CT, one must be able to critically evaluate and assess different methods and make an informed decision on which would work best for one's class. There are a variety of approaches towards instructing CT. Descriptive Models consist of explanations of how "good" thinking occurs. Specifically, it focuses on thinking strategies such as heuristics to assess information and how to make decisions. Prescriptive Models consist of explanations of what good thinking should be. In a sense, these models give a prototype, a "prescription", of what good thinking is. This approach is comparatively less applicable and sets a high standard of what is expected of higher order thinking. In addition to evaluating which approach would work best for them, prior to teaching CT, instructors need to carefully select the specific types of CT skills that they want students to learn. This process involves assessing factors such as age range, performance level as well as cognitive ability of one's class in order to create a program that can benefit most of, if not all, the students. A final aspect of instruction to consider as an educator is whether direct or indirect instruction will be used to teach CT. Direct Instruction refers to the explicit teaching of CT skills that emphasizes rules and steps for thinking. This is most effective when solutions to problems are limited or when the cognitive task is easy. In contrast, Indirect Instruction refers to a learner-oriented type of teaching that focuses on the student building their own understanding of thinking. This is most effective when problems are ambiguous, unclear or open to interpretation such as moral or ethical decisions [111] .

One example of indirect CT instruction is through the process of writing literature reviews. According to Chandler and Dedman, having the skills to collect, assess and write literature reviews as well as summarize results of studies requires CT. In a teaching note, they evaluated a BSW (Baccalaureate of Social Work) program that strived to improve CT in undergraduate students. Specifically, they assert that practical writing assignments, such as creating literature reviews, help students combine revision and reflection while expanding their thinking to evaluate multiple perspectives on a topic. They found that upon reframing the assignment as a tool to facilitate students in becoming critical reviewers, students viewed the literature review as a summation of course material in addition to an opportunity to improve critical reading and writing skills. Through questioning during discussions, students were guided to analyze the authority and credibility of their articles. The students actively sought for more evidence to support articles on their topics. They found that students successfully created well synthesized literature reviews at the end of the BSW program [119] . This program used implicit instruction of CT skills through dialogue between instructor and students as well as peer engagement. Instead of explicitly stating specific skills or steps to learn CT, the instructors lead the students to practice CT through an assignment. As students worked on the assignment, they needed to use reasoning, analysis and inferential skills in order to synthesize and draw conclusions around the evidence they found on their topics. Practical application of CT skills through an assignment helped students develop CT through indirect instruction.

Argument mapping is a way to visualize argumentation. The following are links to argument mapping software: https://www.rationaleonline.com/ http://www.argunet.org/editor/ http://debategraph.org/planet https://www.truthmapping.com/map/1021/#s7164

Skills Programs for CT

These programs aid in the formulation of critical thinking skills through alternative methods of instruction such as problem-solving. They are usually targeted towards special populations such as students with learning disabilities or cognitive deficits.

The CoRT Thinking Materials

The CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) program is based on de Bono’s idea that thinking skills should be taught in school as a subject [120] . The Thinking Materials are geared towards the improvement of thinking skills. This skills program takes on a Gestalt approach and emphasizes the perceptual factor of problem solving. It usually spans over the course of 2 years and is suitable for a wide age range of children. The lessons strive to develop creative thinking, problem-solving as well as interpersonal skills. The materials are split into 6 units and cover topics such as planning, analyzing, comparing, selecting, evaluating and generating alternatives. A typical unit has leaflets covering a single topic, followed by examples using practice items. The leaflets are usually effective in group settings. The focus of these units are to practice thinking skills, therefore much of the instructional time is spent on practicing the topics brought up in the leaflets [111] .

Much of the empirical research on this stand-alone program revolves around the development of creative thinking, however, it is relatively more extensive in comparison to the other programs mentioned in this chapter. The CoRT program has been shown to improve creativity in gifted students. Al-Faoury and Khwaileh (2014) assessed the effectiveness of the CoRT on gifted students’ creative writing abilities. The students were given a pretest that evaluated the fluency, flexibility and originality in writing creative short stories [120] . Students in the experimental group were taught 20 CoRT lessons in total with 10 from CoRT 1 “Breadth” and 10 from CoRT 4 “Creativity” over the course of three months while the control group received traditional lessons on creative writing. The posttest followed the same parameters as the pretest and the results were analyzed by comparing pre and posttest scores. The researchers found a statistically significant effect of CoRT on the experimental group’s fluency, flexibility and originality scores. The mean scores of the experimental groups in all three elements were higher than the control group [120] . These findings suggest that the CoRT program aids gifted students in creative writing skills as indicated through the use of rhetorical devices (metaphor, analogy, etc.), developing characters through dialogue and the control of complex structures [120] . The flexibility and fluency of writing is also applicable to the practice of argumentation and CT. In developing the ability to articulate and modify ideas, students can transfer these skills from creative writing towards higher-order cognitive processes such as CT and argumentation.

The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program (FIE)

The FIE is a specialized program focused on mediated learning experiences that strives to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills. Mediation is learning through interaction between the student and the mediator. Similar to Vygotsky's scaffolding, mediation is student-oriented and hinges upon 4 parameters: Intentionality, Reciprocity, Transcendence and Meaning. [121] Intentionality emphasizes the differences between mediation and interaction where the student and mediator have a common goal in mind. Reciprocity involves the student-oriented mentality of mediation, the response of the student hold most importance over academic results. Transcendence focuses on the connectivity of the mediation, it encourages the formation of associations and applications that stretch beyond the scope of the immediate material. Lastly, Meaning in mediation is where the student and mediator explicitly identify "why" and "what for" which promotes dialogue between the two during mediation. [121] [122]

The "instruments" used to facilitate instruction are a series of paper and pencil exercises geared towards practicing internalizing higher order thinking strategies. The instruments cover domains such as analytic perception, spatial organization, categorization, comparison and many more. The implementation of this program varies across countries and is also dependent on the targeted population. A typical program contains 14 units with 3-4 sessions for a few hours every week administered by trained IE staff and teachers. [121]

The Productive Thinking Program

The Productive Thinking Program consists of the development of planning skills, generating and checking hypotheses as well as creating new ideas. This program is designed as a set of 15 lessons aimed at being completed over one semester. The target population of the program is upper-level elementary school students. The lessons are administered through the use of narrative booklets, often taking a detective-like approach to problem solving where the student is the detective solving a mystery. A structured sequence of steps guides the student to attain an objective specific to the lesson at hand. [123] Following the booklet or story, supplementary problems are given in order for students to apply and practice learned skills. [111]

The IDEAL Problem Solver

The IDEAL Problem Solver structures problem-solving as 5 steps using the acronym IDEAL. First, (I)dentify the problem, the solver needs to find out what the problem is. Second, (D)efine the problem involves having a clear picture of the entire problem before trying to solve it. Third, (E)xplore the alternatives, meaning that the solver needs to assess the potential solutions available. Fourth, (A)cting on a plan, that is, applying the solution and doing the act of solving. Lastly, (L)ooking at the effects which encompasses the evaluation of the consequences of the chosen solution. IDEAL is flexible in that it can be adapted to suit a wide age range and different levels of ability in its application. It can also be applied to different domains such as composition or physics. [111]

Instructing Argumentation

Research on argumentation is a comparatively new field of study for education, but has been noted to be of significant importance to almost all educational settings. Grade schools, high schools, and colleges now emphasize the use of argumentation in the classroom as it is seen as the best way for communication and debate in a both vocational and educational settings around the world. [124] A longitudinal study done by Crowell and Kuhn showed that an effective way to help students gain argumentative skills was through consistent and dense application of argumentation in the classroom and as homework. [124] During this longitudinal study, students were exposed to a variety of different methods from which they gained argumentative abilities. The activities employed such as peer collaboration, using computers, reflection activities, individual essays, and small group work all have implications for being valuable in teaching argumentation although it is not clear which ones are the most effective. [124] Data also showed that students all rose to a similar level of argumentative ability, no matter what they scored on argumentative tests before the study began. This shows that even students with seemingly no argumentative skills can be instructed to become as skilled or more skilled than their peers who tested higher than them at the beginning of the study. [124]

Dialogue and Argumentation

Research by Crowell and Kuhn (2011) highlights collaborative dialogical activities as practical interventions in the development of argumentative skills. The researchers implemented a longitudinal argumentative intervention that used topic cycles to structure a middle school philosophy class [125] . The students had class twice a week for 50 minutes each class over the span of three years. The intervention is as follows: first, students were split into small groups on the same side of the argument to generate ideas around the topic (“for” and “against” teams). Then individuals from either side argue with an opponent through an electronic medium. Finally, the students engage in a whole class debate. These three stages were termed Pregame, Game and Endgame, respectively. After the intervention, students were required to write individual essays regarding the topic through which their argumentative skills would be assessed [125] . The results showed an increased in the generation of dual perspective arguments in the intervention group. Such arguments require the arguer to assume the opposing stance to one’s own and reason its implications. This type of argument reflects a higher-order reasoning that requires critical assessment of multiple perspectives. These results did not begin to appear until year two and was only found statistically significant in year three suggesting that argumentative skills have a longer development trajectory than other lower-level cognitive skills [125] . Through this stand-alone intervention, the collaborative aspect of dialogical activities facilitates the development of intellectual dispositions necessary for good argumentation [125] .

Further research suggests that teaching through the use of collaborative discussions and argumentative dialogue is an effective teaching strategy [105] . Through argumentation, students can acquire knowledge of concepts as well as the foundational ideas behind these concepts. In formulating arguments, students need to generate premises that provide structure to an argument through accepted definitions or claims. Argumentation helps students reveal and clarify misconceptions as well as elaborate on background knowledge. The two aforementioned dimensions of argumentation – dialogue and structure – are often used in assessing and measuring argumentative performance [105] . Specifically, through student-expert dialogue, the students can be guided to give certain arguments and counterarguments depending on the expert’s dialectical decisions [105] . This scaffolding helps the student engage in more critical evaluations that delve deeper into the topic in discussion.

In a study using content and functional coding schemes of argumentative behavior during peer-peer and peer-expert dialogue pairings, Macagno, Mayweg-Paus and Kuhn (2014) found that through student-expert dialogues, students were able to later formulate arguments that dealt with abstract concepts at the root of the issue at hand (i.e. ethical principles, conflict of values) in comparison to peer-peer dialogues [105] . The expert used more specific and sophisticated ways of attacking the student’s argument, such as suggesting an alternative solution to the problem at hand, which in turn enhanced the performance of the student in later meta-dialogues [105] . The results suggest that the practical application of argumentation through collaborate activities facilitates the development of argumentation skills. Similar to CT skills development, rather than teaching, implicit instruction through the practice of argumentation in interactive settings helps its development.

Science and Argumentation

Much of the literature surrounding the application of argumentation in the classroom revolves around the scientific domain. Argumentation is often used as a tool in scientific learning to enhance CT skills, improve class engagement and activate prior knowledge and beliefs around the subject [105] . In order to articulate and refine scientific theories and knowledge, scientists themselves utilize argumentation [104] . Jonassen and Kim (2010) assert that science educators often emphasize the role of argumentation more than other disciplines [126] . Argumentation supports the learning of how to solve well-structures problems as well as ill-structured ones in science, and from there by extension, in daily life. Specifically, the ill-structured ones reflect more practical everyday problems where goals and limitations are unclear and there are multiple solution pathways as well as multiple factors for evaluating possible solutions [104] .

Through argumentation, students learn to use sound reasoning and CT in order to assess and justify their solution to a problem. For example, a well-structured problem would be one posed in a physics class where concrete laws and formulas dictate the solution pathway to a problem or review questions found at the end textbook chapters which require the application of a finite set of concepts and theories. An ill-structured problem would be finding the cause of heart disease in an individual. Multiple developmental and lifestyle factors contribute to this one problem in addition to the various different forms of heart disease that need to be evaluated. This sort of problem requires the application of knowledge from other domains such as nutrition, emotional well-being and genetics. Since ill-structured problems do not have a definite answer, students are provided with an opportunity to formulate arguments that justify their solutions [104] . Through the practice of resolving problems in science, such as these, students can use CT to develop their argumentative ability.

One’s willingness to argue as well as one's ability to argue also play a significant role in learning science [127] . For one science is at its core, extremely argumentative.

If students have to ability to engage in argumentation at an early age then there knowledge of specific content such as science can grow immensely. The main reason for this is argumentative discourse, being able to disagree with others is extremely important because for adolescents they are at an age which is fundamentally social (ie junior to senior high) using this social ability is pivotal as students at this point may have the confidence to disagree with one another. When a student disagrees with another in argument in a classroom setting it gives them an opportunity to explain the way in which they think about the material. This verbalization of one’s own thoughts and ideas on a subject can help with learning the subject immensely [127] . It also allows for the student to reflect upon and expand their ideas as they have to present them to the class which helps with learning. This also provides the opportunity for the student to identify any misconceptions they have about the subject at hand as more than likely they will receive rebuttal arguments from others in their class [127] . All these factors are aspects of CT and contribute to the learning of the concept and conceptual change in the student which is what learning is all about. The nature of adolescent social behaviour could provide a window through which argumentation could benefit their learning in dramatic ways in learning science [127] .

Argumentation, Problem Solving and Critical Thinking in History Education

History education offers learners an abundant opportunity to develop their problem solving and critical thinking skills while broadening their perspective on the human condition. The study of history addresses a knowledge gap; specifically, it is the difference between our knowledge of present day and the “infinite, unorganized and unknowable everything that ever happened”. [128] It has long been understood that the study of history requires critical thought and analytical problem-solving skills. In order to become proficient at the study of history, learners must interpret and construct how we come to know about the past and navigate the connection between the past and the body of knowledge we call history. [129] Unfortunately, history education has been demoted to simply recalling factual information - via the overuse of rote memorization and multiple-choice testing - all of which is placed outside the context of present day. This approach does little to inspire a love of history nor does it support the learner’s ability to construct an understanding of how the past and present are connected.

On the other hand, the study of science and mathematics has for many years been centred around developing skills through problem-solving activities. Students learn basic skills and build upon these skills through a progression of increasingly complex problems in order to further their understanding of scientific theory and mathematical relationships. Specific to science education, learners are taught to think like scientists and approach problems using the scientific method. If this approach works well for science and math education, why should it not be utilized for the teaching of history? [128] . Therefore, to develop historical thinking skills it is necessary for instructors to teach the strategies and problem-solving approaches that are used by professional historians. However, unlike science and mathematics, the problems we solve in history are often ill-defined and may be unanswerable in a definitive sense making it more challenging for students to learn and transfer these skills. The following section will address these challenges and provide support for teaching historical thinking via The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts (2013).

Historical Thinking - The Big Six

Based upon years of research and first-hand classroom experience, Seixas and Morton (2013) established a set of six competencies essential to the development of historical thinking skills. Much like science and mathematics education discussed above, the Big Six approach to history education allows the learner to progress from simplistic to advanced tasks. Moreover, the Big Six approach is intended to help the learner “move from depending on easily available, commonsense notions of the past to using the culture’s most powerful intellectual tools for understanding history”. (pg 1) [128] Additionally, the Big Six concepts reveal to the learner the difficulties we encounter while attempting to construct a history of the past. The Big Six competencies include the following: historical significance, evidence, continuity and change, cause and consequence, historical perspectives, and the ethical dimension.

Historical Significance

To develop a critical view of history the learner must recognize and define the qualities that makes something (e.g., person, event, social change) historically significant and why they should spend their time learning about this thing. Behaviourist approaches to history education, focusing on the textbook as the main source of information, have caused learners to become passive in their approach to learning about the past. The textbook becomes the authority on what they need to know. Moreover, the sole use of textbooks to teach national history may contribute to the creation of a “master narrative” that limits a student’s access to what is controversial about their country’s past. [130] By shifting the focus away from the textbook, learners may be able to further their critical thinking skills by following the steps historians take to study the past and constructing their own “reasoned decisions about historical significance”. [128] However, even if a learner is provided primary source evidence to construct a narrative of the past but is not taught to recognize the subjective side to historical thinking - why these pieces of evidence were selected, why this topic was selected, and why they are both historically significant - they may not recognize the impacts of human motivation on the construction of historic understanding. Unlike scientific inquiry that relies on a “positivistic definition of rationality”, historical thinking requires learners to acknowledge human motivation - their own motivation in studying the past, their instructors motivation for selecting certain topics of study, and the motivation of those living in the past [131]

Seixas & Morton (2013) cite two elements involved in constructing historical significance: “big, compelling concerns that exist in our lives today, such as environmental sustainability, justice, power, [and] welfare” and “particular events, objects, and people whose historical significance is in question” (pg 16) [128] The intersection between these two elements is where historical significance is found. It is useful here to add Freedman’s (2015), definition of critical historical reasoning . Critical historical reasoning requires us to recognize that the study of history is not objective. Historians “frame their investigations through the questions they pose and the theories they advance” and therefore, learners of history must analyze the “integrity of historical narratives and their pattern of emphasis and omission” (pg 360). [131] Critical historical reasoning aims towards “conscious awareness of the frame one has adopted and the affordances and constraints it imposes” (pg 360) [131] . Therefore, both historians and learners of history must recognize that historical significance is assigned and not an inherent feature of the past, and, importantly, is subject to change.

The second set of competencies described by Seixas and Morton (2013) are based on using evidence to address an inquiry about the past. In a study of the cognitive processes involved in evaluating source documents, Wineburg (1991) lists three heuristics: corroboration, sourcing, and contextualization. Corroboration refers to comparing one piece of evidence to another, sourcing is identifying the author(s) of the evidence prior to reading or viewing the material, and contextualization refers to situating evidence in a specific time and place (pg 77). [132]

This study utilized an expert/novice design to compare how historians and high school students make sense of historic documents. Wineburg (1991) argues that the historians were more successful in the task not because of the “schema-driven processing” common to science and mathematics, but by building a model of the [historic] event through the construction of “context-specific schema tailored to this specific event” (pg 83). [132] Additionally, historians demonstrated greater appreciation for the source of the historic documents compared to the students. This suggests that the students did not make the connection between a document's author and the reliability of the source. As Wineburg states, the historian understands “that there are no free-floating details, only details tied to witnesses, and if witnesses are suspect, so are their details” (pg. 84). [132] This study suggests the potential for historical understanding to be improved by teaching the cognitive strategies historians use to construct history.

Multiple narratives of the past exist as individuals bring their own values and experiences to their interpretations of historical evidence. Recognizing this may push learners beyond accepting historic accounts at face value and pull them towards a more critical approach to history. Inquiry-based guided discovery activities, such as Freedman’s (2015) Vietnam war narrative study, suggest that students may gain an awareness of the way they and others “frame” history through exploring primary source documents and comparing their accounts with standardized accounts (i.e. a textbook). [133] By allowing learners to view history as an interpretation of evidence rather than a fixed body of knowledge, we can promote critical thought through the learners’ creation of inferences based on evidence and construction of arguments to support their inferences.

Continuity and Change

Developing an understanding of continuity and change requires the learner to recognize that these two elements overlap over the chronology of history; some things are changing at the same time that other things remain the same. If students are able to recognize continuity and the processes of change in their own lives they should be able to transfer this understanding to their study of the past. [134] Students should be encouraged to describe and question the rate and depth of historic change as well as consider whether the change should be viewed as progress or decline. [134] The evaluation of historic change as positive or negative is, of course, dependent on the perspective taken by the viewer. An example of continuity through history is the development of cultural identity. Carretero and van Alphen (2014), explored this concept in their study of master narratives in Argentinian high school students. They suggest that identity can be useful to facilitate history education, but could also create misconceptions by the learner confounding past with present (or, presentism), as demonstrated when using “we” to discuss people involved in victorious battles or revolutions of the past which gave shape to a nation (pg 308-309). [130] It is useful, then to teach students to differentiate between periods of history. However, periodization of history, much like everything else in the knowledge domain, is based on interpretation and is dependent on the questions historians ask [134]

Educational technology such as interactive timelines, narrative history games, and online discussion groups may help learners make connections between the past and present. For example, the Museum of Civilization offers a teaching tool on the history of Canadian medicare ( http://www.museedelhistoire.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic01e.shtml ). Interactive timelines allow students to see connections between continuity, change, cause, and consequences by visually representing where these elements can be found over historic time. Also, guiding the learners’ exploration of interactive timelines by selecting strong inquiry questions may improve students understanding and facilitate the development of historical thinking. For example, an investigation into the European Renaissance could be framed by the following question: “Did everyone in Europe experience the Renaissance the same way?” Questions such as this are open-ended so as to not restrict where the students takes their inquiry but also suggest a relationship between the changes of the Renaissance and the continuity of European society. Other examples of educational technology that support historical thinking include the “Wold History for us All” ( http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/ ) project. This website offers world history units separated into large-scale and local-scale topics and organized by historic period. The lesson plans and resources may allow the learner to making connections between local issues and the broader, global conditions affecting world history. Finally, a case study by Blackenship (2009) suggests that online discussion groups are a useful for developing critical thinking by allowing the teacher to view the students’ thought processes and thereby facilitating formative assessment and informing the type of instructional interventions required by the teacher. Blackenship (2009) cites additional research supporting the use of online discussion because it allows the learners to collect their thoughts before responding to a discussion prompt; they have more time to access prior knowledge and consider their own ideas. [135]

Cause and Consequence

The historical thinking competencies of cause and consequence require learners to become proficient at identifying direct and indirect causes of historic events as well as their immediate and long-term consequences. Effective understanding of the causes of historic change requires the recognition of both the actions of individuals as well as the prevailing conditions of the time. Historical thinking requires students to go beyond simplistic immediate causes and think of history as web of “interrelated causes and consequences, each with various influences” (pg 110). [134] In addition to improving understanding of the past, these competencies may help learners to better understand present-day conflicts and issues. Shreiner (2014) used the novice/expert format to evaluate how people utilize their knowledge of history to make reasoned conclusions about events of the present. Similar to the Wineburg (1991) study discussed above, Shreiner (2014) found the experts were better at contextualizing and using sourcing to critically analyze documents for reliability and utility in establishing a reasoned judgement. Additionally, the study found that while students would use narrative to construct meaning, they typically created schematic narrative templates - general statements about the past which lack specific details & events. [136] Seixas and Morton (2013) caution the use of overly-simplistic timelines of history because they could create a misconception that history is nothing more than a list of isolated events.The study indicates that historical narratives that follow periodization schemes and are characterized by cause-and-effect relationships, as well as change over time, are helpful for understanding contemporary issues. [134] Therefore, it is important that educators work to develop these competencies in students. Much like historic change, the consequences of certain actions in history can be viewed as positive and negative, depending on perspective. This will be discussed in further detail below.

Historical Perspectives and Ethics

The final two historical thinking competencies proposed by Seixas and Morton are historical perspectives and ethics. Historical perspectives refers to analyzing the historical context for conditions that would influence a historic figure to view an event or act in a particular way. This could include religious beliefs, social status, geographic location, time period, prevailing economic and political conditions, and social/cultural conditions. This again requires some interpretation of evidence as oftentimes we do not have evidence that explicitly describes a historic figure’s attitudes and reasons for acting. Primary source documents, such as letters and journals can provide insight but still require the historian to use inference to make sense of the documents and connect the information to a wider historical narrative or biographical sketch of an individual. Additionally, “[h]ard statistics, such as birth and death rates, ages of marriage, literacy rates, and family size... can all help us make inferences about people's experiences, thoughts, and feelings” (pg 143). [134] There are, of course, limitations to how much we can infer about the past; however, Seixas and Morton (2013) suggest that acknowledging the limitations of what we can know about the past is part of “healthy historical thinking” (pg 143). [134] Learners can develop their understanding of historical perspective by observing the contrast between past and present ways of life and worldviews, identifying universal human traits that transcend time periods (e.g., love for a child), and avoiding presentism and anachronism . [134] A greater understanding of historical perspective will be useful for students when encountering conflicting historical accounts as they will be able to see where the historical actors are “coming from” and therefore better understand their actions. Historical perspective and ethics are related. Seixas and Morton (2013) argue that “the ethical dimension of historical thinking helps to imbue the study of history with meaning” (pg 170). [134] To understand the moral reasons for an individual's actions we need to understand the influence of historical, geographical, and cultural context. Additionally, to understand ethical consequences of the past we make moral judgments which require “empathetic understanding[;] an understanding of the differences between our moral universe and theirs” (Seixas and Peck, 2004, pg 113). [137] People with little experience with historical thinking have difficulty separating the moral standards of today’s society with the societies of the past. Additionally, students tend to judge other cultures more critically than their own; oftentimes defending or justifying actions of their own nations. [138] Therefore, Lopez, Carretero and Rodriguez-Moneo (2014) suggest using national narratives of nations different from the learner’s own nation to more effectively develop critical historical thinking. As the learner becomes proficient at analyzing the ethical decisions of the past, they can translate these skills to analyzing present-day ethical questions. Role playing is a useful instructional strategy for teaching historical perspective. Traditional, face-to-face classrooms allow for dramatic role play activities, debates, and mock trials where students can take on the role of an individual or social group from history. Additionally, educational games and websites allow for the integration of technology while using the role play strategy. Whitworth and Berson (2003) found that, in the 1990-2000s, technology in the social studies classroom was focused mostly on using the internet as a digital version of material that would have otherwise been presented in the classroom. They suggest that alternative uses of technology - such as inquiry-based webquests, simulations, and collaborative working environments - promote interaction and critical thinking skills. [139] One example of a learning object that promotes critical thinking through role playing is the Musee-Mccord’s online game collection ( http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/en/keys/games/ ). Specifically, the Victorian Period and the Roaring Twenties games allow the learner to progress through the time period and make decisions appropriate to the historic context of the period. These games are paired with relevant resources from the museum collections which can enhance the learner’s depth of understanding of the period. In terms of teaching strategies for the ethical component of history can be explored through historical narratives, debating ethical positions on historic events, and evaluating and critiquing secondary sources of information for ethical judgements.

