what is acquisition of critical thinking skills

Tim van Gelder

Epistemology is everywhere.

Argument Mapping , Critical Thinking , Education , Expertise , Reasoning , Teaching , Thinking

How are critical thinking skills acquired? Five perspectives

Almost everyone agrees that critical thinking skills are important.  Almost everyone agrees that it is worth investing effort (in education, or in workplace training) to improve these skills.   And so it is rather surprising to find that there is, in the academic literature, little clarity, and even less consensus, about one of the most basic  questions you’d need answered if you wanted to generate any sort of gains in critical thinking skills (let alone generate those gains cost-effectively); viz., how are critical thinking skills acquired?

Theories on this matter come in five main kinds:

• Formal Training. CT skills are simply the exercise of generic thinking power which can be strengthened by intensive training, much as general fitness can be enhanced by running, swimming or weightlifting.  This approach recommends working out in some formal ‘mental gym’ such as chess, mathematics or symbolic logic as the most convenient and effective way to build these mental muscles.
• Theoretical Instruction. CT skills are acquired by learning the relevant theory (logic, statistics, scientific method, etc.).  This perspective assumes that mastering skills is a matter of gaining the relevant  theory .  People with poor CT poor skills lack only a theoretical understanding; if they are taught the theory in sufficient detail, they will automatically be able to exhibit the skills, since exhibiting skills is just a matter of following explicit (or explicable) rules.
• Situated Cognition. CT is deeply tied to particular domains and can only be acquired through properly “situated” activity in each domain.  Extreme versions deny outright that there are any generic CT skills (e.g. McPeck).  Moderate versions claim, more plausibly, that increasingly general skills are acquired through engaging in domain-specific CT activities.  According to the moderate version general CT skills emerge gradually in a process of consolidation and abstraction from particular, concrete deployments, much as general sporting skills (e.g., hand-eye coordination) are acquired by playing a variety of particular sports in which those general skills are exercised in ways peculiar to those sports.
• Practice sees CT skills as acquired by directly practicing the general skills themselves, applying them to many particular problems within a wide selection of specific domains and contexts.  The Practice perspective differs from Formal Training in that it is general CT skills themselves which are being practiced rather than formal substitutes, and the practice takes place in non-formal domains.  It differs from Situated Cognition in that it is practice of general skills aimed at improving those general capacities, rather than embedded deployment of skills aimed at meeting some specific challenge within that domain.
• Evolutionary Psychology views the mind as constituted by an idiosyncratic set of universal, innate, hard-wired cognitive capacities bequeathed by natural selection due to the advantages conferred by those capacities in the particular physical and social environments in which we evolved.  The mind does not possess and cannot attain general-purpose CT skills; rather, it can consolidate strengths in those particular forms or patterns of thinking for which evolution has provided dedicated apparatus.  Cultivating CT is a matter of identifying and nurturing those forms.

Formal training is the oldest and most thoroughly discredited of the perspectives.   It seems now so obvious that teaching latin, chess, music or even formal logic will have little or no impact on general critical thinking skills that it is hard to understand now how this idea could ever have been embraced.   And we also know why it fails: it founders on the rock of transfer .  Skills acquired in playing chess do not transfer to, say, evaluating political debates.  Period.

Theoretical Instruction has almost as old a philosophical pedigree as Formal Training.  It has been implemented in countless college critical thinking classes whose pedagogical modus operandi is to teach students “what they need to know” to be better critical thinkers, by lecturing at them and having them read slabs out of textbooks.   Token homework exercises are assigned primarily as a way of assessing whether they have acquired the relevant knowledge; if they can’t do the exercises, what they need is more rehearsing of theory.   As you can probably tell from the tone of this paragraph, I believe this approach is deeply misguided.  The in-depth explanation was provided by philosophers such as Ryle and Heidegger who established the primacy of knowledge-how over knowledge-that, of skills over theory.

Current educational practice subscribes overwhelmingly (and for the most part unwittingly) to the moderate version of Situated Cognition.  That is, we typically hope and expect that students’ general CT skills will emerge as a consequence of their engaging in learning and thinking as they proceed through secondary and especially tertiary education studying a range of particular subjects.  However, students generally do not reach levels of skill regarded as both desirable and achievable.  As Deanna Kuhn put it, “Seldom has there been such widespread agreement about a significant social issue as there is reflected in the view that education is failing in its most central mission—to teach students to think.”  In my view the weakness of students’ critical thinking skills, after 12 or even 16 years of schooling, is powerful evidence of the inadequacy of the Situated Cognition perspective.

There may be some truth to the Evolutionary Psychology perspective.  However in my view the best argument against it is the fact that another perspective – Practice – actually seems quite promising.   The basic idea behind it is very simple and plausible.   It is a truism that, in general, skills are acquired through practice.   The Practice perspective simply says that generic critical thinking skills are really just like most other skills (that is, most other skills that are acquired, like music or chess or trampolining, rather than skills that are innate and develop naturally, like suckling or walking).

In our work in the Reason Project at the University of Melbourne we refined the Practice perspective into what we called the Quality (or Deliberate) Practice Hypothesis.   This was based on the foundational work of Ericsson and others who have shown that skill acquisition in general depends on extensive quality practice.  We conjectured that this would also be true of critical thinking; i.e. critical thinking skills would be (best) acquired by doing lots and lots of good-quality practice on a wide range of real (or realistic) critical thinking problems.   To improve the quality of practice we developed a training program based around the use of argument mapping, resulting in what has been called the LAMP (Lots of Argument Mapping) approach.   In a series of rigorous (or rather, as-rigorous-as-possible-under-the-circumstances) studies involving pre-, post- and follow-up testing using a variety of tests, and setting our results in the context of a meta-analysis of hundreds of other studies of critical thinking gains, we were able to establish that critical thinking skills gains could be dramatically accelerated, with students reliably improving 7-8 times faster, over one semester, than they would otherwise have done just as university students.   (For some of the detail on the Quality Practice hypothesis and our studies, see this paper , and this chapter .)

So if I had to choose one theory out of the five on offer, I’d choose Practice.  Fortunately however we are not in a forced-choice situation. Practice is enhanced by carefully-placed Theoretical Instruction.  And Practice can be reinforced by Situated Cognition, i.e. by engaging in domain-specific critical thinking activities, even when not framed as deliberate practice of general CT skills.   As one of the greatest critical thinkers said in one of the greatest texts on critical thinking :

“Popular opinions, on subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part, but exaggerated, distorted, and disjoined from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited.”

5 thoughts on “ How are critical thinking skills acquired? Five perspectives ”

Add Comment

• Pingback: Critical Thinking Skills | Knowledge Management and Communication in the Life Sciences
• Pingback: How are critical thinking skills acquired?

I credit LEGOs, the game of MasterMind, and Brit-Com’s. Good parenting, and encouragement and a natural interest in puzzles of all kinds and card games, also helped. Took a while to successfully apply the knowledge to people/social, though; much less black-and-white.

• Pingback: CL Project 2: Critical Thinking | On Language
• Pingback: How are critical thinking skills acquired? | The Thinker

Leave a comment

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

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 March 25, 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”

Defining Critical Thinking

• A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking: Basic Questions & Answers
• Our Conception of Critical Thinking
• Sumner’s Definition of Critical Thinking
• Research in Critical Thinking
• Critical Societies: Thoughts from the Past

Translate this page from English...

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

For full copies of this and many other critical thinking articles, books, videos, and more, join us at the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - the world's leading online community dedicated to critical thinking!   Also featuring interactive learning activities, study groups, and even a social media component, this learning platform will change your conception of intellectual development.

Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples

• Homework Help
• Private School
• College Admissions
• College Life
• Graduate School
• Business School
• Distance Learning

• Indiana University, Bloomington
• State University of New York at Oneonta

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions. Employers prioritize the ability to think critically—find out why, plus see how you can demonstrate that you have this ability throughout the job application process. 

Why Do Employers Value Critical Thinking Skills?

Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.

 Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant handholding.

Hiring a critical thinker means that micromanaging won't be required. Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace. You can demonstrate critical thinking by using related keywords in your resume and cover letter, and during your interview.

Examples of Critical Thinking

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

• A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
• A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
• An attorney reviews evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
• A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

Promote Your Skills in Your Job Search

If critical thinking is a key phrase in the job listings you are applying for, be sure to emphasize your critical thinking skills throughout your job search.

Add Keywords to Your Resume

You can use critical thinking keywords (analytical, problem solving, creativity, etc.) in your resume. When describing your  work history , include top critical thinking skills that accurately describe you. You can also include them in your  resume summary , if you have one.

For example, your summary might read, “Marketing Associate with five years of experience in project management. Skilled in conducting thorough market research and competitor analysis to assess market trends and client needs, and to develop appropriate acquisition tactics.”

Mention Skills in Your Cover Letter

Include these critical thinking skills in your cover letter. In the body of your letter, mention one or two of these skills, and give specific examples of times when you have demonstrated them at work. Think about times when you had to analyze or evaluate materials to solve a problem.

Show the Interviewer Your Skills

You can use these skill words in an interview. Discuss a time when you were faced with a particular problem or challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking to solve it.

Some interviewers will give you a hypothetical scenario or problem, and ask you to use critical thinking skills to solve it. In this case, explain your thought process thoroughly to the interviewer. He or she is typically more focused on how you arrive at your solution rather than the solution itself. The interviewer wants to see you analyze and evaluate (key parts of critical thinking) the given scenario or problem.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Top Critical Thinking Skills

Keep these in-demand critical thinking skills in mind as you update your resume and write your cover letter. As you've seen, you can also emphasize them at other points throughout the application process, such as your interview. 

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with  analytical skills  can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

• Asking Thoughtful Questions
• Data Analysis
• Interpretation
• Questioning Evidence
• Recognizing Patterns

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of colleagues. You need to be able to  communicate with others  to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage in critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

• Active Listening
• Collaboration
• Explanation
• Interpersonal
• Presentation
• Verbal Communication
• Written Communication

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

• Flexibility
• Conceptualization
• Imagination
• Drawing Connections
• Synthesizing

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyze the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

• Objectivity
• Observation

Problem Solving

Problem-solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analyzing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

• Attention to Detail
• Clarification
• Decision Making
• Groundedness
• Identifying Patterns

More Critical Thinking Skills

• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Noticing Outliers
• Adaptability
• Emotional Intelligence
• Brainstorming
• Optimization
• Restructuring
• Integration
• Strategic Planning
• Project Management
• Ongoing Improvement
• Causal Relationships
• Case Analysis
• Diagnostics
• SWOT Analysis
• Business Intelligence
• Quantitative Data Management
• Qualitative Data Management
• Risk Management
• Scientific Method
• Consumer Behavior

Key Takeaways

• Demonstrate that you have critical thinking skills by adding relevant keywords to your resume.
• Mention pertinent critical thinking skills in your cover letter, too, and include an example of a time when you demonstrated them at work.
• Finally, highlight critical thinking skills during your interview. For instance, you might discuss a time when you were faced with a challenge at work and explain how you applied critical thinking skills to solve it.

University of Louisville. " What is Critical Thinking ."

American Management Association. " AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century ."

• How To Become an Effective Problem Solver
• 2020-21 Common Application Essay Option 4—Solving a Problem
• College Interview Tips: "Tell Me About a Challenge You Overcame"
• Types of Medical School Interviews and What to Expect
• The Horse Problem: A Math Challenge
• What to Do When the Technology Fails in Class
• A Guide to Business Letters Types
• Landing Your First Teaching Job
• How to Facilitate Learning and Critical Thinking
• Best Majors for Pre-med Students
• Problem Solving in Mathematics
• Discover Ideas Through Brainstorming
• What You Need to Know About the Executive Assessment
• Finding a Job for ESL Learners: Interview Basics
• Finding a Job for ESL Learners
• Job Interview Questions and Answers

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

• Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
• Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
• Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

• Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
• Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
• Has the information received any direct criticism ?
• Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
• Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
• Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

How to Guides

Planning Your Continuing Professional Development

Assess and Address Your CPD Needs

Book Insights

Do More Great Work: Stop the Busywork. Start the Work That Matters.

Michael Bungay Stanier

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Get 20% off your first year of Mind Tools

Our on-demand e-learning resources let you learn at your own pace, fitting seamlessly into your busy workday. Join today and save with our limited time offer!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Pain Points Podcast - Balancing Work And Kids

Pain Points Podcast - Improving Culture

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - what is ai.

Exploring Artificial Intelligence

Pain Points Podcast - How Do I Get Organized?

It's Time to Get Yourself Sorted!

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

How to develop critical thinking skills

Cultivate your creativity

Foster creativity and continuous learning with guidance from our certified Coaches.

Jump to section

What are critical thinking skills?

How to develop critical thinking skills: 12 tips, how to practice critical thinking skills at work, become your own best critic.

A client requests a tight deadline on an intense project. Your childcare provider calls in sick on a day full of meetings. Payment from a contract gig is a month behind. 

Your day-to-day will always have challenges, big and small. And no matter the size and urgency, they all ask you to use critical thinking to analyze the situation and arrive at the right solution. 

Critical thinking includes a wide set of soft skills that encourage continuous learning, resilience , and self-reflection. The more you add to your professional toolbelt, the more equipped you’ll be to tackle whatever challenge presents itself. Here’s how to develop critical thinking, with examples explaining how to use it.

Critical thinking skills are the skills you use to analyze information, imagine scenarios holistically, and create rational solutions. It’s a type of emotional intelligence that stimulates effective problem-solving and decision-making . 

When you fine-tune your critical thinking skills, you seek beyond face-value observations and knee-jerk reactions. Instead, you harvest deeper insights and string together ideas and concepts in logical, sometimes out-of-the-box , ways. 

Imagine a team working on a marketing strategy for a new set of services. That team might use critical thinking to balance goals and key performance indicators , like new customer acquisition costs, average monthly sales, and net profit margins. They understand the connections between overlapping factors to build a strategy that stays within budget and attracts new sales. 

