education develops critical thinking

Developing Critical Thinking

• Posted January 10, 2018
• By Iman Rastegari

In a time where deliberately false information is continually introduced into public discourse, and quickly spread through social media shares and likes, it is more important than ever for young people to develop their critical thinking. That skill, says Georgetown professor William T. Gormley, consists of three elements: a capacity to spot weakness in other arguments, a passion for good evidence, and a capacity to reflect on your own views and values with an eye to possibly change them. But are educators making the development of these skills a priority?

"Some teachers embrace critical thinking pedagogy with enthusiasm and they make it a high priority in their classrooms; other teachers do not," says Gormley, author of the recent Harvard Education Press release The Critical Advantage: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in School . "So if you are to assess the extent of critical-thinking instruction in U.S. classrooms, you’d find some very wide variations." Which is unfortunate, he says, since developing critical-thinking skills is vital not only to students' readiness for college and career, but to their civic readiness, as well.

"It's important to recognize that critical thinking is not just something that takes place in the classroom or in the workplace, it's something that takes place — and should take place — in our daily lives," says Gormley.

In this edition of the Harvard EdCast, Gormley looks at the value of teaching critical thinking, and explores how it can be an important solution to some of the problems that we face, including "fake news."

About the Harvard EdCast

The Harvard EdCast is a weekly series of podcasts, available on the Harvard University iT unes U page, that features a 15-20 minute conversation with thought leaders in the field of education from across the country and around the world. Hosted by Matt Weber and co-produced by Jill Anderson, the Harvard EdCast is a space for educational discourse and openness, focusing on the myriad issues and current events related to the field.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Roots of the School Gardening Movement

Student-centered learning, reading and the common core.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

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.

Integrating Critical Thinking Into the Classroom

• Share article

(This is the second post in a three-part series. You can see Part One here .)

The new question-of-the-week is:

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

Part One ‘s guests were 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.

Today, Dr. Kulvarn Atwal, Elena Quagliarello, Dr. Donna Wilson, and Diane Dahl share their recommendations.

‘Learning Conversations’

Dr. Kulvarn Atwal is currently the executive head teacher of two large primary schools in the London borough of Redbridge. Dr. Atwal is the author of The Thinking School: Developing a Dynamic Learning Community , published by John Catt Educational. Follow him on Twitter @Thinkingschool2 :

In many classrooms I visit, students’ primary focus is on what they are expected to do and how it will be measured. It seems that we are becoming successful at producing students who are able to jump through hoops and pass tests. But are we producing children that are positive about teaching and learning and can think critically and creatively? Consider your classroom environment and the extent to which you employ strategies that develop students’ critical-thinking skills and their self-esteem as learners.

Development of self-esteem

One of the most significant factors that impacts students’ engagement and achievement in learning in your classroom is their self-esteem. In this context, self-esteem can be viewed to be the difference between how they perceive themselves as a learner (perceived self) and what they consider to be the ideal learner (ideal self). This ideal self may reflect the child that is associated or seen to be the smartest in the class. Your aim must be to raise students’ self-esteem. To do this, you have to demonstrate that effort, not ability, leads to success. Your language and interactions in the classroom, therefore, have to be aspirational—that if children persist with something, they will achieve.

Use of evaluative praise

Ensure that when you are praising students, you are making explicit links to a child’s critical thinking and/or development. This will enable them to build their understanding of what factors are supporting them in their learning. For example, often when we give feedback to students, we may simply say, “Well done” or “Good answer.” However, are the students actually aware of what they did well or what was good about their answer? Make sure you make explicit what the student has done well and where that links to prior learning. How do you value students’ critical thinking—do you praise their thinking and demonstrate how it helps them improve their learning?

Learning conversations to encourage deeper thinking

We often feel as teachers that we have to provide feedback to every students’ response, but this can limit children’s thinking. Encourage students in your class to engage in learning conversations with each other. Give as many opportunities as possible to students to build on the responses of others. Facilitate chains of dialogue by inviting students to give feedback to each other. The teacher’s role is, therefore, to facilitate this dialogue and select each individual student to give feedback to others. It may also mean that you do not always need to respond at all to a student’s answer.

Teacher modelling own thinking

We cannot expect students to develop critical-thinking skills if we aren’t modeling those thinking skills for them. Share your creativity, imagination, and thinking skills with the students and you will nurture creative, imaginative critical thinkers. Model the language you want students to learn and think about. Share what you feel about the learning activities your students are participating in as well as the thinking you are engaging in. Your own thinking and learning will add to the discussions in the classroom and encourage students to share their own thinking.

Metacognitive questioning

Consider the extent to which your questioning encourages students to think about their thinking, and therefore, learn about learning! Through asking metacognitive questions, you will enable your students to have a better understanding of the learning process, as well as their own self-reflections as learners. Example questions may include:

• Why did you choose to do it that way?
• When you find something tricky, what helps you?
• How do you know when you have really learned something?