To summarize, introducing professional historians’ strategies for studying history is widely regarded as a way to improve historical thinking in students. Professional historian’s cognitive processes of corroborating accounts, critically analyzing sources, and establishing historic context are reflected well by Seixas and Morton’s Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts (2013). Historical thinking gives students the skills to problem solve within the context of history and make sense of the past and connect it to the present in order to broaden the learner’s perspective, understand prevailing social conditions, and influence how they interact with the world. See the Historical Thinking Project’s webpage ( http://historicalthinking.ca/lessons ) for instructional ideas for all the historical competencies.

Instructing through Academic Controversy

Using the technique of Academic Controversy could be an effective way of teaching both argumentation and CT skills to students. Academic controversy involves dividing a cooperative group of four in two pairs of students and assigning them opposing positions of an argument or issue, after which the two pairs each argue for their position. The groups then switch their positions and argue again, finally the group of four is asked to come up with an all-around solution to the problem [140] . This activity can be effective in instructing both aspects of argumentation and CT, though it may be a bit dated. The activity is argumentative by nature, making students come up with reasons and claims for two sets of arguments. This equilibrium is important to the argumentative process because provides the students with an opportunity to evaluate the key points of their argument and the opposition's which could be beneficial in any debate. As well, this activity is geared to engage students in a few aspects of CT such as evaluation, since the students must assess each side of the argument. It also engages metacognitive processes as the students must come up with a synthesized conclusion with their peers of their own arguments, a process which requires them to be both analytical and open minded. This activity is a good way of increasing both CT skills and argumentation as it requires students to be open-minded, but also engage in analytical debate.

Suggested Readings

• Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M.A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4). 1102-1134. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308326084.
• Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
• Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience and Psychological Tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s Perspective in a Study of Student Learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75.
• Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.

External links

• Critical Thinking: How Children Can Start Thinking Deeply, Part 1
• Critical Thinking for Kids In Action, Part 2
• Critical Thinking for Kids In Action, Part 3
• Critical Thinking for Kids In Action, Part 4
• Critical Thinking Exercises for Kids
• ↑ Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving Students' Critical Thinking: Empirical Support for Explicit Instructions Combined with Practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 518-530.
• ↑ a b c d e f g Murphy, K. P., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting Critical-Analytic Thinking in Children and Adolescents at Home and in School. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 561-578.
• ↑ Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-Solving Strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1/2), 99-121.
• ↑ a b c Ku, K. Y., Ho, I. T., Hau, K., & Lau, E. C. (2014). Integrating direct and Inquiry_Based Instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: An intervention study. Instructional Science, 42(2), 251-169.
• ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a Disposition for Critical Thinking . Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59-73.
• ↑ Glaser, E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. Columbia University.
• ↑ a b c d Phan, H.P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema, 22(2). 284-292.
• ↑ a b c d e f Moon, J. (2007). Critical Thinking: An Exploration of Theory and Practice (1st ed.). London ; New York: Routledge.
• ↑ a b Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities: ASHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report, Volume 17, Number 2, 1988 (1st ed.). Washington, D.C: Jossey-Bass.
• ↑ a b Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. National Academies Press.
• ↑ a b Mason, M. (2009). Critical Thinking and Learning. John Wiley & Sons.
• ↑ a b Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2009). The Art of Asking Essential Questions (5th Edition). Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking
• ↑ a b c Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). The Thinker’s Guide to The Art of Socratic Questioning. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
• ↑ a b c d Morgan, N., & Saxton, J. (2006). Asking Better Questions (2nd ed.). Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.
• ↑ a b Cain, R. B. (2007). The Socratic Method: Plato’s Use of Philosophical Drama. A&C Black.
• ↑ Harmon, D. A., & Jones, T. S. (2005). Elementary Education: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO.
• ↑ Stanley, T., & Moore, B. (2013). Critical Thinking and Formative Assessments: Increasing the Rigor in Your Classroom. Routledge.
• ↑ a b Jung, I., Nishimura, M., & Sasao, T. (2016). Liberal Arts Education and Colleges in East Asia: Possibilities and Challenges in the Global Age. Springer.
• ↑ Mason, M. (2009). Critical Thinking and Learning. John Wiley & Sons. p. 8.
• ↑ Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Springer.
• ↑ a b c d Cibáková, D. (2015). Methods of developing critical thinking when working with educative texts. E-Pedagogium, (2), 135-145.
• ↑ Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1992). Critical Thinking and Its Relationship to Motivation, Learning Strategies, and Classroom Experience. 2-30.
• ↑ a b Halpern, D. F. (2013). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Psychology Press.
• ↑ Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2006). Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
• ↑ Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2009). The Art of Asking Essential Questions (5th Edition). Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. p. 3.
• ↑ Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., & Panourgia, K. (2016). Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 13th International Conference, ITS 2016, Zagreb, Croatia, June 7-10, 2016. Proceedings. Springer.
• ↑ a b c d e Conklin, W., & Teacher Created Materials. (2012). Strategies for Developing Higher-Order Thinking Skills, Grades 6 - 12. Shell Education.
• ↑ http://www.janinesmusicroom.com/socratic-questioning-part-i-the-framework.html
• ↑ Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Longman.
• ↑ Blosser, P. E. (1991). How to Ask the Right Questions. NSTA Press.
• ↑ Wang, J.-F., & Lau, R. (2013). Advances in Web-Based Learning -- ICWL 2013: 12th International Conference, Kenting, Taiwan, October 6-9, 2013, Proceedings. Springer.
• ↑ a b Gregory, G., & Kaufeldt, M. (2015). The Motivated Brain: Improving Student Attention, Engagement, and Perseverance. ASCD.
• ↑ Carol, K., & Sandi, Z. (2014). Q Tasks, 2nd Edition: How to empower students to ask questions and care about answers. Pembroke Publishers Limited.
• ↑ a b Doubet, K. J., & Hockett, J. A. (2015). Differentiation in Middle and High School: Strategies to Engage All Learners. ASCD.
• ↑ a b c http://www.educ.kent.edu/fundedprojects/tspt/units/sixfacets.htm
• ↑ a b McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential Questions: Opening Doors to Student Understanding (1st ed.). Alexandria, Va. USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
• ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Bruning, G.J. Schraw & M.M. Norby (2011) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction (5th Ed). New York: Pearson.
• ↑ Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Freeman, 1980
• ↑ a b Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, R. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• ↑ Snyder, M. J., & Snyder, L. G. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and Problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, L(2), 90-99.
• ↑ a b c Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 74-93). London: SAGE Publications.
• ↑ a b Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 3–30). Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press.
• ↑ a b c d Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem Solving in an Astronomy Simulation. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 40(1), 6-33.8
• ↑ Simon, D. P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbau
• ↑ Kitchener, K.S., Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 1983. 26: p. 222-232.
• ↑ Schraw G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-structured and ill-structured problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.
• ↑ Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002) The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50(3), 5-22.
• ↑ a b Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen, S. M. Land, D. H. Jonassen, S. M. Land (Eds.) , Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89-121). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• ↑ Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy, D. H. Jonassen, T. M. Duffy, D. H. Jonassen (Eds.) , Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57-75). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• ↑ a b c d e Barrows, H. S. (1996). “Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing Problem-Based Learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• ↑ a b (Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding (pp. 11-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.)
• ↑ Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problembased learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.
• ↑ Williams, D., Hemstreet, S., Liu, M.& Smith, V. (1998). Examining how middle school students use problem-based learning software. Unpublished paper presented at the ED-Media/ED Telecom ‘98 world Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiberg, Germany.
• ↑ Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195–200. Gertzman, A., & Kolodner, J. L.
• ↑ Bruning, G.J. Schraw & M.M. Norby (2011) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction (5th Ed). New York: Pearson.
• ↑ Martin, L., and D. L. Schwartz. 2009. “Prospective Adaptation in the Use of External Representations.” Cognition and Instruction 27 (4): 370–400. doi:10.1080/
• ↑ Chambers, D., and D. Reisberg. 1985. “Can Mental Images Be Ambiguous?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human A pragmatic perspective on visual representation and creative thinking Perception and Performance 11 (3): 317–328.
• ↑ a b Öllinger, M., Jones, G., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Investigating the effect of mental set on insight problem solving. Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 269-282. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.269
• ↑ Duncker, K. (1945). On Problem Solving. Psychological Monograph, Whole No. 270.
• ↑ a b c McCaffrey, T. (2012). Innovation relies on the obscure: A key to overcoming the classic problem of functional fixedness. Psychological Science, 23(3), 215-218.
• ↑ a b Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Broekkamp, H. (2002). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 442–46
• ↑ Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• ↑ a b Novick, L. R., & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 321–350). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• ↑ Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J. M., Hamlett, C. L., & Lambert, W. (2008). Problem solving and computational skills: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition? Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 100, 30–
• ↑ a b McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.
• ↑ a b c d e Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002) An effective meta-cognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179.
• ↑ a b c d e f g h i Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive Tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167.
• ↑ a b c d e f Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
• ↑ a b c d e f g Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 61-77.
• ↑ Koedinger, K. R. (2002). Toward evidence for instructional design principles: Examples from Cognitive Tutor Math 6. In Proceedings of PME-NA XXXIII (The North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education).
• ↑ Corbett, A., Kauffman, L., Maclaren, B., Wagner, A., & J,.ones, E. (2010). A Cognitive Tutor for genetics problem solving: Learning gains and student modeling. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 219–239.
• ↑ Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). Knowledge decomposition and sub-goal reification in the ACT programming tutor. Department of Psychology, 81.
• ↑ Corbett, A. T., & Bhatnagar, A. (1997). Student modelling in the ACT programming tutor: Adjusting a procedural learning model with declarative knowledge. In User modelling (pp. 243-254). Springer Vienna.
• ↑ Corbett, A. (2002). Cognitive tutor algebra I: Adaptive student modelling in widespread classroom use. In Technology and assessment: Thinking ahead. proceedings from a workshop (pp. 50-62).
• ↑ Koedinger, K. R. & Anderson, J. R. (1993). Effective use of intelligent software in high school math classrooms. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, (pp. 241-248). Charlottesv
• ↑ Koedinger, K., Anderson, J., Hadley, W., & Mark, M. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. Human-Computer Interaction Institute.
• ↑ Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 61-77.
• ↑ Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.
• ↑ Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• ↑ <Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179. p. 173
• ↑ Corbett, A., Kauffman, L., Maclaren, B., Wagner, A., & Jones, E. (2010). A Cognitive Tutor for genetics problem solving: Learning gains and student modelling. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 219–239.
• ↑ Morgan, Alistar. (1983). Theoretical Aspects of Project-Based Learning in Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 66-78.
• ↑ a b c d Blumenfeld, Phyllis C., Elliot Soloway, Ronald W. MArx, Joseph S. Krajick, Mark Guzdial, Annemarie Palincsar.. (1991). Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
• ↑ a b c d e f Thomas, John W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. San Rafael: Autodesk Press.
• ↑ a b van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61. doi:10.1007/bf02504993.
• ↑ a b Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
• ↑ a b c d e van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Paul A. Kirschner, & Liesbeth Kester. (2004). Taking the Load off a Learner’s Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning. Amsterdam: Open University of the Netherlands.
• ↑ Piaget, Jean; Cook, Margaret (Trans). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY, US: Basic Books The construction of reality in the child. (1954). xiii 386 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11168-000 .
• ↑ Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
• ↑ Helle, Laura, Paivi Tynjara, Erkki Olkinora, Kristi Lonka. (2007). “Aint nothin’ like the real thing”. Motivation and study processes on a work-based project course in information systems design. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 397-411.
• ↑ a b Joseph Krajcik , Phyllis C. Blumenfeld , Ronald W. Marx , Kristin M. Bass , Jennifer Fredricks & Elliot Soloway (1998) Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7:3-4, 313-350, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
• ↑ a b c Gorges, Julia, Thomas Goke. (2015). How do I Know what I can do? Anticipating expectancy of success regarding novel academic tasks. British Journal of Educational Psyschology, 85(1), 75-90.
• ↑ Hung, C.-M., Hwang, G.-J., & Huang, I. (2012). A Project-based Digital Storytelling Approach for Improving Students' Learning Motivation, Problem-Solving Competence and Learning Achievement. Educational Technology & Society , 15 (4), 368–379. 
• ↑ a b Efstratia, Douladeli. (2014). Experiential education through project based learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences . 152, 1256-1260.
• ↑ a b c Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (2013). STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Sense. 
• ↑ Gary, Kevin. (2013), Project-Based Learning. Computer. (Vol 48:9). Tempe: Arizona State. 
• ↑ a b c d e f g h Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing . Basel, Switzerland: Birkha¨user.
• ↑ Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• ↑ Aflatoony, Leila & Ron Wakkary, (2015). Thoughtful Thinkers: Secondary Schooler’s Learning about Design Thinking. Simon Fraser University: Surrey, BC.
• ↑ a b Koh, Joyce Hwee Ling, Chin Sing Chai, Benjamin Wong, & Huang-Yao Hong. (2015) Design Thinking for Education. Singapore: Springer Science + Business Media.
• ↑ a b c d Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York, NY: Basic Books.
• ↑ Hu, Weiping, Philip Adey, Xiaojuan Jia, Jia Liu, Lei Zhang, Jing Li, Xiaomei Dong. (2010). Effects of a “Learn to Think” Intervention programme on primary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology . 81(4) 537-557.
• ↑ a b Wells, Alastair. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: a phenomenological perspective . International Journal Technol Des Educ. (23:623-636). DOI 10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7.
• ↑ a b c d Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
• ↑ a b c d e f g h Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, W., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Argumentation theory in Education Studies: Coding and Improving Students’ Argumentative Strategies. Topoi, 34, 523-537.
• ↑ a b c Hornikx, J., & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 225-243. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.674715.
• ↑ a b Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213
• ↑ Bensley, A., Crowe, D., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. (2010). Teaching and assessing CT skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91-96. doi:10.1080/00986281003626656
• ↑ Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? argumentation?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10-18. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001
• ↑ Gold J., Holman D., & Thorpe R. (2002). The role of argument analysis and story telling in facilitating critical thinking. Management Learning, 33(3), 371-388. doi:10.1177/1350507602333005
• ↑ a b c d e f g h Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.
• ↑ Chesñevar, I., & Simari, G. (2007). Modelling inference in argumentation through labelled deduction: Formalization and logical properties. Logica Universalis, 2007, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 93, 1(1), 93-124. doi:10.1007/s11787-006-0005-4
• ↑ Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2015). Coordinated inductive learning using argumentation-based communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(2), 266-304. doi:10.1007/s10458-014-9256-2
• ↑ Pinto, M., Iliceto, P., & Melagno, S. (2012). Argumentative abilities in metacognition and in metalinguistics: A study on university students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 35-58. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0064-7
• ↑ Bensley, A., Crowe, D., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. (2010). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91-96. doi:10.1080/00986281003626656
• ↑ Demir, B., & İsleyen, T. (2015). The effects of argumentation based science learning approach on creative thinking skills of students. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(1), 49-82.
• ↑ Chandler, S. & Dedman, D.E. (2012). Writing a Literature Review: An Essential Component of Critical Thinking. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 17. 160-165.
• ↑ a b c d Al-Faoury, O.H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The Effect of Teaching CoRT Program No. (4) Entitles “Creativity” on the Gifted Learners’ Writing in Ein El-Basha Center for Gifted Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249-2257. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.11.2249-2257.
• ↑ a b c Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B.Z. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience and Psychological Tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s Perspective in a Study of Student Learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75.
• ↑ Presseisen, B.Z. & Kozulin, A. (1992). Mediated Learning – The Contributions of Vygotsky and Feuerstein in Theory and Practice.
• ↑ Schuler, G. (1974). The Effectiveness of the Productive Thinking Program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED103479 .
• ↑ a b c d Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
• ↑ a b c d Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402512.
• ↑ Jonassen, D.H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn ad learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology & Research Development, 58(4), 439-457. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.
• ↑ a b c d Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958
• ↑ a b c d e Seixas, P., Morton, T., Colyer, J., & Fornazzari, S. (2013). The Big Six: Historical thinking Concepts. Toronto: Nelson Education.
• ↑ Osborne, K. (2013). Forward. Seixas, P., Morton, T., Colyer, J., & Fornazzari, S. The Big Six: Historical thinking Concepts. Toronto: Nelson Education.
• ↑ a b Carretero, M., & van Alphen, F. (2014). Do Master Narratives Change Among High School Students? A Characterization of How National History Is Represented. Cognition and Instruction, 32(3), 290–312. http://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.919298
• ↑ a b c Freedman, E. B. (2015). “What Happened Needs to Be Told”: Fostering Critical Historical Reasoning in the Classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 33(4), 357–398. http://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1101465
• ↑ a b c Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
• ↑ Freedman, E. B. (2015). “What Happened Needs to Be Told”: Fostering Critical Historical Reasoning in the Classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 33(4), 357–398. http://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1101465
• ↑ a b c d e f g h i Seixas, P., Morton, T., Colyer, J., & Fornazzari, S. (2013). The Big Six: Historical thinking Concepts. Toronto: Nelson Education.
• ↑ Blackenship, W. (2009). Making connections: Using online discussion forums to engage students in historical inquiry. Social Education, 73(3), 127-130.
• ↑ Shreiner, T. L. (2014). Using Historical Knowledge to Reason About Contemporary Political Issues: An Expert–Novice Study. Cognition and Instruction, 32(4), 313–352. http://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.948680
• ↑ Seixas, P., & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching Historical Thinking. Challenges and Prospects for Canadian Social Studies, 109–117.
• ↑ Lopez, C., Carretero, M., & Rodriguez-Moneo, M. (2014). Telling a national narrative that is not your own. Does it enable critical historical consumption? Culture & Psychology , 20 (4 ), 547–571. http://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X14554156
• ↑ Whitworth, S. A., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-2/issue-4-02/social-studies/computer-technology-in-the-social-studies-an-examination-of-the-effectiveness-literature-1996-2001
• ↑ Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through academic controversy. The American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 40-53. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1306753602

• Book:Cognition and Instruction

Navigation menu

• Organizations
• Planning & Activities
• Product & Services
• Structure & Systems
• Career & Education
• Entertainment
• Fashion & Beauty
• Political Institutions
• SmartPhones
• Protocols & Formats
• Communication
• Web Applications
• Household Equipments
• Career and Certifications
• Diet & Fitness
• Mathematics & Statistics
• Processed Foods
• Vegetables & Fruits

Difference Between Thinking and Critical Thinking

• Categorized under Nature | Difference Between Thinking and Critical Thinking

Thinking vs. Critical Thinking

The Two Think Tanks: Thinking and Critical Thinking

Every human being is capable of thinking, but some say that few are able to practice critical thinking. What’s the difference?

Thinking is the mental process, the act and the ability to produce thoughts. People think about almost everything and anything. They often think of people, things, places, and anything without a reason or as a result of a trigger of a stimulus. Meanwhile, critical thinking often means “thinking about thinking.” In a sense, it is a deeper form of thinking about a particular issue or situation before actually deciding and acting.

In any given situation, thinking is an action that requires the person to form a thought about that situation. Any thought can be formed, even without facts or evidence. When critical thinking is applied, the mind is open to all considerations, assumptions, and details before actually forming a thought or an opinion. A person who is a critical thinker regards the subject itself and all its aspects, like the methods of collecting facts or the motivation behind said facts. A person who employs critical thinking often adds the question “why” to “who, what, where, and when” in a particular situation.

To illustrate, imagine a person at a bookstore. This person can pick out a book and think that the book is good upon first impression. A critical thinking person would open the book, read some passages, and read about the author before actually deciding whether to buy the book or not. The customer might often wonder about the title or why the author chose to write this particular piece of literature.

A thinker may accept facts or realities based on faith alone and without examination and analysis of the issue. These facts or realities are often perceived as “truth” and cannot be criticized or modified. In this situation, there is no need for evidence or the effort to produce it and its examination.

Critical thinking is the opposite of all of this. It often requires a lot of time, questions, and considerations. It also involves a longer process before arriving at a conclusion or decision.

Individuals who apply critical thinking are often open-minded and mindful of alternatives. They try to be well informed and do not jump to conclusions. Critical thinkers know and identify conclusions, reasons, and assumptions. They use clarifying and probing questions in order to formulate their reasonable situations and arguments. They often try to integrate all items in the situation and then draw conclusions with reason and caution. They also have good judgment on the credibility of sources and the quality of an argument, aside from developing and defending their stand. If asked, these people can clearly articulate their argument with all its strengths and weaknesses.

Critical thinking is an on-going process and activity. This skill is learned through active practice and constant use. Exposure to controversial issues and thought-provoking situations stimulates the mind to utilize this skill, which is then applied upon careful examination of an issue or situation. Meanwhile, thinking can be done in an instant without any given proof and/or justification.

Critical thinking requires logic and accuracy, while thinking sometimes occurs in the form of faith and personal opinion. The former requires evidence and further actions of examination and analysis, while the latter does not. It’s up to you to think and decide.

• Both thinking and critical thinking are mental processes.
• Thinking can be classified as an action, while critical thinking can be said to be a skill.
• Critical thinking is used with caution, while thinking can be spontaneous.
• A critical thinker is able to identify the main contention in an issue, look for evidence that supports or opposes that contention, and assess the strength of the reasoning, while a thinker may base their belief solely on faith or personal opinion.
• Recent Posts
• Differences Between Fraternity And Sorority - January 8, 2014
• Differences Between Lucite and Plastic - January 7, 2014
• Differences Between Oil and Butter - January 6, 2014

Sharing is caring!

• Pinterest 7

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

• Difference Between Concrete and Abstract Thinking
• Difference Between Fact and Opinion
• Difference between Argument and Debate
• Difference Between Facts and Opinions
• Difference Between Argument and Persuasion

Cite APA 7 Franscisco, . (2017, June 30). Difference Between Thinking and Critical Thinking. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-thinking-and-critical-thinking/. MLA 8 Franscisco, . "Difference Between Thinking and Critical Thinking." Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects, 30 June, 2017, http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-thinking-and-critical-thinking/.

Thank you very, much, this was a discussion question and the information was too closly related to find a significant difference.

As I was reading this article I kind of think I’m a critical thinker. When my boyfriend tells me thing about his day I’m not going to lie I try and ask why did that happen. Or I say strange that happened in order to get him to tell me more things. Just the other day we were out with our friends and Jose one of our friends was telling us how one of there friend is different ever since he got his promotion at work and Jose was like that foo needs to chill I’m not going talk about our wild nights and I was like oh yeah like which ones. I was trying to get him to talk but then our other friend pointed it out and was like umm look at Brenda thinking we really do have wild nights. I tend to always ask why is it done that way or could it have ever crossed there mind that they can do it this way.

Thx for the article,it’s very easy to understand

Leave a Response

Name ( required )

Email ( required )

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

References :

Advertisments, more in 'nature'.

• Difference Between Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect
• Differences Between Reptiles and Amphibians
• Difference Between El Nino and La Nina
• Difference Between Climate Change and Global Warming
• Difference Between Crohn’s and Colitis

Top Difference Betweens

Get new comparisons in your inbox:, most emailed comparisons, editor's picks.

• Difference Between MAC and IP Address
• Difference Between Platinum and White Gold
• Difference Between Civil and Criminal Law
• Difference Between GRE and GMAT
• Difference Between Immigrants and Refugees
• Difference Between DNS and DHCP
• Difference Between Computer Engineering and Computer Science
• Difference Between Men and Women
• Difference Between Book value and Market value
• Difference Between Red and White wine
• Difference Between Depreciation and Amortization
• Difference Between Bank and Credit Union
• Difference Between White Eggs and Brown Eggs

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking vs. creative thinking.

Creative thinking is a way of looking at problems or situations from a fresh perspective to conceive of something new or original.

Critical thinking is the logical, sequential disciplined process of rationalizing, analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to make informed judgments and/or decisions.

Critical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking – Key Differences

• Creative thinking tries to create something new, while critical thinking seeks to assess worth or validity of something that already exists.
• Creative thinking is generative, while critical thinking is analytical.
• Creative thinking is divergent, while critical thinking is convergent.
• Creative thinking is focused on possibilities, while critical thinking is focused on probability.
• Creative thinking is accomplished by disregarding accepted principles, while critical thinking is accomplished by applying accepted principles.

About Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is a process utilized to generate lists of new, varied and unique ideas or possibilities. Creative thinking brings a fresh perspective and sometimes unconventional solution to solve a problem or address a challenge.  When you are thinking creatively, you are focused on exploring ideas, generating possibilities, and/or developing various theories.

Creative thinking can be performed both by an unstructured process such as brainstorming, or by a structured process such as lateral thinking.

Brainstorming is the process for generating unique ideas and solutions through spontaneous and freewheeling group discussion. Participants are encouraged to think aloud and suggest as many ideas as they can, no matter how outlandish it may seem.

Lateral thinking uses a systematic process that leads to logical conclusions. However, it involves changing a standard thinking sequence and arriving at a solution from completely different angles.

No matter what process you chose, the ultimate goal is to generate ideas that are unique, useful and worthy of further elaboration. Often times, critical thinking is performed after creative thinking has generated various possibilities. Critical thinking is used to vet those ideas to determine if they are practical.

Creative Thinking Skills

• Open-mindedness
• Flexibility
• Imagination
• Adaptability
• Risk-taking
• Originality
• Elaboration
• Brainstorming

About Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, synthesizing, evaluating information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to make informed judgments and/or decisions.

Critical thinking involves the ability to:

• remain objective

In general, critical thinking is used to make logical well-formed decisions after analyzing and evaluating information and/or an array of ideas.