Looking for ways to improve critical thinking skills? Start by brushing up on the following soft skills that fall under this umbrella: 

• Analytical thinking: Approaching problems with an analytical eye includes breaking down complex issues into small chunks and examining their significance. An example could be organizing customer feedback to identify trends and improve your product offerings. 
• Open-mindedness: Push past cognitive biases and be receptive to different points of view and constructive feedback . Managers and team members who keep an open mind position themselves to hear new ideas that foster innovation . 
• Creative thinking: With creative thinking , you can develop several ideas to address a single problem, like brainstorming more efficient workflow best practices to boost productivity and employee morale . 
• Self-reflection: Self-reflection lets you examine your thinking and assumptions to stimulate healthier collaboration and thought processes. Maybe a bad first impression created a negative anchoring bias with a new coworker. Reflecting on your own behavior stirs up empathy and improves the relationship. 
• Evaluation: With evaluation skills, you tackle the pros and cons of a situation based on logic rather than emotion. When prioritizing tasks , you might be tempted to do the fun or easy ones first, but evaluating their urgency and importance can help you make better decisions. 

There’s no magic method to change your thinking processes. Improvement happens with small, intentional changes to your everyday habits until a more critical approach to thinking is automatic. 

Here are 12 tips for building stronger self-awareness and learning how to improve critical thinking: 

1. Be cautious

There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of skepticism. One of the core principles of critical thinking is asking questions and dissecting the available information. You might surprise yourself at what you find when you stop to think before taking action. 

Before making a decision, use evidence, logic, and deductive reasoning to support your own opinions or challenge ideas. It helps you and your team avoid falling prey to bad information or resistance to change .

2. Ask open-ended questions

“Yes” or “no” questions invite agreement rather than reflection. Instead, ask open-ended questions that force you to engage in analysis and rumination. Digging deeper can help you identify potential biases, uncover assumptions, and arrive at new hypotheses and possible solutions. 

3. Do your research

No matter your proficiency, you can always learn more. Turning to different points of view and information is a great way to develop a comprehensive understanding of a topic and make informed decisions. You’ll prioritize reliable information rather than fall into emotional or automatic decision-making. 

4. Consider several opinions

You might spend so much time on your work that it’s easy to get stuck in your own perspective, especially if you work independently on a remote team . Make an effort to reach out to colleagues to hear different ideas and thought patterns. Their input might surprise you.

If or when you disagree, remember that you and your team share a common goal. Divergent opinions are constructive, so shift the focus to finding solutions rather than defending disagreements. 

5. Learn to be quiet

Active listening is the intentional practice of concentrating on a conversation partner instead of your own thoughts. It’s about paying attention to detail and letting people know you value their opinions, which can open your mind to new perspectives and thought processes.

If you’re brainstorming with your team or having a 1:1 with a coworker , listen, ask clarifying questions, and work to understand other peoples’ viewpoints. Listening to your team will help you find fallacies in arguments to improve possible solutions.

6. Schedule reflection

Whether waking up at 5 am or using a procrastination hack, scheduling time to think puts you in a growth mindset . Your mind has natural cognitive biases to help you simplify decision-making, but squashing them is key to thinking critically and finding new solutions besides the ones you might gravitate toward. Creating time and calm space in your day gives you the chance to step back and visualize the biases that impact your decision-making. 

7. Cultivate curiosity

With so many demands and job responsibilities, it’s easy to seek solace in routine. But getting out of your comfort zone helps spark critical thinking and find more solutions than you usually might.

If curiosity doesn’t come naturally to you, cultivate a thirst for knowledge by reskilling and upskilling . Not only will you add a new skill to your resume , but expanding the limits of your professional knowledge might motivate you to ask more questions. 

You don’t have to develop critical thinking skills exclusively in the office. Whether on your break or finding a hobby to do after work, playing strategic games or filling out crosswords can prime your brain for problem-solving. 

9. Write it down

Recording your thoughts with pen and paper can lead to stronger brain activity than typing them out on a keyboard. If you’re stuck and want to think more critically about a problem, writing your ideas can help you process information more deeply.

The act of recording ideas on paper can also improve your memory . Ideas are more likely to linger in the background of your mind, leading to deeper thinking that informs your decision-making process. 

10. Speak up

Take opportunities to share your opinion, even if it intimidates you. Whether at a networking event with new people or a meeting with close colleagues, try to engage with people who challenge or help you develop your ideas. Having conversations that force you to support your position encourages you to refine your argument and think critically. 

11. Stay humble

Ideas and concepts aren’t the same as real-life actions. There may be such a thing as negative outcomes, but there’s no such thing as a bad idea. At the brainstorming stage , don’t be afraid to make mistakes.

Sometimes the best solutions come from off-the-wall, unorthodox decisions. Sit in your creativity , let ideas flow, and don’t be afraid to share them with your colleagues. Putting yourself in a creative mindset helps you see situations from new perspectives and arrive at innovative conclusions. 

12. Embrace discomfort

Get comfortable feeling uncomfortable . It isn’t easy when others challenge your ideas, but sometimes, it’s the only way to see new perspectives and think critically.

By willingly stepping into unfamiliar territory, you foster the resilience and flexibility you need to become a better thinker. You’ll learn how to pick yourself up from failure and approach problems from fresh angles. 

Thinking critically is easier said than done. To help you understand its impact (and how to use it), here are two scenarios that require critical thinking skills and provide teachable moments. 

Scenario #1: Unexpected delays and budget

Imagine your team is working on producing an event. Unexpectedly, a vendor explains they’ll be a week behind on delivering materials. Then another vendor sends a quote that’s more than you can afford. Unless you develop a creative solution, the team will have to push back deadlines and go over budget, potentially costing the client’s trust. 

Here’s how you could approach the situation with creative thinking:

• Analyze the situation holistically: Determine how the delayed materials and over-budget quote will impact the rest of your timeline and financial resources . That way, you can identify whether you need to build an entirely new plan with new vendors, or if it’s worth it to readjust time and resources. 
• Identify your alternative options: With careful assessment, your team decides that another vendor can’t provide the same materials in a quicker time frame. You’ll need to rearrange assignment schedules to complete everything on time. 
• Collaborate and adapt: Your team has an emergency meeting to rearrange your project schedule. You write down each deliverable and determine which ones you can and can’t complete by the deadline. To compensate for lost time, you rearrange your task schedule to complete everything that doesn’t need the delayed materials first, then advance as far as you can on the tasks that do. 
• Check different resources: In the meantime, you scour through your contact sheet to find alternative vendors that fit your budget. Accounting helps by providing old invoices to determine which vendors have quoted less for previous jobs. After pulling all your sources, you find a vendor that fits your budget. 
• Maintain open communication: You create a special Slack channel to keep everyone up to date on changes, challenges, and additional delays. Keeping an open line encourages transparency on the team’s progress and boosts everyone’s confidence. 

Scenario #2: Differing opinions 

A conflict arises between two team members on the best approach for a new strategy for a gaming app. One believes that small tweaks to the current content are necessary to maintain user engagement and stay within budget. The other believes a bold revamp is needed to encourage new followers and stronger sales revenue. 

Here’s how critical thinking could help this conflict:

• Listen actively: Give both team members the opportunity to present their ideas free of interruption. Encourage the entire team to ask open-ended questions to more fully understand and develop each argument. 
• Flex your analytical skills: After learning more about both ideas, everyone should objectively assess the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. Analyze each idea's risk, merits, and feasibility based on available data and the app’s goals and objectives. 
• Identify common ground: The team discusses similarities between each approach and brainstorms ways to integrate both idea s, like making small but eye-catching modifications to existing content or using the same visual design in new media formats. 
• Test new strategy: To test out the potential of a bolder strategy, the team decides to A/B test both approaches. You create a set of criteria to evenly distribute users by different demographics to analyze engagement, revenue, and customer turnover. 
• Monitor and adapt: After implementing the A/B test, the team closely monitors the results of each strategy. You regroup and optimize the changes that provide stronger results after the testing. That way, all team members understand why you’re making the changes you decide to make.

You can’t think your problems away. But you can equip yourself with skills that help you move through your biggest challenges and find innovative solutions. Learning how to develop critical thinking is the start of honing an adaptable growth mindset. 

Now that you have resources to increase critical thinking skills in your professional development, you can identify whether you embrace change or routine, are open or resistant to feedback, or turn to research or emotion will build self-awareness. From there, tweak and incorporate techniques to be a critical thinker when life presents you with a problem.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

How divergent thinking can drive your creativity

How to improve your creative skills for effective problem-solving, what’s convergent thinking how to be a better problem-solver, can dreams help you solve problems 6 ways to try, 6 ways to leverage ai for hyper-personalized corporate learning, what is lateral thinking 7 techniques to encourage creative ideas, 8 creative solutions to your most challenging problems, thinking outside the box: 8 ways to become a creative problem solver, critical thinking is the one skillset you can't afford not to master, similar articles, what is creative thinking and why does it matter, discover the 7 essential types of life skills you need, 6 big picture thinking strategies that you'll actually use, what are analytical skills examples and how to level up, how intrapersonal skills shape teams, plus 5 ways to build them, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care™
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

The State of Critical Thinking 2020

November 2020, introduction.

In 2018, the Reboot Foundation released a first-of-its-kind survey looking at the public’s attitudes toward critical thinking and critical thinking education. The report found that critical thinking skills are highly valued, but not taught or practiced as much as might be hoped for in schools or in public life. 

The survey suggested that, despite recognizing the importance of critical thinking, when it came to critical thinking practices—like seeking out multiple sources of information and engaging others with opposing views—many people’s habits were lacking. Significant numbers of respondents reported relying on inadequate sources of information, making decisions without doing enough research, and avoiding those with conflicting viewpoints.

In late 2019, the Foundation conducted a follow up survey in order to see how the landscape may have shifted. Without question, the stakes surrounding better reasoning have increased. The COVID-19 pandemic requires deeper interpretive and analytical skills. For instance, when it comes to news about a possible vaccine, people need to assess how it was developed in order to judge whether it will actually work. 

Misinformation, from both foreign and domestic sources, continues to proliferate online and, perhaps most disturbingly, surrounding the COVID-19 health crisis. Meanwhile, political polarization has deepened and become more personal . At the same time, there’s both a growing awareness and divide over issues of racism and inequality. If that wasn’t enough, changes to the journalism industry have weakened local civic life and incentivized clickbait, and sensationalized and siloed content. 

Part of the problem is that much of our public discourse takes place online, where cognitive biases can become amplified, and where groupthink and filter bubbles proliferate. Meanwhile, face-to-face conversations—which can dissolve misunderstandings and help us recognize the shared humanity of those we disagree with—go missing. 

Critical thinking is, of course, not a cure-all, but a lack of critical thinking skills across the population exacerbates all these problems. More than ever, we need skills and practice in managing our emotions, stepping back from quick-trigger evaluations and decisions, and over-relying on biased or false sources of information. 

To keep apprised of the public’s view of critical thinking, the Reboot Foundation conducted its second annual survey in late 2019. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a delay in the release of the results. Nevertheless, this most recent survey dug deeper than our 2018 poll, and looked especially into how the public understands the state of critical thinking education. For the first time, our team also surveyed teachers on their views on teaching critical thinking.

General Findings

Support for critical thinking skills remains high, but there is also clearly skepticism that individuals are getting the help they need to acquire improved reasoning skills. A very high majority of people surveyed (94 percent) believe that critical thinking is “extremely” or “very important.” But they generally (86 percent) find those skills lacking in the public at large. Indeed, 60 percent of the respondents reported not having studied critical thinking in school. And only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that those skills had deteriorated. 

There is also broad support among the public and teachers for critical thinking education, both at the K-12 and collegiate levels. For example, 90 percent think courses covering critical thinking should be required in K-12. 

Many respondents (43 percent) also encouragingly identified early childhood as the best age to develop critical thinking skills. This was a big increase from our previous survey (just 20 percent) and is consistent with the general consensus among social scientists and psychologists. 

There are worrisome trends—and promising signs—in critical thinking habits and daily practices. In particular, individuals still don’t do enough to engage people with whom they disagree. 

Given the deficits in critical thinking acquisition during school, we would hope that respondents’ critical thinking skills continued to improve after they’ve left school. But only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that their skills had actually deteriorated since then. 

Questions about respondents’ critical thinking habits brought out some encouraging information. People reported using more than one source of information when making a decision at a high rate (around 77 percent said they did this “always” or “often”) and giving reasons for their opinions (85 percent). These numbers were, in general, higher than in our previous survey (see “Comparing Survey Results” below).

In other areas of critical thinking, responses were more mixed. Almost half of respondents, for example, reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” seeking out people with different opinions to engage in discussion. Many also reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” planning where (35 percent) or how (36 percent) to get information on a given topic. 

These factors are tied closely together. Critical thinking skills have been challenged and devalued at many different levels of society. There is, therefore, no simple fix. Simply cleansing the internet of misinformation, for example, would not suddenly make us better thinkers. Improving critical thinking across society will take a many-pronged effort.

Comparing Survey Results  

Several interesting details emerged in the comparison of results from this survey to our 2018 poll. First, a word of caution: there were some demographic differences in the respondents between the two surveys. This survey skewed a bit older: the average age was 47, as opposed to 36.5. In addition, more females responded this time: 57 percent versus 46 percent.

That said, there was a great deal of consistency between the surveys on participants’ general views of critical thinking. Belief in the importance of critical thinking remains high (94 percent versus 96 percent), as does belief that these skills are generally lacking in society at large. Blame, moreover, was spread to many of the same culprits. Slightly more participants blamed technology this time (29 versus 27 percent), while slightly fewer blamed the education system (22 versus 26 percent). 

Respondents were also generally agreed on the importance of teaching critical thinking at all levels. Ninety-five percent thought critical thinking courses should be required at the K-12 level (slightly up from 92 percent); and 91 percent thought they should be required in college (slightly up from 90 percent). (These questions were framed slightly differently from year to year, which could have contributed to the small increases.)

One significant change came over the question of when it is appropriate to start developing critical thinking skills. In our first survey, less than 20 percent of respondents said that early childhood was the ideal time to develop critical thinking skills. This time, 43 percent of respondents did so. As discussed below, this is an encouraging development since research indicates that children become capable of learning how to think critically at a young age. 

In one potentially discouraging difference between the two surveys, our most recent survey saw more respondents indicate that they did less critical thinking since high school (18 percent versus just 4 percent). But similar numbers of respondents indicated their critical thinking skills had deteriorated since high school (23 percent versus 21 percent).

Finally, encouraging points of comparison emerged in responses to questions about particular critical thinking activities. Our most recent survey saw a slight uptick in the number of respondents reporting engagement in activities like collaborating with others, planning on where to get information, seeking out the opinions of those they disagree with, keeping an open mind, and verifying information. (See Appendix 1: Data Tables.)

These results could reflect genuine differences from 2018, in either actual activity or respondents’ sense of the importance of these activities. But demographic differences in age and gender could also be responsible. 

