how to teach critical thinking and problem solving

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

(This is the first post in a three-part series.)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

This three-part series will explore what critical thinking is, if it can be specifically taught and, if so, how can teachers do so in their classrooms.

Today’s guests are Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

You might also be interested in The Best Resources On Teaching & Learning Critical Thinking In The Classroom .

Current Events

Dara Laws Savage is an English teacher at the Early College High School at Delaware State University, where she serves as a teacher and instructional coach and lead mentor. Dara has been teaching for 25 years (career preparation, English, photography, yearbook, newspaper, and graphic design) and has presented nationally on project-based learning and technology integration:

There is so much going on right now and there is an overload of information for us to process. Did you ever stop to think how our students are processing current events? They see news feeds, hear news reports, and scan photos and posts, but are they truly thinking about what they are hearing and seeing?

I tell my students that my job is not to give them answers but to teach them how to think about what they read and hear. So what is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom? There are just as many definitions of critical thinking as there are people trying to define it. However, the Critical Think Consortium focuses on the tools to create a thinking-based classroom rather than a definition: “Shape the climate to support thinking, create opportunities for thinking, build capacity to think, provide guidance to inform thinking.” Using these four criteria and pairing them with current events, teachers easily create learning spaces that thrive on thinking and keep students engaged.

One successful technique I use is the FIRE Write. Students are given a quote, a paragraph, an excerpt, or a photo from the headlines. Students are asked to F ocus and respond to the selection for three minutes. Next, students are asked to I dentify a phrase or section of the photo and write for two minutes. Third, students are asked to R eframe their response around a specific word, phrase, or section within their previous selection. Finally, students E xchange their thoughts with a classmate. Within the exchange, students also talk about how the selection connects to what we are covering in class.

There was a controversial Pepsi ad in 2017 involving Kylie Jenner and a protest with a police presence. The imagery in the photo was strikingly similar to a photo that went viral with a young lady standing opposite a police line. Using that image from a current event engaged my students and gave them the opportunity to critically think about events of the time.

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

In the first picture, you see a strong and courageous black female, bravely standing in front of two officers in protest. She is risking her life to do so. Iesha Evans is simply proving to the world she does NOT mean less because she is black … and yet officers are there to stop her. She did not step down. In the picture below, you see Kendall Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi. Maybe this wouldn’t be a big deal, except this was Pepsi’s weak, pathetic, and outrageous excuse of a commercial that belittles the whole movement of people fighting for their lives.

I - Identify a word or phrase, underline it, then write about it for two minutes

A white, privileged female in place of a fighting black woman was asking for trouble. A struggle we are continuously fighting every day, and they make a mockery of it. “I know what will work! Here Mr. Police Officer! Drink some Pepsi!” As if. Pepsi made a fool of themselves, and now their already dwindling fan base continues to ever shrink smaller.

R - Reframe your thoughts by choosing a different word, then write about that for one minute

You don’t know privilege until it’s gone. You don’t know privilege while it’s there—but you can and will be made accountable and aware. Don’t use it for evil. You are not stupid. Use it to do something. Kendall could’ve NOT done the commercial. Kendall could’ve released another commercial standing behind a black woman. Anything!

Exchange - Remember to discuss how this connects to our school song project and our previous discussions?

This connects two ways - 1) We want to convey a strong message. Be powerful. Show who we are. And Pepsi definitely tried. … Which leads to the second connection. 2) Not mess up and offend anyone, as had the one alma mater had been linked to black minstrels. We want to be amazing, but we have to be smart and careful and make sure we include everyone who goes to our school and everyone who may go to our school.

As a final step, students read and annotate the full article and compare it to their initial response.

Using current events and critical-thinking strategies like FIRE writing helps create a learning space where thinking is the goal rather than a score on a multiple-choice assessment. Critical-thinking skills can cross over to any of students’ other courses and into life outside the classroom. After all, we as teachers want to help the whole student be successful, and critical thinking is an important part of navigating life after they leave our classrooms.

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

Patrick Brown is the executive director of STEM and CTE for the Fort Zumwalt school district in Missouri and an experienced educator and author :

Planning for critical thinking focuses on teaching the most crucial science concepts, practices, and logical-thinking skills as well as the best use of instructional time. One way to ensure that lessons maintain a focus on critical thinking is to focus on the instructional sequence used to teach.

Explore-before-explain teaching is all about promoting critical thinking for learners to better prepare students for the reality of their world. What having an explore-before-explain mindset means is that in our planning, we prioritize giving students firsthand experiences with data, allow students to construct evidence-based claims that focus on conceptual understanding, and challenge students to discuss and think about the why behind phenomena.

Just think of the critical thinking that has to occur for students to construct a scientific claim. 1) They need the opportunity to collect data, analyze it, and determine how to make sense of what the data may mean. 2) With data in hand, students can begin thinking about the validity and reliability of their experience and information collected. 3) They can consider what differences, if any, they might have if they completed the investigation again. 4) They can scrutinize outlying data points for they may be an artifact of a true difference that merits further exploration of a misstep in the procedure, measuring device, or measurement. All of these intellectual activities help them form more robust understanding and are evidence of their critical thinking.

In explore-before-explain teaching, all of these hard critical-thinking tasks come before teacher explanations of content. Whether we use discovery experiences, problem-based learning, and or inquiry-based activities, strategies that are geared toward helping students construct understanding promote critical thinking because students learn content by doing the practices valued in the field to generate knowledge.

An Issue of Equity

Meg Riordan, Ph.D., is the chief learning officer at The Possible Project, an out-of-school program that collaborates with youth to build entrepreneurial skills and mindsets and provides pathways to careers and long-term economic prosperity. She has been in the field of education for over 25 years as a middle and high school teacher, school coach, college professor, regional director of N.Y.C. Outward Bound Schools, and director of external research with EL Education:

Although critical thinking often defies straightforward definition, most in the education field agree it consists of several components: reasoning, problem-solving, and decisionmaking, plus analysis and evaluation of information, such that multiple sides of an issue can be explored. It also includes dispositions and “the willingness to apply critical-thinking principles, rather than fall back on existing unexamined beliefs, or simply believe what you’re told by authority figures.”

Despite variation in definitions, critical thinking is nonetheless promoted as an essential outcome of students’ learning—we want to see students and adults demonstrate it across all fields, professions, and in their personal lives. Yet there is simultaneously a rationing of opportunities in schools for students of color, students from under-resourced communities, and other historically marginalized groups to deeply learn and practice critical thinking.

For example, many of our most underserved students often spend class time filling out worksheets, promoting high compliance but low engagement, inquiry, critical thinking, or creation of new ideas. At a time in our world when college and careers are critical for participation in society and the global, knowledge-based economy, far too many students struggle within classrooms and schools that reinforce low-expectations and inequity.

If educators aim to prepare all students for an ever-evolving marketplace and develop skills that will be valued no matter what tomorrow’s jobs are, then we must move critical thinking to the forefront of classroom experiences. And educators must design learning to cultivate it.

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

To understand critical thinking, educators need to first unpack and define its components. What exactly are we looking for when we speak about reasoning or exploring multiple perspectives on an issue? How does problem-solving show up in English, math, science, art, or other disciplines—and how is it assessed? At Two Rivers, an EL Education school, the faculty identified five constructs of critical thinking, defined each, and created rubrics to generate a shared picture of quality for teachers and students. The rubrics were then adapted across grade levels to indicate students’ learning progressions.

At Avenues World School, critical thinking is one of the Avenues World Elements and is an enduring outcome embedded in students’ early experiences through 12th grade. For instance, a kindergarten student may be expected to “identify cause and effect in familiar contexts,” while an 8th grader should demonstrate the ability to “seek out sufficient evidence before accepting a claim as true,” “identify bias in claims and evidence,” and “reconsider strongly held points of view in light of new evidence.”

When faculty and students embrace a common vision of what critical thinking looks and sounds like and how it is assessed, educators can then explicitly design learning experiences that call for students to employ critical-thinking skills. This kind of work must occur across all schools and programs, especially those serving large numbers of students of color. As Linda Darling-Hammond asserts , “Schools that serve large numbers of students of color are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum needed to ... help students attain the [critical-thinking] skills needed in a knowledge work economy. ”

So, what can it look like to create those kinds of learning experiences?

Designing experiences for critical thinking

After defining a shared understanding of “what” critical thinking is and “how” it shows up across multiple disciplines and grade levels, it is essential to create learning experiences that impel students to cultivate, practice, and apply these skills. There are several levers that offer pathways for teachers to promote critical thinking in lessons:

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

A key Common Core State Standard asks for students to “write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” That might not sound exciting or culturally relevant. But a learning experience designed for a 12th grade humanities class engaged learners in a compelling topic— policing in America —to analyze and evaluate multiple texts (including primary sources) and share the reasoning for their perspectives through discussion and writing. Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care about and connect with can ignite powerful learning experiences.

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

At The Possible Project , an out-of-school-time program designed to promote entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, students in a recent summer online program (modified from in-person due to COVID-19) explored the impact of COVID-19 on their communities and local BIPOC-owned businesses. They learned interviewing skills through a partnership with Everyday Boston , conducted virtual interviews with entrepreneurs, evaluated information from their interviews and local data, and examined their previously held beliefs. They created blog posts and videos to reflect on their learning and consider how their mindsets had changed as a result of the experience. In this way, we can design powerful community-based learning and invite students into productive struggle with multiple perspectives.

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

At Big Picture Learning schools, students engage in internship-based learning experiences as a central part of their schooling. Their school-based adviser and internship-based mentor support them in developing real-world projects that promote deeper learning and critical-thinking skills. Such authentic experiences teach “young people to be thinkers, to be curious, to get from curiosity to creation … and it helps students design a learning experience that answers their questions, [providing an] opportunity to communicate it to a larger audience—a major indicator of postsecondary success.” Even in a remote environment, we can design projects that ask more of students than rote memorization and that spark critical thinking.

Our call to action is this: As educators, we need to make opportunities for critical thinking available not only to the affluent or those fortunate enough to be placed in advanced courses. The tools are available, let’s use them. Let’s interrogate our current curriculum and design learning experiences that engage all students in real, relevant, and rigorous experiences that require critical thinking and prepare them for promising postsecondary pathways.

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

Dr. PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, keynote speaker, consultant, and author of seven books who currently serves as the superintendent of schools for the award-winning Meridian CUSD 223 in northwest Illinois. You can find PJ on most social-media platforms as MCUSDSupe:

When I start my keynote on student engagement, I invite two people up on stage and give them each five paper balls to shoot at a garbage can also conveniently placed on stage. Contestant One shoots their shot, and the audience gives approval. Four out of 5 is a heckuva score. Then just before Contestant Two shoots, I blindfold them and start moving the garbage can back and forth. I usually try to ensure that they can at least make one of their shots. Nobody is successful in this unfair environment.

I thank them and send them back to their seats and then explain that this little activity was akin to student engagement. While we all know we want student engagement, we are shooting at different targets. More importantly, for teachers, it is near impossible for them to hit a target that is moving and that they cannot see.

Within the world of education and particularly as educational leaders, we have failed to simplify what student engagement looks like, and it is impossible to define or articulate what student engagement looks like if we cannot clearly articulate what critical thinking is and looks like in a classroom. Because, simply, without critical thought, there is no engagement.

The good news here is that critical thought has been defined and placed into taxonomies for decades already. This is not something new and not something that needs to be redefined. I am a Bloom’s person, but there is nothing wrong with DOK or some of the other taxonomies, either. To be precise, I am a huge fan of Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework. I have used that as a core element of my practice for years, and it has shaped who I am as an instructional leader.

So, in order to explain critical thought, a teacher or a leader must familiarize themselves with these tried and true taxonomies. Easy, right? Yes, sort of. The issue is not understanding what critical thought is; it is the ability to integrate it into the classrooms. In order to do so, there are a four key steps every educator must take.

• Integrating critical thought/rigor into a lesson does not happen by chance, it happens by design. Planning for critical thought and engagement is much different from planning for a traditional lesson. In order to plan for kids to think critically, you have to provide a base of knowledge and excellent prompts to allow them to explore their own thinking in order to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information.
• SIDE NOTE – Bloom’s verbs are a great way to start when writing objectives, but true planning will take you deeper than this.