On a daily basis, it can be used for a variety of reasons including:

• to form an argument
• to articulate and justify a position or point of view
• to reduce possibilities to convergent toward a single answer
• to vet creative ideas to determine if they are practical
• to judge an assumption
• to solve a problem
• to reach a conclusion

Critical Thinking Skills

• Interpreting
• Integrating
• Contrasting
• Classifying
• Forecasting
• Hypothesizing

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Critical Thinking vs. Reflective Thinking

What's the difference.

Critical thinking and reflective thinking are both important cognitive processes that involve analyzing and evaluating information. However, critical thinking tends to focus more on questioning and challenging assumptions, beliefs, and arguments, while reflective thinking involves looking back on past experiences and considering how they have shaped one's beliefs and actions. Critical thinking is often used to solve problems and make decisions, while reflective thinking is more about self-awareness and personal growth. Both types of thinking are essential for developing a deeper understanding of complex issues and making informed choices.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Critical thinking and reflective thinking are two important cognitive processes that play a crucial role in problem-solving, decision-making, and learning. While they share some similarities, they also have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the key characteristics of critical thinking and reflective thinking, and discuss how they differ in their approaches and outcomes.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a systematic way of thinking that involves analyzing and evaluating information, arguments, and evidence in order to make informed decisions or judgments. It requires individuals to question assumptions, consider multiple perspectives, and apply logical reasoning to arrive at well-reasoned conclusions. Critical thinking is often associated with skills such as analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and inference.

• Critical thinking involves being open-minded and willing to consider alternative viewpoints.
• It requires individuals to be skeptical and not accept information at face value.
• Critical thinking involves asking probing questions to clarify and deepen understanding.
• It focuses on evidence-based reasoning and logical thinking.
• Critical thinking is essential for problem-solving and decision-making in complex situations.

Reflective Thinking

Reflective thinking, on the other hand, is a process of introspection and self-examination that involves looking back on past experiences, actions, or decisions in order to learn from them and improve future outcomes. It requires individuals to engage in self-awareness, self-assessment, and self-regulation to gain insights into their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Reflective thinking is often associated with skills such as self-reflection, self-awareness, self-evaluation, and self-improvement.

• Reflective thinking involves examining one's own beliefs, values, and assumptions.
• It requires individuals to consider how their actions and decisions impact themselves and others.
• Reflective thinking involves identifying strengths and weaknesses in one's thinking and behavior.
• It focuses on personal growth, learning, and development.
• Reflective thinking is essential for self-improvement and continuous learning.

While critical thinking and reflective thinking share the common goal of improving cognitive processes and decision-making, they differ in their approaches and outcomes. Critical thinking is more focused on analyzing and evaluating external information and arguments, while reflective thinking is more focused on examining internal thoughts and experiences. Critical thinking emphasizes logical reasoning and evidence-based thinking, while reflective thinking emphasizes self-awareness and personal growth.

Both critical thinking and reflective thinking are essential skills that can complement each other in the learning process. Critical thinking can help individuals make informed decisions based on evidence and reasoning, while reflective thinking can help individuals gain insights into their own thoughts and behaviors to improve their decision-making processes. By combining critical thinking and reflective thinking, individuals can enhance their problem-solving abilities and make more effective decisions in various contexts.

In conclusion, critical thinking and reflective thinking are two important cognitive processes that play a crucial role in problem-solving, decision-making, and learning. While critical thinking focuses on analyzing and evaluating external information and arguments, reflective thinking focuses on examining internal thoughts and experiences. Both critical thinking and reflective thinking are essential skills that can complement each other in the learning process and help individuals improve their decision-making processes. By developing both critical thinking and reflective thinking skills, individuals can enhance their cognitive abilities and make more informed and effective decisions in various contexts.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Thinking vs Critical Thinking: Difference and Comparison

Key Takeaways Thinking is a mental process that involves cognitive functions such as perception and memory, while critical thinking requires deliberate analysis and evaluation of information. Critical thinking involves skills like problem-solving, logical reasoning, and decision-making. Critical thinking aims to achieve objective understanding and rational conclusions instead of thinking, which biases and emotions can influence.

Thinking vs Critical Thinking

The difference between thinking and critical thinking is that thinking involves the act of analyzing something at a basic or ground level and acting fast whereas critical thinking is the act of analyzing all the possible outcomes and characteristics of something until a conclusion or opinion is formed.

Similar Reads

Comparison table.

What is Thinking?

What is critical thinking, main differences between thinking and critical thinking, by emma smith, related post, arithmetic progression vs arithmetic sequence: difference and comparison, arithmetic mean vs geometric sequence: difference and comparison, discipline vs punishment: difference and comparison, how to add a border in google docs: a quick guide, 25 best anime streaming sites to watch anime online, zeta vs nernst potential: difference and comparison, value analysis vs value engineering: difference and comparison.

Critical Thinking vs Lateral Thinking

What is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking is, using an efficient and disciplined understanding of applying information using one or several senses or brain processes to achieve a definite conclusion. To put it in simpler terms, the ability to think critically is using information gathered by our eyes and ears, and concluding that end using the information gained.

What is Lateral Thinking?

Lateral thinking , as said above, is to be considered going around a problem and finding an indirect solution. Such as solving a puzzle by creative means, like using water displacement to get to a cube at the bottom of a bottle. Critical thinking would probably just tell you to smash the bottle to get to the cube.

(Dr. Jon Warner).

What is the difference between Critical Thinking vs Lateral Thinking?

How critical thinking and lateral thinking relate to each other..

So if you want to train both, try your hand at a video game, the Legend of Zelda series would be a good place to start.

You may also like

Critical thinking and anxiety, enhancing critical listening skills: techniques for effective comprehension, critical thinking skills in the workplace, thinking critically about your personal finance in a recession, download this free ebook.

Mind by Design

Critical thinking vs analytical thinking: The differences and similarities

The ability to think clearly and make informed decisions is paramount to life. This article delves deep into the realms of analytical thinking and critical thinking, shedding light on their differences and how they complement each other. By understanding these thinking styles, you’ll be better equipped to tackle complex problems, evaluate information, and make well-informed decisions. Let’s dive in!

Introduction to Analytical and Critical Thinking

Analytical and critical thinking are two skills essential for solving problems and making decisions in various aspects of life. While both involve the use of logic and reasoning, they differ in their approach and outcomes. Analytical thinking involves breaking down complex information into smaller parts, while critical thinking involves taking a holistic view and evaluating information from different angles. Analytical thinking involves the ability to dissect a problem or situation into its individual components and examining each part separately. It requires careful observation and the ability to identify patterns and relationships. This type of thinking is essential for tasks such as data analysis, problem-solving, and troubleshooting.

Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves the ability to assess information objectively, evaluate its credibility, and make logical judgments. It involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and considering different perspectives. Critical thinking is crucial for making informed decisions, weighing pros and cons, and avoiding biases and fallacies.

Both analytical and critical thinking complement each other and are necessary for effective problem-solving and decision-making. Analytical thinking provides a structured and systematic approach to understanding complex problems , while critical thinking helps evaluate different options and make sound judgments.

Developing analytical and critical thinking skills can greatly benefit individuals in various aspects of life. In academia, these skills are necessary for understanding and interpreting complex subjects, conducting research, and writing analytical essays. In the workplace, analytical and critical thinking skills are highly valued by employers as they enable employees to solve problems efficiently and make informed decisions. In daily life, these skills are essential for evaluating information, distinguishing between fact and opinion, and making rational choices.

There are various ways to improve analytical and critical thinking skills. Engaging in activities that require logical reasoning, such as puzzles, brain teasers, and mathematical problems, can help develop analytical thinking abilities. Reading diverse sources of information, questioning assumptions, and actively seeking different perspectives can enhance critical thinking skills . Additionally, engaging in debates, discussions, and problem-solving exercises can promote both analytical and critical thinking.

Analytical and critical thinking skills are essential for problem-solving and decision-making in various aspects of life. They involve breaking down complex information and evaluating it from different angles. Developing these skills can lead to more effective problem-solving, informed decision-making, and overall improved cognitive abilities. 

Traits of an Analytical Thinker

An analytical thinker is one who is adept at breaking down complex problems into smaller parts. This type of thinking is linear and involves analyzing cause and effect relationships. Analytical thinking uses logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion, often relying on data and facts. Some key traits of an analytical thinker include:

• The ability to dissect complex information into smaller pieces.
• A knack for recognizing patterns and relationships.
• A methodical approach to problem-solving.

What Does It Mean to Think Critically?

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a type of higher-order thinking that requires a more holistic approach. Critical thinkers are often skeptical, questioning the validity of information before accepting it. They are adept at evaluating information from various sources and are not easily swayed by outside information. Key aspects of critical thinking include :

• The ability to form an opinion based on evidence.
• Considering multiple perspectives before making a decision.
• Recognizing biases and challenging one’s own assumptions.

Analytical Thinking vs Critical Thinking: The Major Differences

While both analytical and critical thinking are essential for solving problems, they differ in several key ways:

• Approach : Analytical thinking is more linear and focuses on breaking down complex information into smaller parts. Critical thinking, however, is holistic and looks at the bigger picture.
• Use of Information : Analytical thinkers rely heavily on facts and data, while critical thinkers use facts in conjunction with other pieces of information and perspectives.
• Outcome : Analytical thinking often leads to a single logical conclusion, whereas critical thinking might result in multiple potential solutions or outcomes.

The Processes: Analytical Thinking Process vs Critical Thinking Process

Both styles of thinking have distinct processes:

• Analytical Thinking Process : Starts with gathering data, followed by breaking down complex problems, analyzing the cause and effect relationships, and finally drawing a conclusion.
• Critical Thinking Process : Begins with gathering diverse pieces of information, evaluating their validity, considering various perspectives, and finally forming an opinion or decision.

Using Analytical and Critical Thinking in Real Life Scenarios

In real-life scenarios, these thinking styles can be applied in various ways. For instance, when faced with a business decision, an analytical thinker might focus on the numbers and statistics, while a critical thinker might consider the potential impact on employees, company culture, and external stakeholders.

Analytical thinking can be particularly useful when analyzing financial data and making data-driven decisions. For example, a business owner might use analytical thinking to analyze the company’s financial statements and determine the profitability and financial health of the business. They might examine key financial ratios, such as return on investment or gross profit margin, to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of various business operations.

On the other hand, critical thinking can be applied when evaluating different options and considering the potential consequences of each option. For example, when considering a potential business expansion, a critical thinker may explore the potential impact on existing employees, the company’s culture, and the external stakeholders. They may assess the potential risks and benefits of the expansion, considering factors such as increased competition, resource allocation, and market demand.

Analytical and critical thinking can also be applied in personal decision-making. For example, when considering a major life decision such as buying a house or changing careers, analytical thinking can help weigh the financial implications, such as the monthly mortgage payments or future earning potential. Critical thinking can help evaluate the potential impact on personal goals, values, and overall satisfaction.

In everyday life, analytical thinking can be useful when evaluating product options or making purchasing decisions. For example, comparing different phone models based on features, specifications, and customer reviews can help individuals make an informed choice. Critical thinking can be applied when assessing the potential consequences of a decision, such as considering the long-term environmental impact of a product or the ethical practices of a particular company.

Both analytical and critical thinking are valuable skills in problem-solving. They can help individuals identify the root causes of a problem, analyze potential solutions, and evaluate their effectiveness. Whether it’s troubleshooting a technical issue, resolving a conflict, or devising strategies to improve personal or professional performance, these thinking styles can be instrumental in finding effective solutions. 

Analytical and Critical Thinking in Problem-Solving

Problem-solving requires a combination of both analytical and critical thinking. Analytical thinking helps break the problem into manageable parts, while critical thinking helps in evaluating potential solutions and considering their implications.

The Importance of Combining Both Thinking Styles

While both styles are powerful on their own, combining analytical and critical thinking skills can lead to more robust solutions. This combination allows for a thorough analysis of a problem while also considering the broader implications and potential consequences of a decision.

Mistakes to Avoid: Misconceptions about Analytical and Critical Thinking

Many assume that analytical thinking and critical thinking are one and the same, but this is a misconception. It’s important to recognize their distinct differences and strengths. Another common mistake is over-relying on one style and neglecting the other, leading to potential oversights in decision-making.

Key Takeaways: The Future of Analytical and Critical Thinking

In summary, here are the most important things to remember:

• Distinct yet Complementary : While analytical and critical thinking have distinct processes and outcomes, they are complementary and can be used together for more effective decision-making.
• Real-world Applications : Both styles are essential in various aspects of life, from business decisions to personal choices.
• Continuous Learning : As the world becomes more complex, honing both analytical and critical thinking skills will be crucial for success.

Embrace both styles of thinking and watch as your decision-making skills, problem-solving abilities, and overall understanding of complex situations improve dramatically.

Q: What is the difference between critical thinking and analytical thinking?

A: Critical thinking and analytical thinking are similar thinking skills, but there are some differences between the two. Critical thinking involves gathering information, evaluating and interpreting it, and then making a judgment or decision based on that information. Analytical thinking, on the other hand, focuses more on breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and coming up with solutions based on this analysis. So while both skills involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking, critical thinking is more focused on making judgments and decisions, whereas analytical thinking is more focused on problem-solving and analysis.

Q: How do I use critical thinking in everyday life?

A: Critical thinking is a valuable skill that can be applied in various aspects of everyday life. To use critical thinking, you need to approach situations and problems with an open and questioning mind. This involves challenging your own assumptions and beliefs, gathering and evaluating information from different sources, considering alternative perspectives, and making informed decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. By using critical thinking, you can enhance your problem-solving skills, improve your decision-making abilities , and think more creatively and independently.

Q: How do I use analytical thinking in my professional life?

A: Analytical thinking is an important skill in many professional fields. To use analytical thinking, you need to be able to break down complex problems or tasks into smaller parts, analyze the relationships between these parts, and come up with logical and well-reasoned solutions. This involves gathering and evaluating relevant data, identifying patterns or trends, and using logical reasoning to draw conclusions. By using analytical thinking, you can improve your problem-solving and decision-making abilities, demonstrate a logical and organized approach to your work, and effectively communicate your analysis and solutions to others.

Q: Can critical thinking and analytical thinking be used together?

A: Yes, critical thinking and analytical thinking are complementary skills that can be used together. Both skills involve a systematic and logical approach to thinking, and they can reinforce each other in problem-solving and decision-making processes. Critical thinking provides the framework for evaluating and interpreting information, while analytical thinking provides the tools for breaking down complex problems and finding solutions. By using both skills together, you can enhance your ability to think critically and analytically, make more informed decisions, and solve problems more effectively.

Q: What are the differences between analytical reasoning and critical thinking?

A: Analytical reasoning and critical thinking are related skills that involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking. However, there are some differences between the two. Analytical reasoning is more focused on the process of breaking down complex problems or arguments, identifying logical relationships between different elements, and drawing conclusions based on this analysis. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a broader skill that involves evaluating and interpreting information, questioning assumptions and biases, and making judgments or decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. While analytical reasoning is an important part of critical thinking, critical thinking encompasses a wider range of cognitive processes and skills.

Q: How can I develop and improve my analytical thinking skills?

A: To develop and improve your analytical thinking skills, you can engage in activities that stimulate your logical and problem-solving abilities. This may involve practicing with puzzles and brainteasers, analyzing case studies or real-life scenarios, participating in debates or discussions, learning and applying different analytical frameworks or models, and seeking feedback on your analytical thinking from others. Additionally, you can also cultivate your analytical thinking skills by staying curious, asking thoughtful questions, and continuously seeking new knowledge and perspectives. With practice and perseverance, you can enhance your analytical thinking abilities and become a more effective problem solver and decision maker.

Q: How can I become a critical thinker?

A: Becoming a critical thinker requires a conscious effort to develop and refine your thinking skills. Here are some steps you can take to become a critical thinker : 1. Cultivate intellectual humility and open-mindedness: Be willing to consider alternative viewpoints and challenge your own assumptions and beliefs. 2. Develop strong analytical and reasoning skills: Learn to gather and evaluate evidence, identify logical fallacies, and draw logical and well-supported conclusions. 3. Practice active listening and effective communication: Listen attentively to others’ perspectives, ask thoughtful questions, and communicate your own ideas clearly and persuasively. 4. Seek out diverse sources of information: Expose yourself to different perspectives and viewpoints to broaden your understanding and avoid bias. 5. Reflect and evaluate your own thinking: Regularly reflect on your own thinking processes, identify any biases or logical gaps, and work on improving your critical thinking skills.

Q: What role does critical thinking play in problem-solving?

A: Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in problem-solving. It helps you approach problems with a logical and systematic mindset, evaluate potential solutions, and make informed decisions. Critical thinking allows you to gather and analyze relevant information, identify patterns or trends, consider different perspectives or alternatives, weigh the pros and cons, and choose the most effective solution. By using critical thinking in problem-solving, you can enhance your ability to find creative and innovative solutions, overcome obstacles, and make well-informed decisions that are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

Q: Why is critical thinking important?

A: Critical thinking is important because it enables you to think independently, make informed decisions, solve problems effectively, and evaluate information and arguments critically. In a rapidly changing and complex world, critical thinking allows you to navigate through information overload, identify biases or misinformation, and make sense of a wide range of conflicting information. It also helps you develop a deep understanding of concepts and ideas, construct well-reasoned arguments, and communicate your thoughts effectively. In both personal and professional contexts, critical thinking is a valuable skill that empowers you to be a more effective and successful individual.

Q: How does analytical thinking contribute to problem-solving?

A: Analytical thinking is a key component of problem-solving. It involves breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and identifying patterns or trends. Analytical thinking helps you understand the underlying causes of problems, explore different possible solutions, and evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness. By using analytical thinking, you can approach problems in a structured and systematic way, make well-informed decisions, and find creative and innovative solutions. Analytical thinking provides a solid foundation for problem-solving, enabling you to effectively address challenges and find solutions in various domains.

Similar Posts

What is The Difference Between Leadership and Motivation?

Understanding the difference between leadership and motivation is the key to leading and motivating your team members. While both leadership and motivation are important for any workplace, which one’s more important? How do you know when what you’re doing is inspiring rather than condescending? So what is leadership vs motivation? Not sure which one is…

What is the Genetic Fallacy? (Genetic Fallacy Examples and Definition)

The Genetic Fallacy is a logical fallacy where the wrong origins of an idea are criticized as a way to dismiss the idea. This fallacy is often found in discussions about biology, politics and religion. In this post we will look through the genetic fallacy examples. What is a genetic fallacy? (definition) A genetic fallacy…

Why is self-motivation important and 11 tips to improve it?

Self-motivation is the single most important factor in deciding if you are doing your best or not. Motivation is essential for achieving success, yet the majority of people have trouble increasing it to the level needed for them to succeed. These 11 steps will help you get motivated and likeable so that you are reaching…

Is self-confidence the same as self-esteem?

Understanding the difference between self-confidence and self-esteem can be a little confusing. Many people confuse the two and not understanding where they stand can lead to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem. However, it’s important to understand that they are not the same. Confidence is a certainty in yourself, while self-esteem is more about other…

The art of thinking before you act: 15 tips to respond rather than react

There is an art to thinking before you act is a skill that not many currently have. Learning the ability to respond rather than react is a way of elevating your emotional IQ and will earn you the respect of your peers. The benefits of this type of thinking can be seen in many different…

In the pursuit of greatness we failed to do good

After a while, we may forget what it is that made us great. Everything we’ve done is a stepping stone to something better and bigger than ourselves. It could be argued that sometimes this stepping stone turns into an abyss for some people and in turn destroys them through fame or success. We fall into…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

3 Modes Of Thinking: Lateral, Divergent & Convergent Thought

Lateral thinking solves problems via a creative approach involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using traditional step-by-step logic.

3 Modes Of Thinking: Lateral, Divergent & Convergent Thought

by TeachThought Staff

TeachThought is about, more than anything else, human improvement.

A core tenet of humanity is our ability to think critically and with imagination and creativity. Therefore, it makes sense that our ability–and the decision to–do this consistently in some ways defines us as a species. Critical thinking, in part, involves simply avoiding cognitive biases .

See also What It Means To Think Critically

Further, it’s not a huge leap to say that the ability and tendency to think critically and carefully and creatively supersedes content knowledge in importance, but that’s a discussion for another day. In general, it is our position that critical thinking is of huge importance for students, and as such is a big part of our content and mission at TeachThought.

In pursuit, the sketch note above from Sylvia Duckworth is a nice addition to that index of content. Sylvia has consistently done a great job converting ideas into simple visuals–on our 12 Rules Of Great Teaching , for example.

You can follow Sylvia on twitter here.

We’ve taken the visual and fleshed it out with some commentary from Wikipedia (a resource we love, by the way).

1. Convergent Thinking

Summary : Using logic

Also called:   Critical Thinking , Vertical Thinking, Analytical Thinking, Linear Thinking

Wikipedia Excerpt & Overview

‘Convergent thinking  is a term coined by Joy Paul Guilford’ (who also coined the term for the ‘opposite’ way of thinking, ‘Divergent Thinking’).

‘It generally means the ability to give the “correct” answer to standard questions that do not require significant creativity, for instance in most tasks in school and on standardized multiple-choice tests for intelligence.

Convergent thinking is often used in conjunction with divergent thinking. Convergent thinking is the type of thinking that focuses on coming up with the single, well-established answer to a problem. [1]  Convergent thinking is used as a tool in creative problem-solving. When an individual is using critical thinking to solve a problem they consciously use standards or probabilities to make judgments. [2]  This contrasts with divergent thinking where judgment is deferred while looking for and accepting many possible solutions.’

2. Divergent Thinking

Summary : Using imagination

Also called : Creative Thinking or Horizontal Thinking

‘Divergent thinking  is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions. It is often used in conjunction with its cognitive colleague, convergent thinking, which follows a particular set of logical steps to arrive at one solution, which in some cases is a ‘correct’ solution. By contrast, divergent thinking typically occurs in a spontaneous, free-flowing, ‘

By contrast, divergent thinking typically occurs in a spontaneous, free-flowing, ‘non-linear’ manner, such that many ideas are generated in an emergent cognitive fashion. Many possible solutions are explored in a short amount of time, and unexpected connections are drawn. After the process of divergent thinking has been completed, ideas and information are organized and structured using convergent thinking.’

3. Lateral Thinking

Summary : Using both Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Also called : ‘Thinking Outside the Box’

‘Lateral thinking  is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic. [1]

To understand lateral thinking, it is necessary to compare lateral thinking and critical thinking. Critical thinking is primarily concerned with judging the truth value of statements and seeking errors. Lateral thinking is more concerned with the “movement value” of statements and ideas. A person uses lateral thinking to move from one known idea to creating new ideas.’

TeachThought is an organization dedicated to innovation in education through the growth of outstanding teachers.

Critical Thinking vs Analytical Thinking: What’s the Difference?

What is critical thinking, what is analytical thinking, traits of critical thinkers, traits of analytical thinkers, for example, why are critical thinking and analytical skills important, how to develop a critical thinking and analytical mind , critical thinking vs analytical thinking faqs.

Other Related Blogs

• Curious:  They possess a natural curiosity and an insatiable desire to learn and understand. They constantly ask questions and seek deeper knowledge.
• Structured Problem-Solving :  Analytical thinkers approach problems systematically. They break down complex issues into smaller, manageable components for thorough analysis.
• Data-driven:  They rely on data and evidence to support their conclusions. Data analysis is a key aspect of their decision-making process.
• Critical Evaluation:  They critically assess the quality and reliability of information sources. They are discerning about the credibility of data.
• Logical Reasoning:  They employ logical reasoning to connect facts and deduce insights. Their arguments are based on sound logic.

• Questioning Attitude:  Critical thinkers question assumptions, statements, and conventional wisdom. They challenge ideas to seek deeper understanding.
• Open-Minded:  They maintain an open mind, considering multiple perspectives and being receptive to new information.
• Problem-Solving:  Critical thinkers approach problems by examining all angles, evaluating evidence, and identifying the best possible solutions.
• Inquisitive:  They have a natural curiosity and an appetite for knowledge. They are motivated to dig deeper into subjects.
• Emotional Intelligence :  They are attuned to emotions, both their own and those of others. This awareness helps them understand human behavior and reactions.

Critical Thinking vs Analytical Thinking for Managers

• A retail store manager might use analytical thinking skills to analyze sales data to identify patterns and trends. For example, they might examine sales data to determine which products are selling well and at what times of day or year. They might then use this information to adjust inventory levels, schedule staff, or develop marketing campaigns to capitalize on trends. 
• A manager might use analytical thinking skills to analyze financial data to identify cost savings or revenue growth opportunities. For example, they might analyze expense data to identify areas where costs are higher than expected and develop strategies to reduce them. They might also analyze sales data to identify opportunities to expand into new markets or increase revenue from existing customers. 
• A manager might use critical thinking skills to evaluate competing proposals for a new project. For example, they might consider each proposal based on feasibility, cost, the potential impact on the organization, and alignment with its strategic goals. They might then use this evaluation to make an informed decision about which proposal to pursue. 
• A manager might use critical thinking skills to evaluate the performance of individual employees or teams. For example, they might evaluate employee performance based on factors such as productivity, quality of work, and adherence to company policies and procedures. They might then use this evaluation to decide on promotions, training, development, or disciplinary action. 
• Bullying managers and How to identify one? 10 signs
• 6 Hacks to Master Persuasive Communication for Managers (with Examples)
• Assertive communication styles: Learn about your communication style as a manager
• Maximizing Results: How to Conduct an Effective Employee Commitment Survey?
• 6 Effective Ways to Build Time Management Skills as a Manager
• Skip Level Meetings – What are They and How to Use Them Effectively?
• Building Teams with a Collaborative Leadership Style: All You Need to Know
• Boosting Performance With Self Managing Teams Understand With 3 Examples
• Changing Company Culture Requires a Movement Not a Mandate: 5 Key Steps
• The Top 5 Prioritization Techniques to Help you Become a Pro at Work!
• Effective problem-solving: Critical thinking and analytical skills are essential for identifying, analyzing, and solving complex problems. By breaking down problems into smaller parts and evaluating each part objectively, individuals can develop effective solutions to complex problems .
• Improved decision-making: Critical thinking and analytical skills help individuals make well-informed decisions by evaluating and synthesizing information from multiple sources. By objectively assessing information, individuals can make decisions based on evidence rather than biases or emotions.
• Increased creativity: Analytical thinking skills can help individuals identify patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, leading to creative problem-solving and innovative solutions.
• Better communication: Critical thinking skills help individuals evaluate the quality of arguments and evidence presented by others, leading to more transparent and effective communication .
• Success in the workplace: Employers value critical thinking and analytical skills because they enable individuals to be more effective problem-solvers and decision-makers, leading to better business outcomes and increased success.