There is reason to believe, however, that demographic differences are not the main factor, since there is no evident correlation between gender and responses in either survey. Meanwhile, in our most recent survey older respondents reported doing these activities less frequently . Since this survey skewed older, it might have been anticipated that respondents would report doing these activities less. But the opposite is the case.

Findings From Teacher Survey

Teachers generally agree with general survey respondents about the importance of critical thinking. Ninety-four percent regard critical thinking as “extremely” or “very important.” 

Teachers, like general survey participants, also share concerns that young people aren’t acquiring the critical thinking skills they need. They worry, in particular, about the impact of technology on their students’ critical thinking skills. In response to a question about how their school’s administration can help them teach critical thinking education more effectively, some teachers said updated technology (along with new textbooks and other materials) would help, but others thought laptops, tablets, and smartphones were inhibiting students’ critical thinking development. 

This is an important point to clarify if we are to better integrate critical thinking into K-12 education. Research strongly suggests that critical thinking skills are best acquired in combination with basic facts in a particular subject area. The idea that critical thinking is a skill that can be effectively taught in isolation from basic facts is mistaken. 

Another common misconception reflected in the teacher survey involves critical thinking and achievement. Although a majority of teachers (52 percent) thought all students benefited from critical thinking instruction, a significant percentage (35) said it primarily benefited high-ability students. 

At Reboot, we believe that all students are capable of critical thinking and will benefit from critical thinking instruction. Critical thinking is, after all, just a refinement of everyday thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving. These are skills all students must have. The key is instilling in our young people both the habits and subject-area knowledge needed to facilitate the improvement and refinement of these skills.

Teachers need more support when it comes to critical thinking instruction. In the survey, educators repeatedly mentioned a lack of resources and updated professional development. In response to a question about how administrators could help teachers teach critical thinking more effectively, one teacher asked for “better tools and materials for teaching us how to teach these things.” 

Others wanted more training, asking directly for additional support in terms of resources and professional training. One educator put it bluntly: “Provide extra professional development to give resources and training on how to do this in multiple disciplines.” 

Media literacy is still not being taught as widely as it should be. Forty-four percent of teachers reported that media literacy courses are not offered at their schools, with just 31 percent reporting required media literacy courses. 

This is despite the fact that teachers, in their open responses, recognized the importance of media literacy, with some suggesting it should be a graduation requirement. Many organizations and some governments, notably   Finland’s , have recognized the media literacy deficit and taken action to address it, but the U.S. education system has been slow to act.

Thinking skills have been valuable in all places and at all times. But with the recent upheavals in communication, information, and media, particularly around the COVID-19 crisis, such skills are perhaps more important than ever. 

Part of the issue is that the production of information has been democratized—no longer vetted by gatekeepers but generated by anyone who has an internet connection and something to say. This has undoubtedly had positive effects, as events and voices come to light that might have previously not emerged. The recording of George Floyd’s killing is one such example. But, at the same time, finding and verifying good information has become much more difficult. 

Technological changes have also put financial pressures on so-called “legacy media” like newspapers and television stations, leading to sometimes precipitous drops in quality, less rigorous fact-checking (in the original sense of the term), and the blending of news reports and opinion pieces. The success of internet articles and videos is too often measured by clicks instead of quality. A stable business model for high-quality public interest journalism remains lacking. And, as biased information and propaganda fills gaps left by shrinking newsrooms, polarization worsens. (1)

Traditional and social media both play into our biases and needs for in-group approval. Online platforms have proven ideal venues for misinformation and manipulation. And distractions abound, damaging attention spans and the quality of debate.

Many hold this digital upheaval at least partially responsible for recent political upheavals around the world. Our media consumption habits increasingly reinforce biases and previously held beliefs, and expose us to only the worst and most inflammatory views from the other side. Demagogues and the simple, emotion-driven ideas they advance thrive in this environment of confusion, isolation, and sensationalism. 

It’s not only our public discourse that suffers. Some studies have suggested that digital media may be partially responsible for rising rates of depression and other mood disorders among the young. (2)

Coping with this fast-paced, distraction-filled world in a healthy and productive manner requires better thinking and better habits of mind, but the online world itself tends to encourage the opposite. This is not to suggest our collective thinking skills were pristine before the internet came along, only that the internet presents challenges to our thinking that we have not seen before and have not yet proven able to meet. 

There are some positive signs, with more attention and resources being devoted to neglected areas of education like civics and media literacy ; organizations trying to address internet-fueled polarization and extremism; and online tools being developed to counter fake news and flawed information. 

But we also need to support the development of more general reasoning skills and habits: in other words, “critical thinking.” 

Critical thinking has long been a staple of K-12 and college education, theoretically, at least, if not always in practice. But the concept can easily appear vague and merely rhetorical without definite ideas and practices attached to it. 

When, for example, is the best age to teach critical thinking? What activities are appropriate? Should basic knowledge be acquired at the same time as critical thinking skills, or separately? Some of these questions remain difficult to answer, but research and practice have gone far in addressing others.

Part of the goal of our survey was to compare general attitudes about critical thinking education—both in the teaching profession and the general public—to what the best and most recent research suggests. If there is to be progress in the development of critical thinking skills across society, it requires not just learning how best to teach critical thinking but diffusing that knowledge widely, especially to parents and educators. 

The surveys were distributed through Amazon’s MTurk Prime service. 

For the general survey, respondents answered a series of questions about critical thinking, followed by a section that asked respondents to estimate how often they do certain things, such as consult more than one source when searching for information. The questions in the “personal habit” section appeared in a randomized order to reduce question ordering effects. Demographic questions appeared at the end of the survey.

For the teacher survey, respondents were all part of a teacher panel created by MTurk Prime. They also answered a series of questions on critical thinking, especially focused on the role of critical thinking in their classrooms. After that, respondents answered a series of questions about how they teach—these questions were also randomized to reduce question ordering effects. Finally, we asked questions related to the role of media literacy in their classrooms.

To maintain consistency with the prior survey and to explore relationships across time, many of the questions remained the same from 2018. In some cases, following best practices in questionnaire design , we revamped questions to improve clarity and increase the validity and reliability of the responses.

For all surveys, only completed responses coming from IP addresses located in the U.S. were analyzed. 1152 respondents completed the general survey; 499 teachers completed the teacher survey.

The complete set of questions for each survey is available upon request

Detailed Findings and Discussion

As summarized above, the survey produced a number of noteworthy findings. One central theme that emerged was a general pessimism about the state of critical thinking and uncertainty about how to improve it. That is, despite the near-universal acknowledgment of the importance of critical thinking, respondents generally think society at large is doing a bad job of cultivating critical thinking skills. Respondents were, moreover, divided about what needs to be done.

Almost all the people surveyed (94 percent) believe that critical thinking is “extremely” or “very important.” But they generally (86 percent) find those skills lacking in the public at large. These numbers don’t come as a huge surprise—and they echo the 2018 results—but they do suggest broad public support for initiatives that advance critical thinking skills, both inside and outside of schools.

Respondents also reported deficits in their own critical thinking training and practices. They tended not to think critical thinking had been a point of emphasis in their own education, with a substantial majority of over 63 percent reporting that they had not studied critical thinking in school. Around 20 percent said their schools had provided no background in critical thinking at all, and another 20 percent said the background in critical thinking they gained from school was only slight.

There were significant differences among age groups in these self-reports. Around half of respondents in both the 0-19 and 20-39 age groups reported having studied critical thinking in school. Those numbers dwindled among older groups, bottoming out at 11 percent among 80 to 100-year-olds.

This result is likely in part due to the increased popularity of the phrase “critical thinking”: prior generations may have spent a substantial amount of time on reasoning skills without it coming under the same vocabulary. The young are also closer to school-age, of course, so may simply have sharper memories of critical thinking activities. But the differences in responses might also reflect genuine differences in education. 

In any case it’s clear that, even recently, many—if not most—students come out of school feeling as if they have not learned how to think critically, despite the fact that there is broad consensus on the importance of these skills. Only around 25 percent of respondents reported receiving an “extremely” or “very” strong background in critical thinking from their schools. 

There are a number of potential causes—technology, social norms, misguided educational priorities—but perhaps the most salient is that, as cognitive scientist Tim van Gelder puts it, “critical thinking is hard.” As van Gelder emphasizes, we don’t naturally think reasonably and rationally; instead we tend to rely on narrative, emotion, and intuition—what feels right. (3)   Teaching students to think critically requires much more guidance and practice, throughout the curriculum, than is currently being provided. 

There is broad support among the public and among teachers for critical thinking education, both at the K-12 and collegiate levels. 

Around 90 percent of respondents in the general public said that courses covering critical thinking should be required at the K-12 level, while 94 percent of teachers said critical thinking is important.

And schools usually echo this sentiment as well, citing the phrase “critical thinking” frequently in curricula and other materials. But it remains unclear if, in practice, critical thinking is really the priority it’s made out to be rhetorically.

One problem is a tendency to think critical thinking and reasoning are too complex for younger students to tackle. But research has shown that children start reasoning logically at a very young age. (4)   Critical thinking through activities like open-ended dialogue, weighing opposing perspectives, and backing up opinions with reasoning can have a positive effect even at the K-5 level. For example, philosophy for kids courses have shown some  positive effects on students’ reading and math skills (gains were even more substantial for disadvantaged students). (5)

Our survey respondents generally agreed that critical thinking skills should be taught from an early age. Forty-three percent favored beginning critical thinking instruction during early childhood (another 27 percent favored beginning at ages 6-12). This was more than a twofold increase over the results from 2018’s survey, in which just 20 percent thought it was best to begin instruction in critical thinking before the age of 6. This increase is encouraging since it’s consistent with recent research that understands critical thinking as part of general cognitive development that starts even before children enter school. (6)

Many teachers likewise support critical thinking instruction beginning at a young age. In the open response, for example, one wrote, “Critical thinking should be explicitly taught in earlier grades than late middle school and high school.” 

Another wrote: “By the time students get to high school they should have this skill [critical thinking] well tuned. The pressure to meet standards earlier and earlier makes it harder to teach basic skills like critical thinking.” 

Many teachers (55 percent) also thought the emphasis on standardized testing has made it more difficult to incorporate critical thinking instruction in the classroom. For example, one wrote, “Standardized testing has created an environment of quantitative results that don’t always represent qualitative gains.” 

Moreover, a plurality of teachers (25 percent) believe that state standardized tests do not assess critical thinking skills well at all, while just 13 percent believe they assess critical thinking skills extremely well. Teachers generally (52 percent) believe that their own tests do a better job of measuring critical thinking skills.

The survey also found some worrisome trends—as well as some promising signs—in how people evaluated their own critical thinking skills and daily practices. In particular, individuals don’t do enough to engage people with whom they disagree. 

Given the deficits in critical thinking acquisition during school, it might be hoped that respondents’ critical thinking skills continued to improve after they’ve left school. But only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that their skills had actually deteriorated since then. 

This is especially alarming because thinking critically, unlike say learning about calculus or the Russian Revolution, is generally thought to be a lifelong endeavour. We are supposed to become better with age and experience. Research into adult education suggests that it’s never too late to make gains in critical thinking.  (7)

Questions about respondents’ critical thinking habits brought out more detailed information. Some of these responses were encouraging. People reported using more than one source of information when making a decision at a high rate (around 77 percent said they did this “always” or “often”), giving reason for their opinions (85 percent), supporting their decisions with information (84 percent), and listening to the ideas of those they disagree with (81 percent). Participants generally reported engaging in more critical thinking activities this time than in our initial survey. (See “Comparing Survey Results” above.)

It’s difficult to totally identify the drivers of these figures. After all, all humans are prone to overestimating the amount and quality of reasoning we do when we come to decisions, solve problems, or research information. But, at the very least, these numbers indicate that people acknowledge that these various critical thinking habits are admirable goals to shoot for. 

At the same time and unsurprisingly, these results suggest a reluctance to engage in the more demanding aspects of critical thinking: difficult or unpleasant tasks like seriously considering the possibility that our opponents might be right or thinking carefully about how to approach information-gathering before we engage in it.

Weaknesses in these areas of critical thinking can be especially easily exploited by emotionalized, oversimplified, and sensationalistic news and rhetoric. If people jump in to information-gathering without even a rough plan or method in mind they’re more likely to get swept up by clickbait or worse. 

The current media environment requires a mindful and deliberate approach if it is to be navigated successfully. And one’s own opinions will remain under-nuanced, reactive, and prone to groupthink if they’re influenced by the extreme opinions and caricatures that are often found online and on television instead of by engagement with well-reasoned and well-intentioned perspectives.

Poor media consumption habits can have a distorting effect on our political perceptions, especially. Recent research, for example, has identified wildly inaccurate stereotypes among the general public about the composition of political parties. One study found that “people think that 32% of Democrats are LGBT (versus 6% in reality) and 38% of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year (vs. 2% in reality).” (8) The study also suggested, alarmingly, that “those who pay the most attention to political media may […] also [be] the likeliest to possess the most misinformation about party composition.” (9)

The public is worried about the impact of technology on the acquisition of critical thinking skills. They also blamed deficits in critical thinking on changing societal norms and the education system.

Modern technology was the most cited reason for a lack of critical thinking skills among the general public, with “changing societal norms” coming in a close second. Over 200 respondents also cited the educational system (see chart below).

A number of the teachers also mentioned potential drawbacks of technology in the classroom environment. For example, in the open response portion of the survey, which allowed teachers to voice general concerns, one teacher wrote: “Get rid of the laptops and tablets and bring back pencil and paper because the students aren’t learning anything using technology.” Another said: “Personal Electronic devices need to be banned in schools.”

In our own work at the Reboot Foundation, the research team found evidence of negative correlations between technology use at schools and achievement. For example, an analysis of data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) showed that fourth graders using tablets “in all or almost all” classes performed significantly worse (the equivalent of a full grade level) than their peers who didn’t use them. 

Another recent study the foundation supported also suggested students benefited from using pencil and paper as opposed to technology to do math homework. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found similar results a few years ago in their international study of 15-year-olds and computer usage. (10)

There is a great deal the field still doesn’t know about the effects of different kinds of technology on different kinds of learning. But a growing stock of research suggests that schools should be cautious about introducing technology into classrooms and the lives of students in general, especially young students. (11)

It would also be a mistake to slip into simple Luddism though. Technology, obviously, provides benefits as well—making education more accessible, reducing costs, helping teachers to fine-tune instruction to student needs, to name a few. During the coronavirus crisis, moreover, educators have had no choice but to rely and hopefully help improve these tools.