QUESTIONING

• If the questions and prompts given in a classroom have correct answers or if the teacher ends up answering their own questions, the lesson will lack critical thought and rigor.
• Script five questions forcing higher-order thought prior to every lesson. Experienced teachers may not feel they need this, but it helps to create an effective habit.
• If lessons are rigorous and assessments are not, students will do well on their assessments, and that may not be an accurate representation of the knowledge and skills they have mastered. If lessons are easy and assessments are rigorous, the exact opposite will happen. When deciding to increase critical thought, it must happen in all three phases of the game: planning, instruction, and assessment.

TALK TIME / CONTROL

• To increase rigor, the teacher must DO LESS. This feels counterintuitive but is accurate. Rigorous lessons involving tons of critical thought must allow for students to work on their own, collaborate with peers, and connect their ideas. This cannot happen in a silent room except for the teacher talking. In order to increase rigor, decrease talk time and become comfortable with less control. Asking questions and giving prompts that lead to no true correct answer also means less control. This is a tough ask for some teachers. Explained differently, if you assign one assignment and get 30 very similar products, you have most likely assigned a low-rigor recipe. If you assign one assignment and get multiple varied products, then the students have had a chance to think deeply, and you have successfully integrated critical thought into your classroom.

Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

BLOG | PODCAST NETWORK | ADMIN. MASTERMIND | SWAG & MERCH | ONLINE TRAINING

• Meet the Team
• Join the Team
• Our Philosophy
• Teach Better Mindset
• Custom Professional Development
• Livestream Shows & Videos
• Administrator Mastermind
• Academy Online Courses
• EDUcreator Club+
• Podcast Network
• Speakers Network
• EDUpreneur Mastermind
• Free Downloads
• Ambassador Program
• 2024 Cozumel Cruise
• Free Facebook Group
• Professional Development
• Request Training
• Speakers Network Home
• Keynote Speakers

Strategies to Increase Critical Thinking Skills in students

Matthew Joseph October 2, 2019 Blog , Engage Better , Lesson Plan Better , Personalize Student Learning Better

In This Post:

• The importance of helping students increase critical thinking skills.
• Ways to promote the essential skills needed to analyze and evaluate.
• Strategies to incorporate critical thinking into your instruction.

We ask our teachers to be “future-ready” or say that we are teaching “for jobs that don’t exist yet.” These are powerful statements. At the same time, they give teachers the impression that we have to drastically change what we are doing .

So how do we plan education for an unknown job market or unknown needs?

My answer: We can’t predict the jobs, but whatever they are, students will need to think critically to do them. So, our job is to teach our students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

Helping Students Become Critical Thinkers

My answer is rooted in the call to empower our students to be critical thinkers. I believe that to be critical thinkers, educators need to provide students with the strategies they need. And we need to ask more than just surface-level questions.

Questions to students must motivate them to dig up background knowledge. They should inspire them to make connections to real-world scenarios. These make the learning more memorable and meaningful.

Critical thinking is a general term. I believe this term means that students effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate content or skills. In this process, they (the students) will discover and present convincing reasons in support of their answers or thinking.

You can look up critical thinking and get many definitions like this one from Wikipedia: “ Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. ”

Essential Skills for Critical Thinking

In my current role as director of curriculum and instruction, I work to promote the use of 21st-century tools and, more importantly, thinking skills. Some essential skills that are the basis for critical thinking are:

• Communication and Information skills
• Thinking and Problem-Solving skills
• Interpersonal and Self- Directional skills
• Collaboration skills

These four bullets are skills students are going to need in any field and in all levels of education. Hence my answer to the question. We need to teach our students to think critically and for themselves.

One of the goals of education is to prepare students to learn through discovery . Providing opportunities to practice being critical thinkers will assist students in analyzing others’ thinking and examining the logic of others.

Understanding others is an essential skill in collaboration and in everyday life. Critical thinking will allow students to do more than just memorize knowledge.

Ask Questions

So how do we do this? One recommendation is for educators to work in-depth questioning strategies into a lesson launch.

Ask thoughtful questions to allow for answers with sound reasoning. Then, word conversations and communication to shape students’ thinking. Quick answers often result in very few words and no eye contact, which are skills we don’t want to promote.

When you are asking students questions and they provide a solution, try some of these to promote further thinking:

• Could you elaborate further on that point?
• Will you express that point in another way?
• Can you give me an illustration?
• Would you give me an example?
• Will you you provide more details?
• Could you be more specific?
• Do we need to consider another point of view?
• Is there another way to look at this question?

Utilizing critical thinking skills could be seen as a change in the paradigm of teaching and learning. Engagement in education will enhance the collaboration among teachers and students. It will also provide a way for students to succeed even if the school system had to start over.

[scroll down to keep reading]

Promoting critical thinking into all aspects of instruction.

Engagement, application, and collaboration are skills that withstand the test of time. I also promote the integration of critical thinking into every aspect of instruction.

In my experience, I’ve found a few ways to make this happen.

Begin lessons/units with a probing question: It shouldn’t be a question you can answer with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ These questions should inspire discovery learning and problem-solving.

Encourage Creativity: I have seen teachers prepare projects before they give it to their students many times. For example, designing snowmen or other “creative” projects. By doing the design work or by cutting all the circles out beforehand, it removes creativity options.

It may help the classroom run more smoothly if every child’s material is already cut out, but then every student’s project looks the same. Students don’t have to think on their own or problem solve.

Not having everything “glue ready” in advance is a good thing. Instead, give students all the supplies needed to create a snowman, and let them do it on their own.

Giving independence will allow students to become critical thinkers because they will have to create their own product with the supplies you give them. This might be an elementary example, but it’s one we can relate to any grade level or project.

Try not to jump to help too fast – let the students work through a productive struggle .

Build in opportunities for students to find connections in learning.  Encouraging students to make connections to a real-life situation and identify patterns is a great way to practice their critical thinking skills. The use of real-world scenarios will increase rigor, relevance, and critical thinking.

A few other techniques to encourage critical thinking are:

• Use analogies
• Promote interaction among students
• Ask open-ended questions
• Allow reflection time
• Use real-life problems
• Allow for thinking practice

Critical thinking prepares students to think for themselves for the rest of their lives. I also believe critical thinkers are less likely to go along with the crowd because they think for themselves.

About Matthew X. Joseph, Ed.D.

Dr. Matthew X. Joseph has been a school and district leader in many capacities in public education over his 25 years in the field. Experiences such as the Director of Digital Learning and Innovation in Milford Public Schools (MA), elementary school principal in Natick, MA and Attleboro, MA, classroom teacher, and district professional development specialist have provided Matt incredible insights on how to best support teaching and learning. This experience has led to nationally publishing articles and opportunities to speak at multiple state and national events. He is the author of Power of Us: Creating Collaborative Schools and co-author of Modern Mentoring , Reimagining Teacher Mentorship (Due out, fall 2019). His master’s degree is in special education and his Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from Boston College.

Visit Matthew’s Blog

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

Three Tools for Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills

Please try again

As the world economy shifts away from manufacturing jobs and towards service industry and creative jobs, there’s a consensus among parents, educators, politicians and business leaders that it is crucial students graduate into university or the workforce with the ability to identify and solve complex problems, think critically about information, work effectively in teams and communicate clearly about their thinking.

While many teachers agree with this premise, they don’t often know exactly how to teach these skills explicitly, especially because many of the mandates and required curriculum seem to push in the opposite direction. Process-oriented skills are hard to pin down; teachers can see them in certain students, but developing these competencies in students who aren’t already demonstrating them can be tricky. A few teachers in Ontario, Canada have been experimenting with tools they think could make the difference.

Jason Watt has always had very high expectations for his students, whether they were seven-year-olds in grade two or the young adolescents he now teaches in grade seven at Norseman Junior Middle School. But Watt was frustrated that in order to meet his expectations his students would often have to redo their work six or seven times. He often received writing responses that were a simple sentence and he was struggling to empower his students to push their thinking further. Many of them already had deeply ingrained ideas about what they were and weren’t good at, what they could and couldn’t accomplish.

“I wanted the kids to realize there is no bad answer,” Watt said. “There’s just an appropriate answer or a not-quite there answer.” In a training on “ integrative thinking ” at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, Watt finally found the tools he needed to develop students’ critical thinking. Several Ontario school boards (the Canadian version of school districts) are now supporting training in the effort.

Originally developed by Rotman’s former dean, Roger Martin , integrative thinking is a broad term to describe looking for solutions through the tensions inherent in different viewpoints. Martin noticed that effective CEOs understood that their own world view was limited, so they sought out opposing viewpoints and came to creative solutions by leveraging seemingly opposing positions. For the past seven years, a spin-off group called the I-Think Initiative has been training teachers in the Toronto area on how integrative thinking can build critical thinking in students from a young age.

LADDER OF INFERENCE 

One of the tools Jason Watt learned about in his training is called the ladder of inference . It’s a model for decision making behavior developed by Harvard professors Chris Argyris and Donald Schön. Essentially, it helps students slow down and realize which data they are taking into account when they make a decision and how the data they choose is informed by their past experiences. Assumptions are often made in a split second decision because the brain is wired to prioritize data that confirms the model a person already holds. The ladder of inference is a way to check those assumptions.

Watt first used the ladder in a very basic way; he showed his grade two students an image of a soccer player lying on the ground, one leg up, holding his head. The image was intentionally a little vague. At first Watt’s students concluded that the man had fallen. But as they worked their way up the ladder of inference they began to notice different aspects of the image and add those to their “data pool.”

“Students started to realize there was a lot more going on in the picture just in terms of data than what they first said,” Watt said. For example, students would say the man was hurt. That’s not a data point, it’s an inference. Watt could tease out from them that they thought the man was hurt because he was on the ground, holding his head and had a pained look on his face. “I started getting much deeper, more thoughtful answers from students,” Watt said.

As students practiced using the ladder of inference in various content areas they also started to use it on their own when dealing with social problems. When there is a disagreement, students now use the ladder of inference to back up and think through the data they chose and the assumptions that stemmed from that data. Watt says now students solve problems on their own or ask a friend to help them make their ladders.

“We’ve learned that there’s nothing wrong with questioning, so the kids have become much more willing and accepting of criticism because it’s not really criticism anymore,” Watt said. He feels the integrative thinking tools have naturally encouraged his students to build a growth mindset about all aspects of life because multiple viewpoints or ways to solve a problem are a core part of why integrative thinking works. Difference is the strength of the model.

Another integrative thinking tool called the pro/pro chart offers some good examples of how students are learning to think flexibly. Most people are familiar with pro/con charts, but in a pro/pro chart the group thinks through the positives of two different ideas. Rather than deciding between two choices, this tool helps students identify the positive traits of different viewpoints, and then create a third option by merging the good qualities of both.

Watt asked his students to brainstorm ideas for the worst restaurant of all time. When they had a good list of terrible ideas, Watt then asked groups of students to each take one idea and explain why it was the best restaurant of all time. One group had initially proposed a restaurant with no seating would be the worst; they reframed that to say if everyone was standing up they would move through the restaurant faster and turn more of a profit. A second group had said a restaurant in the woods would be terrible; they reframed that as dining under the stars.

“They were coming up with these really good ideas out of a terrible idea,” Watt said. “It helps kids see that they are capable and switches those mindsets.” Watt built on the activity, asking the groups to pitch their ideas in a Shark Tank or Dragon’s Den style contest. Students came up with hilarious slogans and designs for their restaurants and what started as a silly, fun activity became a rich interdisciplinary project with written and oral communication, presentation skills, media literacy, and of course, the process skills that enable them.

“The students now are no longer afraid to think,” Watt said. “They’re being more creative thinkers.” He even uses integrative thinking in math instruction, asking students to use the ladder of inference to determine information in a word problem, or asking them to do Pro/Pro charts for different multiplication strategies and then letting them come up with their own third way. His students’ math scores started skyrocketing, and even better, they no longer felt they weren’t “math people.”

PROVOKING SELF REFLECTION

Jennifer Warren became curious about integrative thinking through her daughter who kept coming home from her grade six classroom saying things like, “we had the most interesting discussion today.” That piqued Warren’s interest.