• Ask questions: Ask questions to clarify information, evaluate evidence, and challenge assumptions. This helps you better understand the information and think more critically about it.
• Seek out diverse perspectives: Engage with people who have different backgrounds and experiences from your own. This helps you to see problems from different angles and gain new insights.
• Evaluate sources: Practice evaluating the credibility of sources, such as news articles or research studies. This helps you develop a critical eye and avoid being swayed by false information.
• Practice active listening: When engaging in conversation, try to listen to others and truly understand their perspectives. This helps you to evaluate information objectively and avoid making assumptions.
• Practice problem-solving: Regularly engage in problem-solving activities like puzzles or brain teasers. This helps you to develop your analytical skills and practice thinking creatively.
• Practice analyzing data: Analyze data from different sources and identify patterns or trends. This helps you to develop your analytical skills and practice thinking critically about information.
• Reflect on your thinking: Regularly reflect on your thinking processes and evaluate how you approach problems or make decisions. This helps you identify improvement areas and develop better critical thinking habits.
• Seek feedback: Ask for feedback from others on your critical thinking and analytical skills. This helps you to identify areas where you can improve and develop new strategies for thinking more critically.
• Practice decision-making: Practice decision making based on evidence and logical reasoning rather than emotions or biases. This helps you to develop more effective decision-making skills.
• Engage in a debate: Participate in debates or discussions where you are challenged to defend your position and evaluate opposing arguments. This helps you to practice critical thinking and develop more effective communication skills.

Test your critical thinking skills for free!

Start the free critical thinking skills assessment for managers .

Is analyzing a critical thinking skill?

Can you be both an analytical and critical thinker, how can i be critical and analytical .

Critical Thinking Training For Managers Simplified

6 steps to beat common critical thinking barriers at work, how to develop the 8 conceptual skills every manager needs, 7 ways to develop critical thinking skills as a manager.

Creative Thinking vs. Critical Thinking: Unleashing the Power of Both

Annie Walls

Creative thinking and critical thinking are two essential cognitive skills that play a crucial role in problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. While creative thinking involves generating new ideas, thinking outside the box, and exploring unconventional solutions, critical thinking focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and making logical judgments. Both thinking styles have their unique characteristics and benefits. However, the true power lies in the synergy of creative and critical thinking. By combining these two approaches, individuals can enhance their problem-solving skills, promote innovation, and foster growth. In this article, we will explore the definitions, characteristics, and benefits of both creative and critical thinking, and discuss practical strategies for developing these skills and integrating them in education.

Key Takeaways

• Creative thinking involves generating new ideas and exploring unconventional solutions.
• Critical thinking focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and making logical judgments.
• The synergy of creative and critical thinking enhances problem-solving skills.
• Combining creative and critical thinking promotes innovation and growth.
• Practical strategies can be used to develop and integrate creative and critical thinking skills in education.

Understanding Creative Thinkin

Defining creative thinking.

Creative thinking is the ability to generate new and innovative ideas, solutions, and perspectives. It involves thinking outside the box and challenging traditional ways of thinking. Creativity is a key driver of innovation and can lead to breakthrough ideas that can transform industries and solve complex problems. It is a dynamic and fluid process that requires an open mind and a willingness to explore different possibilities.

In the context of this article, creative thinking refers to the cognitive skills and mindset that enable individuals to come up with original and unconventional ideas. It is about pushing boundaries and embracing uncertainty to find unique solutions to challenges. Creative thinkers are often characterized by their curiosity , imagination , and willingness to take risks .

To better understand the concept of creative thinking, let's take a look at the following table that highlights some key characteristics of creative thinkers:

It is important to note that creative thinking is not limited to artistic or creative fields. It is a valuable skill that can be applied in any profession or industry. By cultivating creative thinking skills, individuals can enhance their problem-solving abilities, generate innovative ideas, and contribute to the growth and success of their organizations.

Characteristics of Creative Thinkers

Creative thinkers possess a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from others. They are known for their ability to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to problems. Curiosity is a key trait of creative thinkers, as they are constantly seeking new knowledge and experiences. They are also open-minded and willing to consider different perspectives and ideas. Additionally, creative thinkers are often risk-takers , unafraid to take chances and explore unconventional paths. They are flexible and adaptable, able to adjust their thinking and approach as needed. Finally, creative thinkers are persistent and determined, willing to overcome obstacles and continue pursuing their ideas.

Benefits of Creative Thinking

Creative thinking offers numerous benefits that can enhance various aspects of our lives. It allows us to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to problems. Creativity also promotes flexibility and adaptability , enabling us to navigate through challenges and embrace change. Additionally, creative thinking fosters self-expression and individuality , allowing us to express our unique perspectives and ideas. It encourages collaboration and teamwork , as it often involves bouncing ideas off others and building upon each other's creativity. Moreover, creative thinking can lead to personal growth and fulfillment , as it provides a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when we create something new and meaningful.

Exploring Critical Thinking

Defining critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate information objectively and independently. It involves questioning assumptions, considering multiple perspectives, and making reasoned judgments based on evidence. Critical thinking is a key skill in problem-solving, decision-making, and effective communication. It helps individuals to identify biases, logical fallacies, and faulty reasoning, enabling them to make informed and rational choices. In order to develop critical thinking skills, it is important to practice active listening, ask probing questions, and seek out diverse sources of information. By cultivating critical thinking, individuals can become more discerning and analytical thinkers, capable of navigating complex issues and arriving at well-reasoned conclusions.

Here are some practical strategies for enhancing critical thinking:

• Question assumptions : Challenge preconceived notions and examine underlying assumptions.
• Consider multiple perspectives : Seek out diverse viewpoints and evaluate different arguments.
• Evaluate evidence : Assess the quality and reliability of information and sources.
• Identify biases : Recognize personal biases and strive for objectivity.
• Apply logical reasoning : Use logical and rational thinking to analyze and solve problems.

Remember, critical thinking is not about being critical for the sake of it, but rather about being thoughtful, analytical, and open-minded in our approach to information and ideas.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers possess several key characteristics that set them apart. They are analytical and have a strong ability to evaluate information and arguments. They are also curious and have a desire to seek out new knowledge and perspectives. Critical thinkers are open-minded and willing to consider different viewpoints, even if they conflict with their own. They are skeptical and question assumptions and beliefs, looking for evidence and logical reasoning. Additionally, critical thinkers are reflective and take the time to analyze their own thinking and decision-making processes.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking has numerous benefits that can positively impact various aspects of life. It allows individuals to analyze information objectively and make informed decisions. Problem-solving is one of the key skills developed through critical thinking. By critically evaluating different options and considering various perspectives, individuals can find effective solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking also enhances communication skills , as it encourages individuals to articulate their thoughts and ideas clearly and logically. Additionally, critical thinking promotes creativity by challenging individuals to think outside the box and explore innovative solutions.

The Synergy of Creative and Critical Thinking

Complementary nature of creative and critical thinking.

Creative thinking and critical thinking are not opposing forces, but rather complementary skills that work together to enhance problem-solving and promote innovation and growth. While creative thinking involves generating new ideas, thinking outside the box, and exploring possibilities, critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information, reasoning logically, and making informed decisions.

When combined, these two thinking styles create a powerful synergy that allows individuals to approach problems from multiple perspectives and find innovative solutions. By leveraging creative thinking to generate a wide range of ideas and critical thinking to evaluate and refine those ideas, individuals can develop more effective problem-solving skills.

In addition, the complementary nature of creative and critical thinking is essential for promoting innovation and growth. Creative thinking allows individuals to envision new possibilities and challenge the status quo, while critical thinking ensures that these ideas are carefully evaluated and implemented in a practical and effective manner.

To fully unleash the power of both creative and critical thinking, individuals and organizations can implement practical strategies such as brainstorming sessions, mind mapping, and design thinking to enhance creative thinking. Similarly, strategies such as analyzing data, conducting research, and engaging in logical reasoning can enhance critical thinking.

By integrating creative and critical thinking in education, students can develop a well-rounded set of thinking skills that will prepare them for future challenges and opportunities.

Enhancing Problem-Solving Skills

Enhancing problem-solving skills is crucial for individuals and organizations alike. It allows us to tackle complex challenges and find effective solutions. One important strategy for improving problem-solving skills is to analyze the problem thoroughly. By breaking down the problem into smaller components and examining each one, we can gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.

Another useful technique is to brainstorm multiple solutions. This involves generating a wide range of ideas without judgment or evaluation. By encouraging creativity and divergent thinking, we can uncover innovative approaches that may not have been initially apparent.

To ensure a structured approach, it can be helpful to use a table to organize and compare different solutions. This allows us to evaluate the pros and cons of each option and make informed decisions.

In addition, it is important to collaborate with others when solving problems. By leveraging the diverse perspectives and expertise of a team, we can generate more comprehensive solutions and avoid potential blind spots.

Remember, problem-solving is an iterative process. It is essential to iterate and refine our solutions based on feedback and new information. This continuous improvement mindset enables us to adapt and find better solutions over time.

As Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." By embracing creative and critical thinking, we can enhance our problem-solving skills and unlock new possibilities for growth and innovation.

Promoting Innovation and Growth

Promoting innovation and growth is a key outcome of combining creative and critical thinking. When these two thinking styles are integrated, individuals and organizations are able to approach challenges and opportunities with a holistic perspective. By leveraging creative thinking, new ideas and possibilities are generated, while critical thinking helps evaluate and refine these ideas to ensure their feasibility and effectiveness.

To promote innovation and growth, it is important to create an environment that encourages both creative and critical thinking. This can be achieved by fostering a culture of open-mindedness, curiosity, and experimentation. Encouraging collaboration and diverse perspectives also plays a crucial role in promoting innovation, as it allows for the exchange of ideas and the identification of new possibilities.

In addition, organizations can implement structured processes and frameworks that facilitate the integration of creative and critical thinking. This includes establishing clear problem-solving methodologies, providing training and resources for developing these thinking skills, and creating opportunities for reflection and continuous improvement.

By promoting the synergy of creative and critical thinking, organizations can unlock their full potential for innovation and growth, leading to competitive advantage and success in today's dynamic and rapidly changing world.

Developing Creative and Critical Thinking Skills

Practical strategies for enhancing creative thinking.

There are several strategies that can help enhance creative thinking. One effective strategy is to embrace curiosity. Curiosity allows individuals to explore new ideas, ask questions, and seek out different perspectives. By being curious, individuals can uncover unique insights and connections that can lead to innovative solutions.

Another strategy is to encourage brainstorming . Brainstorming is a technique that involves generating a large number of ideas without judgment. This allows for the exploration of various possibilities and encourages out-of-the-box thinking.

Additionally, divergent thinking can be a valuable strategy. Divergent thinking involves generating multiple solutions or ideas to a problem. This approach encourages creativity by exploring different options and perspectives.

Lastly, taking breaks can also enhance creative thinking. Stepping away from a problem or task allows the mind to relax and recharge. This can lead to fresh insights and new perspectives when returning to the task at hand.

Practical Strategies for Enhancing Critical Thinking

When it comes to enhancing critical thinking skills, there are several effective strategies that can be implemented. These strategies are designed to help individuals develop their analytical and logical reasoning abilities, enabling them to make well-informed decisions and solve complex problems.

One practical strategy is to engage in active reading and reflection. This involves critically analyzing and evaluating the information presented in texts, articles, or research papers. By asking questions, identifying assumptions, and evaluating evidence, individuals can deepen their understanding and develop a more critical perspective.

Another strategy is to practice active listening and effective communication. By actively listening to others and engaging in meaningful discussions, individuals can challenge their own assumptions and broaden their perspectives. This not only enhances critical thinking but also promotes collaboration and the exchange of diverse ideas.

Additionally, seeking out diverse perspectives and alternative viewpoints is crucial for enhancing critical thinking. By exposing oneself to different opinions and considering multiple perspectives, individuals can develop a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues and avoid biases.

In summary, enhancing critical thinking requires active engagement, reflection, and seeking out diverse perspectives. By implementing these strategies, individuals can strengthen their analytical skills and become more effective problem solvers.

Integrating Creative and Critical Thinking in Education

Integrating creative and critical thinking in education is essential for fostering well-rounded and innovative individuals. By combining these two types of thinking, students are able to develop a holistic approach to problem-solving and decision-making. This integration allows students to think outside the box while also critically evaluating their ideas and solutions.

One practical strategy for integrating creative and critical thinking in education is through project-based learning. This approach encourages students to work on real-world problems and challenges, allowing them to apply both creative and critical thinking skills. By engaging in hands-on projects, students can explore different perspectives, generate innovative ideas, and analyze the effectiveness of their solutions.

Another effective strategy is to incorporate open-ended questions and discussions into the curriculum. This encourages students to think critically about complex issues and encourages them to explore multiple viewpoints. By engaging in thoughtful discussions, students can develop their analytical skills and learn to consider different perspectives and evidence.

Additionally, educators can promote the integration of creative and critical thinking by providing opportunities for reflection and self-assessment. By encouraging students to reflect on their thinking processes and evaluate the effectiveness of their solutions, educators can help students develop metacognitive skills and become more self-aware learners.

In summary, integrating creative and critical thinking in education is crucial for developing well-rounded individuals who can think innovatively and critically. By incorporating strategies such as project-based learning, open-ended discussions, and reflection, educators can empower students to become effective problem solvers and decision makers.

Developing creative and critical thinking skills is essential in today's fast-paced and ever-changing world. Whether you're a student, professional, or entrepreneur, the ability to think creatively and critically can give you a competitive edge and open doors to new opportunities. At Keynote Speaker James Taylor , we specialize in inspiring creative minds and helping individuals and organizations unlock their full potential . With our engaging and thought-provoking presentations, workshops, and coaching sessions, we empower individuals to tap into their creative genius and develop the critical thinking skills needed to thrive in the 21st century. Visit our website today to learn more about how we can help you unleash your creativity and enhance your problem-solving abilities.

In conclusion, both creative thinking and critical thinking are essential skills that complement each other in problem-solving and decision-making. While creative thinking allows us to generate innovative ideas and explore new possibilities, critical thinking helps us evaluate and analyze these ideas to make informed decisions. By harnessing the power of both types of thinking, individuals and organizations can unlock their full potential and achieve greater success. So, whether you are brainstorming new ideas or analyzing data, remember to embrace both creative and critical thinking to unleash your true potential.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between creative thinking and critical thinking.

Creative thinking involves generating new ideas, while critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating existing ideas.

Can someone be both a creative thinker and a critical thinker?

Yes, individuals can develop and utilize both creative and critical thinking skills.

How can creative thinking benefit problem-solving?

Creative thinking allows for innovative and out-of-the-box solutions to problems.

What are the characteristics of a creative thinker?

Characteristics of a creative thinker include open-mindedness, curiosity, and willingness to take risks.

How does critical thinking contribute to decision-making?

Critical thinking helps in analyzing and evaluating options to make informed and logical decisions.

Is it possible to enhance creative and critical thinking skills?

Yes, through practice, exposure to diverse perspectives, and adopting creative thinking techniques.

Popular Posts

Robert hannigan – the power of neurodiversity in innovation, cybersecurity, gchq and counter-intelligence #342.

Explore key insights on intelligence and decision-making from Professor Sir David Omand’s book, focusing on critical thinking and creativity.

Sam Dixon of Womble Bond Dickinson, The Evolving Role of Lawyers in the AI Era #341

John craske of cms, collaboration between humans and machines in the legal industry #340, jd meier of microsoft, productivity strategies for success #339, sir david omand, author of how spies think – 10 lessons in critical thinking #338, meilleur conférencier principal en teambuilding.

Les conférences virtuelles et les sommets peuvent être des moyens très efficaces pour inspirer, informer

James is a top motivational keynote speaker who is booked as a creativity and innovation keynote speaker, AI speaker , sustainability speaker and leadership speaker . Recent destinations include: Dubai , Abu Dhabi , Orlando , Las Vegas , keynote speaker London , Barcelona , Bangkok , Miami , Berlin , Riyadh , New York , Zurich , motivational speaker Paris , Singapore and San Francisco

Latest News

• 415.800.3059
• [email protected]
• Media Interviews
• Meeting Planners
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

FIND ME ON SOCIAL

© 2024 James Taylor DBA P3 Music Ltd.

Understanding the Interactions Between Emotion and Cognition

• APS 22nd Annual Convention (2010)
• Cognitive Psychology

What is the relationship between feeling and thinking — that is, between emotional processes and cognitive processes? How does this relationship affect how we attend to the world and how we govern our impulses? Participants in the symposium “Emotion-Cognition Interactions: Implications for Attentional Processes and Self-Regulation” at the APS 22nd Annual Convention attempted to answer these questions.

Greg Hajcak (Stony Brook University) discussed his research involving event-related potentials (ERPs, brain-wave responses measured by electroencephalography) that occur in response to emotionally arousing versus neutral pictures. Like previous research, Hajcak found that emotionally arousing stimuli elicit a P300 ERP response (a wave deflection beginning around 300 ms after a stimulus), which has been shown in previous research to be elicited by salient or unexpected stimuli (“oddballs”) among irrelevant or to-be-ignored stimuli. The P300 is thought to reflect cognitive functions of attention and updating of context to reflect new and unexpected information, and Hajcak’s finding — that the P300 response is elicited by emotionally arousing pictures — indicates that emotional stimuli are automatically processed as targets of attention. Building on these initial findings, Hajcak presented work further demonstrating that the P300 response to emotional stimuli can be modulated by manipulating stimulus meaning and attention, and how this response is abnormal among individuals with various forms of psychopathology.

L to R: Eddie Harmon-Jones, Greg Hajcak, Michael Inzlicht, Brandon J. Schmeichel

A common way of thinking about emotions is to fit them in a two-dimensional Valence-X-Arousal model. That is, emotions may be positive or negative, and they may be highly arousing or less arousing. The problem is that, using these two dimensions, it remains hard to further separate some emotions. For example, fear, anger, and disgust are all high-arousal negative emotions, yet they are obviously quite different in flavor. APS Fellow Eddie Harmon-Jones (Texas A&M University) presented a framework that adds a third dimension to this schema: motivational intensity — that is, the degree of motivation to approach or avoid a stimulus. Emotions that are high in motivational intensity are those that spur us toward a goal. Harmon-Jones and his colleagues have found that high-motivational-intensity emotions tend to narrow our focus of attention on a stimulus, promoting goal attainment — whether that goal is to gain a desired reward or to avoid a threat. On the other hand, emotions low in motivational intensity (such as sadness) tend to be after-the-fact responses to our success or failures in achieving our goals. The latter emotions promote reassessment, as well as openness to new opportunities in the future.

Michael Inzlicht (University of Toronto) and Brandon Schmeichel (Texas A&M University) shifted the focus from attentional processes to processes related to self-control. There is now an abundant literature supporting the idea that self-control behaves like a “limited resource” — people facing all kinds of self-control and executive function tasks perform worse when they have exerted their self-control muscles in a previous task.  Inzlicht presented research strongly suggesting that this effect is mediated by our emotions; specifically, the depletion of self-control may be a result of the dampening of negative emotion. Each of his experiments consisted of a depletion phase and then an emotion-elicitation phase, where he measured emotional responses with self-report, EEG, and measures of startle response. Results consistently suggest that exerting self-control causes people to feel less negative emotion, whether that be when they watch a frightening or sad movie, passively observe disturbing images, or receive negative feedback. The implication here is that exerting self-control can lead to depletion by a process that is akin to feeling less “pain” from the imagined consequences of giving in to temptation. For example, when we are presented with a tempting but fattening dessert, we may experience less pain from the imagined consequence of getting fat if our self-control has already been depleted in a previous task.

Schmeichel presented the opposite side of this coin — evidence that self-control depletion also temporarily increases the strength of our impulses and our perception of things that might be rewarding. In a series of experiments, Schmeichel and his colleagues found that exercising self-control increases approach motivation, and that it also facilitates the perception of stimuli that are reward-relevant (e.g., a dollar sign) and not those that are reward-irrelevant (e.g., a percent symbol).

thought provoking ,like to know more about self control

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

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Careers Up Close: Andy DeSoto on Optimism, Self-Awareness, and the Gratifying Work of Science Advocacy 

Cognitive psychologist Andy DeSoto was a key member of the APS staff for 7 years and leaves a legacy that includes a highly impactful government relations and policy program.

Trauma and Ukraine: The World Health Organization Leveraged Psychological Science to Help Prepare Us for This Moment  

Addressing a crisis like this means looking directly at the problem-solving needs that arise in times of war, danger, or difficulty and empowering ourselves to meet these needs.

Breaking the “Curse of Knowledge”: Older Adults’ Supposedly Reduced Theory of Mind Might Reflect Experimental Demands

Findings indicating a decline in older adults’ theory of mind abilities may have been exaggerated by the cognitive demands of certain experimental designs.

Privacy Overview

Cognitive vs Critical - What's the difference?

As adjectives the difference between cognitive and critical, as a noun critical is, related terms, derived terms, external links.

Key Difference

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking

Table of Contents

Introduction

As our world becomes more complex and quickly changing, the ability to think both critically and creatively is increasingly prized.

Both creative thinking and critical thinking play crucial roles in problem-solving, decision making, and innovation – though they should be understood separately with different approaches from each one bringing something unique to the table.

Creative thinking encompasses brainstorming novel ideas, exploring possibilities and thinking out of the box. It fosters imagination and intuition while building connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

On the other hand, critical thinking involves evaluating information, challenging assumptions and applying logical reasoning in assessing validity of arguments or evidence presented against one.

Understanding the differences between creative thinking and critical thinking is vital for unlocking their full cognitive potential.

By investigating their respective characteristics, processes, and outcomes we can gain a more in-depth knowledge of both types of thinking as well as their roles and how they complement one another.

This content outline seeks to clearly differentiate creative thinking and critical thinking by outlining their unique features, approaches, and applications.

By understanding their differences as well as examining how they may work together in various situations, we can foster more holistic thinking skill sets while improving problem-solving capabilities in various contexts.

Definition of creative thinking

Creative thinking refers to the cognitive process of coming up with novel and original ideas or solutions by exploring various perspectives, making connections between seemingly disparate elements, and thinking beyond conventional boundaries.

Divergent thinking plays a central role in creative thinking by providing multiple possibilities and exploring various approaches; creative thinking often relies on imagination, intuition, and risk-taking; it involves divergent thinking as well.

Creative thinking relies on flexible mindsets openness to new experiences as well as transcendence from established norms and patterns in its pursuit.

Creativity plays an essential part in problem-solving, innovation as well as the creation of artistic, scientific, technological breakthroughs.

Definition of critical thinking

Critical thinking refers to the mental process of analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information or situations logically and objectively.

Skillful reasoning involves being able to assess evidence objectively, identify logical fallacies, and apply reasoning skills in order to form rational judgements or conclusions.

Critical thinking involves critically analyzing assumptions, biases and arguments to ascertain the validity and reliability of information.

Critical thinking emphasizes evidence-based reasoning, logical consistency and being able to recognize and evaluate different perspectives or arguments in order to effectively solve problems, make informed decisions and form informed opinions across various domains – be they academic institutions, professional settings or daily life.

Comparison Table of Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking

Here’s a comparison table highlighting the key differences between creative thinking and critical thinking:

While creative thinking and critical thinking have distinct focuses and approaches, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can complement and enhance each other.

By integrating creative thinking into critical thinking processes, new and innovative solutions can be explored, and by applying critical thinking to creative ideas, their feasibility and effectiveness can be evaluated.

Understanding the differences and connections between creative thinking and critical thinking provides individuals with a broader thinking toolkit, enabling them to approach problems and challenges from multiple angles and make more informed decisions.

Creative thinking focuses on generating new ideas and possibilities

Creative thinking primarily centers on developing novel ideas and possibilities. To do this effectively, creative thinkers often break away from conventional patterns of thought by opening themselves up to different perspectives and engaging in divergent thinking, which involves coming up with multiple ideas or solutions for any given situation.

Divergent thinking allows creative thinkers to expand the range of possible options available while considering unconventional or innovative approaches.

Creative thinking involves the willingness to explore unfamiliar territories, question assumptions and push the limits of what is considered possible.

This type of thinking encourages imagination, brainstorming and free association of ideas in order to generate fresh insights and unique solutions – the goal being originality, novelty and creativity in problem-solving decisions as well as art, literature, design or innovation projects.

Creative thinking unleashes new possibilities by sparking creative thought processes that produce fresh concepts.

Creative thinking paves the way for exploration and innovation, helping individuals to find unconventional solutions, uncover groundbreaking discoveries, and produce lasting impacts.