Still, too often in the past schools have turn ed to technology without properly weighing the costs against the benefits, and without determining whether technology is truly needed or effective. A recent RAND Corporation paper, for example, discussed programs “seeking to implement personalized learning” but without “clearly defined evidence-based models to adopt.” (12)

The Reboot survey suggests that members of the public as well as teachers generally share these concerns, both about educational technology specifically and about the general impact of technology on student learning.

While teachers support critical thinking instruction, they are divided about how to teach it, and some educators have beliefs about critical thinking instruction that conflict with established research.

One central question in the research about how to best instill critical thinking skills in students is whether critical thinking should be taught in conjunction with basic facts and knowledge or separated from it. 

Teachers were split on this question, with 41 percent thinking students should engage in critical thinking practice while learning basic facts, while 42 percent thought students should learn basic facts first then engage in critical thinking practice. A further 16 percent believe that basic facts and critical thinking should be taught separately. (However, only about 13 percent of teachers surveyed say that content knowledge either doesn’t matter at all or only matters slightly for critical thinking skills.)

The view that knowledge and critical thinking skills can and should be taught separately is mistaken. There is a common view that since information is so widely accessible today, learning basic facts is no longer important. According to this view, it’s only cognitive skills that matter. But the two cannot be so neatly divorced as is often assumed. (13)

Research in cognitive science strongly suggests that critical thinking is not the type of skill that can be divorced from content and applied generically to all kinds of different contexts. As cognitive scientist Daniel T. Willingham argues, “The ability to think critically […] depends on domain knowledge and practice.” (14)

This means students need to practice critical thinking in many different kinds of contexts throughout the curriculum as they acquire the background knowledge needed to reason in a given context. There are of course general skills and habits that can be extrapolated from these various kinds of practice, but it is very unlikely that critical thinking can be taught as a skill divorced from content. “It […] makes no sense,” Willingham writes, “to try to teach critical thinking devoid of factual content.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean standalone critical thinking courses should be rejected. Students can still gain a lot from learning about formal logic, for example, and from learning about metacognition and the best research practices. But these standalone courses or programs should include acquisition of basic factual knowledge as well, and the skills and habits learned in them must be applied and reinforced in other courses and contexts.

Students, moreover, should be reminded that being “critical” is an empty slogan unless they have the requisite factual knowledge to make a cogent argument in a given domain. They need background knowledge to be able to seek out evidence from relevant sources, to develop reliable and nuanced interpretations of information, and to back the arguments they want to make with evidence.

Reboot also asked teachers about which students they thought benefited from critical thinking instruction. A majority (52 percent) thought it benefits all students, but 35 percent said (with the remaining 13 percent thinking it primarily benefits lower-ability students). 

The view that critical thinking instruction is only effective for higher achieving students is another common misconception. Everyone is capable of critical thinking, and even, to a certain extent, engages in critical thinking on their own. The key is for students to develop metacognitive habits and subject-area knowledge so that they can apply critical thought in the right contexts and in the right way. Educators should not assume that lower-achieving students will not benefit from critical thinking instruction. 

Teachers need more support when it comes to critical thinking instruction, though at least some teacher training and professional development programs do seem to help.

In the survey, educators repeatedly mentioned a lack of resources and updated professional development. In response to a question about how administrators could help teachers teach critical thinking more effectively, one teacher asked for “better tools and materials for teaching us how to teach these things.” 

Another said, “Provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate and cross train across subject areas, as well as providing professional development that is not dry or outdated.” Another characteristic comment: “Provide extra professional development to give resources and training on how to do this in multiple disciplines.”

Overall teachers were relatively satisfied that teacher training and professional development programs were helping them teach critical thinking. Forty-six percent said that their teacher training helped them a lot or a great deal, while 50 percent said professional development programs help them a lot or a great deal.

But other teachers reported burdensome administrative tasks and guidelines were getting in the way of teacher autonomy and critical thinking instruction. For example, one teacher wrote, “Earlier in my career I had much more freedom to incorporate instruction of critical thinking into my lessons.”

Media literacy is still not being taught as widely as it should be. 

In our survey, teachers rightly recognized that media literacy is closely bound up with critical thinking. One said, “I believe that media literacy goes hand in hand with critical thinking skills and should be a requirement […] especially due to the increase in use of technology among our youth.” Another offered that “media literacy should be a graduation requirement like economics or government.”

But schools, at least judging by teachers’ responses in the survey, have been slow in prioritizing media literacy. More than 44 percent reported that media literacy courses are not offered at their schools, and just around 30 percent reported that media literacy courses are required. That said, the majority of teachers did report teaching typical media literacy skills occasionally in their classes. 

For example, over 60 percent said that, in at least one class, they “teach students how to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate sources,” and over two-thirds said they “teach students how to find reliable sources.” (15)

Despite the assumption sometimes made that young people (“digital natives”) must be adept navigators of the internet, recent studies have found that students have trouble evaluating the information they consume online. They have problems recognizing bias and misinformation, distinguishing between advertising and legitimate journalism, and verifying information using credible sources. 

Our age is one in which unreliable information proliferates; nefarious interests use the internet to influence public opinion; and social media encourages groupthink, emotional thinking, and pile-on. New skills and training are required to navigate this environment. Our schools must adapt. 

This means generating and implementing specific interventions that help students learn to identify markers of misinformation and develop healthy information-gathering habits. The Reboot Foundation’s own research suggests that even quick and immediate interventions can have a positive impact. But it also means instilling students with life-long critical thinking habits and skills which they’ll be able to apply to an ever-changing media landscape. 

Despite its importance, which is widely acknowledged by the general public, critical thinking remains a somewhat vague and poorly understood concept. Most people realize that it is of vital importance to individual success and educational attainment, as well as to civic life in a liberal democracy. And most seem to realize that 21st-century challenges and changes make acquiring critical thinking skills of even more urgent importance. But when it comes to instilling them in children and developing them in adults, we are, in many ways, still at square one. 

Over the course of the last few decades, K-12 educators have been urged to teach critical thinking, but they have been given conflicting and inconsistent advice on how to do it. There remains a lack of proven resources for them to rely on, a lack of administrative support—and sometimes even a lack of a clear sense of what exactly critical thinking is. Perhaps most importantly, teachers lack the time and freedom within the curriculum to teach these skills.

But there have been a number of insights from cognitive science and other disciplines that suggest a way forward. Perhaps the most important is that critical thinking cannot be understood as a skill on par with learning a musical instrument or a foreign language. It is more complicated than those kinds of skills, involving cognitive development in a number of different areas and integrated with general knowledge learned in other subject areas. Critical thinking courses and interventions that ignore this basic fact may produce some gains, but they will not give students the tools to develop their thinking more broadly and apply critical thought to the world outside of school.

College and continuing education deserve attention too. It should be considered a red flag that only 55 percent of respondents didn’t think they’d made any strides in critical thinking skills since high school. Colleges have long been moving away from a traditional liberal arts curriculum . The critical thinking skills acquired across those disciplines have likely suffered as a result. 

In recent years, we’ve seen smart people who should know better time and again exhibit poor judgment online. It is important to remind each other of the importance of stepping back, managing emotions, engaging with others charitably, and seriously considering the possibility that we are wrong. This is especially important when we are searching for information online, an environment that can easily discourage these intellectual virtues. Ramping up media literacy—for both adults and young people—will be a vital part of the solution.

But, ultimately, critical thinking, which touches on so many different aspects of personal and civic life, must be fostered in a multitude of different ways and different domains. A secure, prosperous, and civil future may, quite literally, depend on it.

Appendix 1: Data Tables

When I have a task to do, I collaborate with other people to get ideas.

I plan where to get information on a topic.

[table id=72 /]

I listen to the ideas of others even if I disagree with them.

[table id=73 /]

I keep an open mind to different ideas when making a decision.

[table id=74/]

I make sure the information I use is correct.

[table id=75 /]

I seek out people who tend to have different opinions than me to engage in discussion or debate

[table id=76 /]

To download the PDF of this survey,

(please click here)

(1)* W  Gandour, R. (2016) A new information environment: How digital fragmentation is shaping the way we produce and consume news. Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/books/NewInfoEnvironmentEnglishLink.pdf (2)* Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005–2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology .

(3)*  Gelder, T. V. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching , 53 (1), 41-48.

(4)*  Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23 , 183-209.

(5)*  Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N., & See, B. H. (2015). Philosophy for Children: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/ Projects/Evaluation_Reports/EEF_Project_Report_PhilosophyForChildren.pdf

(6)*  Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher , 28 (2), 16-46.

(7)*  Dwyer, C. P., & Walsh, A. (2019). An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-19.

(8)*  Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80 (3), 964-981. 964.

(9)*  Ibid., 965.

(10)*  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection . https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en

(11)*  Madigan, S., Browne, D., Racine, N., Mori, C., & Tough, S. (2019). Association between screen time and children’s performance on a developmental screening test. JAMA pediatrics, 173(3), 244-250.

(12)*  Pane, J. F. (2018). Strategies for implementing personalized learning while evidence and resources are underdeveloped. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE314.html

(13)*  Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system–and how to fix it. Avery.

(14)*  Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Federation of Teachers (Summer 2007) 8-19.

(15)*  Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository, 8, 2018.

please click here.

Privacy Overview

• February 12, 2024

The Vital Role of Critical Thinking in Knowledge Acquisition

In the ever-evolving landscape of education and professional development, the ability to sift through vast amounts of information and distil it into actionable knowledge is more critical than ever. At the heart of this transformation lies a skill often heralded yet not deeply explored: critical thinking.

It’s a term frequently mentioned in academic and professional circles, but what does it truly entail, and more importantly, why is it indispensable in our journey from gathering information to acquiring knowledge? 

Critical thinking is not just a supplementary skill; it’s the linchpin that converts raw data and facts into meaningful understanding and insight. It’s the process of actively analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information gathered from observation, experience, reflection, or communication.

In an age where information is ubiquitous, the ability to critically examine this information and apply reasoned judgment is what distinguishes mere data holders from true knowledge seekers. 

This ability to think critically does not merely enhance knowledge acquisition; it fundamentally reshapes it. Instead of passively receiving information, critical thinkers engage actively with content, questioning assumptions, seeking evidence, and drawing connections. This dynamic interaction with information is what transforms it into knowledge – a process far more profound than simple memorization or passive consumption. 

Thus, the main argument of this discussion is clear: critical thinking is not just an adjunct but a central component of effective knowledge acquisition. It’s the bridge between having access to information and being able to understand, interpret, and apply that information effectively in various contexts – a skill crucial not only for academic success but also for navigating the complexities of today’s professional environments. 

In the following sections, we will delve deeper into the mechanics of critical thinking, explore its role in the process of learning, and provide practical insights on how to cultivate this essential skill, thus empowering our journey from information-rich environments to knowledge-empowered landscapes. 

Understanding Critical Thinking  

At its core, critical thinking is a disciplined process of thought that enhances our ability to interpret, analyze, and evaluate information and situations.

It’s a multifaceted skill, encompassing several key elements that are essential in various aspects of life, especially in the realm of knowledge acquisition. 

Definition and Key Elements  

Critical thinking involves a range of cognitive skills and dispositions.

Here are some of the pivotal elements: 

• Analysis : This involves breaking down complex pieces of information or problems into smaller, more manageable parts to understand them better.   
• Evaluation : Critical thinkers assess the credibility and logical strength of evidence, arguments, and claims. They discern bias, identify inconsistencies, and evaluate the validity of sources and content.   
• Inference : The ability to draw reasoned conclusions from the information at hand is a crucial aspect of critical thinking. It involves seeing beyond the obvious and making connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information.   
• Problem-Solving : This skill is about using critical analysis, creative thinking, and logical reasoning to find solutions to complex problems. It’s about thinking beyond the standard approaches and considering a range of potential solutions.   
• Reflection : Critical thinking involves a degree of self-reflection, questioning one’s own assumptions, beliefs, and values, and considering how these might influence one’s interpretations and judgments. 

The Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Knowledge Acquisition

The relationship between critical thinking and knowledge acquisition is profound and integral.

Here’s how these skills contribute to effective knowledge acquisition: 

• Enhanced Comprehension : By analysing and breaking down information, critical thinkers gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter, moving beyond surface-level comprehension to a more nuanced grasp. 
• Effective Application : Evaluation and inference skills allow individuals to apply information in new and diverse contexts. Knowledge isn’t just about storing information; it’s about using it effectively to make decisions, solve problems, and generate new ideas. 
• Informed Decision-Making : Through critical evaluation, individuals can make well-informed decisions, discerning the most relevant and accurate information amidst a sea of data.
•   Continuous Learning : The reflective aspect of critical thinking fosters a mindset of continuous learning . Critical thinkers are always questioning, always learning, and perpetually refining their understanding of the world around them. 

In summary, critical thinking is not just a supplementary skill but a cornerstone in the process of transforming information into meaningful and applicable knowledge.

It is through these critical lenses that we not only view and interpret the world but also contribute to it with informed insights and innovative solutions. 

Chris Hutchinson

Share this post, more to explore.

Claned is recognized as one of the most promising Edtech startups in the Nordic region

A fresh new look for the front page!

LMS Implementation Checklist: Your Complete Guide to Success

Read more news & insights, take a step towards delivering better online learning with claned.

Claned Group Oy Ab Konepajankuja 1 00510 Helsinki sales@claned.com

Business ID: 2422442-0

• Claned Platform
• Learning Design
• Learning Analytics
• Product Training
• HR Training
• Mandatory Training
• Training Companies
• Lessons On Learning
• Learning Clan Podcast
• Claned Academy

Register Description | Cookies & Personal Data | Privacy Policy | Terms  and Conditions

© 2023 Claned. All rights reserved.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(8); 2023 Aug
• PMC10333820

Curriculum framework to facilitate critical thinking skills of undergraduate nursing students: A cooperative inquiry approach

Christian makafui boso.

1 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town South Africa

2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health and Allied Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast Ghana

Anita S. van der Merwe

Janet gross.

3 Peace Corps Liberia, Mother Patern College of Health Sciences, Stella Maris Polytechnic, Monrovia Liberia

Associated Data

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

Critical thinking (CT) is vital in assisting nurses to function efficiently in the ever‐changing health care environment. A CT‐based curriculum framework provides the impetus necessary to drive the acquisition of CT skills of students. Yet, there is no known CT‐based framework contextualized to developing countries where seniority tradition is a norm. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a CT‐based curriculum framework to facilitate the development of CT skills of nursing students in developing countries.