“The way she was talking about her own thinking developing, I was kind of thinking I didn’t think my students were saying the same kind of things,” Warren said. She wanted to be sure she was provoking the same response from her high school English students at Dundas Valley Secondary School in Hamilton. So when her board of education decided to fund the I-Think training she signed up.

The integrative thinking tools gave Warren a solution to a problem she and many other teachers have struggled with for a long time: how to deepen student thinking. Until then, Warren had tried to do this by modeling what deep thinking looks like. She was confident she could help any student become a strong writer. But the integrative thinking training forced her to ask some hard questions about her instruction and prompted her realization that her students were recreating her example, not creating it on their own.

“It completely flipped what mattered to me in an English classroom,” Warren said. She used to be mostly concerned with the product. Now, “instead of defending a stance, I’m so much more interested in having students reflect on their stance and shift and explain why they shifted. That metacognitive piece is more interesting to me now.”

CAUSAL MODELS

Warren starts the first semester by asking students to do a causal model -- another core integrative thinking tool -- of their values. She asks them to pick three to five things they value, anything from profound qualities like independence or kindness, to passions like music or hockey. They then have to dive deeply into why they value those qualities, what caused that? Often this requires them to have conversations with family about values taught to them from a young age.

She then asks them to make visual representations of their causal models and present them to one another. “I like that because they realize people don’t value the same things that they do,” Warren said. Those causal models go up on the wall as a reminder that everyone in the class is different and that the diversity of values, perspectives and opinions makes them better problem solvers.

Warren teaches a course for students who failed the Ontario literacy exam, a graduation requirement. The kids in this class often don’t have a lot of self confidence and are often missing some key literacy skills, like the ability to elaborate on a topic in writing. The ladder of inference has been an incredible tool to help Warren walk students through their thinking, modeling the tool step by step, climbing up or down the ladder as students offer insights from the text.

“It was such a simple and elegant way to allow someone who couldn’t wrap their head around inferring to do it well,” Warren said. She thinks the visual of a ladder helped these struggling students pin their thoughts to different steps and make connections.

She’s also found the tool to be helpful when she has disagreements with students. She’ll use the language of the tools to describe to students what data she’s using to make conclusions about their work ethic, their attendance, their behavior. But she always asks, “What am I missing.”

“It changes the conversation,” Warren said. It gives her a voice to express her disappointment to students in a way that is transparent and uses the shared language of their critical thinking tools. And because integrative thinking is based on the fact that one’s understanding of something is always incomplete, constantly shifting, there is room for students to be participants in the conversation.

TRUE COLLABORATION

“I’m completely and utterly blown away whenever I use one of these tools with my kids,” said Kristen Slinger, a grade two teacher at Norseman Junior Middle School. Before learning about integrative thinking, Slinger would have said she has been doing collaboration in the classroom for the past ten years. But she’s shifted her definition of collaboration and now sees what she was doing before as merely asking kids to write on the same piece of paper.

“When you use these tools [students] realize that they hit a roadblock when not everyone is participating,” Slinger said. The natural need for every students’ voice in order to solve the problem creates genuine collaboration.

Slinger remembers one boy who came from a Montessori background. He was used to a small school and small classes and was overwhelmed when he joined her class of 20 and the broader school of close to 700 students. Slinger said he was selectively mute until Christmas, an issue she raised with his mother. The news came as a surprise to his mom who said he was very chatty at home. Slinger kept the boy in a consistent group so he could develop trust with a few peers and slowly he realized that they really wanted to hear his opinion.

“It would have taken me probably months longer to get him to that point, but it was that idea that his peers valued what he had to say,” Slinger said. He went from never talking in class to volunteering to be the student who went around to other classes polling students on their favorite lemonade for a project.

Slinger said before she learned about integrative thinking she would get interesting responses from students, but she wouldn’t know how they got to their conclusions. The integrative thinking tools help make student thinking visible. “It’s the thinking that’s been put into the responses and the way it’s been broken down,” Slinger said. When she can see the steps of their thinking she has more ways to push them to go even further.

“I haven’t taken a course in a very long time that has reshaped my entire program,” she said.

GETTING STARTED

“The safest way in was by using fiction stories,” Slinger said of her own attempts to use integrative thinking. “Find that story that maybe has that emotional clincher that may have different endings and then stop there and use the ladder of inference to come up with what they think might happen at the end.”

Jason Watt suggests starting with an activity that’s part of the curriculum every year. That way a teacher new to the practice can compare the kind of thinking students demonstrate when using an integrative thinking tool with their previous lesson plan.

One important element of success is choosing a topic that’s engaging to kids, that has multiple entry points and solutions, and that has a real stakeholder. “One of the biggest mistakes is when you give the tension without the problem to be solved from a particular perspective,” said Nogah Kornberg, Associate Director of the I-Think Initiative at the Rotman School of Management.

For example, a grade one teacher offered her students a challenge from the school’s janitor. In the summer the trash is stored outside and becomes infested with bees. In the winter the trash is stored inside and smells bad. What might be a better solution? Giving students the challenge from the perspective of the stakeholder helps them solve the problem for him. If it is just presented as an A or a B solution, they don’t know who to solve for.

Kornberg was a high school teacher herself before becoming part of the I-Think Initiative. She sees the program as offering two things: critical thinking skills and building better citizens.

“We’re seeing quite young students learning how to play the game of school and this is about how to become good thinkers and good questioners of our thinking,” she said. Getting started on this metacognition piece can’t start too young in her opinion. She also sees the tool as a way to empower young people. “Because it’s rooted in problem solving it’s about saying things are the way they are, but we can make them better and I have a responsibility to make them better.”

Rahim Essabhai wholeheartedly agrees with Kornberg; he’s seen the shift in his students. He teaches a class called Business and Cooperative Education for seniors at John Polanyi Collegiate Institute that asks students to work on one big problem for an outside organization over the course of the school year.

“When I have my kids coming back to visit me and they say that this course has gotten them ready for the next stage more than any course they took in high school, I don’t take that lightly,” Essabhai said. And since students are coming up with interesting solutions to problems real businesses and organizations have, they see that their thinking has value.

And he knows students are using the tools beyond his course as well. In a final reflection for his class, one student described how she constantly found herself having to choose between hanging out with her friends and spending time with her little sister. When she did either she felt bad, so she came up with a third option. Once a month she hosted a gathering for all her friends and their little sisters to spend time together.

“They’re not being a passenger in their own life,” Essabhai said. “Nothing is too messy or too tough.” Growing students who feel that way about tough challenges should be an essential function of education.

Here's a challenge for your students to tackle:

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

What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?

Learn what critical thinking skills are, why they’re important, and how to develop and apply them in your workplace and everyday life.

We often use critical thinking skills without even realizing it. When you make a decision, such as which cereal to eat for breakfast, you're using critical thinking to determine the best option for you that day.

Critical thinking is like a muscle that can be exercised and built over time. It is a skill that can help propel your career to new heights. You'll be able to solve workplace issues, use trial and error to troubleshoot ideas, and more.

We'll take you through what it is and some examples so you can begin your journey in mastering this skill.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to interpret, evaluate, and analyze facts and information that are available, to form a judgment or decide if something is right or wrong.

More than just being curious about the world around you, critical thinkers make connections between logical ideas to see the bigger picture. Building your critical thinking skills means being able to advocate your ideas and opinions, present them in a logical fashion, and make decisions for improvement.

Build job-ready skills with a Coursera Plus subscription

• Get access to 7,000+ learning programs from world-class universities and companies, including Google, Yale, Salesforce, and more
• Try different courses and find your best fit at no additional cost
• Earn certificates for learning programs you complete
• A subscription price of $59/month, cancel anytime

Why is critical thinking important?

Critical thinking is useful in many areas of your life, including your career. It makes you a well-rounded individual, one who has looked at all of their options and possible solutions before making a choice.

According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]:

Crucial for the economy

Essential for improving language and presentation skills

Very helpful in promoting creativity

Important for self-reflection

The basis of science and democracy 

Critical thinking skills are used every day in a myriad of ways and can be applied to situations such as a CEO approaching a group project or a nurse deciding in which order to treat their patients.

Examples of common critical thinking skills

Critical thinking skills differ from individual to individual and are utilized in various ways. Examples of common critical thinking skills include:

Identification of biases: Identifying biases means knowing there are certain people or things that may have an unfair prejudice or influence on the situation at hand. Pointing out these biases helps to remove them from contention when it comes to solving the problem and allows you to see things from a different perspective.

Research: Researching details and facts allows you to be prepared when presenting your information to people. You’ll know exactly what you’re talking about due to the time you’ve spent with the subject material, and you’ll be well-spoken and know what questions to ask to gain more knowledge. When researching, always use credible sources and factual information.

Open-mindedness: Being open-minded when having a conversation or participating in a group activity is crucial to success. Dismissing someone else’s ideas before you’ve heard them will inhibit you from progressing to a solution, and will often create animosity. If you truly want to solve a problem, you need to be willing to hear everyone’s opinions and ideas if you want them to hear yours.

Analysis: Analyzing your research will lead to you having a better understanding of the things you’ve heard and read. As a true critical thinker, you’ll want to seek out the truth and get to the source of issues. It’s important to avoid taking things at face value and always dig deeper.

Problem-solving: Problem-solving is perhaps the most important skill that critical thinkers can possess. The ability to solve issues and bounce back from conflict is what helps you succeed, be a leader, and effect change. One way to properly solve problems is to first recognize there’s a problem that needs solving. By determining the issue at hand, you can then analyze it and come up with several potential solutions.

How to develop critical thinking skills

You can develop critical thinking skills every day if you approach problems in a logical manner. Here are a few ways you can start your path to improvement:

1. Ask questions.

Be inquisitive about everything. Maintain a neutral perspective and develop a natural curiosity, so you can ask questions that develop your understanding of the situation or task at hand. The more details, facts, and information you have, the better informed you are to make decisions.

2. Practice active listening.

Utilize active listening techniques, which are founded in empathy, to really listen to what the other person is saying. Critical thinking, in part, is the cognitive process of reading the situation: the words coming out of their mouth, their body language, their reactions to your own words. Then, you might paraphrase to clarify what they're saying, so both of you agree you're on the same page.

3. Develop your logic and reasoning.

This is perhaps a more abstract task that requires practice and long-term development. However, think of a schoolteacher assessing the classroom to determine how to energize the lesson. There's options such as playing a game, watching a video, or challenging the students with a reward system. Using logic, you might decide that the reward system will take up too much time and is not an immediate fix. A video is not exactly relevant at this time. So, the teacher decides to play a simple word association game.

Scenarios like this happen every day, so next time, you can be more aware of what will work and what won't. Over time, developing your logic and reasoning will strengthen your critical thinking skills.

Learn tips and tricks on how to become a better critical thinker and problem solver through online courses from notable educational institutions on Coursera. Start with Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking from Duke University or Mindware: Critical Thinking for the Information Age from the University of Michigan.

Article sources

University of the People, “ Why is Critical Thinking Important?: A Survival Guide , https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/why-is-critical-thinking-important/.” Accessed May 18, 2023.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

Why STEM? Success Starts With Critical Thinking, Problem-Solving Skills

• Partner Content
• Author: Stephen F. DeAngelis, Enterra Solutions. Stephen F. DeAngelis, Enterra Solutions

Our educational system is tasked with preparing the next-generation to succeed in life. That’s a tall order and it will substantially fail if it doesn’t teach children how to think critically and solve problems. In a post entitled “ STEM Education: Why All the Fuss? ,” I wrote, “Educating students in STEM subjects (if taught correctly) prepares students for life, regardless of the profession they choose to follow. Those subjects teach students how to think critically and how to solve problems — skills that can be used throughout life to help them get through tough times and take advantage of opportunities whenever they appear.”