Critical thinking focuses on analyzing and evaluating information

Critical thinking involves the analysis and evaluation of information. This involves thoroughly scrutinizing evidence, arguments or situations to ascertain their validity, reliability and logical coherence before reaching informed judgments or decisions based on objective reasoning. Critical thinkers strive to use objective and rational analyses in making well-informed judgements or decisions.

Critical thinking requires individuals to engage in an active process of questioning assumptions, identifying biases, assessing arguments or evidence critically and attempting to comprehend its underlying reasoning – whether logical, supported by evidence, or susceptible to fallacies.

Critical thinking involves applying logic, evidence evaluation and systematic analysis in an organized fashion to make informed decisions, avoid misinformation or manipulation and gain a more nuanced understanding of complex issues.

Critically evaluating information allows individuals to make more informed decisions by recognizing patterns, drawing inferences and recognizing logical inconsistencies – this skill involves skills such as data analysis, pattern recognition and inferencing; critically analyzing it provides opportunities for more informed decisions that avoid misinform or manipulation and increases understanding more nuanced understanding of complex issues by critically analyzing it!

Critical thinking has many applications in academia, professional settings and everyday life. It allows individuals to evaluate the credibility of sources, identify flaws in arguments and navigate complex or ambiguous situations with an analytical mindset.

Complementary Relationship Between Creative and Critical Thinking

Creativity and critical thinking do not contradict each other; in fact, they form a complementary relationship that can enhance problem-solving and decision-making processes. Creative thinking generates new ideas while critical thinking provides an analytical framework to evaluate and refine those concepts. Here are some ways creative and critical thinking can work together:

Idea Generation and Evaluation: Creative thinking fosters an array of concepts, while critical thinking enables evaluation and selection of those most likely to bear fruit. Critical thinking allows objective evaluation, identification of any flaws or potential defects, consideration of practicality and feasibility and ultimately determines success or failure of projects.

Problem Identification and Analysis: Creative thinking allows us to quickly recognize problems or challenges by approaching them from different angles and considering multiple viewpoints, while critical thinking allows for an in-depth examination of its underlying causes and possible solutions.

Innovative Solutions and Refinement: Creative thinking fosters original and novel solutions, while critical analysis assesses them on viability, potential shortcomings and practical constraints to make sure they align.

Decision-Making: Creative thinking can provide a variety of options; critical thinking helps evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. Critical thinking allows a systematic consideration of evidence, logic reasoning, potential consequences and other forms of evidence resulting in more informed and effective decision-making processes.

Adaptation and Improvement: Creative thinking allows for flexibility and adaptation in response to changing circumstances or feedback, while critical thinking helps identify areas for improvement, recognize potential pitfalls, and refine ideas or strategies based on evidence or feedback.

Individuals can achieve more comprehensive and effective problem-solving, innovation, and decision making by integrating creative and critical thinking. This combination encourages exploration while still remaining analytical; ultimately producing more robust outcomes.

Importance of integrating both types of thinking

Integrating both creative and critical thinking skills is of critical importance for various reasons:

Holistic Problem-Solving: By integrating creative and critical thinking, individuals can approach problems from various angles. Creative thinking generates fresh concepts, while critical analysis provides tools to evaluate and refine these new ideas. By taking this holistic approach to problem-solving, individuals increase the odds of finding effective and well-rounded solutions.

Critical Thinking Improves Decision-Making: Critical thinking allows individuals to assess the feasibility, reliability and coherence of ideas generated through creative thinking, thus aiding individuals in making more informed and evidence-based decisions while considering both imaginative possibilities as well as real world realities.

Adaptability and Innovation: Creative thinking promotes flexibility, adaptability and thinking beyond established norms; critical thinking adds structure for evaluating creative ideas against viability and effectiveness criteria. Combining both types of thinking enables innovative forward-looking approaches while remaining grounded by rationality and evidence.

Overcoming Challenges: Meeting obstacles and complex problems requires both creative and critical thinking skills, with creative thought producing innovative perspectives and solutions while critical analysis evaluates each option’s merits and drawbacks. Combining both types of thinking allows individuals to tackle problems more effectively while developing comprehensive strategies.

Transdisciplinary Thinking: Many complex real-world problems and projects necessitate multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches, where creative and critical thinking come together seamlessly to bring diverse fields, perspectives and methodologies together into a synthesis that fosters holistic understanding while also producing innovative and well-informed solutions. By merging creative and critical thinking approaches in such environments individuals are better able to draw from multiple fields, perspectives and methodologies in order to solve them successfully.

Lifelong Learning: Integrating creative and critical thinking fosters an attitude of curiosity, open-mindedness and continuous learning. Both forms of thinking involve actively engaging with information while questioning assumptions and exploring possibilities – these combined abilities equip individuals with valuable tools for lifelong education in an ever-evolving world.

By integrating creative and critical thinking, individuals can leverage both approaches for enhanced problem-solving, decision making, and creative endeavors.

Examples of how creative and critical thinking can work together

Absolutely! Below are a few examples of how creative and critical thinking work hand-in-hand:

Product Design: Creativity can lead to groundbreaking ideas for product designs, while critical analysis identifies any feasible, market demand or manufacturing challenges associated with each idea. By employing both aspects of thinking together, designers can produce products which fulfill both functional and creative criteria.

Scientific Research: Creative and critical thinking both play important roles in scientific inquiry. Creative thought can generate hypotheses and explore novel avenues of inquiry while critical thought ensures the research design is rigorous and data analysis valid. Integrating both types of thinking allows scientists to make groundbreaking discoveries while maintaining scientific integrity of their work.

Marketing Campaigns: Creative thinking provides imaginative and eye-catching marketing concepts, while critical analysis evaluates target audiences, market trends and potential effects of each concept. By combining creative with critical thinking, marketers can develop campaigns that not only catch attention but also resonate with target audiences to deliver desired outcomes.

Problem Solving in Business: Creative and critical thinking work together to generate many potential solutions to business issues, while creative thinkers generate numerous creative potential solutions while critical thinkers evaluate risks, costs and impacts of each solution.

By employing both types of thinking together, business professionals can come up with novel yet cost-effective strategies aligned with organizational goals.

Literary Analysis: Creative thinking allows for imaginative interpretations and exploration of themes and symbols within literature, while critical thinking assesses textual evidence, evaluates coherence of arguments, and considers author intent. When used together, literary scholars can produce sophisticated analyses of literary works that integrate creative and critical thought effectively.

Entrepreneurship: Creative thinking helps entrepreneurs identify new business opportunities and innovative business models, while critical analysis examines market potential, competitive landscape analysis and financial viability for each idea. By employing both forms of thinking to formulate successful ventures they can create sustainable and long-term ventures.

In these instances, the integration of creative and critical thinking leads to more robust and effective results. It allows innovative ideas to be evaluated, refined, and implemented logically and thoughtfully; ultimately resulting in solutions that are both innovative and pragmatic.

Creative and critical thinking are Complementary approaches to Problem-solving, decision-making and Innovation.

Creative thinking entails Brainstorming for new ideas while Exploring Possibilities; critical thinking uses objective evaluation of information to evaluate it logically and critically.

Integrating both types of thinking allows individuals to maximize both approaches and produce more comprehensive and effective results.

Creative thinking encourages innovation, broadens perspectives and fosters out-of-the-box thinking; critical thinking provides evidence-based analysis which verifies those ideas.

Integrating Creative and critical Thinking skills is crucial for both Personal and Professional growth, Adaptability, Informed decision-making, and the establishment of an environment of continuous learning and innovation.

Together these forms of thinking help individuals meet challenges with resilience, flexibility and balance that leads to improved problem-solving abilities, innovation and eventual success.

As part of your journey, embrace both creative thinking and critical thinking equally to unlock your full potential, broaden your horizons and lead you towards greater achievements in every area of life.

Recap of the key differences between creative thinking and critical thinking

Here’s an overview of the differences between creative thinking and critical thinking:

Creative Thinking: Engaging in creative thinking involves brainstorming new ideas, possibilities and solutions; emphasizing exploration, intuition and imagination; employing divergent thinking techniques in order to generate multiple solutions simultaneously; leading to innovative and original concepts.

Critical Thinking is used across artistic, scientific, and technological endeavors and emphasizes analysis, logic, and objectivity to assess information critically. Critical Thinking develops skills such as fluency, flexibility and originality of thinking that lead to positive results in any endeavor.

Eventually this leads to Critical Thinking being applied by experts in an academic environment for analysis purposes – typically this means writing essays for examination in exams! Utilizes convergent thinking to identify and select the optimal solutions, leading to informed decision-making and problem solving.

Also used for problem-solving, decision-making, and critical evaluation of information. Develops analytical, logical and evaluative skills. Though creative thinking and critical thinking may have different approaches and purposes, both types are equally essential in terms of effective problem-solving and decision making.

By integrating both types of thinking, individuals are better able to approach challenges from various angles, generate innovative ideas while critically assessing them for successful outcomes.

Importance of developing both types of thinking skills

Strengthening both creative thinking and critical thinking abilities is of great significance, for several reasons:

Comprehensive Problem Solving: Cultivating both types of thinking allows individuals to approach problems from multiple angles. Creative thinking helps generate innovative solutions while critical thinking provides analytical tools for evaluating and refining those ideas.

Combined together, this holistic approach enhances problem-solving abilities while increasing chances of finding effective and comprehensive solutions.

Adaptability and Resilience: In an ever-evolving world, being adaptable and creative are two vital skills. Creative thinking promotes flexibility, adaptability, and thinking outside established norms; critical thinking equips individuals with skills for evaluating creative ideas critically.

By cultivating both types of thinking simultaneously, individuals can more successfully navigate complex or changing situations with resilience and creativity.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Innovation and entrepreneurialism require creative thinking skills for success. Individuals who cultivate these abilities are better able to generate new ideas, identify opportunities, and think outside the box when developing products, services or solutions with innovative features or capabilities.

Meanwhile, critical thinking helps evaluate market potential and risks associated with such ideas – all essential elements for innovation and entrepreneurialism success.

Critical Thinking Skills Are Essential to Informed Decision-Making: Critical thinking skills are integral in making informed and effective decisions. Cultivating them allows individuals to evaluate evidence, consider opposing viewpoints and evaluate logical coherence of arguments; creative thinking adds variety and imagination that enables informed decisions with both practical and innovative potential in mind.

Personal and Professional Growth: Fostering creative and critical thinking abilities is central to personal and professional growth. Creative thinking develops imagination, open-mindedness and the capacity for forward-thinking; while critical thinking expands analytical, logical and evaluative capabilities.

Both skills can be utilized across various domains as transferrable assets that aid problem-solving, innovative thinking and lifelong learning.

As previously discussed, developing both creative thinking and critical thinking abilities is fundamental for effective problem-solving, adaptability, innovation, informed decision-making and personal growth.

By honing both forms of thinking simultaneously, individuals can approach challenges with an adaptive and balanced mindset for greater success and satisfaction across various aspects of life.

Encouragement for readers to embrace and cultivate both thinking approaches

As readers, I urge all to embrace and develop both creative thinking and critical thinking approaches. Doing so can open up new possibilities, enhance problem-solving abilities, and lead to greater success across various areas of life.

Here’s why both approaches should be explored:

Expand Your Perspectives: Embracing both creative and critical thinking will enable you to look at problems and opportunities from different angles. Creative thinking offers fresh approaches and imaginative solutions; critical analysis provides objective evaluation. By adopting both approaches simultaneously, your perspective broadens considerably while you gain greater insight into complex issues.

Creativity Fuels Innovation and Growth: Creativity is essential to innovation, driving both personal and professional success. By challenging conventional thinking patterns and considering unique solutions for issues that arise.

Critical Thinking serves to validate those unique concepts by making sure they’re practical, viable and well-reasoned; cultivating both ways of thinking will allow you to foster innovation while propelling you toward continuous development and success.

Enhance Problem-Solving Capabilities: Integrating creative and critical thinking creates an invaluable problem-solving arsenal. Creative thinking helps generate ideas, while critical thinking evaluates and refines them using evidence and logic – this combination gives you a powerful set of tools for taking on challenges effectively and finding lasting solutions.

Navigating Change with Resilience: In an ever-evolving world, adaptability is of the utmost importance. Creative thinking teaches you the ability to accept change with open arms, adapt with the times, and seize new opportunities with flexibility and curiosity.

Critical thinking complements this by making sure decisions are grounded in evidence and sound reasoning; together these approaches help you navigate uncertainties with grace and welcome change with resilience.

Making Informed Decisions: Critical thinking helps you assess information objectively, evaluate arguments fairly and make well-informed decisions. Creative thinking opens up more options and possibilities.

By combining both approaches together, you become a more thoughtful decision-maker who considers both innovative ideas as well as practical concerns when making choices.

Never stop working towards improving both creative and critical thinking abilities; it is a journey worth embarking upon. So nurture your curiosity, practice brainstorming sessions, seek diverse viewpoints, sharpen analytical abilities, embrace discomfort when exploring new ideas or challenging assumptions, cultivating both forms of thinking can unlock full cognitive potential while positioning you for success in an ever-evolving world.

Harness the power of creative and critical thinking together and allow them to drive you toward greater creativity, innovation, and success.

Related Posts

• Create account
• Beginner Spanish
• Intermediate Spanish
• Administrators
• Sube Method
• Sube Online

Try the Sube Kit Risk Free with Our 30 Day Money Back Guarantee

Reflective Thinking vs. Critical Thinking - What's the Difference?

March 28, 2013

Sometimes a simple internet search of a term that I am using repeatedly in my work can lead to new insights. During a lively conversation with friends analyzing the challenges of teaching and learning a language, we talked about the need to shift from memorizing and rote learning to reflective thinking and critical thinking. In the dialogue, the question came up of whether reflective thinking in the U.S. culture manifests differently than reflecting thinking in Asia, and we started questioning our own definitions of reflective and critical thinking. So I looked up some definitions. Below is my favorite posted on the University of Hawaii website, and including some classroom tips. I think the definitions are a great resource in themselves. Gets you thinking! What is reflective thinking?

• The description of reflective thinking: Critical thinking and reflective thinking are often used synonymously. Critical thinking is used to describe: "... the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome...thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed - the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. Critical thinking is sometimes called directed thinking because it focuses on a desired outcome." Halpern (1996).

Reflective thinking, on the other hand, is a part of the critical thinking process referring specifically to the processes of analyzing and making judgments about what has happened. Dewey (1933) suggests that reflective thinking is an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge, of the grounds that support that knowledge, and the further conclusions to which that knowledge leads. Learners are aware of and control their learning by actively participating in reflective thinking – assessing what they know, what they need to know, and how they bridge that gap – during learning situations.

In summary, critical thinking involves a wide range of thinking skills leading toward desirable outcomes and reflective thinking focuses on the process of making judgments about what has happened. However, reflective thinking is most important in prompting learning during complex problem-solving situations because it provides students with an opportunity to step back and think about how they actually solve problems and how a particular set of problem solving strategies is appropriated for achieving their goal. Characteristics of environments and activities that prompt and support reflective thinking:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Reflective_thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

← Older Post Newer Post →

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published

Immediate Versus Delayed Low-Stakes Questioning: Encouraging the Testing Effect Through Embedded Video Questions to Support Students’ Knowledge Outcomes, Self-Regulation, and Critical Thinking

• Original research
• Open access
• Published: 30 July 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Joseph T. Wong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1890-6284 1 ,
• Lindsey Engle Richland 1 &
• Bradley S. Hughes 2  

In light of the educational challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing need to bolster online science teaching and learning by incorporating evidence-based pedagogical principles of Learning Experience Design (LXD). As a response to this, we conducted a quasi-experimental, design-based research study involving nN  = 183 undergraduate students enrolled across two online classes in an upper-division course on Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at a large R1 public university. The study extended over a period of 10 weeks, during which half of the students encountered low-stakes questions immediately embedded within the video player, while the remaining half received the same low-stakes questions after viewing all the instructional videos within the unit. Consequently, this study experimentally manipulated the timing of the questions across the two class conditions. These questions functioned as opportunities for low-stakes content practice and retention, designed to encourage learners to experience testing effect and augment the formation of their conceptual understanding. Across both conditions, we assessed potential differences in total weekly quiz grades, page views, and course participation among students who encountered embedded video questions. We also assessed students’ self-report engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking. On average, the outcomes indicated that learners exposed to immediate low-stakes questioning exhibited notably superior summative quiz scores, increased page views, and enhanced participation in the course. Additionally, those who experienced immediate questioning demonstrated heightened levels of online engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking. Moreover, our analysis delved into the intricate interplay between treatment conditions, learners’ self-regulation, critical thinking, and quiz grades through a multiple regression model. Notably, the interaction between those in the immediate questioning condition and self-regulation emerged as a significant factor, suggesting that the influence of immediate questioning on quiz grades varies based on learners’ self-regulation abilities. Collectively, these findings highlight the substantial positive effects of immediate questioning of online video lectures on both academic performance and cognitive skills within an online learning context. This discussion delves into the potential implications for institutions to continually refine their approach in order to effectively promote successful online science teaching and learning, drawing from the foundations of pedagogical learning experience design paradigms and the testing effect model.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impact of question presence and interactivity in instructional videos on student learning

Fostering engaging online learning experiences: Investigating situational interest and mind-wandering as mediators through learning experience design

First-year university students' self-regulated learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative longitudinal study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

A recurring concern in traditional in-person and online courses deployed is how best to maintain and sustain learners’ engagement throughout the learning process. When considering the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, these concerns are further exacerbated by competing introductions of “edtech” tools that were deployed in urgency to facilitate teaching and learning during a time of crisis learning context. That is not to say that introducing “edtech” tools did not aid in supporting students’ learning trajectories during this period of time, but a major concern currently is a widespread deployment of “edtech solutions’’ without proper alignment with evidence-based pedagogical learning frameworks (Asad et al., 2020 ; Chick et al., 2020 ; Sandars et al., 2020 ) and whether or not the tools being deployed were having the intended supporting learning effect on students. Between 2020 and 2022, the United States government distributed $58.4 billion dollars through the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund to public universities which spent more than $1.2 billion on distance learning technologies (EDSCOOP, 2023 ; O’leary & June, 2023 ). Educational technology spending by universities included expenditures on software licenses, hardware (such as computers and tablets), learning management systems (LMS), online course development tools, audio-visual equipment, digital content, and various technology-related services to name a few. In light of the considerable resources dedicated to distance learning in recent years, the need to discern how to employ these “edtech tools’’ in a manner that is meaningful, impactful, and grounded in evidence-based pedagogies has grown substantially.

Higher education has been grappling with a myriad of technologies to deploy in order to support the exponential increase of undergraduates enrolled in online courses. Data from the United States in the fall of 2020 indicate that approximately 11.8 million (75%) undergraduate students were enrolled in at least one distance learning course, while 7.0 million (44%) of undergraduates exclusively took distance education courses (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022 ). In the Fall of 2021 with the return to in-person instruction, about 75% of all postsecondary degree seekers in the U.S. took at least some online classes with around 30% studying exclusively online (NCES, 2022 ). In the aftermath of the pandemic, the proportion of students engaged in online courses has declined to 60%. Nevertheless, this figure remains notably higher than the levels seen in the pre-pandemic era (NCES, 2022 ). To meet the increasing demand, universities possess substantial opportunities to explore effective strategies for enhancing the online learning experiences of undergraduate students. However, it’s important to note that merely introducing new tools into instructors’ technological toolkit may not be enough to foster impactful teaching and learning.

To address these concerns, this study employs a quasi-experimental design, implementing embedded video questions into an asynchronous undergraduate Biology course, anchored in the Learning Experience Design (LXD) pedagogical paradigm. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of the embedded video question assessment platform, utilizing video technologies and employing design-based research (DBR) methodologies to evaluate practical methods for fostering active learning in online educational settings. While video content integration in education is recognized as valuable for capturing learners’ attention and delivering complex concepts (Wong et al., 2023 , 2024 ), passive consumption of videos may not fully harness their potential to promote active learning and deeper engagement (Mayer, 2017 , 2019 ). Embedded video questions provide an avenue to transform passive viewing into an interactive and participatory experience (Christiansen et al., 2017 ; van der Meij & Bӧckmann, 2021 ). By strategically embedding thought-provoking questions within video segments, educators can prompt students to reflect on the material, assess comprehension, and immediately evaluate conceptual understanding. Additionally, analyzing the timing and placement of these questions within a video lesson may yield valuable insights into their effectiveness of facilitating the testing effect, a process in which implementing low-stakes retrieval practice over a period of time can help learners integrate new information with prior knowledge (Carpenter, 2009 ; Littrell-Baez et al., 2015 ; Richland et al., 2009 ). Understanding how variations in timing influence student responses and comprehension levels can inform instructional strategies for optimizing the use of interactive elements in educational videos in fostering engagement and enhancing learning performance.

This study aimed to compare students who received low-stakes questions after watching a series of lecture videos with those who encountered questions immediately embedded within the video player. The objective was to identify differences in total weekly quiz scores, course engagement, as well as learning behaviors such as critical thinking and self-regulation over a span of 10 weeks. While previous studies have examined the efficacy of embedded video questions, few have considered the interrelation of these learning behaviors within the context of the Learning Experience Design (LXD) paradigm and the testing effect model for undergraduate science courses. These findings will contribute to a deeper understanding of evidence-based designs for asynchronous online learning environments and will help in evaluating the effectiveness of embedding video questions with regards to question timing within the LXD paradigm. Considering the increasing demand and substantial investment in online courses within higher education, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of a research-practice partnership in implementing embedded video questions into two courses. The ultimate aim is to determine whether this approach could serve as a scalable model for effectively meeting educational needs in the future.

2 Literature Review

2.1 learning experience design.

Learning Experience Design (LXD) encompasses the creation of learning scenarios that transcend the confines of traditional classroom settings, often harnessing the potential of online and educational technologies (Ahn, 2019 ). This pedagogical paradigm involves crafting impactful learning encounters that are centered around human needs and driven by specific objectives, aimed at achieving distinct learning results (Floor, 2018 , 2023 ; Wong & Hughes, 2022 ; Wong et al., 2024 ). LXD differs from the conventional pedagogical process of “instructional design,” which primarily focuses on constructing curricula and instructional programming for knowledge acquisition (Correia, 2021 ). Instead, LXD can be described as an interdisciplinary integration that combines principles from instructional design, pedagogical teaching approaches, cognitive science, learning sciences, and user experience design (Weigel, 2015 ). LXD extends beyond the boundaries of traditional educational settings, leveraging online and virtual technologies (Ahn, 2019 ). As a result, the primary focus of LXD is on devising learning experiences that are human-centered and geared toward specific outcomes (Floor, 2018 ; Wong & Hughes, 2022 ).

Practically, LXD is characterized by five essential components: Human-Centered Approach, Objective-Driven Design, Grounded in Learning Theory, Emphasis on Experiential Learning, and Collaborative Interdisciplinary Efforts (Floor, 2018 ). Taking a human-centered approach considers the needs, preferences, and viewpoints of the learners, resulting in tailored learning experiences where learners take precedence (Matthews et al., 2017 ; Wong & Hughes, 2022 ). An objective-driven approach to course design curates learning experiences that are intentionally structured to align specific objectives, making every learning activity purposeful and pertinent to support students’ learning experiences (Floor, 2018 ; Wong et al., 2022 ). LXD also is grounded in learning theories, such that the design process is informed by evidence-based practices drawn from cognitive science and learning sciences (Ahn et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, LXD places a large emphasis on experiential learning where active and hands-on learning techniques, along with real-world applications, facilitate deeper understanding and retention (Floor, 2018 , 2023 ; Wong et al., 2024 ). Lastly, LXD is interdisciplinary, bringing together professionals from diverse backgrounds, including instructional designers, educators, cognitive scientists, and user experience designers, to forge comprehensive and well-rounded learning experiences (Weigel, 2015 ). Each of these facets underscores the significance of empathy, where both intended and unintended learning design outcomes are meticulously taken into account to enhance learners’ experiences (Matthews et al., 2017 ; Wong & Hughes, 2022 ). Consequently, LXD broadens the scope of learning experiences, enabling instructors and designers to resonate with learners and enrich the repertoire of learning design strategies (Ahn et al., 2019 ; Weigel, 2015 ), thus synergizing with the utilization of video as a powerful tool for teaching and learning online. In tandem with the evolving landscape of educational practices, LXD empowers educators to adapt and enhance their methodologies, fostering successful and enriched learning outcomes (Ahn, 2019 ; Floor, 2018 , 2023 ; Wong et al., 2022 ), while also embracing the dynamic potential of multimedia educational technologies like video in delivering effective and engaging instructional content.

2.2 Video as a Tool for Teaching and Learning

Video and multimedia educational technologies have been broadly used as “edtech tools” tools for teaching and learning over the last three decades during in-person instruction and especially now with online learning modalities (Cruse, 2006 ; Mayer, 2019 ). Educational videos, also referred to as instructional or explainer videos, serve as a modality for delivering teaching and learning through audio and visuals to demonstrate or illustrate key concepts being taught. Multiple researchers have found evidence for the affordances of video-based learning, citing benefits including reinforcement in reading and lecture materials, aiding the development of common base knowledge for students, enhancing comprehension, providing greater accommodations for diverse learning preferences, increasing student motivations, and promoting teacher effectiveness (Corporate Public Broadcasting [CPB], 1997 , 2004 ; Cruse, 2006 ; Kolas, 2015 ; Wong et al., 2023 ; Wong et al., 2024 ; Yousef et al., 2014 ). Proponents in the field of video research also cite specific video design features that aid in specifically supporting students’ learning experiences such as searching, playback, retrieval, and interactivity (Giannakos, 2013 ; Yousef et al., 2014 ; Wong et al., 2023b ). A study conducted by Wong et al. ( 2023b ) sheds light on the limitations of synchronous Zoom video lectures, based on a survey of more than 600 undergraduates during the pandemic. It underscores the advantages of the design of asynchronous videos in online courses, which may better accommodate student learning needs when compared to traditional synchronous learning (Wong et al., 2023b ). Mayer’s ( 2001 , 2019 ) framework for multimedia learning provides a theoretical and practical foundation for how video-based learning modalities can be used as cognitive tools to support students’ learning experiences. While some researchers have argued videos as a passive mode of learning, Mayer ( 2001 ) explains that viewing educational videos involves high cognitive activity that is required for active learning, but this can only occur through well-designed multimedia instruction that specifically fosters cognitive processing in learners, even though learners may seem or appear to be behaviorally inactive (Meyer, 2009 , 2019 ). Following Mayer’s ( 2019 ) principles, we designed multimedia lessons supporting students’ cognitive processing through segmenting, pre-training, temporal contiguity, modality matching, and signaling, all implemented through asynchronous embedded video questions.