Cooperative inquiry.

Using purposive sampling, 11 participants comprising students, educators and preceptors developed a CT‐based curriculum framework.

Findings were organized into a framework illustrating interconnected concepts required to foster CT skills of nursing students. These concepts include authentic student–facilitator partnership, a facilitator that makes a difference; a learner that is free to question and encouraged to reflect; a conducive and participatory learning environment; curriculum renewal processes and contextual realities.

1. INTRODUCTION

Nurses in today's volatile and complex health care environment need to be able to critically appraise information when giving care (Dozier et al.,  2021 ; Whiteman et al.,  2021 ). Nursing regulatory bodies worldwide such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council of Ghana ( 2015 ) and the South African Nursing Council ( 2014 ) recognize critical thinking (CT) as crucial for nurses. These bodies require that nursing curricula promote CT skills of students (Dozier et al.,  2021 ; Gholami et al.,  2016 ). The rationale is that individuals with CT skills are potentially able to make good clinical judgements (Dozier et al.,  2021 ; Gholami et al.,  2016 ) which may lead to good patient outcomes (Ward‐Smith,  2020 ).

Critical thinking‐based curricula adopt learning outcomes, instructional methods and assessment approaches that are grounded on the principles of CT. Such CT‐based curricula create a participatory and democratic learning environment for students. Students will be empowered if they are allowed to take risks, encouraged to make inputs, permitted to share their opinions and if their mistakes are rectified with dignity (Raymond et al.,  2017 ). Thus, as consistent with Billings & Halstead ( 2005 ) view, a curriculum should aim at enhancing active learning and the student–faculty interaction (as cited in Billings & Halstead,  2005 ). Learning environments where divergent views are suppressed (Raymond et al.,  2017 ), and the educator is seen as the authority of information (Boso & Gross,  2015 ) do not promote CT in students.

A considerable number of reforms in higher education have stressed the need to facilitate CT skills of students (Butler,  2012 ). CT courses have been introduced in different academic disciplines such as nursing, law, sociology, psychology and philosophy. Despite the attention CT has received, there remains doubt whether graduates are being prepared to think critically (Butler,  2012 ). At the heart of this challenge is the fact that the concept of CT has not been incorporated into the teaching methods of many educators (Billings & Halstead,  2005 ). For example, educators construct questions that are mostly at the lower level of thinking (Amoako‐Sakyi & Amonoo‐Kuofi,  2015 ). This suggests that educational institutions may be failing in their quest to develop CT skills of students (Dunne,  2015 ).

In many developing countries, nursing schools encounter challenges that may further compound the challenge of assisting students to engage in CT skills. For example, in Ghana, challenges such as limited resources in nursing schools (Talley,  2006 ) have been reported. Specifically, a lack of qualified educators (Bell et al.,  2013 ), infrastructural and logistical constraints (Talley,  2006 ), inappropriate instructional methods and large class sizes (Wilmot et al.,  2013 ) are some of the challenges affecting nursing education. Also, as indicated in the authors' previous articles (Boso et al.,  2020 , 2021c ), sociocultural norms uphold the seniority tradition. Traditionally, seniority is valued in most global societies. The aged are viewed as the source of knowledge, power and authority, thus seniority is a dominant cultural norm (Chen & Chung,  2002 ). For example, an individual is not expected to disagree or question an authority figure in public even if the authority figure appears to be wrong (Donkor & Andrews,  2011 ). The seniority tradition has been noted as a challenge to facilitating the CT skills of students (Chan,  2013 ; Raymond et al.,  2017 ). Meanwhile, the complexity of fostering CT skills of students has often been underestimated leading to diverse conceptualizations of CT (Dwyer et al.,  2014 ). Diverse conceptualizations could impede the development of CT skills of students.

Notwithstanding these challenges, a CT‐based curriculum framework could provide the needed impetus to foster the development of CT skills of students. A curriculum framework could provide ‘a means of conceptualizing and organizing the knowledge, skills, values, and beliefs critical to the delivery of a coherent curriculum that facilitates the achievement of the desired curriculum outcomes’ (Billings & Halstead,  2005 , p. 167). More importantly, a CT‐based framework provides a participatory and effective learning environment for both the learner and the educator (Dozier et al.,  2021 ; Duron et al.,  2006 ) even in societies where the seniority tradition is strongly adhered to. Yet, these authors could not identify a known curriculum framework to drive the facilitation of CT skills in the context of developing countries where the seniority tradition is a norm.

2. AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to develop a CT‐based curriculum framework to facilitate the development of CT skills of nursing students in developing countries.

3. BACKGROUND

This study was underpinned by an eclectic model derived from Dwyer et al.'s ( 2014 ) and Duron et al.'s ( 2006 ) frameworks of CT development (see Figure  1 ). This eclectic model addressed four interconnected concepts relating to the exploration of experiences of students and educators towards CT skills facilitation namely CT, memory, comprehension (Dwyer et al.,  2014 ) and instructional activities (Duron et al.,  2006 ). These concepts are further explicated.

Eclectic model of critical thinking development adopted from Duron et al.'s ( 2006 ) and Dwyer et al.'s ( 2014 ) models of CT. Permission to adapt was obtained.

3.1. Critical thinking

There is no agreement about the definition of CT (Raymond et al.,  2018 ) and its relationship with memory and comprehension (Dwyer et al.,  2014 ). According to Davies and Barnett ( 2015 ), there are three main approaches to CT, namely, ‘skills‐and‐judgement’, ‘skills‐plus‐propensity’ and ‘skills‐plus‐disposition‐actions’ perspectives. The skills‐and‐judgement perspective of CT views CT as the possession of a set of characteristic skills. The skills‐plus‐propensity perspective highlights both skills and dispositions aspects of CT. While the ‘skills‐plus‐disposition‐actions’ view, also known as criticality, sees CT beyond skills and disposition to include actions/activism. The skills‐plus‐propensity view on which this study is based recognizes that activism is an outcome of CT and not necessarily an aspect of CT. Thus, Facione's ( 1990 ) definition accepted for the purposes of this study illustrates skills‐plus‐propensity perspective of CT: ‘…purposeful, self‐regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based…’ (Facione,  1990 , p. 5).

Though Facione's definition has been criticized for being long‐winded and difficult to implement (Davies & Barnett,  2015 ), its use for CT assessment in nursing education is evident (Raymond et al.,  2017 ). Dwyer et al.'s ( 2014 ) model incorporate both reflective judgement (skills) and self‐regulatory functions of metacognition (disposition) as requirements for CT consistent with Facione's ( 1990 ) definition. Self‐regulation refers to the individual's ability, willingness and perceived need to think critically when solving problems.

3.2. Memory

Critical thinking skills are dependent on what information one can remember (Dwyer et al.,  2014 ). Information is either stored in short‐ or long‐term memory. Dwyer et al. ( 2014 ) assert that through deliberate attention or perception processes, information is stored as short‐term memory (working memory). This short‐term memory includes two sub‐systems—phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad; a central executive (attention focussing process that relates to long‐term memory) and episodic buffer (storage centre that integrates new information from working memory with existing memory from long‐term memory) (Baddeley,  2010 ). Through manipulation, information in short‐term memory may be encoded as long‐term memory. Long‐term memory is stored as schemas (categorization of knowledge based on how it will be used).

3.3. Comprehension

Meaningfully organizing information into schemas for future retrieval requires understanding or comprehension (Dwyer et al.,  2014 ). Comprehension encompasses the ability to translate or interpret information based on previous learning (Huitt,  2011 ). Long‐term memory and comprehension are fundamental processes for CT application (Dwyer et al.,  2014 ).

3.4. Instructional activities

Duron et al. ( 2006 ) designed a 5‐step model to provide a practical impetus in the acquisition of CT skills. This model focuses on steps that educators should take to foster the CT skills of students. The 5‐step framework requires that educators first determine learning objectives. The educator should identify the behaviours that the students should exhibit by the time they exit a course. The objectives should correspond to the higher order of Bloom's taxonomy. Secondly, the importance of teaching through questioning is underlined. The educator should design appropriate questions and questioning techniques to encourage discussion. The questions should vary and be concise to generate student participation. Particularly, divergent questions encourage CT. Thirdly, practice before assessing is considered important – inclusive of learning experiences that encourage active and experiential learning. Fourthly, the educator should continuously review, refine and improve instructional activities for CT skills. These include strategies such as evaluating students' participation through teaching, diary and journaling. Lastly, educators need to provide feedback and assessment of learning. Thoughtful, purposeful and timely feedback should be provided to students on their performance.

It is the contention of these authors that a CT‐based curriculum framework should address factors that either impede or enhance the students' abilities to memorize information (attention/perception processing), comprehend, reflectively make judgement (ability to analyse, evaluate and create) and engage in self‐regulation functions (disposition towards CT). Pursuant to this view, these authors observed classroom instructional practices (Boso et al.,  2020 ), explored the experiences of students and educators (Boso et al.,  2021c ) and assessed the CT disposition of students (Boso et al.,  2021b ). These studies revealed a number of issues that informed the development of a CT‐based curriculum framework. For example, challenges such as seniority tradition, large class size; negative attitude, lack of commitment and inappropriate assessment styles/methods of educators; background and culture, learning practices, lack of comprehension of the participant, distractive behaviour of students (Boso et al.,  2020 , 2021c ) were identified. Though students had a confident disposition towards reasoning, they did not have a mindset of truth‐seeking (Boso et al.,  2021b ). Lack of involvement of students in curriculum reviews and continuous professional development programs on CT for faculty were also identified as challenges in developing CT skills of students (Boso et al.,  2021c ). Also, educators' examination questions about a higher order of thinking constituted <6% (Boso et al.,  2021a ).

4.1. Research design

This article is the concluding part of a larger project (see Boso et al.,  2020 , 2021a , 2021b , 2021c ) that sought to develop a CT‐based curriculum framework. The study used participatory action research (PAR), specifically, cooperative inquiry (CI) as an overarching research design to develop a CT‐based curriculum framework. CI is one of the approaches embedded in PAR (Mash,  2014 ; Mash & Meulenberg‐Buskens,  2001 ) and is used interchangeable with PAR in this article. PAR inter alia assists in problem solving (Hart & Bond, 1995 ; Mash,  2014 ), promotes organizational improvement (Hart & Bond, 1995), bridges the theory–practice gap (Mash,  2014 ; Rolfe, 1996 ) and allows users to be involved (Beresford, 2006 ).

4.2. Study setting, population and sampling

The study was conducted in the nursing school of an accredited publicly funded university in Ghana. There were approximately 527 nursing students and 16 full‐time faculty members. Like many educational institutions in developing countries, the school had challenges such as a lack of sufficient qualified faculty, and infrastructural and logistical constraints that may militate against assisting students to acquire CT skills. For example, class sizes could range from 50 to 150 students.

The study participants included students who had been enrolled in the degree nursing program for at least a year, nurse educators with current full‐time appointments with at least a year of teaching experience, preceptors and coordinators of CT‐based medical programs. It is believed that these participants had been associated with the nursing educational system long enough to provide rich data on their experiences and expertise. Furthermore, using diverse stakeholders in the study aided in providing balanced perspectives.

Twelve participants comprised 3 educators (with 1 being a coordinator of a CT‐based medical program), 2 preceptors, 6 students and the researcher himself were part of the cooperative inquiry group (CIG). Pertinent to the tenets of cooperative inquiry, these CIG were to collaboratively engage to develop a CT‐based curriculum framework. To select students for the CIG, presentations on the purpose and nature of the study were made in their respective classrooms. A list of those who agreed to participate in the study was compiled based on the different educational levels. Individuals were randomly selected and contacted through email or telephone. Similarly, a list of preceptors was obtained. In the Ghanaian context, preceptors are clinical nurses who instruct students during clinical placement. They were contacted and those who were willing to participate were ranked based on their educational level and experience. Two preceptors with Master's degrees in nursing were selected to participate in the study as their clinical experience and educational background provided the necessary expertise towards developing the CT‐based curriculum framework. Two educators were randomly selected while the coordinator of the CT‐based medical program (also an educator) was purposively invited through email and/or telephone. The CIG was engaged throughout the entire research process to identify ideas, observe, and reflect on results to develop a framework to foster CT skills of students. Seven steps of the research process evolved till the aim of the study was met. Different data sets—qualitative and quantitative—were gathered and analysed, culminating in the development of the framework.

4.3. Summary of research process

In this study, O'Leary's cycle of action research as described by Koshy et al. ( 2011 ) was adopted. The process alternates from observation, reflection and planning to action. Seven steps from observation to action were followed during the entire research project (see Figure  2 ). The cooperative inquiry group members were engaged throughout the seven steps of the research process. In total, three workshop meetings were held.

Summary of research process.

4.3.1. Step 1

Data were collected on the instructional practices/activities of the selected school from September 2017 to March 2018. These data sets were to aid the CIG in understanding current practices and to provide the baseline data for the development of the framework. Factors that either inhibited or enhanced perception/attention processing and comprehension of information and reflective judgement (analysing, evaluating and creating) according to Dwyer et al.'s ( 2014 ) were identified. Prior to data collection, the participants were exposed to the research methodology and methods at a training workshop held in September 2017. Nine participants—the first author (initiating researcher), two preceptors, one educator and five students—were able to attend this session. The first author introduced the CIG members to the Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The NGT is considered one of the most frequently used formal consensus building techniques (Harvey & Holmes, 2012 ). The NGT includes five stages, namely: (1) introduction and explanation, (2) silent generation of ideas, (3) sharing ideas—round robin, (4) group discussion/clarifying and (5) voting and ranking. Measures to ensure the rigour of inquiry were discussed and agreed upon. Two educators who were unable to attend the session were met individually and the purpose and methods of the study were discussed with them.

4.3.2. Step 2

The analysed data from step 1 were presented to the CIG members at a second meeting held in March 2018. Nine participants—three educators, two preceptors, three students and the first author—were present at this meeting. The CIG deliberated on the results obtained through group discussions facilitated by the first author. Upon reflection, CIG agreed that the data provided enough basis for a draft framework to be considered. Vital issues about instructional practices had been elicited.

4.3.3. Step 3

Following the reflection on the data, the CIG through the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) facilitated by the first author designed a draft framework. Three questions were formulated for the NGT session, namely, (a) What concept(s) should be included in the framework that will facilitate CT skills of nursing students? (b) How should these elements/components/concepts/variables be related? and (c) What should the structure of the framework be?