I’m not alone in making this assessment. Vince Bertram, President and CEO of Project Lead The Way, Inc., feels the same way. “The United States can no longer excuse its poor academic performance by asserting that students in other nations excel in rote learning, while ours are better at problem solving. Recent test results clearly tell a different story.” [“ We Have to Get Serious About Creativity and Problem Solving ,” Huffington Post The Blog , 7 May 2014] Naveen Jain, Entrepreneur and Founder of the World Innovation Institute, adds, “Please don’t get me started on ‘No Child Left Behind.’ It might as well be called ‘All Children Left Behind.’ This system of standardized, rote learning that teaches to a test is exactly the type of education our children don’t need in this world that is plagued by systemic, pervasive and confounding global challenges. Today’s education system does not focus enough on teaching children to solve real world problems and is not interdisciplinary, nor collaborative enough in its approach.” [“ School’s Out for Summer: Rethinking Education for the 21st Century ,” Wall Street Journal , 27 June 2013] He continues:

“Imagine education that is as entertaining and addictive as video games. Sound far-fetched? I believe that this is exactly the idea — driven by dynamic innovation and entrepreneurism — that will help bring our education system out of the stone ages.”

There a numerous examples of how teachers have involved students in problem-solving activities and, as a result, have excited them about education while teaching them how to better cope with the world around them. As Bertram noted above, Americans can no longer boast that we are teaching our children how to solve problems better than the rest of the world. He explains:

“The latest round of international standardized test results showed American students are lagging behind the rest of the developed world not just in math, science and reading , but in problem solving as well. The 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test examined 44 countries’ students’ problem-solving abilities — American students landed just above the average, but they still scored below many other developed countries, including Britain, Singapore, Korea, Japan, China and Canada.”

Jeevan Vasagar insists that the data shows that countries that teach their children how to solve problems are more successful than those who don’t. It sounds both obvious and sensible; yet, America seems to have turned its back on that approach. “Education is under pressure to respond to a changing world,” writes Vasagar. “As repetitive tasks are eroded by technology and outsourcing, the ability to solve novel problems has become increasingly vital.” [“ Countries that excel at problem-solving encourage critical thinking ,” Financial Times , 19 May 2014] He continues:

“Students from the main western European countries — England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium — all performed above the average, as did pupils from the Czech Republic and Estonia. In the rest of the rich world, the US, Canada and Australia also performed above average. But the laurels were taken by east Asian territories; Singapore and South Korea performed best, followed by Japan, and the Chinese regions of Macau and Hong Kong. That result poses a challenge to schools in the west. Critics of east Asian education systems attribute their success at maths and science to rote learning. But the OECD’s assessment suggests that schools in east Asia are developing thinking skills as well as providing a solid grounding in core subjects. Across the world, the OECD study found a strong and positive correlation between performance in problem solving and performance in maths, reading and science. In general, the high-performing students were also the ones best able to cope with unfamiliar situations.”

The lesson that needs to be learned here is that, if you want your child to succeed in life, teach him or her how to think critically and solve problems. The best way to do that is to provide them with a good foundation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As I noted at the beginning of this article, grounding student in STEM subjects doesn’t mean that other social or liberal arts subjects aren’t important , only that STEM subjects teach life-skills that other disciplines don’t. Bertram explains:

“In America, we must make core subjects like math and science relevant for students, and at the same time, foster creativity, curiosity and a passion for problem solving. That’s what STEM education does. STEM is about using math and science to solve real-world challenges and problems. This applied, project-based way of teaching and learning allows students to understand and appreciate the relevancy of their work to their own lives and the world around them. Once they grasp core concepts, students are able to choose a problem and use their own creativity and curiosity to research, design, test and improve a viable solution.”

One of the reasons that I, along with a few colleagues, founded The Project for STEM Competitiveness , was to help get a project-based, problem-solving approach into schools. As an employer of people with technical skills, I am naturally interested in ensuring that, in the future, I will have an adequate employee pool from which to draw; but, as a parent, I want to ensure that our children are equipped to succeed in a changing world. As I’ve noted in previous articles, many of the jobs our children will asked to fill don’t even exist today. Daisy Christodoulou, an educationalist and the author of Seven Myths about Education , explains that students need exposure to a broad array of disciplines so that they are exposed to the problem-solving skills required in each area. She “argues that such skills are domain specific – they cannot be transferred to an area where our knowledge is limited.” She also believes this will help teach students to think more critically. Vasagar explains:

“Critical thinking is a skill that is impossible to teach directly but must be intertwined with content, Christodoulou argues. … Some argue that placing too strong an emphasis on children acquiring knowledge alone leaves them struggling when faced with more complex problems. Tim Taylor, a former primary school teacher who now trains teachers, says: ‘If you front-load knowledge and leave all the thinking and critical questioning until later, children don’t develop as effective learners.’ There are some generic tools that transfer across disciplines, Taylor argues. ‘What is reading if not a cognitive tool? And that is clearly “transferable”.’ … The way to teach generic skills is to be ‘mindful of it as a teacher’, Taylor suggests. ‘You create opportunities to keep that in the forefront of what you are doing – how is this helping us? How can we use this in another context? That is the point of education, to develop a “growth mindset”,’ he states.”

I agree with Bertram that we must foster educational approaches that appeal to a child’s natural sense of curiosity. He explains:

“Children are born with a natural curiosity. Give a child a toy and watch him or her play for hours. Listen to the questions a child asks. Children have a thirst to understand things. But then they go to school. They are taught how to take tests, how to respond to questions — how to do school. At our own peril, we teach them compliance. We teach them that school isn’t a place for creativity. That must change.”

We are all familiar with the adage “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Too often we are feeding our students instead of teaching them how to feed themselves. The disciplines that do that best are STEM-related.

Stephen F. DeAngelis is President and CEO of the cognitive computing firm Enterra Solutions.

Get The Magazine

Subscribe now to get 6 months for $5 - plus a free portable phone charger., get our newsletter, wired's biggest stories, delivered to your inbox., follow us on twitter.

Visit WIRED Photo for our unfiltered take on photography, photographers, and photographic journalism wrd.cm/1IEnjUH

Follow Us On Facebook

Don't miss our latest news, features and videos., we’re on pinterest, see what's inspiring us., follow us on youtube, don't miss out on wired's latest videos..

• Visit Two Rivers Public Charter School to see the school that inspired the Two Rivers Learning Institute.
• Course Login

Teaching Critical Thinking Routines

Critical thinking, how do you teach critical thinking and problem solving.

To teach critical thinking and problem-solving, we have two core components of the curriculum that work together: authentic tasks and thinking routines.

For students to learn to think critically and solve complex problems, they need to have opportunities to do these activities in meaningful contexts. We provide this by having students engage in authentic tasks that require them to gather information, to evaluate facts, to formulate claims, and to solve problems. The major authentic tasks that students work on at Two Rivers are our learning expeditions , ten to twelve week multidisciplinary hands-on projects.

​However simply giving students tasks that require critical thinking and problem-solving skills is not enough to help them develop these skills. In addition to authentic tasks, we need to explicitly name the critical thinking and problem-solving skills we want students to learn, to give them multiple opportunities to practice these skills, and to provide specific feedback to help them refine these skills. At Two Rivers, we have found that explicitly teaching thinking routines to students provides students with the opportunity to practice cognitive skills and develop concrete habits of mind for approaching a wide variety of tasks.

What thinking routines do you use?

Building off of the work of Ron Ritchhart and the Visible Thinking Project at Harvard University’s Project Zero , we have borrowed and created thinking routines to aid students in developing their cognitive skills. Each thinking routine is aligned with one of our constructs of critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

1. Claim-Support-Question (CSQ) is a routine for teaching effective reasoning. 2. The 4 C’s of Decision Making is a routine associated with our decision making construct. 3. The K-W-I is a thinking routine that we utilize to teach students about problem solving.

For more information about Project Zero’s work, watch this video!

• Invest for Eternity
• Giving Clubs
• Annual Fund
• The Heritage Project
• Global Encounters
• Leadership Breakfasts
• MBU Golf Classic
• Pastors Masters
• MARANATHA PLUS

Read MBU’s latest coronavirus news and updates. Learn More

Maranatha baptist university.

How Higher Education Fosters Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

“Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.” –Albert Einstein

Critical thinking and problem-solving are the most essential skills that any college student can develop. If students are unable to think through an issue critically, they will be ill-equipped to distinguish between truth and deception. Valid conclusions can only come from the pursuit of truth. In comparison, problem-solving skills give an individual the tools to do something with the information they have gained. This combined skillset is invaluable in the professional world and everyday life.

If these skills are so important, what is the best way to foster and develop them? Education is a start. Whether it’s higher education through attending a university or self-education through personal study, the only way to develop these skills is through active participation in learning. Almost all colleges and universities cite critical thinking as one of their core objectives. So, what are the best ways for higher education to help students grow and develop these skills?

From the idea that teaching critical thinking is impossible to new approaches in teaching styles, the last two decades have produced varying theories on critical thinking. One fact that is certain, however, is that problem-solving is a natural outgrowth of critical thinking. Although there is no argument over whether critical thinking is important, there are multiple perspectives on the best ways to develop this skill. Most research, however, seems to support a hands-on, interactive approach.

Andreucci-Annunziata et al. (2023) suggests that “pedagogical approaches to critical thinking have been synthesized into four types: general method; infusion; immersion and mixed method.” The general method is teaching critical thinking as its own subject, infusion is teaching critical thinking in relation to a specific subject matter, immersion is teaching a subject in a way that encourages critical thinking, and “the mixed method consists of a combination of the general method and the infusion or immersion method.” These methods are combined with instructional strategies such as writing exercises, in-class discussion, brainstorming, using online discussion forums, etc. With so many methods and strategies available what is the best approach for educators? Two strategies seem to be gaining momentum: Decision-Based Learning and Discussion-Based Learning.

Decision-Based Learning

Decision-Based Learning (DBL), a problem-solving strategy, is a new possibility. According to one study DBL teaches students how to look at the components of a problem and come to a rational decision. Evidence shows that there is a correlation between the development of problem-solving and critical thinking skills (Plummer et al. 2022). This style encourages students to look at all sides of an issue and come to a valid conclusion.

Discussion-Based Learning

On the other hand, Discussion-Based Learning also shows promise. Various universities across the U.S. and Canada cite Discussion-Based Learning, or a form of it, as one of their primary teaching methods. Examples include the University of Calgary, Brown University, and Columbia University. The fact that discussion plays a major role in developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills is indisputable. Studies of different methods continue to support Discussion-Based Learning as one of the primary ways for students to develop both skills. In-class discussion and thought-provoking questions continue to promote the development of critical thinking within the classroom.

Are Educators Doing a Good Job?

Some researchers and professionals argue that colleges are failing to teach their students the art of critical thinking. One researcher suggests that colleges and universities fail to understand that there is a difference between “teaching students what to think (highly educated) and teaching them how to think (better educated)” (Flores, Kevin L., et al.).  A student can fill their mind with countless pieces of information without developing the skills needed to interpret and apply that information.

To combat this tendency, educators must challenge students to think through issues themselves. When students are given the tools needed to think critically, a new world of knowledge is opened to them. Regardless of varying strategies, education needs a firm foundation to stand on. At Maranatha, that foundation is the Bible.

What Makes Maranatha Different?

Education firmly grounded in biblical truth does not leave room for conclusions drawn from emotion. Instead, biblically grounded education creates an environment that fosters critical thinking and a pursuit of the truth. At Maranatha, professors understand the value of preparing students to be critical thinkers. In a world that seeks to reject a biblical worldview through science and philosophy, it is more important than ever for students to graduate grounded in biblical principles.

Mr. Nathan Huffstutler, Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities, explains, “A biblical worldview emphasizes truth. God is a God of truth. If you believe that God is a God of truth, that will make you more passionate in your search for truth. When we deal with current events or with history, it’s not just opinions that we’re trying to find. That doesn’t mean that some questions don’t have nuance or gray areas. There are some issues that are very complex, but a biblical worldview aids in the pursuit of truth even in difficult subjects.”

Without the ability to analyze ideas through a biblical lens, students will be tossed about by every new theory, unable to distinguish between the truth and lies disguised as truth. Only when students understand how to think will they be able to properly analyze ideas and come to their own conclusions.

Mr. Huffstutler further explains how he implements the instruction of critical thinking into the classroom, “I personally use discussion questions. I’ll give a question and then require students to back up their answers with evidence. They must demonstrate in their answers that it is not just their opinion. I strive to show my students how to back up their statements based on facts and support from the text. That’s what critical thinking is.” 