2.3 Embedded Video Questions

Embedded video questions are a type of educational technology design feature that adds interactive quizzing capacities while students engage in video-based learning. They involve incorporating formative assessments directly within online videos, prompting viewers to answer questions at specific points in the content. While a video is in progress, students viewing it are prompted with questions designed to encourage increased engagement and deeper cognitive processing (Christiansen et al., 2017 ; Kovacs, 2016 ; Wong et al., 2023 ; van der Meij et al., 2021 ). This is similar to an Audience Response System (ARS) during traditional in-person lectures where an instructor utilizes a live polling system in a lecture hall such as iClickers to present questions to the audience (Pan et al., 2019 ). Yet, within the context of online learning, students are tasked with independently viewing videos at their convenience, and a set of on-screen questions emerges. This allows learners to pause, reflect, and answer questions at their own pace, fostering a sense of control over the learning process (Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). These questions serve to promptly recapitulate key concepts, identify potential misconceptions, or promote conceptual understanding of the subject matter. Studies suggest that embedded video questions can significantly improve student engagement compared to traditional video lectures (Chi & Wylie, 2014 ). Research on the use of embedded video questions has already shown promising empirical results in the field, such as stimulating students’ retrieval and practice, recognition of key facts, and prompting behavioral changes to rewind, review, or repeat the materials that were taught (Cummins et al., 2015 ; Haagsman et al., 2020 ; Rice et al., 2019 ; Wong & Hughes et al., 2022 ; Wong et al., 2024 ). Embedded video questions have also been shown to transition learners from passively watching a video to actively engaging with the video content (Dunlosky et al., 2013 ; Kestin & Miller, 2022 ; Schmitz, 2020 ), a critically important factor when considering the expediency from in-person to online instruction due to the pandemic. As a result, there are a myriad of affordances that showcase the potential effects of embedded video questions on student learning experiences ⎯one of which is how embedded video questions can be intentionally leveraged with regards to question timing to support active information processing facilitated through the testing effect.

3 Testing Effect

Active information processing in the context of video-based learning is the process in which learners are able to encode relevant information from a video, integrate that information with their prior knowledge, and retrieve that information stored at a later time (Johnson & Mayer, 2009 ; Schmitz, 2020 ). This active learning process of retrieval, the learning strategy of rehearsing learning materials through quizzing and testing, is grounded in the cognitive process known as the testing effect. From a cognitive learning perspective, the testing effect is a process in which implementing low-stakes retrieval practice over a period of time can help learners integrate new information with prior knowledge, increasing long-term retention and memory retrieval in order to manipulate knowledge flexibly (Carpenter, 2009 ; Littrell-Baez et al., 2015 ; Richland et al., 2009 ). This shifts the narrative from looking at assessments as traditional high-stakes exams, but rather as practice learning events that provide a measure of learners’ knowledge in the current moment, in order to more effectively encourage retention and knowledge acquisition of information not yet learned (Adesope et al., 2017 ; Carrier & Pashler, 1992 ; Richland et al., 2009 ). The connection between retrieval and the testing effect represents sustained, continual, and successive rehearsal of successfully retrieving accurate information from long-term memory storage (Schmitzs, 2020 ).

The frequency of practice and the time allotted between practice sessions also play a role in memory retention. Equally as important, the timing and intentionality of when these questions might occur within a video may influence learner outcomes. As such, the more instances learners are able to retrieve knowledge from their long-term memory as practice, the better learners may recall and remember that information (Richland et al., 2009 ). This can come in the form of practice tests, which research has shown tremendous success in the cognitive testing literature (Carpenter, 2009 ; Roediger III & Karpicke, 2006 ), or in this study, embedded video questions to facilitate the testing effect. By doing so, we can provide students with an alternative interactive online modality to learning the material in addition to rereading or re-studying (Adesope et al., 2017 ; Roediger et al., 2006 ). Instead, learners are presented with opportunities to answer questions frequently and immediately as retrieval practice when watching a video. Active participation through answering questions keeps viewers focused and promotes deeper information processing (Azevedo et al., 2010 ). We can offer a focused medium for students to recall, retrieve, and recognize crucial concepts (Mayer et al., 2009 ; van de Meij et al., 2021 ). This approach aims to cultivate an active learning environment that engages learners’ cognitive processing during online education. It assists students in discerning which aspects of the learning material they have mastered and identifies areas that require further attention (Agarwal et al., 2008 ; Fiorella & Mayer, 2015 , 2018 ; McDaniel et al., 2011 ).

4 The Testing Effect on Student Learning Behaviors

Embedded video questions present a potential learning modality that operationalizes the theoretical model of the testing effect which may have tremendous benefits on the nature of student-centered active learning opportunities within an online course, particularly with student learning behaviors such as student engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking. As such, leveraging the testing effect and the LXD pedagogical paradigm synergistically through the medium of embedded video questions may amplify student learning behaviors in online courses. The following sections review the literature on engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking.

Student engagement in the online learning environment has garnered significant attention due to its crucial role in influencing learning outcomes, satisfaction, and overall course success (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018 ; Wang et al., 2013 ; Wong et al., 2023b ; Wong & Hughes, 2022 ). Broadly defined, student engagement can be characterized as the extent of student commitment or active involvement required to fulfill a learning task (Redmond et al., 2018 ; Ertmer et al., 2010 ). Additionally, engagement can extend beyond mere participation and attendance, involving active involvement in discussions, assignments, collaborative activities, and interactions with peers and instructors (Hu & Kuh, 2002 ; Redmond et al., 2018 ; Wong et al., 2022 ). Within an online course, engagement can be elaborated as encompassing the levels of attention, curiosity, interaction, and intrinsic interest that students display throughout an instructional module (Redmond et al., 2018 ). This also extends to encompass the motivational characteristics that students may exhibit during their learning journey (Pellas, 2014 ). Several factors influence student online engagement, and they can be broadly categorized into individual, course-related, and institutional factors. Individual factors include self-regulation skills, prior experience with online learning, and motivation (Sansone et al., 2011 ; Sun & Rueda, 2012 ). Course-related factors encompass instructional design, content quality, interactivity, and opportunities for collaboration (Pellas, 2014 ; Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016 ). Institutional factors involve support services, technological infrastructure, and instructor presence (Swan et al., 2009 ; Picciano, 2023 ). Furthermore, research has established a noteworthy and favorable correlation between engagement and various student outcomes, including advancements in learning, satisfaction with the course, and overall course grades (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018 ; Havlverson & Graham, 2019 ). Instructional designers argue that to enhance engagement, instructors and educators can employ strategies like designing interactive and authentic assignments (Cummins et al., 2015 ; Floor, 2018 ), fostering active learning opportunities, and creating supportive online learning environments (Kuh et al., 2005 ; Wong et al., 2022 ). Thus, engaged students tend to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the course material, a stronger sense of self-regulation, and improved critical thinking skills (Fedricks et al., 2004 ; Jaggars & Xu, 2016 ; Pellas, 2018 ).

Self-regulation pertains to the inherent ability of individuals to manage and control their cognitive and behavioral functions with the intention of attaining particular objectives (Pellas, 2014 ; Vrugt & Oort, 2008 ; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001 ). In the context of online courses, self-regulation takes on a more specific definition, encapsulating the degree to which students employ self-regulated metacognitive skills–the ability to reflect on one’s own thinking–during learning activities to ensure success in an online learning environment (Wang et al., 2013 ; Wolters et al., 2013 ). Unlike conventional in-person instruction, asynchronous self-paced online courses naturally lack the physical presence of an instructor who can offer immediate guidance and support in facilitating the learning journey. While instructors may maintain accessibility through published videos, course announcements, and email communication, students do not participate in face-to-face interactions within the framework of asynchronous courses. However, the implementation of asynchronous online courses offers learners autonomy, affording them the flexibility to determine when, where, and for how long they engage with course materials (McMahon & Oliver, 2001 ; Wang et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, the utilization of embedded video questions in this course taps into Bloom’s taxonomy, featuring both lower and higher-order thinking questions to test learners’ understanding. This medium enables learners to immediately engage with and comprehend conceptual materials through processes such as pausing, remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and evaluating, negating the need to postpone these interactions until exam dates (Betts, 2008 ; Churches, 2008 ). While this shift places a significant responsibility on the learner compared to traditional instruction, embedded video questions contribute to a student-centered active learning experience (Pulukuri & Abrams, 2021 ; Torres et al., 2022 ). This approach nurtures students’ self-regulation skills by offering explicit guidance in monitoring their cognitive processes, setting both short-term and long-term objectives, allocating sufficient time for assignments, promoting digital engagement, and supplying appropriate scaffolding (Al-Harthy et al., 2010 ; Kanuka, 2006 ; Shneiderman & Hochheiser, 2001 ). Through this, students actively deploy numerous cognitive and metacognitive strategies to manage, control, and regulate their learning behaviors to meet the demands of their tasks (Moos & Bonde, 2016 ; Wang et al., 2013 ). Due to the deliberate application of LXD principles, the course has the capability to enhance the development of students’ self-regulation abilities in the context of online learning (Pulukuri & Abrams, 2021 ). Consequently, this empowers students to identify their existing knowledge and engage in critical evaluation of information that may need further refinement and clarification.

Leveraging the testing effect model through the integration of embedded video questions also yields notable advantages concerning students’ critical thinking capabilities. Critical thinking involves students’ capacity to employ both new and existing conceptual knowledge to make informed decisions, having evaluated the content at hand (Pintrich et al., 1993 ). In the context of online courses, critical thinking becomes evident through actions such as actively seeking diverse sources of representation (Richland & Simms, 2015 ), encountering and learning from unsuccessful retrieval attempts (Richland et al., 2009 ), and effectively utilizing this information to make informed judgments and draw conclusions (Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci & Capa-Aydin, 2013 ). To further elaborate, according to Brookfield ( 1987 ), critical thinking in the research context involves recognizing and examining the underlying assumptions that shape learners’ thoughts and actions. As students actively practice critical thinking within the learning environment, the research highlights the significance of metacognitive monitoring, which encompasses the self-aware assessment of one’s own thoughts, reactions, perceptions, assumptions, and levels of confidence in the subject matter (Bruning, 2005 ; Halpern, 1998 ; Jain & Dowson, 2009 ; Wang et al., 2013 ). As such, infusing embedded video questions into the learning process may serve as a strategic pedagogical approach that may catalyze students’ critical thinking skills.

In the context of embedded video questions, students must critically analyze questions, concepts, scenarios, and make judgments on which answer best reflects the problem. As students engage with the videos, they’re prompted to monitor their own thinking processes, question assumptions, and consider alternate perspectives—a quintessential aspect of metacognition that complements critical thinking (Bruning, 2005 ; Halpern, 1998 ; Jain & Dowson, 2009 ; Wang et al., 2013 ). Sometimes, students might get the answers wrong, but these unsuccessful attempts also contribute to the testing effect in a positive manner (Richland et al., 2009 ). Unsuccessful attempts serve as learning opportunities to critically analyze and reflect during the low-stakes testing stage so that learners are better prepared later on. Furthermore, cultivating students’ aptitude for critical thinking also has the potential to enhance their transferable skills (Fries et al., 2020 ), a pivotal competency for STEM undergraduate students at research-intensive institutions (R1), bridging course content to real-world applications. In essence, the interplay between the testing effect model and the use of embedded video questions not only supports students’ critical thinking, but also underscores the intricate relationship between engagement, self-regulation, and course outcomes (Wang et al., 2013 ).

4.1 Current Study

This study builds on the work of Wong and Hughes ( 2023 ) on the implementation of LXD in STEM courses utilizing educational technologies. Utilizing the same course content, course videos, and pedagogical learning design, this Design-Based Research (DBR) approach employs learning theories to assess the effectiveness of design and instructional tools within real-world learner contexts (DBR Collective, 2003; Siek et al., 2014 ). In this study, we utilized the same instructional videos and course materials as Wong & Hughes et al. ( 2023 ), but instead incorporated iterative design enhancements such as embedded video questions to assess their potential testing effect impacts on students’ learning experiences. Therefore, this quasi-experimental research contrasts students who participated in a 10-week undergraduate science online course. Half of these students encountered low-stakes questions integrated directly within the video player (immediate condition), while the other half received questions following a series of video lectures (delayed condition). The aim is to assess how the timing of when low-stakes questioning occurs might beneficially influence learners’ science content knowledge, engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking. Additionally, we assessed students’ learning analytics within the online course, including online page views and course participation, as a proximal measure of learners’ online engagement. We then compared these findings with their self-report survey responses within the online course to corroborate the results. With the implementation of a newly iterated online course grounded in LXD paradigm and the testing effect model, this study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1) To what extent does the effect of “immediate vs. delayed low-stakes questioning” influence learners’ total quiz grades, online page views, and course participation rate?

RQ2) To what extent does the effect of “immediate vs. delayed low-stakes questioning” influence learners’ engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking?

RQ3) To what extent does the relationship between “immediate vs. delayed low-stakes questioning” and learner’s total quiz grades vary depending on their levels of self-regulation and critical thinking?

5 Methodology

5.1 ethical considerations.

This study, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), adheres to stringent ethical standards mandated by both the university and the grant funding agency. The university institution obtained approval from its Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct human subjects research, ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines. The research was categorized as IRB-exempt due to its online, anonymous data collection process, which posed minimal risk to participants. All participants were provided with comprehensive information about the study, including its purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality measures, and their right to withdraw without consequences. Participant data was treated with utmost confidentiality and anonymity, and the study’s questions, topics, and content were designed to avoid causing harm to students. The research protocol received formal approval from the university’s ethics committee. All participants provided informed consent to participate in the study before any data collection procedures commenced. This ensured that participants were fully aware of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality measures, and their right to withdraw without consequences.

5.2 Quasi-experimental Design

This research employed a design-based research (DBR) approach, leveraging learning theories to evaluate the effectiveness of design, instructional tools, or products in authentic, real-world settings (DBR Collective, 2003; Siek et al., 2014 ). The rationale for this research methodology is to assess instructional tools in ecologically valid environments and explore whether these tools enhance students’ learning experiences (Scott et al., 2020 ). Our decision to adopt a DBR approach arises from the limited research on investigating the efficacy of the Learning Experience Design (LXD) pedagogical paradigm with embedded video questions in online undergraduate science courses. We are also cognizant of previous research indicating that simply inserting questions directly into videos, without evidence-based pedagogical principles, intentional design, and instructional alignment, does not significantly improve learning outcomes (Deng et al., 2023 ; Deng & Gao, 2023 ; Marshall & Marshall, 2021 ). Thus, this DBR study utilizes a Learning Experience Design (LXD) approach to cultivate active learner engagement through the implementation of learning theories such as the testing effect model. We then compare the impact of embedded video questions on learning outcomes within the newly designed self-paced asynchronous online course (See Fig.  1 ). Subsequently, we test these designs with learners and utilize the findings to iterate, adapt, and redeploy these techniques continually, aiming to enhance the efficacy and gradual evolution in our designs of embedded video questions on students’ learning experiences.

Quasi-experimental research design.

The study involved two equivalently sized classes within the School of Biological Sciences at an R1 university in Southern California, with students voluntarily enrolling in either one of these two classes. The two classes were taught by the same professor on the same topics of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. This particular course was chosen to serve as a research-practice partnership (RPP), collaborating closely with the professor, educational designers, researchers, and online course creators to customize a course that aligns with the instructor’s and students’ needs returning from the COVID-19 remote learning environment.

The study spanned a 10-week period, allowing sufficient dosage for implementing our learning designs and effectively measuring their impact on students’ learning experiences (See Fig.  1 ). Selecting a quasi-experimental design allowed us to assess the impact of question timing and placement on students’ comprehension and retention of the material presented in the videos. Following quasi-experimental design principles, the study involved two classes, each assigned to a different treatment condition. Students who experienced low-stakes questions after watching a series of videos were referred to as “Delayed Questioning,” and students who experienced low-stakes questions immediately embedded within the video player were referred to as “Immediate Questioning.” In the delayed questioning condition, students encountered low-stakes questions only after watching all assigned video lectures for the week, while in the immediate questioning condition, students faced questions directly embedded in the video player, time-stamped and deliberately synchronized with the presented conceptual content. The two treatment conditions, “Delayed” and “Immediate Questioning’’ were carefully designed to isolate the effect of question timing while keeping all other variables constant. As such, the low-stakes questions, quantity of videos, and the number of questions in both conditions were completely identical, with the only experimental manipulation involving the timing and placement of the questions across conditions.

Following the viewing of videos and answering of low-stakes questions, either embedded directly in the video or after watching all of the videos in the instructional unit, all students proceeded to take an end-of-week quiz, serving as a summative assessment released on Fridays. The end-of-week quiz was completely identical and released at the same time and day across both conditions. This comprehensive approach ensured equitable testing conditions and minimized potential confounding variables. Furthermore, this approach allowed for a controlled comparison between the two conditions, helping to determine whether embedding questions directly within the video player led to different learning outcomes compared to presenting questions after watching all of the videos. Selecting these carefully designed treatment conditions allowed for a controlled comparison, isolating the effect of question timing while keeping all other variables constant. This methodological rigor facilitated a robust analysis of the impact of question placement on students’ learning experiences and outcomes.

5.3 Participants

The study encompassed a total of n =  183 undergraduate students who were actively enrolled in upper-division courses specializing in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Participants were selected based on their voluntary self-enrollment in these upper-division courses during a specific enrollment period of Winter 2021. No exclusion criteria were applied, allowing for a broad sample encompassing various backgrounds and levels of experience in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. These courses were part of the curriculum at a prominent R1 research university located in Southern California and were specifically offered within the School of Biological Sciences. Students were able to enroll in the upper division course so long as they were a biological sciences major and met their lower division prerequisites. Regarding the demographic makeup of the participants, it included a diverse representation with 1.2% identifying as African American, 72.0% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 10.1% as Hispanic, 11.3% as white, and 5.4% as multiracial. Gender distribution among the students consisted of 69.0% females and 31.0% males (See Table  1 ). Participants randomly self-select into one of two distinct course sections, each characterized by different approaches to course implementation: (1) The first condition featured questions placed at the conclusion of all video scaffolds ( n =  92). (2) The second section incorporated questions that were embedded directly within the video scaffolds themselves ( n =  91).

5.4 Learning Experience Design

5.4.1 video design.

The curriculum delivery integrated innovative self-paced video materials crafted with the Learning Experience Design (LXD) paradigm in mind (Wong et al., 2024 ). These videos incorporated various digital learning features such as high-quality studio production, 4 K multi-camera recording, green screen inserts, voice-over narrations, and animated infographics (See Fig.  2 ). Underpinning this pedagogical approach of the video delivery was the situated cognition theory (SCT) for e-learning experience design, as proposed by Brown et al. in 1989. In practice, the videos were structured to align with the key elements of SCT, which include modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration (Collins et al., 1991 ; Wong et al., 2024 ). For instance, the instructor initiated each module by introducing a fundamental concept, offering in-depth explanations supported by evidence, presenting real-world instances demonstrating the application of the concept in research, and exploring the implications of the concept to align with the course’s educational objectives. This approach emphasized immersion in real-world applications, enhancing the overall learning experience.

This figure visually depicts the embedded video question interface alongside the Bloom's Taxonomy pyramid, illustrating the connection between the video questions and the quiz questions for the week, specifically emphasizing the testing effect

In the video design process, we adopted an approach where content equivalent to an 80-minute in-person lecture was broken down into smaller, more manageable segments lasting between five to seven minutes. This approach was taken to alleviate the potential for student fatigue, reduce cognitive load, and minimize opportunities for students to become distracted (Humphris & Clark, 2021 ; Mayer, 2019 ). Moreover, we meticulously scripted the videos to align seamlessly with the course textbook. This alignment served the purpose of pre-training students in fundamental concepts and terminologies using scientific visuals and simplified explanations, thereby preparing them for more in-depth and detailed textbook study. As part of our video design strategy, we strategically integrated embedded questions at specific time points during the video playback. These questions were designed to serve multiple purposes, including assessing students’ comprehension, sustaining their attention, and pinpointing areas of strength and weakness in their understanding. In line with Meyer’s ( 2019 ) principles of multimedia design, our videos were crafted to incorporate elements like pretraining, segmenting, temporal contiguity, and signaling (See Fig.  2 ). These principles ensured that relevant concepts, visuals, and questions were presented concurrently, rather than sequentially (Mayer, 2003, 2019 ). This approach encouraged active engagement and processing by providing cues to learners within the video content.

5.4.2 Question Design

Students in both the “immediate” and “delayed” conditions experienced low-stakes multiple-choice questions. Low-stakes multiple-choice questions were knowledge check questions that served as opportunities for content practice, retention, and reconstructive exercises, aiming to engage learners in the testing effect and enhance their conceptual understanding (Richland et al., 2009 ). Grounded in Bloom’s Taxonomy, the low-stakes questions were designed to emphasize lower-order thinking skills, such as “remembering and understanding” concepts in context (Bloom, 2001 ; Betts, 2008 ) (See Fig.  2 ). In contrast, students experienced high-stakes multiple-choice questions on the weekly summative quizzes consisting of higher-order thinking questions that required students to “apply, analyze, and evaluate” scenarios in ecology and evolutionary biology, encouraging learners to break down relationships and make judgments about the information presented (Bloom, 2001 ; Betts, 2008 ) (See Fig.  2 ).

For instance, an example low-stakes multiple-choice question can be found in Fig. 2  that students encountered which included: “In the hypothetical fish example, the cost of reproduction often involves:” (A) shunting of fats and gonads to provision eggs, (B) shunting of fats to gonads to make more sperm, (C) using fats as a source of fuel for general locomotion, (D) fish face no resource limitations, (E) A and B . Upon reading the question, the question prompts the learner to “remember” and “understand” what they just watched and identify what they know or potentially do not know. Questions that prompt learners to “remember” and “understand” are considered lower-order thinking questions on the Bloom’s Taxonomy pyramid (Bloom, 2001 ). An example of the high-stakes questions that students encountered while taking their weekly summative exams include: “Given the tradeoff between survival and reproduction fertility, (the number of offspring), how does natural selection act on species? A) Natural selection will minimize the number of mating cycles, B) Natural selection will maximize fecundity, C) Natural selection will maximize survivability, D) Natural selection will compromise between survival and fecundity, D) None of the above . These high-stakes questions on the weekly summary quizzes are made up of higher-order thinking questions that require learners to “apply, analyze, and evaluate,” which consists of the top three pillars of the Bloom’s taxonomy pyramid (Bloom, 2001 ). The notable differences between low-stakes and high-stakes questions are learners’ application of their conceptual understanding to elaborate on their new and existing understandings, critically evaluate between concepts, and apply the concepts in a new scenario or context. High-stakes questions, or higher-order thinking questions, have been shown to promote the transfer of learning, increase the application of concepts during retrieval practice, and prevent simply recalling facts and memorizing the right answers by heart (Chan, 2010 ; McDaniel et al., 2013 ; Mayer, 2014 ; Richland et al., 2009 ). This active process allows students to organize the key learning concepts into higher orders and structures. Moreover, the student’s working memory connects new knowledge with prior knowledge, facilitating the transfer to long-term memory and enabling the retrieval of this information at a later time (Mayer, 2014 ). Together, these strategic question design choices empower students to actively participate in constructive metacognitive evaluations, encouraging learners to contemplate “how and why” they reached their conclusions (See Fig.  2 ). Research has indicated that such an approach promotes critical thinking and the utilization of elaborative skills among learners in online learning contexts (Tullis & Benjamin, 2011 ; Wang et al., 2013 ). Furthermore, by having students answer questions and practice the concepts, our intentions were that students would be better prepared for the high-stakes questions on the weekly quizzes due to the facilitation of testing effect through low-stakes questioning prior.

Based on their respective conditions, learners would encounter low-stakes questions either after watching a series of 6 or 7 lecture videos or integrated directly within each video synchronized to the concept being taught. We opted to have the questions for the “delayed” condition after a series of videos instead of after every video because this time delay allowed us to investigate the effects of timing and spacing between the two treatment conditions. Having all the questions appear at the end of a series of lecture videos also helped to avoid the recency effect and minimize immediate recall for students in the “delayed” condition. Since having questions after every video could also be considered a form of immediate questioning, as the questions would be directly related to the video students just watched, we intentionally designed the “delayed” condition to have all the questions at the end of 6 or 7 videos for that instructional unit to maintain treatment differences. By structuring the questions in the “delayed” condition this way, we aimed to assess whether students retain and integrate knowledge over time, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the learning process and the potential treatment differences of “delayed” compared to “immediate” questioning. Furthermore, we considered that this design choice could mitigate potential fatigue effects that might arise from frequent interruptions of questioning for students in the “immediate” condition. Ultimately, the research design decision for the “delayed” condition to place the low-stakes questions after students watched 6 or 7 videos for that instructional unit provided an optimal treatment comparison between the immediate and delayed conditions.