At the first stage of introduction and explanation of the NGT, purpose of the study, NGT procedure and the three questions for the NGT procedure were reiterated to provide all members with the same point of reference. At the second stage of the NGT, members were allocated 5 minutes to generate ideas for the framework. Seventy‐six concepts were generated. These concepts were collated at the third stage of the NGT process. The fourth stage saw the concepts discussed, their meanings sought and consolidated. Through consensus, some concepts or synonyms were removed, leaving a total of 45 concepts. For example, the concept learner replaced and/or represented similar concepts such as student and nursing students. Likewise, facilitators replaced educators and/or lecturers. The 45 concepts were further consolidated (categorized) into nine. These included learner (and associated characteristics), educator/facilitator (and associated characteristics), teaching methods/style, learning environment, institutional support, assessment, technology, review system and curriculum. At the final stage, the CIG members voted to rank the concepts in order of importance. Learner, facilitator, teaching methods, learning environment and assessment were the five most ranked concepts. The first author was tasked to develop the draft framework with the concepts and relationships for the CIG members to review individually and for subsequent evaluation by students and educators for its applicability. Accordingly, the draft framework was designed by the first author together with one of the CIG members and subsequently distributed to all CIG members for input.

The draft framework suggested that the teaching‐learning process needed to be a caring professional relationship between the learner and the facilitator. This relationship should be the heart of the curriculum. The draft framework included six concepts/components which included: (a) caring professional relationship; (b) facilitator; (c) learner; (d) learning environment; (e) outcome setting, system review and advocacy and (f) contextual dynamics.

4.3.4. Step 4

The draft framework was made available to six educators and eight students in the selected school to review/comment on its applicability. The following questions accompanied the draft framework: How applicable is this framework in facilitating CT skills of students? What do you believe are the strength(s)/weakness(es) of this framework? What concept(s) do you believe should be removed and/or added to the framework to make it more applicable? Three educators and six students evaluated the draft framework. Given that these groups of participants are part of the nursing school, their views about the applicability of the framework were important to consider when implementing the framework in a real‐life situation.

4.3.5. Step 5

The students' and educators' comments and critiques about the draft framework were carefully analysed thematically by the first author. The draft framework was evaluated as applicable by all participants (3 applicable, 6 very applicable). The reasons for their choices included that the framework was simple, realistic, comprehensive (essential factors included), improved relationships for easier communication, made the facilitator a role model, made the learner an active participant and the learner's view was encouraged. Considering the strengths of the framework, the evaluators thought the framework was well structured, bridged gaps in the learner–facilitator relationship, comprehensively covered most factors of education, and covered current trends, and legal/regulatory issues.

The following were seen as the weaknesses of the draft framework by the evaluators: (a) difficulty to elicit commitment from all; (b) challenges associated with the hard environment; (c) possibility of being misused by students; (d) possible failure of the authentic student–facilitator partnership; (e) perceived difficulty to explain complex concepts/processes such as outcome setting, advocacy, system review and (f) possible lack of CT skills of learners and facilitators. They also thought concepts like culture, time, students' involvement, external motivation and career counselling should be included in the framework.

4.3.6. Step 6

The results of the evaluation of the draft framework were presented to the CIG at a workshop facilitated by the first author in May 2018. The comments and critiques of the framework were reflected on by the CIG for possible revision. Eight participants—two preceptors, five students and the first author were present at this 5‐h workshop. The CIG members considered the weaknesses identified during the evaluation as rather systemic challenges in the selected school and not of the framework. In their view, a framework should represent the ideal. Also, the CIG members thought culture, time and students' involvement were already captured.

4.3.7. Step 7

A revised framework was designed to reflect the views of the evaluators of the draft framework. Some concepts/processes were fine‐tuned, and others were further explicated by the members (see Results section for more details). For example, the caring professional relationship was altered to authentic student–facilitator partnership. Likewise, more extended phrases were used to provide further explication to the facilitator, learner and learning environment. Through NGT, ownership was suggested and added to the definition of authentic student–facilitator partnership. The CIG held the assertion that ownership will enhance responsible learner and educator behaviour. The final framework is presented in the Results section.

The results from the cooperative inquiry were organized into a framework illustrating interconnected concepts required to foster CT skills of nursing students in developing countries. The framework proposes six key interconnected thematic priorities (see Figure  3 ) to drive the development of CT of students. The concepts/themes included in the final framework were (a) authentic student–facilitator partnership, (b) a facilitator that makes a difference, (c) a learner that is free to question and encouraged to reflect, (d) a conducive and participatory learning environment, (e) curriculum renewal processes and (f) contextual realities. These six concepts are important components that should drive a curriculum based on CT principles. The concepts which emanated from the CIG discussions are described below.

Critical thinking‐based curriculum for undergraduate nursing program.

5.1. Authentic student–facilitator partnership

The authors of this study suggest that the central focus of the teaching–learning process should be authentic partnership between the learner and the facilitator (Raymond et al.,  2018 ). This view is motivated by the evidence of dysfunctional learner–facilitator relationships coupled with heightened students' perceptions of mistrust, lack of support, lack of emotional connectedness and lack of democratic practices informed by cultural realities identified (Boso et al.,  2020 , 2021c ). These authors define authentic student–facilitator partnership as a supportive, empathetic, learner‐directed, mutually respectful, accountable and democratic learning relationship which focuses on assisting a learner to engage in meaningful learning experiences toward the development of CT skills.

It is suggested that the educator takes responsibility for the optimum functioning of this partnership (Billings & Halstead,  2005 ; Mangena & Chabeli,  2005 ; Raymond et al.,  2017 ). However, both the student and the facilitator (Raymond et al.,  2018 ) should feel a sense of ownership of the teaching and learning process. The findings of this study suggest that factors relating to both students and facilitators could either facilitate or inhibit the fostering of CT skills acquisition. Consequently, both the student and the facilitator should be committed to setting up appropriate boundaries to govern this partnership. These boundaries should include adherence to educational justice—creating equal opportunities, fair evaluation, fair criticism and non‐discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religious status (Boozaripour et al.,  2018 ). Adherence to boundaries is likely to enhance the perception of trust and ownership.

5.2. A facilitator that makes a difference

We see the facilitator as the leader, role model, mentor and guardian of the student for a purposeful learning experience towards CT skills acquisition. It was evident in this study that the facilitator's approach to classroom management and general attitude towards students and cultural realities influenced how students engaged in the teaching and learning process (Boso et al.,  2020 , 2021c ). Cultural competence in healthcare is a global standard; thus, the facilitator should be aware of the influence of cultural tendencies (Chan,  2013 ; Donkor & Andrews,  2011 ) on the student–facilitator partnership. The facilitator should become a role model in terms of how he/she collaborates and communicates (Raymond et al.,  2018 ) as well as his/her punctuality to class. These general effective teaching tenets are required to set the tone for the reflective engagement of students towards the acquisition of CT skills. For example, a lack of punctuality will limit the amount of instructional time required for students to think critically. Also, the facilitator should demonstrate CT tenets in his/her teaching.

Furthermore, the facilitator needs to demonstrate scholarly attributes and experience in teaching, clinical skills, and theoretical nursing knowledge; be student‐centred, empathetic, supportive; and enthusiastic about the nursing profession and teaching (Billings & Halstead,  2005 ; Mangena & Chabeli,  2005 ; Raymond et al.,  2018 ). The facilitator needs to connect with the learner on an emotional level (Raymond et al.,  2018 ). It is proposed that the facilitator should use tools such as CT‐oriented learning outcomes/objectives, appropriate assessment for CT and active learning teaching approaches/methods. In addition, teaching and assessment methods should vary and should be driven by appropriate questioning techniques (Duron et al.,  2006 ; Raymond et al.,  2018 ). These questioning techniques should predominantly target higher‐order of thinking to help students to engage in appropriate thinking moments (Duron et al.,  2006 ).

5.3. A learner that is free to question and encouraged to reflect

The learner is the inquirer/discoverer of knowledge guided by the facilitator in an educational program. It was noted in this study that students were influenced by the Ghanaian cultural realities (Boso et al.,  2020 , 2021c ) that did not allow them to question authority (Donkor & Andrews,  2011 ) and the type of assessment/teaching methods to which they are exposed. These authors posit that to assist in fostering CT skills of learners, the students should not see themselves as a receptacle in which content/information is dumped, but rather as rational individuals who can decide for themselves regarding truth. Therefore, students should adopt CT‐oriented learning practices that ensure a reflective view of content/information for self‐determination and lifelong learning. This encourages facilitators to share their CT with students (Raymond et al.,  2018 ). In addition, they should be encouraged to be self‐motivated and self‐directed.

Strategies needed to promote CT skills in students should include the use of CT‐oriented learning outcomes/objectives, appropriate assessment for CT and active learning teaching methods. Additionally, teaching and assessment methods should vary and should be driven by appropriate questioning techniques (Duron et al.,  2006 ; Raymond et al.,  2018 ) which should target higher order of thinking to help students to engage in appropriate thinking moments (Duron et al.,  2006 ).

5.4. Conducive and participatory learning environment

The authentic student–facilitator partnership between the learner and the facilitator occurs in a conducive learning environment that promotes CT (Mangena & Chabeli,  2005 ; Raymond et al.,  2018 ). This environment has two components: hard and soft. The hard environment involves a library, learning space and technology. Appropriate use of technology should be employed in the teaching–learning process. This study showed that students were engaged in distractive use of social media and technology in the classroom (Boso et al.,  2020 ). Guidelines for the use of technology/social media should be available to help learners and facilitators derive maximum benefits from these tools. Also, institutional support is required for the provision of appropriate technology, learning space, appropriate class size and library resources for a meaningful learning experience (Raymond et al.,  2017 , 2018 ).

The soft environment involves the intangible safe, empathetic and democratic atmosphere created to encourage the learner to share his/her views freely. This conducive atmosphere should permeate the entire school environment. This helps to establish emotional connectedness between the students and other role players in the educational environment (Raymond & Profetto‐McGrath, 2005 ; Raymond et al.,  2017 , 2018 ). It was noted in this study that students did not feel adequately supported, and were not regularly engaged in curriculum reviews and other matters that directly affect their learning (Boso et al.,  2021c ). Consequently, we propose the establishment of a system of support (including financial aid) for students and practical avenues for students' engagements based on a consultative process involving students and other role players. Additionally, school managers should provide support to facilitators through staff development programs on CT. Assisting faculty development in the area of CT instructional methods will help educators to infuse CT tenets in their own courses (Mangena & Chabeli,  2005 ; Raymond et al.,  2017 , 2018 ). Measures such as assigning facilitators with teaching assistants should be adopted to give facilitators more time to engage in CT instructional practices (Shell,  2001 ). Facilitators in this study expressed the concern of inadequate time to engage students, partially due to the absence of teaching assistants.

5.5. Curriculum renewal processes

We propose that renewal processes should be adopted for a CT‐oriented curriculum as a whole and of parts as deemed necessary and considering local, national and international trends. The aim of these processes should be to encourage continuous feedback and review that will lead to curriculum improvement (Duron et al.,  2006 ). Students and other role players should be engaged in the curriculum renewal processes. In reviewing the curriculum, contemporary CT assessment theory and practices should be used. Furthermore, the renewal process should adhere to the standards of curriculum review processes. Also, the relevance of courses should be continuously examined to ensure that they attract students' engagement towards CT skills. Consistent with CT activism tenets (Davies & Barnett,  2015 ), advocacy should be encouraged to effect changes that may be occasioned by observations from the curriculum review. Particularly, educators should be encouraged to engage in advocacy to effect changes that may be necessary to assist students to acquire CT skills.

5.6. Contextual realities

A curriculum does not exist in a vacuum. It should be designed and operated in a specific context (Billings & Halstead,  2005 ). The learning process and the extent to which one can address CT skills are influenced by contextual realities. These contextual realities include the program of study, the global/national trends and policies and legal/regulatory framework. For example, as an undergraduate nursing program, CT is highly recommended as a competency (World Health Organization,  2009 ). It is therefore suggested that CT should be taught as a course and teaching methods that support CT be infused into all courses of the program. Global and national trends and policies need to be considered. For example, international development goals, disease patterns and burdens, employer expectations and needs, international best practices and standards, and availability of health facilities and clinical staff for clinicaleducation should guide the curriculum. Additionally, legal/regulatory bodies' requirements need to be adhered to. In the Ghanaian under graduate nursing context, the requirements of the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (formerly of the National Accreditation Board), the Nursing and Midwifery Council of Ghana and the university in which the program is undertaken would be essential to consider.

6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Research Ethics Committee approveal was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Committee of Stellenbosch University (Ref. No. FS17/05/106) and the university in which the study was conducted (name withheld to ensure the anonymity of participants). Written permission was sought from the dean of the selected school. All participants including students, nurse educators and preceptors provided informed consent. Given that this was a PAR, the owner of the authorship and the findings were made explicitly clear to the participants as suggested by Mash ( 2014 ). The names and the contributions of participants were kept confidential and the group was supported by the researcher throughout the study.

7. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The quality of a PAR is dependent on how the initiating researcher can unmask and diffuse power differentials. The power relational challenges inherent in many studies may be perpetuated (Scotland, 2012). Given that a hierarchical situation and power inequalities could arise because of the involvement of students, the students' representation was increased to form half of the cooperative inquiry group. Also, training of the cooperative inquiry group was carried out to address coercion, collaboration and partnership. The Nominal Group Technique was adopted for decision‐making to ensure that no one's view was disproportionately rated above others. In addition, the absence of one or two members at different times may have influenced the flow and consistency of ideas generated.

8. CONCLUSION

Conducting a study with the purpose of developing a framework of CT development is appropriate for different reasons. Consistent with the context of this study where the seniority tradition exists which may negatively influence the student–faculty relationship, this curriculum framework emphasized the importance of authentic interaction between students and the faculty in facilitating the CT skills of students. The recommended framework derived may suggest a wider implication for nursing schools and universities to provide CT‐based continuous professional development programs for their nurse faculty. Additionally, the study findings may have implications for monitoring and evaluation activities with the view of improving standard setting and teaching–learning experiences of students.

Based on this study, it is envisaged that nurse educators, who play a pivotal role in nursing education, will find reasons to refine their instructional practices. Also, further research focussing on different contexts of CT in Ghana may be useful. Most importantly, this framework may provide direction for how a curriculum can be predicated on CT, thereby removing arbitrariness.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All the authors made substantial contributions to the manuscript. CMB, ASVDM and JG conceived and designed the study. CMB collected data, analysed and drafted the manuscript. ASVDM and JG supervised the study and made critical revisions to the paper.