Discussion is the first step in the process of developing critical thinking. In-class discussion has the power to sharpen minds as students are forced to think through their reasoning and evidence. Current and past students are reaping the benefits of an education that emphasizes the development of this invaluable skill.

Hannah Mayes (’20 Communication Arts—Theatre), a teacher at Maranatha Baptist Academy and Adjunct Professor at the University, shares her experience, “The focus Maranatha professors have on teaching students how to think is particularly evident when teachers would continuously ask us, ‘Why?’ Professors encouraged us to evaluate our answers in light of a biblical worldview, but not merely so we could provide a ‘right’ answer. Many instructors encouraged me to look further beyond the simple answer, use credible sources to support my answer, and apply what I had learned to my everyday life. These interactions seemed challenging at the time, but I find myself encouraging my own students to keep asking why and how — not just what.”

Keeping the focus on teaching students how to think is essential in the development of critical thinking. When academics are taught with a biblical worldview, students are encouraged to find the truth and evidence to back up their claims. Without these skills, students will be incapable of succeeding in a professional environment.

So, does higher education foster critical thinking and problem-solving? Yes. But only when students and professors work together to find the truth, based on facts, can critical thinking flourish.

Andreucci-Annunziata, P., Riedemann, A., Cortes, S., Mellado, A., Del Rio, M. T., & Vega-Munoz, A. (2023). Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1141686

Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C., & Harding, H. E. (2012). Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44 (2), 212-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x

Plummer, K. J., Kebritchi, M., Leary, H. M., & Halverson, D.M. (2022). Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills through Decision-Based Learning. Innovative Higher Education, 47 (4), 711-734. https://doi.org/101007/s10755-022-09595-9

Similar Blog Post 1

Student pov: developing effective time management as a college student.

Similar Blog Post 2

Student pov: dealing with differences in a dorm room.

Similar Blog Post 3

The pros and cons of digital textbooks vs. traditional textbooks.

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
• Med Sci Educ
• v.29(1); 2019 Mar

Advancing Critical Thinking Through Learning Issues in Problem-Based Learning

Carol c. thompson.

Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ USA

Health professions educators are increasingly urged to use learning designs that promote critical thinking and the development of interpersonal competencies. Problem-based learning (PBL) has a long, albeit contested, history as a collaborative and deep think-aloud process that participants use to reach conclusions about medical cases. In order to make progress, participants must assess what they do not know and what they must learn in order to continue. Answering these learning issues (LI) requires self-direction and cognitive presence. This study analyzes the discussions that participants used in the reporting phase of the LI process in an 8-week PBL module on cardiac-renal systems. Data were drawn from 10 class sessions and analyzed for critical thinking using a model based on Garrison and Newman et al. Participants at first presented LI reports didactically but over time initiated active learning strategies. The findings indicate large increases in the numbers of LI reports in which participants engaged in collaborative thinking. There were also large increases in the amount of time devoted to critical thinking as participants aligned the LI process more closely with the intent of PBL. Participants’ identity development as experts also underwent changes and the fluidity of the expert roles increased. Thoughtful design of the LI process can help learners develop the habitus of self-direction and collaborative critical thinking that they need in order to develop clinical reasoning.

Introduction

Medical educators are increasingly urged to use learning designs that promote both critical thinking (CT) and the development of interpersonal competencies [ 1 – 3 ]. Problem-based learning (PBL), which requires participants to construct their learning collaboratively, addresses both directives. A crucial activity in PBL is the development of learning issues (LIs) in which participants determine what the group does not know and must know in order to move forward in diagnosing cases. These LIs become crucial opportunities for participants to develop interactional competencies, self-direction, and CT.

CT includes, first, the cognitive skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom’s taxonomy), second, argumentation and judgment/evaluation [ 4 ], and third, the interpretation and use of evidence to justify hypotheses [ 5 , 6 ]. CT is promoted when learners have opportunities and requirements for making their thinking visible to their peers [ 7 – 9 ] and for reflection [ 10 ]. As Jeong [ 11 ] suggests, reflection is increased when participants must examine assertions, and the need to argue points can be a useful spur to depth [ 11 , 12 ]. How frequently participants analyze what is said, critically assess it, and justify their assessments indicates the extent to which they are engaging in CT.

LIs, which Mpofu and colleagues [ 13 ] argue, “guide the students’ studying” (p. 330), are a particularly valuable opportunity for the development of both CT and self-direction. However, identifying LIs can be difficult for beginners who must metacognitively assess [ 14 ] what they already know and what will be salient in the case. Following Vygotsky’s [ 15 ] sociocultural constructivism, PBL frameworks are structured so that participants use the help of more expert others to do what they cannot do on their own. Facilitators act as guides in these zones of proximal development (ZPD), offering help (scaffolding) that encourages further inquiry and reflection; their prompts and questions can be particularly useful to participants learning to identify and discuss LIs. Eventually, self-directed students may even find relevant issues that instructors themselves had not identified [ 13 , 16 ]. Self-direction also appears to have some payoff beyond preclinical coursework. As van den Hurk and colleagues [ 17 ] note, LIs appear to encourage the development of self-direction during subsequent training. Some studies indicate that PBL students tend to function better in clinical situations than those in traditional lecture-based curricula [ 18 – 20 ], and that collaborative thinking can model the collegiality and teamwork that they will later need as practicing physicians [ 21 ].

To date, many studies of the LI process in medical education use self-report, and relatively few focus on what participants are actually saying as they analyze case problems and the knowledge needed to solve them. In their analysis of a single hour of discussion, Visschers-Pleijers [ 22 ] and colleagues used a discourse approach in their focus on the LI process. This kind of attention to the discussion in LI sessions is important because it is an indicator of the extent to which participants actually use the PBL and LI tenets of collaborative knowledge construction, distributed expertise [ 7 ], and self-direction [ 23 , 24 ] to engage in CT. The research by Kamin and colleagues [ 6 ] focused primarily on the larger PBL activity and included LIs in the process of integration. Other studies, for example, one by Hmelo-Silver and Barrows [ 7 ], looked at participant structures and the facilitator’s role in knowledge building, but not directly at CT. These studies point toward a potentially rich area for further inquiry.

Therefore, the study described in this article sought to use participant speech to investigate the use of CT over an extended time period in a PBL class of first-year medical students. The study was conducted at Rowan University, a midsized public university in New Jersey, USA, at its School of Osteopathic Medicine. The school has a longstanding practice of offering students the choice of applying to either the PBL or traditional curriculum upon acceptance to the school, and not all who apply to the PBL program are accepted. Students remain on their chosen track for both preclinical years. There are no didactic systems-based courses in the PBL track, and its explicit goal is the development of clinical reasoning. Facilitators are faculty trained in PBL processes.

This study focused on how LIs became an opportunity for collaborative work and development of students’ CT. The study gathered data from ten LI sessions over an 8-week module on cardio-renal processes. By concentrating on the LI portion of the PBL process, I wanted to understand its value for participants in helping them assess their knowledge and what they needed to know to work on the cases. It was also important to understand how the LI process might be valuable in its own right as a contribution to the CT that is a cornerstone of PBL. The focus was on how the desired characteristics of PBL were realized within the LI process, the extent to which the LI process itself promoted CT, and how students’ identities as experts [ 25 ] developed over the course of the 8 weeks.

Materials and Methods

The medical school is one of two attached to Rowan University, and it has a long history of educating osteopathic students in southern New Jersey. Just prior to this study, the school had expanded its PBL curriculum from one PBL section to four. The section discussed here was comprised of seven students and a faculty facilitator. During each week, three classes, each three hours long, were devoted to each case. Students were expected to prepare prior to class, and roles were distributed and rotated weekly (for example, “driver” in charge of the computer case progress, scribe). The curriculum materials had been developed at Southern Illinois University; case information was presented by computer program on a screen visible to all participants. The information with which the patient presented was revealed by the computer “driver,” and the participant acting as scribe recorded the case notes on the walls. Answers to the questions the group formulated for the computerized patient were gradually transformed into differentials.

New cases were presented each week, and the LIs were developed at the end of the first and second class meetings devoted to each case. Usually the participants collaboratively made lists of terms and concepts they wanted to know more about as they discussed the cases. They ranked them, selected the most urgent ones, and then volunteered to address them. During the first 5 weeks, they occasionally developed their own topics that they personally wanted to know more about. At other times, the facilitator helped participants construct LIs that would be particularly germane to the case, suggested modifications, or noted important areas of uncertainty in the case discussions. Following a comment by the facilitator mid-module students began to rotate topic choices. The reporting phase was conducted at the beginning of the following class session.

Prior to beginning the study, IRB approval was sought and granted; subsequently, I sought permission from both the facilitator and the students to be present in the room over the following weeks and record the classroom dialogue. All students were assigned pseudonyms.

Participants

The participants included one section of seven first-year medical students in the second 8-week module of their first semester. They had varying levels of experience in the health field including a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy, experience as an emergency medical technician, and experience at a social needs-oriented nonprofit. The facilitator was an emergency room physician and long-time faculty member trained in PBL.

Data Collection

Classes met for a total of 9 hours a week. I took extensive field notes and observed and recorded classes (including breaks) over the 8-week module on cardio-renal issues. Ten sessions had LI reports. I also conducted member checking to make sure my understanding of what participants were saying was accurate.

Data Analysis

The recordings were transcribed and discourse analysis conducted. To assess critical thinking, a framework based on the models developed by Garrison [ 25 ] and Newman and his colleagues [ 26 ] was employed. Garrison’s model was used to identify aspects of problem solving, including problem clarification and framing the problem in context (p-clar) and making judgments about potential solutions (eval). In addition, Newman and his colleagues were helpful in identifying critical assessment (C-assess; making judgments about potential solutions and the remarks of others) and justification for assertions (ju). The transcripts and field notes were further analyzed for participants’ role take-up as experts.

The LI process was challenging, as might be expected for new medical students. At the beginning of the module, participants chose manageable topics such as cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia. By mid-module, they were beginning to consider both which issues they should develop and how. They began to consider scope, with one participant asking whether they “should go narrower or wider,” and they began to choose more processes more challenging for them such as baroreceptor reflex blood pressure regulation.

The LI reports in the beginning were simple PowerPoint lectures; most also contained quick checks for understanding framed as multiple choice or yes/no questions at the end. As Table ​ Table1 1 indicates, the participants were increasingly able to sustain interactions with CT as the weeks progressed. For example, although there was a single interaction of approximately 1 min in the late September class session, by October 10 (4 sessions later), there were 6 interactions for a total of 9 min, and 2 weeks later, the discussions totaled 20 min. At this point, participants were increasingly extending the LIs as discussion opportunities, indicating a move from passive responses to much more active ones. As there were no further cases the entirety of the final session was devoted to LIs. The participants made the most of their time, engaging in lengthy interactions with substantial CT (see Table ​ Table2 2 ).

Discussions within LIs (minutes)

Levels of CT in LI discussions (P-clar; ps; C-assess/eval; ju)

Next, the extent to which participants used those interactions as opportunities for CT was analyzed. Because participants structured the initial LIs as lectures with brief questions meant to check for understanding, the early discussions tended to be at the level of problem clarification (see Table ​ Table2). 2 ). As the participants began to interact for longer periods, they also used more CT attributes. By October 10, three discussions used all of them, and 2 weeks later, four discussions used all CT attributes and the other discussions used most of the CT attributes.

By mid-October, there was a growing interactivity that grew out of a friendly rivalry between 2 students, Adam and Andrew. As they began to challenge each other during the LIs, they opened the door for others to join the discussion and to structure the LIs differently. Three students presented their LIs by drawing on the wall and without notes or PowerPoints. They began to encourage actual discussions, moving entirely from lecture format to interactional positions. The two women, Maria and Jennifer, had spoken very little during the first weeks of class; they began to participate more visibly by mid-module. This interactivity coincided with the increased use of critical thinking noted above, particularly as students assessed each other’s statements. Participants also began to assess their own learning needs (“I need to work more on EKG”; “Can you actually distinguish all these things from 1 EKG? I don’t think I’m going to be able to do that.”) The substantial restructuring of the LI, abandoning the lecture format for one that was much more interactive, had the effect of aligning the LIs with the purposes of the PBL process: to use CT in a collaborative and self-directed manner. The complexity of the responses in the reconfigured reporting phase coincided with their ability to make more substantial justifications for their positions, to better build on the thinking of others, and to evaluate and reevaluate their own positions with respect to the cases.