5.4.3 Course Design and Delivery

The course was implemented within the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS), the official learning platform of the university. The videos recorded for this course were uploaded, designed, and deployed using the Yuja Enterprise Video Platform software. Yuja is a cloud-based content management system (CMS) for video storage, streaming, and e-learning content creation. For this study, we utilized Yuja to store the videos in the cloud, design the embedded video questions platform, and record student grades. After uploading the videos, the questions were inputted into the Yuja system with the corresponding answer options based on specific time codes. These time codes were determined based on the concepts presented within the video. Typically, lower-order thinking questions (i.e. questions that required, remembering, understanding) were placed immediately after introducing a definition of a key concept. Then, higher-order thinking questions (i.e. analyzing, evaluating) were placed towards the end of the video for students to apply the concepts in context before moving on to the next video. Finally, each video was then published from Yuja to Canvas using the Canvas Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) integration so that all student grades from the embedded video questions were automatically graded and directly updated into the Canvas grade book.

5.5 Data Collection and Instrumentation

Data collection for this study was conducted electronically during the Winter 2021 academic term. All survey measurement instruments were distributed online to the participating students through the Qualtrics XM platform, an online survey tool provided through the university. Students were granted direct access to the surveys through hyperlinks that were seamlessly integrated into their Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) course space, providing a user-friendly, FERPA compliant, and secure centralized data collection environment. Students filled out the surveys immediately after completing their last lesson during the last week of the course on Week 10. When responding to all of the surveys, students were asked to reflect on their learning experiences about the online course they were enrolled in specifically. Having students complete the survey right after their last lesson was an intentional research design decision in order to maintain the rigor, robustness, and quality of responses from students.

5.5.1 Survey Instruments

Three surveys were given to the participants: the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, assessing critical thinking and self-regulation, and the Perceived Engagement Scale. We maintained the original question count and structure for reliability but made slight adjustments, such as replacing “classroom” with “online course” to align with the study’s online math intervention context. This approach, supported by research (Hall, 2016; Savage, 2018), ensures effectiveness while preserving the survey instruments’ reliability, particularly across different learning modalities.

The MLSQ instrument utilized in this study was originally developed by a collaborative team of researchers from the National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning and the School of Education at the University of Michigan (Pintrich et al., 1993 ). This well-established self-report instrument is designed to comprehensively assess undergraduate students’ motivations and their utilization of diverse learning strategies. Respondents were presented with a 7-point Likert scale to express their agreement with statements, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). To evaluate students in the context of the self-paced online course, we focused specifically on the self-regulation and critical thinking subscales of the MLSQ. Sample items in the self-regulation scale included statements such as “When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I don’t understand well” and “When I become confused about something I’m watching for this class, I go back and try to figure it out.” Sample items for critical thinking include “I often find myself questioning things I hear or read in this course to decide if I find them convincing” and “I try to play around with ideas of my own related to what I am learning in this course.” According to the original authors, these subscales exhibit strong internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha coefficients reported at 0.79 and 0.80, respectively. In this study, Cronbach’s alphas for self-regulation and critical thinking were 0.86 and 0.85, respectively.

To gauge students’ perceptions of their online engagement, we employed a 12-item survey adapted from Rossing et al. ( 2012 ). This survey encompassed a range of questions probing students’ views on the learning experience and their sense of engagement within the online course. Respondents conveyed their responses on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Sample items in the scale included statements such as “This online activity motivated me to learn more than being in the classroom” and “Online video lessons are important for me when learning at home.” Rossing et al. ( 2012 ) report that the internal consistency coefficient for this instrument was 0.90. Similarly, Wong et al. ( 2023b ) reported a coefficient of 0.88, further supporting the scale’s reliability across online learning contexts. This instrument demonstrated robust internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient reported at 0.89, indicating its reliability in assessing students’ perceptions of online engagement.

5.5.2 Course Learning Analytics

Throughout the 10-week duration, individualized student-level learning analytics were gathered from the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS). These analytics encompassed various metrics, including total quiz grades, participation rates, and page views. The total quiz grades served as a summative assessment with 10 multiple choice questions. This aggregate metric was derived from the summation of weekly quiz scores over the 10-week period. Each student completed a total of 10 quizzes over the course of the study, with one quiz administered per week. It’s noteworthy that the quizzes presented to students in both classes were completely identical in terms of length, question count, and answer choices. By standardizing the quizzes across both classes, we ensured uniformity in assessment across both classes, thereby enabling a fair comparison of learning outcomes between students who received embedded video questions and those who did not.

Pageviews and participation rates offered detailed insights into individual user behavior within the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS). Pageviews specifically monitored the total number of pages accessed by learners within the Canvas course environment, with each page load constituting a tracked event. This meticulous tracking provided a metric of the extent of learners’ interaction with course materials (Instructure, 2024 ), enabling a close examination of learner engagement and navigation patterns within the online course. Consequently, page view data can serve as a reliable proxy for student engagement rather than a definitive measure, assisting in gauging the occurrence of activity and facilitating comparisons among students within a course or when analyzing trends over time. The total number of page views for both classes were examined and compared between students with and without embedded video questions.

Participation metrics within the Canvas LMS encompassed a broad spectrum of user interactions within the course environment. These included not only traditional activities such as submitting assignments and quizzes but also more dynamic engagements such as watching and rewatching videos, redoing low-stakes questions for practice, and contributing to discussion threads by responding to questions (Instructure, 2024 ). Each instance of learner activity was logged as an event within the Canvas LMS. These participation measures were comprehensive and captured the diverse range of actions undertaken by students throughout their learning journey. They provided invaluable insights into the level of engagement and involvement of each student within their respective course sections. By recording these metrics individually for each student, the Canvas LMS facilitated detailed analysis and tracking of learner behavior, enabling a nuanced understanding of student participation patterns and their impact on learning outcomes.

5.6 Data Analysis Plan

We conducted checks for scale reliability to assess the alpha coefficients for all the measurement instruments. Additionally, a chi-square analysis was performed to ensure that there were no disparities between conditions in terms of gender, ethnicity, and student-grade level statuses prior to treatment. Next, descriptive analyses were conducted to assess the frequencies, distribution, and variability across the two different conditions on learners total quiz grades, page views, and participation after 10 weeks of instruction (See Table  2 ). Then, a series of one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the differences between conditions on dependent variables separately. Next, two Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to evaluate the difference between treatment conditions on multiple dependent variables. A MANOVA was chosen for analysis in order to access multiple dependent variables simultaneously while comparing across two or more groups. The first MANOVA compared the means of learners with and without embedded video questions on three dependent variables: (D1) quiz grades, (D2) pageviews, and (D3) participation. A second MANOVA compared the means of learners with and without embedded video questions on three dependent variables: (D1) engagement, (D2) self-regulation, and (D3) critical thinking skills. Lastly, multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of embedded video questions related to learners’ quiz grades and whether this relation was moderated by learners’ self-regulation and critical thinking skills.

Descriptive Analysis.

Table  3 displays the average weekly quiz grades for two instructional conditions, “Delayed Questioning” and “Immediate Questioning,” over a ten-week period from January 4th to March 8th. Fluctuations in quiz grades are evident across the observation period for both conditions. For instance, on Week 1, the average quiz grade for “Delayed Questioning” was 95.65, while it was notably higher at 99.2 for students in the “Immediate Questioning” condition. Similarly, on Week 6, quiz grades decreased for both conditions, with “Delayed Questioning” at 93.35 and “Immediate Questioning” at 96.9 (See Fig.  3 ). Comparing the average quiz grades between the two instructional conditions revealed consistent differences throughout the observation period. The “Immediate Questioning” condition consistently demonstrated higher quiz grades compared to “Delayed Questioning.” Notably, this difference is particularly pronounced on certain dates, such as Week 3, where the average quiz grade for “Delayed Questioning” was 97.6, while it reached 99.6 for “Immediate Questioning.” These descriptive findings suggest that embedding questions directly within the video content may positively influence learners’ quiz performance, potentially indicating higher engagement and comprehension of the course material. However, further analysis is required to explore the significant differences in weekly quiz grades between the two instructional conditions.

Descriptive comparison of students' weekly summative quiz by condition

This figure presents the frequency of page views throughout the 10-week course

Figure  4 presents the frequency of page views throughout the 10 week course, acting as an proximal indicator of learner engagement, across different dates for two instructional approaches: “Delayed Questioning” and “Immediate Questioning.” Higher page view counts indicate heightened interaction with course materials on specific dates. For example, on Week 1, “Delayed Questioning” registered 9,817 page views, while “Immediate Questioning” recorded 12,104 page views, indicating peaks in engagement. Conversely, lower page view counts on subsequent dates may imply reduced learner activity or engagement with the course content. Fluctuations in page view counts throughout the observation period highlight varying levels of learner engagement under each instructional condition. Notably, a comparative analysis between the two instructional methods unveiled consistent patterns, with “Immediate Questioning” condition consistently exhibiting higher page view counts across most observation dates. This initial examination suggests that embedding questions directly within the video player may enhance learner engagement, evidenced by increased interaction with course materials.

Upon examination of the participation rates across the specified dates, it is evident that the “Immediate Questioning” condition consistently generated higher levels of engagement compared to the “Delayed Questioning” condition (See Fig.  5 ). For instance, on Week 4, the participation rate for “Delayed Questioning” was recorded as 459, while it notably reached 847 for “Immediate Questioning.” Similarly, on Week 7 participation rates were 491 and 903 for “Delayed Questioning” and “Immediate Questioning,” respectively, indicating a substantial difference in participation rates between the two instructional approaches. Moreover, both conditions experienced fluctuations in participation rates over time, with instances where participation rates surged or declined on specific dates. For instance, on Week 10, the participation rate for “Delayed Questioning” dropped to 287, whereas it remained relatively higher at 677 for “Immediate Questioning.” Overall, the descriptive analysis depicted in Fig.  5 highlights the differences in participation rates across the two conditions and underscores how embedding video questions influences learners’ online behaviors.

This figure presents the frequency of participation throughout the 10-week course

6.1 Multivariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent Variables

A MANOVA was conducted to compare the means of learners with and without embedded video questions on three dependent variables: (D1) quiz grades, (D2) pageviews, and (D3) participation (See Table  4 ). The multivariate test was significant, F (3, 150) = 188.8, p  < 0.000; Pillai’s Trace = 0.791, partial η 2  = 0.791, indicating a difference between learners who experienced ”Delayed” and “Immediate Questioning.” The univariate F tests showed there was a statistically significant difference for total quiz grades F (1, 152) = 6.91; p  < 0.05; partial η 2  = 0.043), pageviews F (1, 152) = 26.02; p  < 0.001; partial η 2  = 0.146), and course participation rates F (1, 152) = 569.6; p  < 0.001; partial η 2  = 0.789) between the two conditions. The results of the Bonferroni pairwise comparisons of mean differences for total quiz grades ( p  < 0.05), pageviews ( p  < 0.001), and course participation ( p  < 0.001) were statistically significantly different between the two conditions. Therefore, learners who experienced questions directly embedded within the video player had significantly higher total quiz grades, page views, and course participation across 10 weeks.

A second MANOVA compared the means of learners with and without embedded video questions on three dependent variables: (D1) engagement, (D2) self-regulation, and (D3) critical thinking skills (See Table  5 ). The multivariate test was significant, F (3, 179) = 5.09, p  < 0.000; Pillai’s Trace = 0.079, partial η 2  = 0.079, indicating a difference between learners who experienced ”Delayed” and “Immediate Questioning.” The univariate F tests showed there was a statistically significant difference between learners with and without embedded video questions for engagement F (1, 181) = 7.43; p  < 0.05; partial η 2  = 0.039), self-regulation F (1, 181) = 14.34; p  < 0.001; partial η 2  = 0.073), and critical thinking skills F (1, 181) = 6.75; p  < 0.01; partial η 2  = 0.036). The results of the Bonferroni pairwise comparisons of mean differences for engagement ( p  < 0.05), self-regulation ( p  < 0.001), and critical thinking skills ( p  < 0.01) were statistically significantly different across the two conditions. Therefore, experienced questions directly embedded within the video player had significantly higher engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking skills.

6.2 Moderation Analyses

A multiple regression model investigated whether the association between learners’ total quiz grades who experienced ”Delayed” or “Immediate Questioning” depends on their levels of self-regulation and critical thinking (Table  6 ). The moderators for this analysis were learners’ self-report self-regulation and critical thinking skills, while the outcome variable was the learners’ total quiz grades after 10 weeks. Results show that learners’ who experienced “Immediate Questioning” (β = 1.15, SE  = 4.72) were significantly predictive of their total quiz grades Additionally, the main effect of students’ self-regulation (β = 0.394, SE  = 0.78) and critical thinking skills (β = 0.222, SE  = 0.153) were statistically significant. Furthermore, the interaction between learners who experienced “Immediate Questioning” and self-regulation was also significant (β = 0.608, SE  = 0.120), suggesting that the effect of condition on quiz grades is dependent on the level of learners’ self-regulation. However, the interaction between treatment conditions and critical thinking was not significant (β = 0.520, SE  = 0.231). Together, the variables accounted for approximately 20% of the explained variance in learners’ quiz grades, R 2  = 0.19, F (5,158) = 9.08, p  < 0.001.

7 Discussion

This study was part of a large-scale online learning research effort at the university, examining undergraduate experiences through pedagogically grounded educational technologies. Specifically, it implemented learning experience design, the testing effect model, and “edtech tools” aligned with evidence-based learning theories to enhance student knowledge, engagement, and transferable skills like self-regulation and critical thinking. A key goal was to use design-based research methodologies to evaluate students where instructors were applying these evidence-based practices in real-world settings, helping determine if investments in educational technologies supported student learning outcomes. With the increased demand for online learning post-pandemic, this study investigated the impact of embedded video questions within an asynchronous online Biology course on engagement, self-regulation, critical thinking, and quiz performance. By comparing “Immediate Questioning” versus “Delayed Questioning,” this research explored how the timing of embedded video questions affected the efficacy of online learning, contributing to our understanding of effective online education strategies. The discussion interpreted and contextualized the findings within the broader landscape of online education, technology integration, and pedagogical design.

7.1 Impact on Student Course Outcomes

The first MANOVA results revealed significant positive effects of “Immediate Low-stakes Questioning” on learners’ summative quiz scores over a 10-week period compared to the “Delayed Low-stakes condition.” Notably, both groups had equal preparation time, with quizzes available at the same time and deadlines each week. This indicates that the timing and interactive nature of embedded video questions, aimed at fostering the testing effect paradigm, contributed to increased learner activity and participation (Richland et al., 2009 ). The “Immediate Questioning” group, characterized by notably higher weekly quiz scores, benefitted from the active learning facilitated by concurrent processing of concepts through answering questions while watching the lecture videos. Embedded questions not only fostered an active learning environment but also captured students’ attention and engaged them differently compared to passive video viewing learning modalidies (Mayer, 2021; van der Meij et al., 2021 ). This approach allowed for immediate recall and practice, providing guided opportunities for students to reflect on their knowledge and validate their accuracies or improve upon their mistakes (Cummins et al., 2015 ; Haagsman et al., 2020 ). The strategic timing of questions synchronized with specific instructional topics provided students with opportunities to recognize, reflect on, and decipher what they know and what they don’t know. Consequently, students approached their weekly quizzes with greater readiness, as strategically positioned embedded video questions fostered enhanced cognitive engagement due to their intentional timing, placement, and deliberate use of low-stakes questioning (Christiansen et al., 2017 ; Deng & Gao, 2023 ). Overall, the study’s results align with previous literature, indicating that interactive low-stakes quizzing capacities through intentionally timed questions within video-based learning effectively simulate the testing effect paradigm to foster retrieval practice over time (Littrell-Baez et al., 2015 ; Richland et al., 2009 ). These findings underscore the efficacy of integrating interactive elements into online learning environments to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.

Additionally, students in the “Immediate Questioning’’ condition demonstrated significantly higher participation rates and page views within the course (Table  2 ). Page views were tracked at the individual student level, representing the total number of pages accessed, including watching and rewatching videos, accessing assignments, and downloading course materials. This indicates that students in the “Immediate Questioning’’ condition were more engaged with course content, preparing for weekly quizzes by actively engaging with various resources. In terms of participation rates, learners in the “Immediate Questioning’’ condition were more active compared to their counterparts (Table  2 ). Participation encompassed various actions within the Canvas LMS course, such as submitting assignments, watching videos, accessing course materials, and engaging in discussion threads. Students in this condition were more likely to ask questions, share thoughts, and respond to peers, fostering a deeper level of engagement. Moreover, there was a consistent pattern of students revisiting instructional videos, as reflected in page views. Research on embedded video questions has shown that they prompt positive learning behaviors, such as reviewing course materials (Cummins et al., 2015 ; Haagsman et al., 2020 ; Rice et al., 2019 ; Wong et al., 2022 ). These insights into student behavior highlight the impact of integrating questions within the video player, resulting in increased engagement indicated by higher page views and course participation.

7.2 Impacts on Student Learning Behaviors

In addition to learning analytics, we gathered data on students’ self-reported online engagement. Students in the “Immediate Questioning” condition reported higher engagement levels than their counterparts, possibly due to the anticipation of upcoming questions, fostering attention, participation, and interaction. This increased awareness can positively impact students’ engagement, retrieval, and understanding, as they mentally prepare for the questions presented (Dunlosky et al., 2013 ; Schmitz, 2020 ). Moreover, questions directly embedded within the video encourage thoughtful engagement with material, amplifying the benefits of repeated low-stakes testing in preparation for assessments (Kovacs, 2016 ; Richland et al., 2009 ). Our study manipulated the timing of these questions to enhance the saliency of the testing effect paradigm, aiming to transition learners from passive to active participants in the learning process. When considering both the first and second MANOVA results, students in the “Immediate Questioning” condition not only showed significant differences in participation and page views but also reported significantly higher engagement compared to those in the “Delayed Questioning” condition. These findings align with previous research on interactive learning activities and “edtech tools” in promoting engagement in online courses (Wong et al., 2022 ; Wong et al., 2024 ). We employed the same instructional videos from Wong and Hughes ( 2022 ), but our study was informed by the design constraints students identified regarding limited interactivity, practice opportunities, and student-centered active learning in asynchronous settings. By integrating embedded video questions to address these concerns, we offered students a more engaging and interactive learning experience. As a result, embedding questions directly within videos is suggested to be an effective strategy for enhancing learner engagement and participation in online courses. Our results also contribute to the literature by comparing self-report data with behavioral course data, shedding light on the beneficial impacts of embedded video questions.

The significant differences in self-regulation and critical thinking skills among learners in the “Immediate Questioning” condition, who experienced questions embedded directly in videos, highlights the value of this pedagogical approach. Engaging with questions intentionally timed and aligned with the instructional content requires learners to monitor and regulate their cognitive processes, fostering metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning (Jain & Dowson, 2009 ; Wang et al., 2013 ). The cognitive effort exerted to critically analyze, reflect, and respond to these questions within the video enhances critical thinking skills, compelling learners to evaluate and apply their understanding in real-time contexts. Our intentional LXD aimed to enhance the testing effect model’s saliency, encouraging students to think about their own thinking through formative assessments and solidify their conceptual understanding before summative assessments (Richland & Simms, 2015 ). Repeated opportunities for metacognitive reflection and regulation empower students to gauge their comprehension, identify areas for further exploration, and manage their learning progress (Wang et al., 2017 ; Wong & Hughes, 2022 ; Wong et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, immediate questioning compared to delayed questioning facilitates higher-order cognitive skills, with students in the “Immediate Questioning” condition showing significantly higher critical thinking. Critical thinking, evident through actions like exploring varied sources, learning from unsuccessful retrieval attempts (Richland et al., 2009 ), and making inferences (Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci & Capa-Aydin, 2013 ), is influenced by the timing of these questions.

Employing Bloom’s Taxonomy as a foundation for shaping our question construction, this entailed that the lower-order questions were formulated to underscore the tasks of remembering, comprehending, and applying concepts in specific contexts (Bloom, 2001 ; Betts, 2008 ). Conversely, the higher-order questions were tailored to provoke the application and analysis of real-world scenarios in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology, requiring students to deconstruct relationships and evaluate patterns on the information presented (Bloom, 2001 ; Betts, 2008 ). In combination, these choices in question design provide students with the opportunity to engage in a critical evaluation of course concepts, prompting learners to make inferences, inquire, and judge complex problems as they formulate their solutions. Immediate questioning prompts consideration of key concepts and assessment of understanding in real-time (Jain & Dowson, 2009 ; Wang et al., 2013 ), whereas delayed questioning requires learners to retain the information for a longer duration in their working memory, simultaneously mitigating distractions from mind-wandering, as learners await a delayed opportunity to actively retrieve and practice the information gleaned from the videos (Richland et al., 2099; Richland and Simms, 2015 ; Wong et al., 2023b ). Thus, promptly answering low-stakes questions embedded within videos while engaging with content enhances self-regulation, critical thinking, and overall engagement with instructional material. In this way, the cultivation of both self-regulation and critical thinking skills also holds the potential to bolster students’ transferable skills that can be applied across various contexts (Fries et al., 2020 ), which is a crucial competency for undergraduate students in STEM disciplines (Wong et al., 2023b ).

7.3 Interplay between Student Learning Behaviors and Knowledge Outcomes

Our analysis explored the interplay between the two conditions, learners’ self-regulation, critical thinking, and quiz grades using a multiple regression model. The results revealed that treatment condition, self-regulation, and critical thinking were significant predictors of quiz grades (Table  4 ), suggesting a potential mechanism that self-regulation plays when considering the testing effect (Peng et al., 2019 ; Sotola & Crede, 2021 ). Notably, the interaction between the “Immediate Questioning” condition and self-regulation emerged as a significant factor, suggesting that the influence of embedded video questions on quiz grades varies based on learners’ self-regulation abilities. In other words, learners in the “Immediate Questioning” condition who showed greater self-regulation tended to have significantly higher quiz grades. This pattern underscores the importance of considering learners’ metacognitive strategies when examining the impact of instructional interventions online, highlighting the potential mechanism self-regulation plays in the testing effect (Peng et al., 2019 ; Sotola & Crede, 2021 ). Conversely, the interaction term between the two conditions and critical thinking was not significant (Table  5 ). While there was a significant main effect for critical thinking, the timing of low-stakes questioning (delayed or immediate) did not significantly influence quiz scores based on students’ critical thinking skills. This implies that the timing of the low-stakes questions in this study may not depend on the levels of students’ critical thinking skills, but rather on their levels of self-regulation to influence their total quiz scores. Furthermore, self-regulation significantly influenced learners’ quiz grades throughout the 10-week course. Conceptually synchronized questions immediately embedded in the video player served as metacognitive reflective learning opportunities, empowering students to gauge their comprehension, identify areas for further exploration, and actively manage their learning progress (Delen et al., 2014 ; Wang et al., 2013 ; Wong & Hughes, 2023 ). One of the many benefits of the testing effect paradigm is acknowledging errors during low-stakes practice, allowing learners to self-regulate by reassessing initial understandings and fostering conceptual change (Richland et al., 2009 ; Iwamoto et al., 2017 ; Sotola & Crede, 2021 ). Enhancing students’ metacognitive techniques like self-regulation can enrich skills applicable in various contexts, including other courses, workforce training, and time management (Barak et al., 2016 ; Fisher & Baird, 2005 ; Fries et al., 2020 ). For STEM undergraduates at research-intensive institutions, embedding questions directly into the video player nurtures these critical proficiencies by linking course content with real-world applications. The study highlights how the interplay between LXD, the testing effect model, and immediate questioning embedded in video supports critical thinking and underscores the relationship between engagement, self-regulation, and science knowledge outcomes.

7.3.1 Alignment with Learning Experience Design and Learning Theories

The positive outcomes of this study also resonate with the principles of Learning Experience Design. LXD emphasizes human-centered, experiential, and evidence-based design to create meaningful and effective learning encounters (Floor, 2018 ). The incorporation of embedded video questions exemplifies how LXD principles can be applied intentionally to empathize with learner’s needs in online learning experiences (Wong & Hughes, 2023 ; Wong et al., 2023b ). By incorporating interactivity through embedded video questions, the video lessons promoted active learning, where learners’ needs and behaviors in the course were considered. This design choice transformed passive video consumption into an interactive and participatory experience, aligning with LXD’s focus on fostering engagement through experiential learning techniques (Floor, 2018 ). Additionally, the alignment of the study’s findings with LXD underscores the value of interdisciplinary with the implementation of educational technologies at scale. To make this study possible, we worked alongside the university instructor, an instructional designer, and a researcher in order to consider the integration of instructional design, learning sciences, theories of learning, and user experience design (Weigel, 2015 ). In doing so, we were able to ensure that the course was properly aligned to the LXD paradigm, grounded in learning theories such as the testing effect and Bloom’s Taxonomy, and deployed with an empathic lens to promote students’ active learning behaviors in online learning settings. Thus, our efforts led to the implementation of a technology-enhanced online learning experience that effectively supported learners’ quiz grades, engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking.