FUNDING INFORMATION

No external funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

We do not have any conflict of interest to report.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to acknowledge Victor Angbah for assisting in data collection. We also express our gratitude to the study participants. Furthermore, we express our profound gratitude to the authority and staff of the educational institution used for this study.

Boso, C. M. , van der Merwe, A. S. , & Gross, J. (2023). Curriculum framework to facilitate critical thinking skills of undergraduate nursing students: A cooperative inquiry approach . Nursing Open , 10 , 5129–5138. 10.1002/nop2.1748 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Amoako‐Sakyi, D. , & Amonoo‐Kuofi, H. (2015). Problem‐based learning in resource‐poor settings: Lessons from a medical school in Ghana . BMC Medical Education , 15 , 221–229. 10.1186/s12909-015-0501-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory . Current Biology , 20 ( 4 ), R136–R140. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell, S. A. , Rominski, S. , Bam, V. , Donkor, E. , & Lori, J. (2013). Analysis of nursing education in Ghana: Priorities for scaling‐up the nursing workforce . Nursing and Health Sciences , 15 ( 2 ), 244–249. 10.1111/nhs.12026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beresford, P. (2006). Making the connections with direct experience: From the Western Front to user‐controlled research . Educational Action Research , 14 ( 2 ), 161–169. 10.1080/09650790600717987 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billings, D. M. , & Halstead, J. A. (2005). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (2nd ed.). Elsevier Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boozaripour, M. , Abbaszadeh, A. , Shahriari, M. , & Borhani, F. (2018). Ethical values in nurse education perceived by students and educators . Nursing Ethics , 25 ( 2 ), 253–263. 10.1177/0969733017707009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boso, C. M. , & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nurse educators' perceptions of critical thinking in developing countries: Ghana as a case study . Advances in Medical Education and Practice , 6 , 555–560. 10.2147/AMEP.S88942 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boso, C. M. , van der Merwe, A. S. , & Gross, J. (2020). Critical thinking skills of nursing students: Observations of classroom instructional activities . Nursing Open , 7 ( 2 ), 581–588. 10.1002/nop2.426 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boso, C. M. , van der Merwe, A. S. , & Gross, J. (2021a). Analysis of examination questions to determine cognitive level of critical thinking skills required (Manuscript in preparation) .
• Boso, C. M. , van der Merwe, A. S. , & Gross, J. (2021b). Critical thinking disposition of nursing students: A quantitative investigation . Nurse Education in Practice Education in Practice , 55 , 103167. 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103167 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boso, C. M. , van der Merwe, A. S. , & Gross, J. (2021c). Students' and educators' experiences with instructional activities towards critical thinking skills acquisition in a nursing school . International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences , 14 , 100293. 10.1016/j.ijans.2021.100293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler, H. A. (2012). Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real world outcomes of critical thinking . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 26 , 721–729. 10.1002/acp.2851 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan, Z. C. Y. (2013). A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education . Nurse Education Today , 33 ( 3 ), 236–240. 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, G.‐M. , & Chung, J. (2002). Seniority and superiority: A case analysis of decision making in a Taiwanese religious group . Intercultural Communication Studies , 11 ( 1 ), 41–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies, M. , & Barnett, R. (2015). The palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donkor, N. T. , & Andrews, L. D. (2011). Ethics, culture and nursing practice in Ghana . International Nursing Review , 58 ( 1 ), 109–114. 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00852.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dozier, A. L. , Gilbert, B. G. , Hughes, V. W. , Mathis, D. P. , & Jenkins, L. J. (2021). The use of active learning strategies during the COVID‐19 pandemic to promote critical thinking . The ABNF Journal , 32 ( 1 ), 12–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne, G. (2015). Beyond critical thinking to critical being: Criticality in higher education and life . International Journal of Educational Research , 71 , 86–99. 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.03.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duron, R. , Limbach, B. , & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline . Interrnational Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 17 ( 2 ), 160–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer, C. P. , Hogan, M. J. , & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century . Thinking Skills and Creativity , 12 , 43–52. 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gholami, M. , Moghadam, P. K. , Mohammadipoor, F. , Tarahi, M. J. , Sak, M. , Toulabi, T. , & Pour, A. H. H. (2016). Comparing the effects of problem‐based learning and the traditional lecture method on critical thinking skills and metacognitive awareness in nursing students in a critical care nursing course . Nurse Education Today , 45 , 16–21. 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.06.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart, E. , & Bond, M. (1995). Action research for health and social care . Open University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey, N. , & Holmes, C. (2012). Nominal group technique (NGT): An effective method of obtaining group consensus . International Journal of Nursing Practice , 18 ( 2 ), 188–194. 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2012.02017.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational psychology interactive . Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html [pdf]. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koshy, E. , Valsa, K. , & Waterman, H. (2011). Action research in healthcare . SAGE Publications Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangena, A. , & Chabeli, M. M. (2005). Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education . Nurse Education Today , 25 ( 4 ), 291–298. 10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mash, B. (2014). African primary care research: Participatory action research . African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicaine , 6 ( 1 ), 42–46. 10.4102/phcfm.v6i1.585 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mash, B. , & Meulenberg‐Buskens, I. (2001). “Holding it lightly”: The co‐operative inquiry group: A method for developing educational materials . Medical Education , 35 , 1108–1114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nursing and Midwifery Council of Ghana . (2015). Curriculum for the registered general nursing (RGN) program: Based on the semester course unit system . Nursing and Midwifery Council of Ghana. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raymond, C. L. , & Profetto‐McGrath, J. (2005). Nurse educators’ critical thinking: Reflection and measurement . Nurse Education in Practice , 5 , 209–217. 10.1016/j.nepr.2004.10.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raymond, C. , Profetto‐McGrath, J. , Myrick, F. , & Strean, W. B. (2017). An integrative review of the concealed connection: Nurse educators' critical thinking . Journal of Nursing Education , 56 ( 11 ), 648–654. 10.3928/01484834-20171020-03 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raymond, C. , Profetto‐McGrath, J. , Myrick, F. , & Strean, W. B. (2018). Balancing the seen and unseen: Nurse educator as role model for critical thinking . Nurse Education in Practice , 31 , 41–47. 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.04.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rolfe, G. (1996). Going to extremes: Action research, grounded practice and the theory‐practice gap in nursing . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 24 ( 6 ), 1315–1320. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb01040.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shell, R. (2001). Perceived barriers to teaching for critical thinking by nursing faculty . Nursing and Health Care Perspectives , 22 ( 6 ), 286–291. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• South African Nursing Council . (2014). Competencies for a nurse educator . South African Nursing Council. [ Google Scholar ]
• Talley, B. (2006). Nurses and nursing education in Ghana: Creating collaborative opportunities . International Nursing Review , 53 ( 1 ), 47–51. 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2006.00431.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward‐Smith, P. (2020). The nurse as a critical thinking expert . Urologic Nursing , 40 ( 1 ), 5. 10.7257/1053-816X.2020.40.1.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiteman, K. , Yaglowski, J. , & Stephens, K. (2021). Quality improvement: Critical thinking tools for quality improvement projects . Critical Care Nurse , 41 ( 2 ), e1–e9. 10.4037/con2021914 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilmot, E. M. , Kumfo, J. , Danso‐Mensah, D. , & Antwi‐Danso, S. (2013). An Investigation into the factors that contribute to nurse/midwife trainees' poor performance in the final licencing examination in Ghana .
• World Health Organization . (2009). Nursing and midwifery human resources for health: Global standards for the initial education of professional nurses and midwives . World Health Organization. [ Google Scholar ]

• Rasmussen University
• Transferable Skills

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking: home.

• Steps 1 & 2: Reflection and Analysis
• Step 3: Acquisition of Information
• Step 4: Creativity
• Step 5: Structuring Arguments
• Step 6: Decision Making
• Steps 7 & 8: Commitment and Debate
• In the Classroom
• In the Workplace

Honeycomb Navigation

Click the honeycomb to navigate between all six transferable skills guides! Click the  flame icon   to navigate to the Rasmussen University Web site.

Illustration of the six Transferable Skills

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking is a very important process for students to build upon throughout their college careers and beyond. Questions which may arise include the following:

• What is critical thinking?
• How can I benefit from the process?
• Is critical thinking a learning process?
• Since I have taken a course in Critical Thinking – what else do I need to know?
• How will critical thinking skills enhance my employability?
• Is critical thinking a cause and reaction assessment?

Critical Thinking is a process of how each one of us reactions to given situations or set of instructions and how judgments are made as a result.

Critical Thinking in Learning and Teaching

Listen to the broadcast above, or view the article on the National Public Radio website here:  50 Great Teachers: Socrates, The Ancient World's Teaching Superstar

Learning How to Think

• What 'Learning How to Think' Really Means An opinion piece from the June 18, 2015 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Author Schwartz discusses accountability in higher education and goes into some detail about what it means to 'know how to think.'

• Keynote Address (video)
• Feedback Survey

Click and watch this 2 minute Keynote Address on the topic of Critical Thinking.

Critical Thinking in the 21st Century

EdTech Team. (2013). Developing 21st-century critical thinkers [Infographic]. Retrieved from  https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/06/25-ways-to-develop-21st-century-thinkers.html?m=0

• Next: Steps to Critical Thinking >>
• Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 2:34 PM
• URL: https://guides.rasmussen.edu/criticalthinking

Advertisement

Learning critical thinking skills online: can precision teaching help?

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

Cite this article

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

3246 Accesses

3 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Patchwork Assessment for Learning Enrichment in the 21st Century

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

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

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

• Video-based learning

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

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

Precision teaching (PT)

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

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

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

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

Current study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructional framework for teaching critical thinking skills

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Instructional material

Learning videos.

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

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

Learning tasks

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

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

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

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

Testing material

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

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

Pre- and post-intervention assessments on unseen questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flowchart of the study

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

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

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

Learning tasks in the PT intervention group

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

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

Learning tasks in the PT + intervention group

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

Learning tasks in the control group

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

Pre- and post-episode tests on the learning tasks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge retention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and directions for further research

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

Angel J. Y. Tan

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angel J. Y. Tan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

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

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Our Mission

6 Ways to Improve Students’ Math Literacy

Middle and high school math teachers can use these ideas to build students’ reading comprehension and reasoning skills using real tasks like budgeting.

While a lot has changed in math instruction over the years, the idea that students need to be math literate has been constant. Being math literate means much more than calculations. Life events such as buying a home, paying taxes, or even estimating how much you’ll spend on groceries require modeling and reasoning skills.

State and district tests often include problems that are real-world based, and that means that students will need to use reading comprehension, along with math skills, in order to show proficiency. This can be particularly difficult for students with learning disabilities, those who have had interrupted schooling, and/or emergent multilingual learners. It’s imperative that math teachers develop a tool kit to help students decipher the math moves needed for such problems.

Through my dissertation research and my many years of teaching mathematics with great math teachers, I have found simple ways to help students become more math literate. Here are some practical ideas on how teachers can help students become math literate, from the perspective of Algebra 1 teachers from various backgrounds.

6 Ways to Help Students Gain Math Literacy

1. Use sentence frames. Sentence frames are a simple way to help students of all backgrounds learn how to state their answers and ask any questions they have about a word problem. Teachers can post sentence frames on a board or even on students’ desks for easy access. Here are some examples:

• “I agree with this answer because ____.”
• “I believe the answer is ____ because ____.”
• “I showed my work by ____.”
• “One strategy that may be helpful is ____ because ____.”

2. Bring back the highlighter. Many Algebra 1 teachers agree that the highlighter is a great way to help emphasize learning in mathematics. The highlighter gives students control of the parts of the problem that they find important. A good suggestion is to demonstrate the use of highlighting key words and have highlighters available for every task and assessment. It also helps students see the patterns in math problems.

3. Speak “algebra.” Students in all math classes need to be speaking math in their classes. It’s important to use the appropriate vocabulary words that pertain to the lesson. This is particularly important as students see formal math language in textbooks and standardized tests. Yes, breaking down the vocabulary for comprehension is a great tactic, but bringing it back to the standard math vocabulary is how we make connections.

4. Use word walls. The word wall was an important part of many math classrooms a few decades ago. They made sure that students saw math words that related to a particular topic being taught. For example, when introducing a polynomial unit, teachers would often put words such as monomial , trinomial , and polynomial on the word wall.

Many Algebra 1 teachers feel that having the visual is most important as students learn about new topics. Students need visual reminders. One suggestion was for students to “own” the word wall by passing out the words in advance and having them hang up each word as it was introduced throughout the unit. Students can make the words artsy and creative in an effort to personalize the resource.

5. Provide foldables or graphic organizers. The use of foldables in the math classroom is a game changer for many students, especially in the post-pandemic era. These low-tech student- or teacher-made “books” constructed out of folded paper provide learners with a handy place to write down the main concepts introduced in a unit. Students have been so used to math technology that there is a need to bring them back to tactile methods.

Providing a foldable to sum up or even begin a unit is a cost-effective method and allows students to use paper and scissors in a creative way to refer to math vocabulary and common word problems. You can find lots of free ideas for foldables online , and there are sites that sell them as well. Some of the designs are very creative and bring a bit of visual art into your math classroom.

6. Have students write relevant word problems. Every time there’s a new curriculum or textbook, word problems get a refresher to connect with the current generation, but there’s no reason why students can’t make up their own. Allow them to write their own word problems, using the context you’re teaching. Not only will students own their own learning, but also they will be able to use critical thinking skills to combine math, vocabulary, and everyday life to further their understanding.

Making the math classroom become a laboratory of reading and math enables students to become owners of the learning process. Students can be math literate, which will allow teachers to facilitate learning processes with all types of word problems, and consequently improve math scores and prepare students for the world of infusing mathematics into their everyday lives.

Executive Summary – Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills: the Fundamental Tools of Acquisition Management

As budgets have constricted and Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, the Federal workforce has …

May 24, 2019

As budgets have constricted and Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, the Federal workforce has become less seasoned and more overburdened, which makes the Government less prepared to handle the intellectual challenges that positions in acquisition management present. This fact, combined with less training in argument, analysis, and critical thinking skills, leaves new contracting professionals especially unprepared to manage the challenges that other-than-simplified acquisitions so often pose.

Two of the most important skills to develop are the ability to think critically and the ability to analyze data and information . These skills involve not only knowing what questions to ask, but when to ask them—and how to apply the data and information received to form a conclusion.