Table ​ Table3 3 contains a discussion excerpt from mid-module with increasing use of gently worded critical assessment to correct misunderstandings (see Adam’s comment in line 5: “I would say”) and also of justifications, a pattern that continued through the end of the 8 weeks. Maria was now willing to speak up; although she confined her comments to assessments of what others were saying, she was known to be accurate in her understanding of processes. As this excerpt indicates by mid-module, the participants were comfortable using the LI process to learn from each other. At the same time, they were also beginning to teach each other during breaks on multiple occasions.

Mid-module CT examples (P-clar; ps; C-assess/eval; ju; brackets indicate overlapping speech)

By the end of the module, participants used the LI process even more extensively to arrive at answers. In the final class meeting, there was no case discussion, so the LI report phase and discussions had no time constraints. Participants used the increased time available for discussion around the report phase, sustaining their discussions with the nearly continuous use of CT for 55 min.

Table ​ Table4 4 contains a brief excerpt of dialogue from the final class meeting. At that point in the discussion, participants were analyzing the implications of a comment raised by Jason at the end of his LI report on cardiac pressure equalization: (“… here’s I think on the exam or on the future if you see like this dip, you know, its characteristic of um a stenotic valve.”). The participants were able to use problem solving (ps), critical assessment (C-assess), and justifications (ju) in their thinking, and this brief excerpt of the 55-min discussion consists almost entirely of CT. Only 2 words (stemi and um) in this excerpt were not codable as CT, and the critical assessments often incorporated justifications as in line 18 (“But wouldn’t it be more proper to say that the left hypertrophies so you have that equalization or close to equalization of pressure?”). The brackets indicate the considerable overlaps in speech, where participants eagerly replied to the statements of others; these indicate the intensity of the discussion and the participants’ engagement in it (ll. 13–23). The vehement “No!” by Maria and Jennifer in line 30 reflects their engagement and close tracking of the discussion as it evolved. Adam then adds a justification to their one-word assessment and Andrew then agrees as well.

Final class session examples (brackets indicate overlapping speech)

There were also significant role changes over the 8 weeks. First were the notable ways in which the two women initially performed in a markedly gendered fashion. One apologized at the beginning of her first 2 LI presentations:

• 9-30: Jennifer: I apologize ahead of time. I don’t know how useful this is going to be [said twice].
• 10-5-16 Jennifer: Is that, is that, sorry. My memory is really bad today.

Maria, the other woman, initially spoke so softly that Jason frequently took on the role of acting as her mouthpiece. However, several of the men referred positively to the women’s thinking in discussions, and both Maria’s and Jennifer’s self-effacing postures toward the group in the LIs began to diminish by the middle of the module and disappeared by the end.

The data in this study indicate that the LI process can have significant value when participants reflect on how they are using it. Over the 8 weeks, there were two significant changes in how participants used the LIs. First, with the implicit approval of the facilitator, the initially passive LI learning space became an active one, engaging participants in critical thinking, collaboration, and self-direction. Second, the growing interactions encouraged the participants to use each other’s expertise.

The first change occurred as students replaced the didactic formats with which they might have been more familiar with more active ones, reconceptualizing the purpose and structure of the LIs. As participants mentioned to the facilitator in late October, they had sometimes been thinking of their own individual interests, choosing LIs for themselves that they thought they would learn the most from. However, the facilitator often guided them in choosing LIs that would be useful; his comments helped them develop questions that targeted essential case information. This was crucial to participants’ understanding of the LI process, because it directed efforts away from personal interest to group needs. Although they began to think more carefully about forming their questions, they continued to choose them in what one participant called a “free-for-all.” When they were encouraged to rotate the LIs and link them more carefully to the case, their understanding of the value in the LI process encouraged them to develop more complex questions. Participants were eventually able to identify learning issues that had substantial worth not only as they helped move case resolutions forward but also as they answered the larger effort to understand the cardiac/renal systems in the module.

The reporting phase then became an opportunity for extended discussion. As the group’s need to understand, the case became primary, interaction, engagement, and CT all increased. The deeper engagement with the material and each other visible in Tables  3 and ​ and4 4 created a space in which participants could elaborate on their ideas and use CT. Their growing comfort as a group encouraged them to ask presenters for justifications that deepened the discussions, both for the presenters and for the others. The participants began to try out new reporting formats, drawing on the walls, speaking without notes or PowerPoint slides, and then providing time for the group to respond with questions of their own.

That improvisation restructured the LIs as a more interactional process with considerable fluidity in roles as experts [ 27 ], important because there were considerable differences in prior job and educational experiences. The participants presented themselves variously as novices and as experts. Jason, a younger student, often used rather professorial language toward the group interwoven with requests for help. For example, in October, he began his LI report advising the others, “I won’t be going into that because you can read that on your own….So just keep that in mind…” He then requested help with pronouncing some of the terms. On the other hand, Jennifer whose considerable experience was in adolescent development was initially hesitant to use her expertise in discussing physiological processes. However, she gradually began to contribute valuable insights that helped resolve issues in the cases. Adam’s experience as an emergency medical technician conferred standing to play the role of expert most frequently in cardiac cases. By the middle of the module, though, the increased fluidity of expert/novice relations encouraged everyone to take on the role of expert at different times.

The participants used the facilitator in a variety of ways. In the beginning, he offered occasional suggestions for developing LIs; as discussions became more complex, detailed, and intense, participants sometimes called on him to provide information of both cardiac and renal processes that seemed opaque to them. His long experience as a practicing physician gave him multiple real-life examples that he used to explain physiological processes or correct misunderstandings. As Patel and colleagues [ 28 ] indicate, PBL programs need to have clear strategies for ensuring that the reasoning in self-directed learning is productive rather than incorrect. Where discussions headed off in incorrect directions the facilitator stepped in if others did not, and his awareness that he needed to be a fading presence allowed him to stand back when he was not needed. However, facilitator presence must be carefully modulated so that opportunities for critical thinking are not shut down. As can be seen in the LI trajectory in this case, moves by participants toward more active learning can initially be tentative and need to be encouraged.

For beginning medical students cases are examples of ill-structured problems without obvious correct answers. As Jonassen [ 29 ] argues, ill-structured problems are best addressed through constructivist frameworks; in these frameworks, “designers assume responsibility for constructing the problem space for the learners” [ 30 ] (p. 69). However, the LI part of the PBL process offers a space for learners to claim the problem-solving space as their own, to develop their CT skills, and to understand the advantages offered in PBL.

Conclusions

This study sought to understand how critical thinking and interpersonal competencies could be realized within the LI part of the PBL process in a class of beginning medical students. It focuses particularly on the growth of critical thinking that was encouraged when students began to conceptualize the LI as a problem space for discussion rather than as a simple report. The participants in this study learned to use their varied backgrounds and their willingness to teach and learn from each other thoughtfully. It provides an example of the importance of the LI in participants’ engagement and development.

Limitations

The study has two limitations. First, although there are copious data over time the sample size of 7 is small. Second, participants were able to self-select into either the traditional or PBL curricula; those who saw PBL as a labor intensive way to pass exams rather than as an avenue for cognitive development could opt into the traditional program.

Future Directions

This study adds to the limited literature that addresses LI processes through participant speech. There is a need for more research that examines the extent to which LI discussions can be used as hinges into understanding cases; further work on participant talk in both the developing and reporting phases could also be helpful in targeting LIs to student needs earlier in the PBL process. This focus in this study was on the reporting phase, but understanding how participants can best develop LIs could also be significant and useful to course designers.

It would also be helpful to understand the extent to which facilitators introduce the LI process as both individual and interactional. As is the case with other active learning strategies such as Team-based Learning, individual preparation is critical not only to the success of the learning process but also to subsequent performance on exams and clinical clerkships [ 31 ]. As this study demonstrates, however, the collaborative practices provide a crucial space for the development of both the disposition of self-direction and collaborative critical thinking that they need in order to develop clinical reasoning.

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Dean Linda Boyd and Victor Scali, D.O., of the Rowan University School of Osteopathic medicine for their assistance in making this research possible, and to the students in the PBL class and to Matthew Tribble.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Prior to beginning the study, IRB approval was sought and granted.

The author declares that there is conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

• Our Mission

6 Tips for Teaching Math Problem-Solving Skills

Solving word problems is tougher than computing with numbers, but elementary teachers can guide students to do the deep thinking involved.

A growing concern with students is the ability to problem-solve, especially with complex, multistep problems. Data shows that students struggle more when solving word problems than they do with computation , and so problem-solving should be considered separately from computation. Why?

Consider this. When we’re on the way to a new destination and we plug in our location to a map on our phone, it tells us what lane to be in and takes us around any detours or collisions, sometimes even buzzing our watch to remind us to turn. When I experience this as a driver, I don’t have to do the thinking. I can think about what I’m going to cook for dinner, not paying much attention to my surroundings other than to follow those directions. If I were to be asked to go there again, I wouldn’t be able to remember, and I would again seek help.

If we can switch to giving students strategies that require them to think instead of giving them too much support throughout the journey to the answer, we may be able to give them the ability to learn the skills to read a map and have several ways to get there.

Here are six ways we can start letting students do this thinking so that they can go through rigorous problem-solving again and again, paving their own way to the solution. 

1. Link problem-solving to reading

When we can remind students that they already have many comprehension skills and strategies they can easily use in math problem-solving, it can ease the anxiety surrounding the math problem. For example, providing them with strategies to practice, such as visualizing, acting out the problem with math tools like counters or base 10 blocks, drawing a quick sketch of the problem, retelling the story in their own words, etc., can really help them to utilize the skills they already have to make the task less daunting.

We can break these skills into specific short lessons so students have a bank of strategies to try on their own. Here's an example of an anchor chart that they can use for visualizing . Breaking up comprehension into specific skills can increase student independence and help teachers to be much more targeted in their problem-solving instruction. This allows students to build confidence and break down the barriers between reading and math to see they already have so many strengths that are transferable to all problems.

2. Avoid boxing students into choosing a specific operation

It can be so tempting to tell students to look for certain words that might mean a certain operation. This might even be thoroughly successful in kindergarten and first grade, but just like when our map tells us where to go, that limits students from becoming deep thinkers. It also expires once they get into the upper grades, where those words could be in a problem multiple times, creating more confusion when students are trying to follow a rule that may not exist in every problem.

We can encourage a variety of ways to solve problems instead of choosing the operation first. In first grade, a problem might say, “Joceline has 13 stuffed animals and Jordan has 17. How many more does Jordan have?” Some students might choose to subtract, but a lot of students might just count to find the amount in between. If we tell them that “how many more” means to subtract, we’re taking the thinking out of the problem altogether, allowing them to go on autopilot without truly solving the problem or using their comprehension skills to visualize it. 

3. Revisit ‘representation’

The word “representation” can be misleading. It seems like something to do after the process of solving. When students think they have to go straight to solving, they may not realize that they need a step in between to be able to support their understanding of what’s actually happening in the problem first.

Using an anchor chart like one of these ( lower grade , upper grade ) can help students to choose a representation that most closely matches what they’re visualizing in their mind. Once they sketch it out, it can give them a clearer picture of different ways they could solve the problem.

Think about this problem: “Varush went on a trip with his family to his grandmother’s house. It was 710 miles away. On the way there, three people took turns driving. His mom drove 214 miles. His dad drove 358 miles. His older sister drove the rest. How many miles did his sister drive?”

If we were to show this student the anchor chart, they would probably choose a number line or a strip diagram to help them understand what’s happening.

If we tell students they must always draw base 10 blocks in a place value chart, that doesn’t necessarily match the concept of this problem. When we ask students to match our way of thinking, we rob them of critical thinking practice and sometimes confuse them in the process. 

4. Give time to process

Sometimes as educators, we can feel rushed to get to everyone and everything that’s required. When solving a complex problem, students need time to just sit with a problem and wrestle with it, maybe even leaving it and coming back to it after a period of time.