7.4 Implications for Practice and Future Directions

The implications of this study for educators, instructional designers, and higher education administrators are significant. Firstly, the incorporation of immediate low-stakes questioning directly within video content offers a promising avenue for enriching online learning experiences rooted in the Learning Experience Design (LXD) paradigm and the testing effect model. Educators can integrate these strategies and technological modality into their course designs to foster active learning and deepen learners’ engagement with course material. Instructional designers, drawing on LXD principles, can create meaningful learning experiences that incorporate evidence-based pedagogical strategies, such as embedding low-stakes questions within instructional content. Facilitating the testing effect with low-stakes questioning can extend beyond videos and be incorporated into readings, assignments, and course activities. Moreover, higher education administrators and institutions should recognize the importance of integrating technology in line with evidence-based pedagogies. While the rapid introduction of educational technology (edtech) tools during the COVID-19 pandemic facilitated emergency remote learning, our study underscores the necessity of aligning these tools with pedagogical frameworks to optimize their effectiveness. By investing in the development and implementation of technologies that promote active learning and enhance learners’ engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking, institutions can better equip students for success in online learning environments while capitalizing on existing edtech resources. An essential aspect of our study is to raise awareness about the range of tools already available to and supported by universities. Ensuring accessibility for instructors, designers, researchers, and students is imperative, enabling effective adoption of these tools while employing evidence-based strategies. We aspire for this study to serve as an example of how university investments in tools can positively impact students’ learning experiences, encouraging others to adopt similar approaches as we continue to refine our support for students’ needs.

7.4.1 Limitations

Further research is needed to thoroughly assess the long-term benefits of incorporating embedding low-stakes questions directly into videos in online undergraduate courses. During this study, participants in both groups were presented with low-stakes questions throughout the course. Students in the immediate condition encountering questions embedded within the video player experienced automatic triggering of questions, synchronized with instructional content. In contrast, those in the delayed condition faced identical questions after viewing all of the lecture videos in the instructional unit. While the timing of the questions served as a deliberate experimental manipulation between the two groups, determining whether the testing effect was more pronounced in either condition poses a limitation of the study. Despite high weekly quiz grades ranging from mid to upper 90% for both conditions, quiz scores were significantly higher for those who experienced questions directly embedded in the video. However, it’s important to note that scores remained consistently high across both conditions, suggesting that the testing effect may manifest regardless of question timing or that the question difficulty may need to be adjusted. This highlights the need for further exploration of how the testing effect operates in various instructional courses, topics, and learning contexts. Future research could involve a quasi-experimental study comprising a traditional control group without questions and treatment conditions integrating embedded video questions, utilizing larger sample sizes across STEM courses could reveal the true advantages of the testing effect. Moreover, future research could consider controlling for additional learning analytics, such as video completion rates, assignment submission times, and accuracy of low-stakes questioning, as predictors for learners’ course performance and learning outcomes. Understanding these dynamics can refine instructional strategies for optimizing learning outcomes in online education settings. We deliberately refrained from introducing additional learning opportunities between groups to ensure equal access to course content. Our aim was to evaluate the timing and integration of questions within or following video content, scrutinizing the effectiveness and benefits of implementing the embedded video questioning platform within the framework of LXD.

As a future direction, we plan to investigate the long-term impacts of embedded video questions on knowledge retention and transferable skills. Additionally, analyzing various question types, number, and difficulty, along with on-demand feedback and spacing intervals within videos, could inform optimal design choices for promoting knowledge outcomes and student learning behaviors. Enhancing the designs might include direct feedback for each of the low-stakes questions, adjusting the quantity of low-stakes questions learners encounter, and refining the difficulty level to better cater to individual learning needs. Further research is warranted to explore underlying mechanisms, optimal design, and factors influencing cognitive aspects such as affect, cognitive load, and mind-wandering. Structural equation modeling, pending sample sizes, could provide insights into intricate mechanisms exhibited by students. Lastly, exploring the scalability of this approach across different subject domains and learner populations could enhance understanding of its generalizability and benefits of operationalizing the testing effect through embedded video within the LXD paradigm.

8 Conclusion

The integration of low-stakes questioning embedded directly into the video player within an asynchronous online course grounded in the Learning Experience Design (LXD) paradigm showcased significantly positive effects on learners’ engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking compared to their counterparts. In addition, results showed that learners in the immediate condition had significantly higher quiz grades, pageviews, and course participation after 10 instructional weeks. Furthermore, findings also revealed that one potential mechanism underpinning learners’ increased quiz grades might be attributed to students’ levels of self-regulation when experiencing embedded video questions. As evidenced by students learning analytics and self-reported online engagement, learners are more actively involved in the learning process, with the timing of the embedded questions activating students’ awareness to reflect on “what, how, and why” before critically deciding on answer choices to the conceptual questions. We suspect that learners might be experiencing more of the benefits of the testing effect given our LX design decisions, the placement of the questions given the timing of when these questions appeared, and how the questions were designed when deploying the low-stakes questioning. Thus, results suggest that the implementation of an LX-designed self-paced online course deployed with low-stakes questions directly embedded in video are efficacious for students’ science learning outcomes and may have practical implications for the sustainability and rigor of undergraduate science distance learning. As a result, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on technology-enhanced pedagogical strategies for online learning and underscores the importance of aligning “edtech” tools with evidence-based pedagogical frameworks. By fostering active learning through embedded low-stakes video questions, educators and instructional designers create online learning experiences that are more engaging, meaningful, and effective, ultimately enhancing students’ academic outcomes and transferable skills in digital learning environments. As institutions continue to invest in educational technology, the collaborative integration of expertise from diverse fields will be pivotal in designing and implementing effective and engaging online learning environments.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Joseph Wong, upon reasonable request.

Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research , 87 (3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H., Roediger, I. I. I., H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open-and closed‐book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , 22 (7), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391 .

Ahn, J. (2019). Drawing inspiration for learning experience design (LX) from diverse perspectives. The Emerging Learning Design Journal , 6 (1), 1. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldj/vol6/iss1/1 .

Google Scholar  

Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Isaacson, R. M. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation a path analysis. International Journal of Education , 2 (1), 1.

Asad, M. M., Hussain, N., Wadho, M., Khand, Z. H., & Churi, P. P. (2020). Integration of e-learning technologies for interactive teaching and learning process: An empirical study on higher education institutes of Pakistan. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0103 .

Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational psychologist, 45 (4), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515934 .

Barak, M., Hussein-Farraj, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2016). On-campus or online: Examining self-regulation and cognitive transfer skills in different learning settings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 13 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0035-9 .

Betts, S. C. (2008). Teaching and assessing basic concepts to advanced applications: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to inform graduate course design. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal , 12 (3), 99.

Bloom, H. (2001). How to read and why . Simon and Schuster.

Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education , 39 (3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845 .

Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: An overview. International Encyclopedia of Education , 10 , 375–380.

Bruning, K. (2005). The role of critical thinking in the online learning environment. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning , 2 (5), 21–31.

Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition , 35 (6), 1563. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021 .

Chan, J. C. (2010). Long-term effects of testing on the recall of nontested materials. Memory, 18 (1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210903405737 .

Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition , 20 , 633–642. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202713 .

Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 .

Chick, R. C., Clifton, G. T., Peace, K. M., Propper, B. W., Hale, D. F., Alseidi, A. A., & Vreeland, T. J. (2020). Using technology to maintain the education of residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Surgical Education , 77 (4), 729–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.03.018 .

​​Christiansen, M. A., Lambert, A. M., Nadelson, L. S., Dupree, K. M., & Kingsford, T. A. (2017). In-class versus at-home quizzes: Which is better? A flipped learning study in a two-site synchronously broadcast organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education , 94 (2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00370 .

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning , 1 , 1–6.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator , 15 (3), 6–11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ440511 .

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (1997). Study of school uses of television and video. 1996–1997 School year summary report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 879).

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (2004). Television goes to school: The impact of video on student learning in formal education. Available: http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/tvgoestoschool/ .

Correia, A. P. (2021). ID 2 LXD. From instructional design to learning experience design: The Rise of design thinking. Driving educational change: Innovations in action .

Cruse, E. (2006). Using educational video in the classroom: Theory, research and practice. Library Video Company , 12 (4), 56–80.

Cummins, S., Beresford, A. R., & Rice, A. (2015). Investigating engagement with in-video quiz questions in a programming course. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 9 (1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2015.2444374 .

Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends , 60 , 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z .

Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education , 78 , 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018 .

Deng, R., & Gao, Y. (2023). Effects of embedded questions in pre-class videos on learner perceptions, video engagement, and learning performance in flipped classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231167098

Deng, R., Feng, S., & Shen, S. (2023). Improving the effectiveness of video-based flipped classrooms with question-embedding. Education and Information Technologies , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12303-5 .

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 14 (1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 .

EDSCOOP Staff (June 5, 2023). Colleges spent $1B on distance-learning tech at COVID-19 peak. https://edscoop.com/colleges-spent-distance-learning-tech-covid-19/#:~:text=Of%20more%20than%20%2426%20billion,students%2C%20according%20to%20the%20report .

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Lehman, J. D., Newby, T. J., Cheng, X., Mong, C., & Sadaf, A. (2010). Peer feedback in a large undergraduate blended course: Perceptions of value and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43 (1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.1.e .

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fisher, M., & Baird, D. E. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-wide Information Systems , 22 (2), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740510587100 .

Floor, N. (2018). What is learning experience design . Springer.

Floor, N. (2023). This is learning experience design: What it is, how it works, and why it matters . New Riders.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research , 74 (1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 .

Fries-Britt, S., & White-Lewis, D. (2020). In pursuit of meaningful relationships: How black males perceive faculty interactions in STEM. The Urban Review , 52 (3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00559-x .

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn't work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89 , 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015

Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Exploring the video-based learning research: A review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology , 44 (6), E191–E195. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12070 .

Haagsman, M. E., Scager, K., Boonstra, J., & Koster, M. C. (2020). Pop-up questions within educational videos: Effects on students’ learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 29 , 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09847-3 .

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist , 53 (4), 449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 .

Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning , 23 (2), 145–178. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481 .

Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education , 43 , 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020114231387 .

Humphries, B., & Clark, D. (2021). An examination of student preference for traditional didactic or chunking teaching strategies in an online learning environment. Research in Learning Technology . https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2405

Instructure (2024, January 18). How do I view analytics for an individual student in new analytics? Instructure Community. https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Instructor-Guide/How-do-I-view-analytics-for-an-individual-student-in-New/ta-p/801 .

Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using KahootTM on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education , 18 (2), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306561 .

Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education , 95 , 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014 .

Jain, S., & Dowson, M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety as a function of multidimensional self-regulation and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 34 (3), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.05.004 .

Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 (3), 621. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183 .

Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9 (2), n2.

Kestin, G., & Miller, K. (2022). Harnessing active engagement in educational videos: Enhanced visuals and embedded questions. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 18 (1), 010148. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010148 .

Kolås, L. (2015, June). Application of interactive videos in education. In 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2015.7218037 .

Kovacs, G. (2016, April). Effects of in-video quizzes on MOOC lecture viewing. In Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 31–40). https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2876041 .

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Never let it rest lessons about student success from high-performing colleges and universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 37 (4), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.4.44-51 .

Littrell-Baez, M. K., Friend, A., Caccamise, D., & Okochi, C. (2015). Using retrieval practice and metacognitive skills to improve content learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 58 (8), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.420 .

Matthews, M. T., Williams, G. S., Yanchar, S. C., & McDonald, J. K. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. TechTrends , 61 (5), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0212-2 .

Marshall, F. B., & Marshall, J. (2021, November). The effects of embedding knowledge-check questions in instructional videos. In innovate learning summit (pp. 319–327). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220301/ .

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist instruction (pp. 196–212). Routledge.

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning . Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Introduction to multimedia learning.

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 33 (5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197 .

Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 33 (2), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3482 .

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology , 93 (1), 187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187 .

Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., ... & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3 4 (1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002

McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R. C., Agarwal, P. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Quizzing in middle-school science: Successful transfer performance on classroom exams. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 27 (3), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2914 .

McMahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2001). Promoting self-regulated learning in an on-line environment (pp. 1299–1305). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8630/ .

van der Meij, H., & Bӧckmann, L. (2021). Effects of embedded questions in recorded lectures. Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 33 (1), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09263-x .

McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2), 399. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021782 .

Moos, D. C., & Bonde, C. (2016). Flipping the classroom: Embedding self-regulated learning prompts in videos. Technology Knowledge and Learning , 21 , 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9269-1 .

National Center for Education Statistics (2022). Postbaccalaureate Enrollment. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved May 31, 2022, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/chb .

O’leary, B., June, A. W., & May (2023). 30, Higher Ed Recieved Billions in Covid-Relief Money. Where did it Go? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/higher-ed-received-billions-in-covid-relief-money-where-did-it-go?emailConfirmed=true&supportSignUp=true&supportForgotPassword=true&email=wongjosepht%40gmail.com&success=true&code=success&bc_nonce=s0oj2mjwxyeggvl7ua8u&cid=gen_sign_in

Pan, S. C., Cooke, J., Little, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Foster, E. R., Connor, L. T., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Online and clicker quizzing on jargon terms enhances definition-focused but not conceptually focused biology exam performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (4), ar54. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0248 .

Pellas, N. (2018). Is the flipped classroom model for all? Correspondence analysis from trainee instructional media designers. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (2), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9634-x .

Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior , 35 , 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048 .

Peng, Y., Liu, Y., & Guo, C. (2019). Examining the neural mechanism behind testing effect with concrete and abstract words. Neuroreport , 30 (2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000001169 .

Picciano, A. G. (2023). Future technological trends and research. In Data Analytics and Adaptive Learning (pp. 303–322). Routledge.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement , 53 (3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024 .

Pulukuri, S., & Abrams, B. (2021). Improving learning outcomes and metacognitive monitoring: Replacing traditional textbook readings with question-embedded videos. Journal of Chemical Education , 98 (7), 2156–2166. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00237 .

Redmond, P., Abawi, L., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning Journal , 22 (1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175 .

Rice, P., Beeson, P., & Blackmore-Wright, J. (2019). Evaluating the impact of a quiz question within an educational video. TechTrends , 63 (5), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00374-6 .

Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 15 (3), 243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016496 .

Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 6 (2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1336 .

Roediger, I. I. I., H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 1 (3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x .

Rossing, J. P., Miller, W., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/7071 .

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . Guilford publications.

Sandars, J., Correia, R., Dankbaar, M., de Jong, P., Goh, P. S., Hege, I., & Pusic, M. (2020). Twelve tips for rapidly migrating to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000082.1 .

Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology Research and Development , 59 , 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9193-6 .

Scott, E. E., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. (2020). Design-based research: A methodology to extend and enrich biology education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19 (2), es11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0245 .

Schmitz, W. H. G. (2020). Embedded questions in text and video-based lectures (Master’s thesis, University of Twente). https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/82825 .

Shneiderman, B., & Hochheiser, H. (2001). Universal usability as a stimulus to advanced interface design. Behaviour & Information Technology , 20 (5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110083602 .

Siek, K. A., Hayes, G. R., Newman, M. W., & Tang, J. C. (2014). Field deployments: Knowing from using in context. In J. Olson & W. Kellogg (Eds.), Ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 119–142). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_6 .

Sotola, L. K., & Crede, M. (2021). Regarding class quizzes: A meta-analytic synthesis of studies on the relationship between frequent low-stakes testing and class performance. Educational Psychology Review , 33 , 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09563-9 .

Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology , 43 (2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x .

Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI global.

Torres, D., Pulukuri, S., & Abrams, B. (2022). Embedded questions and targeted feedback transform passive educational videos into effective active learning tools. Journal of Chemical Education , 99 (7), 2738–2742. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00342 .

Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language , 64 (2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002 .

Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Capa-Aydin, Y. (2013). Predicting critical thinking skills of university students through metacognitive self-regulation skills and chemistry self-efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice , 13 (1), 666–670. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016667 .

Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning , 3 , 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9022-4 .

Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2017). The effects of college students’ positive thinking, learning motivation and self-regulation through a self-reflection intervention in Taiwan. Higher Education Research & Development , 36 (1), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1176999 .

Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education , 34 (3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779 .

Weigel, M. (2015). Learning experience design versus user experience: Moving from user to Learner. Sixredmarbles .

Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students’ use of strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education , 81 (2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.699901 .

Wong, J. T., Bui, N. N., Fields, D. T., & Hughes, B. S. (2023). A learning experience design approach to online professional development for teaching science through the arts: Evaluation of teacher content knowledge, self-efficacy and STEAM perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34 , 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2112552

Wong, J., Chen, E., Rose, E., Lerner, B., Richland, L., & Hughes, B. (2023). The cognitive and behavioral learning impacts of embedded video questions: Leveraging learning experience design to support students’ knowledge outcomes. In P. Blikstein, J. Van Aalst, R. Kizito, & K. Brennan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international conference of the learning sciences - ICLS 2023 (pp. 1861–1862). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2023.356980

Wong, J. T., Chen, E., Au-Yeung, N., Lerner, B. S., & Richland, L. E. (2024). Fostering engaging online learning experiences: Investigating situational interest and mind-wandering as mediators through learning experience design. Education and Information Technologies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12524-2

Wong, J. T., & Hughes, B. S. (2022). Leveraging learning experience design: Digital media approaches to influence motivational traits that support student learning behaviors in undergraduate online courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35 , 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09342-1

Wong, J. T., Mesghina, A., Chen, E., Yeung, N. A., Lerner, B. S., & Richland, L. E. (2023b). Zooming in or zoning out: Examining undergraduate learning experiences with zoom and the role of mind-wandering. Computers and Education Open , 4 , 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100118 .

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

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives . Routledge.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participating students, instructor, university staff, and administrators. We are impressed by their enthusiasm to adopt and learn new strategies to implement LXD strategies during the pandemic teaching and learning environment.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, under grant number 2020304238 to the first author via the University of California, Irvine.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of California, Irvine, 3200 Education Bldg, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

Joseph T. Wong & Lindsey Engle Richland

University of California, Irvine, 301 Steinhaus Hall, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

Bradley S. Hughes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Joseph Wong: concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis/interpretation, manuscript writing, statistical analysis, technical support, material support. Lindsey Richland: critical manuscript revision, supervision, admin, material support. Bradley Hughes: instructor, concept, and design, data acquisition, data analysis/interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript, admin, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph T. Wong .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Internal Review Board Ethics Committee at the University.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wong, J.T., Richland, L.E. & Hughes, B.S. Immediate Versus Delayed Low-Stakes Questioning: Encouraging the Testing Effect Through Embedded Video Questions to Support Students’ Knowledge Outcomes, Self-Regulation, and Critical Thinking. Tech Know Learn (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1

Download citation

Accepted : 20 May 2024

Published : 30 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Learning experience design
• Testing effect
• Embedded video questions
• Critical thinking
• Self-regulation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Dementia and Alzheimer's
• Alzheimer's Disease
• Other Dementias
• Diagnosis & Stages
• Race As a Risk Factor
• Drug Treatment
• Complementary & Alternative Treatment
• Research and Potential Treatments
• Symptom Management
• Diet & Exercise
• Safety Issues
• When Alzheimer's Affects More than Memory
• Physical Problems
• Sleep Problems
• Behavioral & Cognitive Problems
• Gastrointestinal Problems
• Caregiving Essentials
• Caregiver Stress & Self-Care
• Legal & Financial Matters
• Groups & Organizations
• Care Facilities
• View Full Guide

Understanding Cognitive Tests: What They Can and Can't Do

July 30, 2024 – With the term “cognitive test” now part of everyday conversation, brain health experts are welcoming the chance to explain exactly what these tests can and can’t do.

While there are different types of cognitive tests , “what we are talking about [often] are mostly cognitive screening tests,” said Joe Verghese, a cognitive neurologist and a division chief at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, NY. He holds the English equivalent of a medical degree. 

While people may think the tests are the answer to whether they have dementia, Verghese said they are not by themselves diagnostic. “They’re designed to decide if someone has a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment,” he said. 

With mild cognitive impairment, an older adult has more thinking or memory problems than peers. Those with the disorder have a higher risk, but not a certainty, of getting dementia.

Among the most common of the basic cognitive screening tests:

• Montreal Cognitive Assessment: During this test, you memorize a short word list, name objects shown in pictures, copy shapes, and do other tasks. Time: 15 minutes.
• Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE): Count backward, identify objects in a room, say the date, and say other information that’s well-known. Time: 10 minutes.
• Mini-Cog: Memorize and then recall a three-word list of unrelated words and draw a circle clock (adding time points and drawing hands to depict a specific time). Time: 3 minutes.

Since these basic screening tests are so quick and simple, should older adults get one? In a 2020 recommendation, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said evidence is lacking to measure the balance of benefits and harms of widespread screening for cognitive impairment in older adults, ages 65 and above, and more research is needed. The task force is an independent volunteer panel of experts that makes evidence-based recommendations on clinical preventive services such as testing. 

After the Screener, What’s Next?

If you fail one of the cognitive screening tests, it doesn’t mean you have dementia, but it does show that further testing is warranted, Verghese said. And if you ace it? “If you pass, it doesn’t mean you’re completely normal, just less likely to have dementia.”

If the quick screeners show reason for concern, health care providers will move on to more comprehensive diagnostic tests, which can take 1 to 3 hours, Verghese said, and probe more into brain functioning.

“It’s not practical to screen everyone with a 3-hour test,” Verghese said. They’re meant for older patients who come in with cognitive concerns, or when the family of older patients express concerns. The 65 cut-off is arbitrary, Verghese said. A 65-year-old, of course, could be cognitively and physically healthy, while a 55-year-old could be frail.

It’s important to distinguish between the two types of tests, said Shehroo Pudumjee, PhD, a neuropsychologist at the Cleveland Clinic’s Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas. The simple tests “are very quick, but are screeners, not full comprehensive tests,” she said. They are designed to pick up on cognitive impairments, but not designed to be very specific.

The comprehensive evaluation is very patient-based, she said, so it’s impossible to give a list of exactly what’s included. It should start with a comprehensive history, including questions about medications (such as antihistamines for colds or sleep) or conditions (multiple sclerosis, depression, concussions) that might affect mental functioning. 

Health care providers would also ask family and other loved ones what they are noticing in terms of cognitive concerns, how the person is sleeping, and other details. Next, Pudumjee said, cognitive tests would evaluate more intensely a person’s thinking, memory, and other brain functions. The word list would be more challenging, for instance, than in the screener. 

The results might point to a major cognitive disorder, such as Alzheimer’s or other dementia, or might suggest another disease, such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, Pudumjee said. 

Who Aces the Tests?

In a recent study from the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated nearly 27,000 people, ages 53 to 86, and found that night owls did better on cognitive function tests than did morning “larks.”   They also found a link between normal sleep duration of 7 to 9 hours and better cognitive scores.

Simply getting enough sleep to perform well on the tests might be most important, Verghese said. He noted that some older people may have sleep issues, and lack of sleep is a risk factor for dementia.  

New Options 

To help primary care providers detect cognitive problems in their patients, Verghese and his colleagues recently developed a test called the 5-Cog paradigm, an easy, 5-minute assessment that is paired with recommendations built into the electronic medical records system to improve diagnosis and treatment.

In the research,   Verghese and his colleagues evaluated 1,201 primary care patients, with a median age of nearly 73, with cognitive concerns, assigned to get the new test or to be in a control group that didn’t get it.

Over the next 90 days, those who took the test were three times more likely than those who didn’t to have benefitted from improved dementia care actions, such as being diagnosed for mild cognitive impairment or dementia, being referred to specialists, or receiving medications that could help.

The test includes a picture-based memory-impairment screening test, a brief picture-based symbol match, and confirmation that the patient has cognitive complaints. 

Primary care providers are often the first to see patients developing cognitive problems, Verghese said, but they are often focused on tending to patients’ other multiple health concerns, so the quick test is valuable.

If providers are not charging patients for it, it’s accessible from Montefiore, he said.

Vocal Clues to Cognitive Fitness

Vocal biomarkers – such as speech rate and pause duration – are becoming potentially valuable to detect cognitive impairment, according to research presented Monday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Philadelphia. Researchers from Montefiore Medical Center and Sonde Health, a voice-based health tracking company, reported on the results of cognitive screening and vocal analysis in more than 200 people, finding the vocal analysis aligned with the traditional assessments.

Because voice-enabled devices are so common, automated vocal analysis could become useful to detect cognitive impairment early and monitor it, the researchers said. Sonde Health already offers companies mental and respiratory fitness trackers; it has expanded options with its Sonde Cognitive Fitness, which examines eight vocal traits from 30-second voice interactions and creates a score to provide feedback on one’s cognitive state.

Do-It-Yourself Cognitive Test?

Numerous do-it-yourself cognitive tests are available online. One, called SAGE, for Self-Administered Gerocognitive Exam, was developed at Ohio State University. Users are encouraged to download it, complete it, and then take it to their health care provider for analysis.

The exam usually takes about 15 minutes and asks users to answer basic medical history questions, do basic math, identify everyday objects, copy a simple drawing, and draw a clock and fill it in. 

The evaluation by a health care provider is crucial, Verghese said. “A test without follow-up is not advisable,” he said.

Addressing Concerns

Don’t ignore concerns about cognitive health, Verghese said. “If you have a cognitive concern or notice cognitive concerns in a loved one, go and get a screening test,” he said. “In most cases, it may turn out to be normal aging, in which case [the result] is reassuring.”

And if a cognitive issue is found? “Catching it early is very important,” he said. There might be treatment or preventive strategies to help.

Top doctors in ,

Find more top doctors on, related links.

• Alzheimer's Disease Home
• Alzheimer's Disease News
• Alzheimer's Disease Reference
• Alzheimer's Disease Slideshows
• Alzheimer's Disease Quizzes
• Alzheimer's Disease Videos
• Find a Neurologist
• Alzheimer's Disease Medications
• Brain & Nervous System
• Down Syndrome
• Drug Interaction Checker
• Frontotemporal Dementia
• Palliative Care
• Parkinson's Disease
• Pick's Disease