Increasingly, program offices are calling on outside acquisition consultants to assist with the preparation of pre-award packages (requirements definition through acquisition planning and solicitation). Acquisition professionals need to be able to prepare and explain why documents such as Analyses of Alternatives (AoAs), Source Selection Plans (SSPs), and Justifications of Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOCs) need to be written, and what they are supposed to contain.

Begin with Questions

Contracting professionals are regularly called upon to identify or find effective ways of managing business and technical risks, but they do not always receive the information needed to make informed decisions.

Regardless of the environment or the discipline, the critical thinking process always begins with questions —  what?, why?, when?, where?, who?, and how often? , chief among them.

• What is this service or commodity and what purpose does it serve
• What are the specifications that will achieve that outcome?
• What are the risks involved and how can we contractually mitigate those risks?
• Why is this constraint or restriction being imposed?
• Why is the program office insisting on sole-source award or brand-name only?
• Why is this stakeholder asking this question, or insisting on this approach?
• When is the item or service required?
• When will the Government review and approve (or reject) this CDRL item?
• When will the Government deliver the promised GFE/GFP/GFI? (And the companion question: does the contractor have an approved Government Property Control system?)
• When will this data item be considered “delivered” for the purposes of EVMS (i.e. when it’s submitted—or when it’s approved)?
• Where is the requirement for that item or service in the contract/SOW/PWS/task order?
• Where will these meetings be held and/or work performed
• Where does the Contractor obtain these specifications or documents?
• Where will UAT or FAT or other testing be conducted?
• Who is responsible for performing this task, or for meeting this requirement?
• Who  should be designated “key personnel” under this contract?
• Who  will serve as the primary points of contact?
• How  exactly does the Contractor meet this requirement?
• How  does the Contractor price this requirement (“Some travel may be required”)?
• How  will successful performance of the task be measured?
• How  will this item be funded?
• How  will the Government use this information and how should data be formatted?
• How  will the Contractor monitor and control the performance of its subs?
• How often  must this report be submitted or meeting be held?
• How often  will the Contractor’s performance be reviewed?
• How often will the Contractor be permitted to invoice?

There are hundreds of other questions that will arise during the course of any given procurement, but those above will give contracting professionals a head start—and each one of them has the potential to change the shape of the ultimate contract.

Think Analytically

According to Bowdowin College[i], a person with behavioral indicators of analytical thinking and problem solving:

“works systematically and logically to resolve problems, identify causation and anticipate unexpected results (and) manages issues by drawing on own experience and knowledge and calls on other resources as necessary.”

That means taking the time to  read and understand clauses in the FAR  and in agency regulations (not just memorize their numbers and titles), and try to figure out what they’re intended to encourage—or prevent—and why. The rules exist for a specific reason; to promote or discourage specific kinds of behavior. Knowledge of the intent of the regulations will allow accurate application of when, where, if, how, and to what extent they apply.

Subpart 1.102-4(e) of the FAR  specifically authorizes legitimate creativity:

The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer’s needs.

“If a policy or procedure, or a particular strategy or practice, is in the best interest of the Government and is not specifically addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, Government members of the Team should not assume it is prohibited. Rather, absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound.”

Building consensus for creative approaches, as well as defending the FAR and other agency regulations requires critical thinking, careful analysis, and reasoned argument. While forming an approach, remember that Acquisition is a discipline unto itself, with its own unique body of knowledge, lexicon of acronyms and abbreviations, and specialized skillset and capabilities.

Prepare and Argue Logically

The essay,  Arguing Syllogistically: Finding the Logic in Acquisition , provides an example of how such skills apply in the field of government acquisitions:

Issue : The contractor doesn’t understand why it has to provide cost and pricing data.

Major premise : Cost and pricing data is required under FAR 15.403-4, and under the terms and conditions of the contract.

Minor premise : Unless the contract meets the exceptions delineated in FAR 15.403.1(b)—that is, unless:

• Pricing is based on adequate competition;
• Prices are set by law or regulation;
• The contract is for commercial items;
• The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) has waived the requirement; or

The pricing applies to the modification of a contract for commercial items— Cost or pricing data must be submitted.

Conclusion : The circumstances of the contract meet none of the conditions for waiver of the requirement listed above. Therefore, cost and pricing data must be submitted.

Before entering into any debate, personal or business, it is essential to analyze the other positions as thoroughly as you analyze your own. Play devil’s advocate, and try to anticipate—and address—any objections the other person is likely to raise before he or she can raise them. This strategy has two benefits:

• First, it’s very hard to debate with someone who can successfully rebut any counter-claim you make; and
• Second, your opponent can’t help but be impressed by how thoroughly you’ve thought your position through.

RESEARCH. ANALYZE. EVALUATE. THINK CRITICALLY. ARGUE LOGICALLY . . . SUCCEED!

Written by Carol Barton, Senior Acquisition Specialist, Changeis Inc.

For Carol’s complete work, look for the forthcoming article in the October issue of Contract Management.

Popup Forms

Follow changeis.

Explained: Importance of critical thinking, problem-solving skills in curriculum

F uture careers are no longer about domain expertise or technical skills. Rather, critical thinking and problem-solving skills in employees are on the wish list of every big organization today. Even curriculums and pedagogies across the globe and within India are now requiring skilled workers who are able to think critically and are analytical.

The reason for this shift in perspective is very simple.

These skills provide a staunch foundation for comprehensive learning that extends beyond books or the four walls of the classroom. In a nutshell, critical thinking and problem-solving skills are a part of '21st Century Skills' that can help unlock valuable learning for life.

Over the years, the education system has been moving away from the system of rote and other conventional teaching and learning parameters.

They are aligning their curriculums to the changing scenario which is becoming more tech-driven and demands a fusion of critical skills, life skills, values, and domain expertise. There's no set formula for success.

Rather, there's a defined need for humans to be more creative, innovative, adaptive, agile, risk-taking, and have a problem-solving mindset.

In today's scenario, critical thinking and problem-solving skills have become more important because they open the human mind to multiple possibilities, solutions, and a mindset that is interdisciplinary in nature.

Therefore, many schools and educational institutions are deploying AI and immersive learning experiences via gaming, and AR-VR technologies to give a more realistic and hands-on learning experience to their students that hone these abilities and help them overcome any doubt or fear.

ADVANTAGES OF CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING IN CURRICULUM

Ability to relate to the real world:  Instead of theoretical knowledge, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills encourage students to look at their immediate and extended environment through a spirit of questioning, curiosity, and learning. When the curriculum presents students with real-world problems, the learning is immense.

Confidence, agility & collaboration : Critical thinking and problem-solving skills boost self-belief and confidence as students examine, re-examine, and sometimes fail or succeed while attempting to do something.

They are able to understand where they may have gone wrong, attempt new approaches, ask their peers for feedback and even seek their opinion, work together as a team, and learn to face any challenge by responding to it.

Willingness to try new things: When problem-solving skills and critical thinking are encouraged by teachers, they set a robust foundation for young learners to experiment, think out of the box, and be more innovative and creative besides looking for new ways to upskill.

It's important to understand that merely introducing these skills into the curriculum is not enough. Schools and educational institutions must have upskilling workshops and conduct special training for teachers so as to ensure that they are skilled and familiarized with new teaching and learning techniques and new-age concepts that can be used in the classrooms via assignments and projects.

Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are two of the most sought-after skills. Hence, schools should emphasise the upskilling of students as a part of the academic curriculum.

The article is authored by Dr Tassos Anastasiades, Principal- IB, Genesis Global School, Noida. 

Watch Live TV in English

Watch Live TV in Hindi

Call us: 202-775-7240

« All Events

Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills

May 14 @ 1:00 pm - 3:30 pm.

Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills for Negotiators

This seminar is specifically designed for senior acquisition professionals. Negotiation is an essential skill for acquisition professionals. Successful negotiation requires more than communication and persuasion skills; it demands critical thinking abilities to analyze situations, assess information, and make strategic decisions. This seminar aims to equip these acquisition professionals with the tools and techniques of critical thinking necessary to do their jobs successfully.

Instructor: Alland Leandre

Acquisition professionals represent the linchpin of government. They oversee buying and negotiating. They understand the fundamentals of critical thinking and its significance in negotiation. This seminar is designed to enhance their skills in analyzing information critically during bargaining. They will learn techniques for identifying biases and fallacies in proposals. It will also improve their problem-solving abilities to address challenges encountered while performing their work and cultivate strategies for effective decision-making in negotiation scenarios.

Seminar attendees are expected to participate actively in all sessions and group activities. The group activity is a case study discussion designed to apply the principles of critical thinking and develop Critical Thinking Skills using the case study methodology.

• 1.0 Introduction to Critical Thinking
• 2.1 Identifying and defining problems
• 2.2 Gathering and evaluating evidence
• 2.3 Analyzing assumptions and biases
• 2.4 Drawing Logical Conclusions
• 3.1 Gathering relevant information
• 3.2 Evaluating information and evidence
• 3.3 Generating and analyzing possible solutions
• 3.4 Making Informed Decisions
• 4.1 Types of questions that stimulate critical thinking (e.g., open-ended questions, probing questions)
• 5.0 Case discussion to practice asking key questions to stimulate critical thinking and to develop Critical Thinking Skills
• 6.1 Recognizing different types of arguments (deductive, inductive, etc.)
• 6.2 Evaluating the strength and validity of arguments
• 7.0 Introduction to problem-solving frameworks (e.g., SWOT analysis, root cause analysis)
• 8.1 Exploring the relationship between critical thinking, creativity, and innovation
• 8.2 Techniques for fostering creativity and thinking outside the box.
• 9.1 Generating innovative solutions to challenges
• 9.2 Understanding common decision-making biases and fallacies
• 10.1 Participants work in groups to analyze the case, apply critical thinking techniques, and make informed decisions. Part 2 of Case Discussion to Apply problem-solving techniques to real-world Scenarios.
• 10.2 Wrap-Up / Reflection and Action Planning

Seminar Requirements

• Attend the entire seminar for 2.5 hours.
• Be respectful and courteous to your instructor and classmates.
• Complete a survey on the seminar regarding what was learned and what can be improved.
• Participate in class (ask questions, make comments, contribute to discussions regarding the case study narrative, take notes, and participate in group discussions.
• Come prepared to discuss both cases.
• Google Calendar
• Outlook 365
• Outlook Live

• Newsletters

IE 11 Not Supported

America succeeds partners with edmentum to teach durable skills, the digital education company edmentum will add curriculum materials from the nonprofit america succeeds to its career and technical education courses to help students build “soft skills” like critical thinking and creativity..

• Get Insights to Your Inbox

• Business Challenges
• Business Education
• Business Functions

Economic impact of Baltimore bridge collapse could be felt in Boston, expert says

POV: Was the Francis Scott Key Bridge Disaster Avoidable?

Boeing’s leadership shakeup the start of long road to restoring credibility with public

Why March Madness is a special time of year for state budgets

The Strategy Skills Podcast: Strategy | Leadership | Critical Thinking | Problem-Solving

BOJ’s Small Rate Hike May Have Big Ripple Effect Around the World  

Busted brackets & budgets: Don’t let March Madness derail your finances 

Starbucks investors approve pay package that drops dei reference .

The Hidden Wisdom of Cultural Pushback

Fusion strategy: navigating the industrial evolution, scotus: exploring the future of content moderation, internet law, and free speech, unleashing the power of discovery in leadership and organizational change, transforming employee development with generative ai, bridging the classroom to the real world.

Better Health Economics: An Introduction for Everyone

Questrom $50k case competition: in the trenches of sustainability with casella, the optimistic pessimist.

• Insights Live
• Questrom Institute Events
• Global Media
• Local Media
• National Media

Trader Joe’s $3 mini totes went viral on TikTok. Now, they’re reselling for hundreds 

Innovate@bu awarded $15,000 to students who came up with ways to help boston face climate change, trending tags.

• Harvard Business Review
• Sloan Management Review

Why You Should Offer a Take-Back Program for Your Old Products

What Does Banning Short-Term Rentals Really Accomplish?

Heavy Machinery Meets AI

Why Calling Your Workers Heroes Can Backfire

Understanding the Tradeoffs of the Amazon Antitrust Case

Why Algorithm-Generated Recommendations Fall Short

Turn Generative AI from an Existential Threat into a Competitive Advantage

How GenAI Could Accelerate Employee Learning and Development

• Questrom Book Club

March 20 th , 2024

Strategy Skills recently recorded a podcast interviewing Venkat Venkatraman, Professor in Information Systems, discussing his book Fusion Strategy: How Real-Time Data and AI Will Power the Industrial Future.

The conversation sheds light on the shift from traditional industrial strategies to leveraging real-time data and AI to reshape business models across various sectors.

“If you look at asset light industries for example, banking advertising, music, media and entertainment, telecom, publishing, video games, these industries have had 15-20 years of digitalization”, Venkatraman adds.

However, some industries have not shifted from physical to digital, facilitating new conversations for strategists.

N. Venkatraman

Venkat Venkatraman is the David J. McGrath, Jr. Professor of Management in Information Systems. He researches how established companies recognize and respond to digital technologies. The economy has seen the first-wave of transformation in asset-light settings such as software, music, media and entertainment and we are likely to see asset-heavy, information-rich sectors such as automotive, logistics, healthcare. agriculture and logistics go through significant shifts. How could today’s industry leaders defend their business models while adapting to the digital future? He is working on extending the work that was published in his 2016 book, "The Digital Matrix: New Rules for Business Transformation Through Technology" into a new book focused specifically on asset-heavy sectors.

Related Insights

The Interloper: Lessons from Resistance in the Field

Upcoming events.

Life After Cookies: Who Uses Privacy Sandbox

Get our insights newsletter, popular insights.

Silicon Valley Bank: Blame and Ethics of the Failure

Jpmorgan chase is the biggest of the big banks. critics say that poses a risk , academics question esg studies that helped fuel investing boom.

Boston University Questrom School of Business 595 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215

© 2023 Trustees of Boston University

• Digital Business Institute
• Human Resource Policy Institute
• Susilo Institute for Ethics in the Global Economy

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Add New Playlist

- Select Visibility - Public Private

• Business Policy & Markets
• Digital Business
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Future of Work
• Health, Biopharma, & Health-Tech
• Social Impact
• Corporate Strategy
• Finance & Accounting
• Leadership & Management
• Insights@Questrom Podcast
• Voices in the Media
• Our Experts