This might mean we need to give them fewer problems but go deeper with those problems we give them. We can also speed up processing time when we allow for collaboration and talk time with peers on problem-solving tasks. 

5. Ask questions that let Students do the thinking

Questions or prompts during problem-solving should be very open-ended to promote thinking. Telling a student to reread the problem or to think about what tools or resources would help them solve it is a way to get them to try something new but not take over their thinking.

These skills are also transferable across content, and students will be reminded, “Good readers and mathematicians reread.” 

6. Spiral concepts so students frequently use problem-solving skills

When students don’t have to switch gears in between concepts, they’re not truly using deep problem-solving skills. They already kind of know what operation it might be or that it’s something they have at the forefront of their mind from recent learning. Being intentional within their learning stations and assessments about having a variety of rigorous problem-solving skills will refine their critical thinking abilities while building more and more resilience throughout the school year as they retain content learning in the process. 

Problem-solving skills are so abstract, and it can be tough to pinpoint exactly what students need. Sometimes we have to go slow to go fast. Slowing down and helping students have tools when they get stuck and enabling them to be critical thinkers will prepare them for life and allow them multiple ways to get to their own destination.

1 hr 21 min

AI in the Classroom, STEM Teaching Strategies, and Critical Thinking with Dr. Scott Sweeting ScIC "Science is Cool" Unplugged

Georgia Curriculum Director uses technology to enhance learning.  Dr. Scott Sweeting talks with us about integrating AI in science and computer science education, highlighting how it can enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills vital for today's students. Key topics include using AI for more efficient assessment writing, fostering creativity through AI tools, and adapting teaching methods for future technological advancements. The talk also covers practical applications of AI in classroom settings, such as Swift code generation and open AI tests, preparing students for emerging jobs. Additionally, it touches on the exciting use of AI in environmental science, the significance of events like solar eclipses, and the role of planetariums in sparking student interest, all essential for science educators looking to enrich their curriculum and teaching strategies.   ABOUT SCOTT Dr. Scott Sweeting epitomizes a lifelong dedication to advancing science education. With over 23 years of experience in the field of science education, his journey has been marked by a profound commitment to igniting curiosity and fostering a deep appreciation for the wonders of science. As a High School Science Teacher, STEM Coordinator, and now as the Secondary Curriculum Director for Thomas County Schools, Dr. Sweeting has continually pushed boundaries and championed innovation in science education. He has embarked on a mission to transform science education at both the local and global levels. Dr. Sweeting's academic journey began with a Bachelor's degree in Biology from Florida State University, where he laid the foundation for his passion for the natural sciences. Building upon this, he pursued higher education at Valdosta State University, earning both a Master's and Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership. Within the Thomas County School system, Dr. Sweeting spearheads an array of programs aimed at nurturing scientific curiosity and prowess. From science and computer science to Artificial Intelligence and physical education, his influence extends across diverse domains. He oversees initiatives such as Project Lead the Way, the Gentian Creek Preserve Environmental Education Center, and Lego League, providing students with immersive experiences that transcend traditional classroom boundaries. Beyond curriculum development, Dr. Sweeting is a fervent advocate for promoting the significance of science within the community. He tirelessly communicates the importance of scientific literacy to teachers, students, and the wider public, emphasizing its role in shaping our understanding of the world. His efforts have garnered international recognition, with Thomas County Schools participating in the prestigious Pocket Lab Unconference SCIC 8. This global platform showcased the collaboration between the school system and Georgia Tech on Urban Heat Island research, attracting over 8,000 educators from around the world. In a landmark collaboration with Chattooga County Schools, Georgia Public Broadcasting, and the Georgia Department of Education, Dr. Sweeting helped lead the production of the groundbreaking middle school science series, "Science in Action." This initiative exemplifies his vision of a 3D science classroom, where students are engaged through hands-on experimentation and real-world applications. Dr. Scott Sweeting's unwavering dedication to science education has left an indelible mark on the educational landscape. His tireless advocacy, innovative initiatives, and collaborative spirit continue to inspire generations of students and educators alike, propelling science education into new frontiers of discovery and enlightenment.

• Episode Website
• More Episodes

Top Podcasts In Education

How to Train Your Problem-Solving Skills

From the hiccups that disrupt your morning routines to the hurdles that define your professional paths, there is always a problem to be solved. 

The good news is that every obstacle is an opportunity to develop problem-solving skills and become the best version of yourself. That’s right: It turns out you can get better at problem-solving, which will help you increase success in daily life and long-term goals.  

Read on to learn how to improve your problem-solving abilities through scientific research and practical strategies.

Understanding Problem-Solving Skills

You may be surprised to learn that your problem-solving skills go beyond just trying to find a solution. Problem-solving skills involve cognitive abilities such as analytical thinking, creativity, decision-making, logical reasoning, and memory. 

Strong problem-solving skills boost critical thinking, spark creativity, and hone decision-making abilities. For you or anyone looking to improve their mental fitness , these skills are necessary for career advancement, personal growth, and positive interpersonal relationships. 

Core Components of Problem-Solving Skills Training

To effectively train your problem-solving skills, it’s important to practice all of the steps required to solve the problem. Think of it this way: Before attempting to solve a problem, your brain has already been hard at work evaluating the situation and picking the best action plan. After you’ve worked hard preparing, you’ll need to implement your plan and assess the outcome by following these steps:  

• Identify and define problems: Recognizing and clearly articulating issues is the foundational step in solving them.
• Generate solutions: Employing brainstorming techniques helps you develop multiple potential solutions.
• Evaluate and select solutions: Using specific criteria to assess solutions helps you choose the most effective one.
• Implement solutions: Developing and executing action plans, including preparing for potential obstacles, guides you to positive outcomes.
• Review and learn from outcomes: Assessing the success of solutions and learning from the results for future improvement facilitates future success. 

Strategies for Developing Problem-Solving Skills

There are many practical exercises and activities that can improve problem-solving abilities.

Cultivate a Problem-Solving Mindset

• Adopt a growth mindset: A growth mindset involves transforming phrases like “I can’t” into “I can’t yet.” Believing in the capacity to improve your skills through effort and perseverance can lead to greater success in problem-solving.
• Practice mindfulness: Mindfulness can enhance cognitive flexibility , allowing you to view problems from multiple perspectives and find creative solutions.

Enhance Core Cognitive Skills 

• Strengthen your memory: Engage in activities that challenge your memory since accurately recalling information is crucial in problem-solving. Techniques such as mnemonic devices or memory palaces can be particularly effective.
• Build your critical thinking: Regularly question assumptions, evaluate arguments, and engage in activities that require reasoning, such as strategy games or debates.

Apply Structured Problem-Solving Techniques

• Use the STOP method: This stands for Stop , Think , Observe , and Plan . It's a simple yet effective way to approach any problem methodically, ensuring you consider all aspects before taking action.
• Try reverse engineering: Start with the desired outcome and work backward to understand the steps needed to achieve that result. This approach can be particularly useful for complex problems with unclear starting points.

Incorporate Technology into Your Training

• Engage with online courses and workshops: Many platforms offer courses specifically designed to enhance problem-solving skills, ranging from critical thinking to creative problem-solving techniques.
• Use cognitive training apps: Apps like Elevate provide targeted, research-backed games and workouts to improve cognitive skills including attention, processing speed, and more. 

Practice with Real-World Applications and Learn from Experience

• Tackle daily challenges: Use everyday issues as opportunities to practice problem-solving. Whether figuring out a new recipe or managing a tight budget, applying your skills in real-world situations can reinforce learning.
• Keep a problem-solving journal: Record the challenges you face, the strategies you employ, and the outcomes you achieve. Reflecting on your problem-solving process over time can provide insights into your strengths and areas for improvement.

Embracing Problem-Solving as a Lifelong Journey

Since problems arise daily, it’s important to feel confident in solving them. 

And you can do just that by downloading the Elevate brain training app. Elevate offers 40+ games and activities designed to improve problem-solving, communication, and other cognitive skills in a personalized way that’s backed by science. Pretty cool, right? 

Consider downloading the Elevate app on Android or iOS now—it’ll be the easiest problem you solve all day. 

Related Articles

How Problem-Solving Games Can Boost Your Brain

• Discover why problem-solving games are fun and effective ways to train your brain. 

Improving Your Problem-Solving Skills

• Discover how to improve your problem-solving skills and make logical, informed decisions.  

Best Ways to Boost Your Mental Fitness

• Mental fitness refers to your ability to sustain your overall well-being. Learn tips to improve yours.  

Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills to Healthcare Professionals

• Published: 27 October 2020
• Volume 31 , pages 235–239, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Jessica A. Chacon 1 &
• Herb Janssen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8015-9369 1  

7241 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Determining approaches that improve student learning is far more beneficial than determining what can improve a professor’s teaching. As previously stated, “Lecturing is that mysterious process by which the contents of the note-book of the professor are transferred through the instrumentation of the fountain-pen to the note-book of the student without passing through the mind of either” [ 1 ]. This process continues today, except that the professor’s note-book has been replaced with a PowerPoint lecture and the student’s note-book is now a computer.

In 1910, the Flexner report noted that didactic lectures were antiquated and should be left to a time when “professors knew and students learned” [ 2 ]. Approximately 100 years later, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) affirmed Flexner’s comment and suggested that student learning must involve active components [ 3 ]: It seems somewhat obscured that almost 100 years separated these two statements.

Our strategy requires the following: student engagement in the learning process; a curriculum that develops a foundation for each student’s knowledge acquisition; focusing primarily on student learning instead of professor teaching; helping enable students develop critical thinking skills; and encouraging students to develop “expertise” in their chosen discipline.

Six fundamental topics that play a role in the development of a health sciences student’s critical thinking ability will be described. In “Section I,” these topics will be discussed independently, highlighting the importance of each. In “Section II: Proposed Curriculum and Pedagogy to Improve Student Learning,” the topics will be united into a practical approach that can be used to improve student learning, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment.

Foundation Knowledge

Students use mnemonics to provide a foundation for new information. Although mnemonics help students associate information that they want to remember with something they already know, students learn tads of information that is not placed into a practical, meaningful framework developed by the student [ 4 , 5 ]. This commentary highlights the problem of recalling facts when these facts are presented in isolation. The responsibility for this resides not with the student, but with a curriculum that teaches isolated facts, instead of integrated concepts.

A taxonomy for significant learning presented by Dr. Fink emphasizes the need to develop foundational knowledge before additional information can be learned in an effective manner [ 6 ]. He provides suggestions on developing specific learning goals in given courses. Two of his most important criteria are (1) the development of a foundation of knowledge and (2) helping students “learn how to learn” [ 6 ].

Learning Approaches and Abilities

Howard Gardner introduced the concept of multiple intelligences in the 1980s [ 7 ]. Gardner expanded this idea to include intelligence in the areas of (1) Verbal-linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical, (3) Spatial-visual, (4) Bodily-kinesthetic, (5) Musical, (6) Interpersonal, (7) Intrapersonal personal, (8) Naturalist, and (9) Existential. He concluded that students gifted in certain areas will be drawn in that direction due to the ease with which they excel. While it is important to recognize these differences, it is crucial to not ignore the need for student development in areas where they are less gifted. For example, students gifted in mathematics who fail to develop intrapersonal and interpersonal skills will more likely become recluse, limiting their success in real-world situations [ 7 , 8 ]. Similar examples can also be found in the medical world [ 7 , 8 ].

Based on Gardner’s work, it seems evident that students admitted to our health sciences schools will arrive with different skills and abilities. Despite this, educators are required to produce graduates who have mastered the competencies required by the various accrediting agencies. Accomplishing this task demands sensitivity to the students’ different abilities. While the curriculum remains focused on the competencies students must demonstrate when training is complete. Creating this transition using a traditional lecture format is difficult, if not impossible.

Active Engagement

In 1910, Flexner suggested that didactic lecture is important; however, it should be limited only to the introduction or conclusion of a given topic [ 2 ]. Flexner stated that students should be given the opportunity to experience learning in a context that allowed them to use scientific principles rather than empirical observations [ 2 ]. Active engagement of the student in their learning process has been recently promoted by the LCME [ 3 ]. This reaffirmation of Flexner’s 1910 report highlights the incredibly slow pace at which education changes.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an active process that, when applied appropriately, allows each of us to evaluate our own activities and achievements. Critical thinking also allows an individual to make minor, mid-course corrections in thinking, instead of waiting until disastrous outcomes are unavoidable.

Educators in Allied Health and Nursing have included critical thinking as part of their curriculum for many years [ 9 ]. Medical educators, on the other hand, have not fully integrated critical thinking as part of their curriculum [ 10 , 11 ].

Bloom’s taxonomy has often been used to define curriculum [ 12 ]. The usefulness and importance of Bloom’s taxonomy is not to be underestimated; however, its limitations must also be addressed. As Bloom and his colleagues clearly stated, their taxonomy describes behavioral outcomes and is incapable of determining the logical steps through which this behavior was developed [ 12 ]. Bloom highlights this shortcoming in his initial book on the cognitive domain. He described two students who solved the same algebra problem. One student does this by rote memory, having been exposed to the problem previously, while the other student accomplishes the task by applying mathematical principles. The observer has no way of knowing which approach was used unless they have prior knowledge of the students’ background [ 12 ]. The importance of this distinction becomes apparent in medical problem-solving.

Contextual Learning

Enabling students to learn in context is critical; however, trying to teach everything in context results in a double-edged sword [ 13 ]. On the one hand, learning material in context helps the student develop a solid foundation in which the new information can be built. On the other hand, the educator will find it impossible to duplicate all situations the student will encounter throughout his or her career as a healthcare provider. This dilemma again challenges the educator to develop a variety of learning situations that simulate real-world situations. It seems that “in context” can at best be developed by presenting a variety of patients in a variety of different situations.

In the clinical setting, the physician cannot use a strict hypothesis-driven study on each patient, but must treat patients using the best, most logical treatment selected based on his or her knowledge and the most reliable information.

Development of Expertise

Several researchers have studied the characteristics required of expert performance, the time required to obtain these traits, and the steps that are followed as an individual’s performance progresses from novice to expert.

Studies involving expert physicians have provided data that can be directly used in our attempt to improve curriculum and pedagogy in the healthcare profession. Patel demonstrated that medical students and entry-level residents can recall a considerable amount of non-relevant data while the expert cannot [ 14 ]. Conversely, the expert physician has a much higher level of relevant recall, suggesting they have omitted the non-relevant information and retained only relevant information that is useful in their practice. Using these methods, the expert physicians produce accurate diagnosis in almost 100% of cases, while the medical students can achieve only patricianly correct or component diagnosis only [ 14 ].

In the healthcare setting, both methods are used. The expert physicians will use forward reasoning when the accuracy of the data allows this rapid problem-solving method. When the patient’s conditions cannot be accurately described using known information, the expert diagnostician will resort to the slower hypothesis-driven, backward reasoning approach. In this manner, the highest probability of achieving an accurate diagnosis in the shortest time will be realized [ 14 ].

Section II: Proposed Curriculum and Pedagogy to Improve Student Learning

The following section will outline several distinct but interrelated approaches to accomplish the six educational principles discussed above. The topics will be highlighted as they apply to the specific topic and each section will be comprised of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment.

Developing a Knowledge Base Using Active Learning Sensitive to Students’ Abilities

Students admitted into healthcare training programs come from various backgrounds. This is both a strength for the program and a challenge for the educator. The strength is recognized in the diversity the varied backgrounds bring to the class and ultimately the profession. The challenge for the educator is attempting to provide each student with the material and a learning approach that will fit their individual ability and knowledge level. The educator can provide prerequisite objectives that identify the basic knowledge required before the student attempts the more advanced curriculum. Scaffolding questions can also be provided that allow students to determine their mastery of these prerequisite objectives. Briefly, scaffolding questions are categorized based on complexity. Simple, factual questions are identified with a subscript “0” (i.e. 1. 0 , 2. 0 , etc.). Advanced questions have a subscript suggesting the estimated number of basic concepts that must be included/combined to derive the answer.

Using technology to provide these individual learning opportunities online allows each student to address his or her own potential deficits. Obviously, those who find their knowledge lacking will need to spend additional time learning this information; however, using technology, this can be accomplished without requiring additional class time. This approach will decrease learning gaps for students, while excluding unnecessarily repeating material known by others.

The curriculum is divided into two parts: (1) content and (2) critical thinking/problem-solving skills. The basic knowledge and factual content can be provided online. Students are expected to learn this by actively engaging the material during independent study. This saves classroom or small-group sessions for interaction where students can actively learn critical thinking/problem-solving skills.

The curriculum should be designed so that students can start at their own level of understanding. The more advanced students can identify the level appropriate for themselves and/or review the more rudimentary information as needed. As shown by previous investigators, experts omit non-relevant information so that they can focus on appropriate problem-solving. Requiring students to learn by solving problems or exploring case studies will be emphasized when possible.

Technology can be used to deliver the “content” portion of the curriculum. Voice-over PowerPoints and/or video clips made available online through WebCT or PodCast will allow each student to study separately or in groups at their own rate, starting at their own level of knowledge. The content delivered in this fashion will complement the handout and/or textbook information recommended to the students. This will provide the needed basic information that will be used as a foundation for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving. The flipped classroom and/or team-based learning can both be used to help facilitate this type of learning. [ 15 ]

Student Assessments

It is imperative for students to know whether they have mastered the material to the extent needed. This can be accomplished by providing online formative evaluations. These will not be used to determine student performance; however, the results will be provided to the educator to determine the class’s progress and evaluation of the curriculum.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills in the Classroom or Small-Group Setting

Critical thinking skills are essential to the development of well-trained healthcare professionals. These skills are not “taught” but must be “learned” by the student. The educator provides learning experiences through which the students can gain the needed skills and experience. Mastery of the content should be a responsibility placed on the student. Information and assistance are given to the students, but students are held accountable for learning the content. This does not indicate that the educator is freed from responsibility. In fact, the educator will most likely spend more time planning and preparing, compared to when didactic lectures were given; however, the spotlight will be placed on the student. Once the learning modules are developed, they can be readily updated, allowing the educators to improve their sessions with each evaluation.

Curriculum designed to help student students develop critical thinking/problem-solving skills should be learned in context. During the introductory portions of the training, this can be accomplished by providing problem-based scenarios similar to what will be expected in the later clinical setting. The transition to competency-based evaluation in many disciplines has made this a virtual necessity. Critical thinking/problem-solving skills should emphasize self-examination. It should teach an individual to accomplish this using a series of steps that progress in a logical fashion, stressing that critical thinking is a progression of logical thought, not an unguided process.

The methods of teaching critical thinking can be traced back to the dialectic methods used by Socrates. Helping the students learn by posing questions remains an effective tool. Accomplishing this in a group setting also provides each student with the opportunity to learn, not only from their mistakes and accomplishments, but from the mistakes and accomplishments of others. Scenario questions can be presented in a manner similar to those found in many board and licensure exams. This exposes students to material in a format relevant to the clinical setting and to future exams. In larger groups, PowerPoint presentation of scenario questions can be used. Team-based learning (TBL) is useful in encouraging individual self-assessment and peer-peer instruction, while also providing an opportunity for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. After the Individual Readiness Assurance Test (iRAT) exam, students work together to answer the Group Readiness Assurance Test (gRAT). Following this, relevant material is covered by clinicians and basic scientists working together and questions asked using an audience response system. This has been useful in encouraging individual self-assessment and peer-peer instruction while also providing an opportunity for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Formative assessment of the students will be given in the class session. This can be accomplished using an audience response system. This gives each individual a chance to determine their own critical thinking skill level. It will prevent the “Oh, I knew that” response from students who are in denial of their own inabilities. Summative assessment in the class will be based on the critical thinking skills presented in the classroom or small-group setting. As mentioned earlier, the students will be evaluated on their ability to think critically and to problem-solve. This will by necessity include evaluation of content knowledge—but only as it pertains to the critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This will be made clear through the use of objectives that describe both content and critical thinking.

Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills in Simulation Centers and Clinics

The development of critical thinking skills in healthcare is somewhat unique. In chess, students can start playing using the same tools employed by the experts (the chess board); however, in healthcare, allowing students to make medical decisions is ethically inappropriate and irresponsible. Simulations centers allow students to gain needed experience and confidence without placing patients at risk. Once the students have mastered simulation center experiences and acquired the needed confidence, they can participate in patient diagnosis under the watchful eye of the expert healthcare professional.

The student’s curriculum now becomes the entire knowledge base of each healthcare discipline. This includes textbooks and journal articles. Students are required to come well prepared to the clinics and/or hospital having developed and in-depth understanding of each patient in their care.

Each day, the expert healthcare provider, serving as a mentor, will provide formative evaluation of the student and his/her performance. Mentors will guide the student, suggesting changes in the skills needed to evaluate the patients properly. In addition, standardized patients provide an excellent method of student/resident evaluation.

Summative evaluation is in the form of subject/board exams. These test the student’s or resident’s ability to accurately describe and evaluate the patient. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is used to evaluate the student’s ability to correctly assess the patient’s condition. Thinking aloud had been previously shown as an effective tool for evaluating expert performance in such settings [ 16 ]. Briefly, think aloud strategies require the student to explain verbally the logic they are using to combine facts to arrive at correct answers. This approach helps the evaluator to determine both the accuracy of the answer and if the correct thought process was followed by the student.

If the time required to develop an expert is a minimum of ten years, what influence can education have on the process?

Education can:

Provide the student with a foundation of knowledge required for the development of future knowledge and skills.

Introduce the student to critical thinking and problem-solving techniques.

Require the student to actively engage the material instead of attempting to learn using rote memory only.

Assess the performance of the student in a formative manner, allowing the lack of information of skills to be identified early, thus reducing the risk of failure when changes in study skills are more difficult and/or occur too late to help.

Provide learning in a contextual format that makes the information meaningful and easier to remember.

Provide training in forward reasoning and backward reasoning skills. It can relate these skills to the problem-solving techniques in healthcare.

Help students develop the qualities of an expert healthcare provider.

Data Availability

Maguire ER. The group-study plan: a teaching technique based on pupil participation: Sharles Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1928.

Flexner A. Medical education in the United States and Canada. From the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, bulletin number four, 1910. Bull World Health Organ 2002;80(7):594–602.

Liaison Committee on Medical Education [Available from: https://lcme.org/ .

Learning WC. Chapter 6: Kinds of mnemonics [Available from: http://college.cengage.com/collegesurvival/wong/essential_study/6e/assets/students/protecte d/wong_ch06_in-depthmnemonics.html.

Wong L. Essential study skills. Boston: Wadsworth, Inc.; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Fink LD. Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.

Gardner H. Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books; 1983.

Gardner H. Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. New York: Basic Books; 1993.

Alfaro-LeFevre R. Critical thinking in nursing: a practical approach. 2, illustrated ed: Saunders, 1999.

Sharple JM, Oxman AD, Mahtani KR, Chambers I, Oliver S, Colins K, et al. Critical thinking in healthcare and education. BMJ. 2017;357:2234.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kahlke R, Kevin E. Constructing critical thinking in health professional education. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(3):156–65.

Bloom BS, MD E, Furst E, Hill W, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.; 1956.

Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching. New York: London: Routledge Falmer; 2002.

Book   Google Scholar  

Patel V, Groen G. The general and specific nature of medical expertise: a critical look. In: Ericsson KA, Smith J, editors. Toward a general theory of expertise. New York: Cambridge. University Press; 1991.

Khe Foon HEW, Chung KLO. Flipped classroom improve students learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. 2018;18:38.

Brown JL, Ilgen JS. Now you see it, now you don’t: what thinking aloud tells us about clinical reasoning. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(4):783–5.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medical Education, Paul L Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

Jessica A. Chacon & Herb Janssen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors wrote and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herb Janssen .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

Code availability, additional information, publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chacon, J.A., Janssen, H. Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills to Healthcare Professionals. Med.Sci.Educ. 31 , 235–239 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01128-3

Download citation

Accepted : 15 October 2020

Published : 27 October 2020

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01128-3

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research