‘Adventures of Discovery’

Elena Quagliarello is the senior editor of education for Scholastic News , a current events magazine for students in grades 3–6. She graduated from Rutgers University, where she studied English and earned her master’s degree in elementary education. She is a certified K–12 teacher and previously taught middle school English/language arts for five years:

Critical thinking blasts through the surface level of a topic. It reaches beyond the who and the what and launches students on a learning journey that ultimately unlocks a deeper level of understanding. Teaching students how to think critically helps them turn information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom. In the classroom, critical thinking teaches students how to ask and answer the questions needed to read the world. Whether it’s a story, news article, photo, video, advertisement, or another form of media, students can use the following critical-thinking strategies to dig beyond the surface and uncover a wealth of knowledge.

A Layered Learning Approach

Begin by having students read a story, article, or analyze a piece of media. Then have them excavate and explore its various layers of meaning. First, ask students to think about the literal meaning of what they just read. For example, if students read an article about the desegregation of public schools during the 1950s, they should be able to answer questions such as: Who was involved? What happened? Where did it happen? Which details are important? This is the first layer of critical thinking: reading comprehension. Do students understand the passage at its most basic level?

Ask the Tough Questions

The next layer delves deeper and starts to uncover the author’s purpose and craft. Teach students to ask the tough questions: What information is included? What or who is left out? How does word choice influence the reader? What perspective is represented? What values or people are marginalized? These questions force students to critically analyze the choices behind the final product. In today’s age of fast-paced, easily accessible information, it is essential to teach students how to critically examine the information they consume. The goal is to equip students with the mindset to ask these questions on their own.

Strike Gold

The deepest layer of critical thinking comes from having students take a step back to think about the big picture. This level of thinking is no longer focused on the text itself but rather its real-world implications. Students explore questions such as: Why does this matter? What lesson have I learned? How can this lesson be applied to other situations? Students truly engage in critical thinking when they are able to reflect on their thinking and apply their knowledge to a new situation. This step has the power to transform knowledge into wisdom.

Adventures of Discovery

There are vast ways to spark critical thinking in the classroom. Here are a few other ideas:

• Critical Expressionism: In this expanded response to reading from a critical stance, students are encouraged to respond through forms of artistic interpretations, dramatizations, singing, sketching, designing projects, or other multimodal responses. For example, students might read an article and then create a podcast about it or read a story and then act it out.
• Transmediations: This activity requires students to take an article or story and transform it into something new. For example, they might turn a news article into a cartoon or turn a story into a poem. Alternatively, students may rewrite a story by changing some of its elements, such as the setting or time period.
• Words Into Action: In this type of activity, students are encouraged to take action and bring about change. Students might read an article about endangered orangutans and the effects of habitat loss caused by deforestation and be inspired to check the labels on products for palm oil. They might then write a letter asking companies how they make sure the palm oil they use doesn’t hurt rain forests.
• Socratic Seminars: In this student-led discussion strategy, students pose thought-provoking questions to each other about a topic. They listen closely to each other’s comments and think critically about different perspectives.
• Classroom Debates: Aside from sparking a lively conversation, classroom debates naturally embed critical-thinking skills by asking students to formulate and support their own opinions and consider and respond to opposing viewpoints.

Critical thinking has the power to launch students on unforgettable learning experiences while helping them develop new habits of thought, reflection, and inquiry. Developing these skills prepares students to examine issues of power and promote transformative change in the world around them.

‘Quote Analysis’

Dr. Donna Wilson is a psychologist and the author of 20 books, including Developing Growth Mindsets , Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , and Five Big Ideas for Effective Teaching (2 nd Edition). She is an international speaker who has worked in Asia, the Middle East, Australia, Europe, Jamaica, and throughout the U.S. and Canada. Dr. Wilson can be reached at [email protected] ; visit her website at www.brainsmart.org .

Diane Dahl has been a teacher for 13 years, having taught grades 2-4 throughout her career. Mrs. Dahl currently teaches 3rd and 4th grade GT-ELAR/SS in Lovejoy ISD in Fairview, Texas. Follow her on Twitter at @DahlD, and visit her website at www.fortheloveofteaching.net :

A growing body of research over the past several decades indicates that teaching students how to be better thinkers is a great way to support them to be more successful at school and beyond. In the book, Teaching Students to Drive Their Brains , Dr. Wilson shares research and many motivational strategies, activities, and lesson ideas that assist students to think at higher levels. Five key strategies from the book are as follows:

• Facilitate conversation about why it is important to think critically at school and in other contexts of life. Ideally, every student will have a contribution to make to the discussion over time.
• Begin teaching thinking skills early in the school year and as a daily part of class.
• As this instruction begins, introduce students to the concept of brain plasticity and how their brilliant brains change during thinking and learning. This can be highly motivational for students who do not yet believe they are good thinkers!
• Explicitly teach students how to use the thinking skills.
• Facilitate student understanding of how the thinking skills they are learning relate to their lives at school and in other contexts.

Below are two lessons that support critical thinking, which can be defined as the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Mrs. Dahl prepares her 3rd and 4th grade classes for a year of critical thinking using quote analysis .

During Native American studies, her 4 th grade analyzes a Tuscarora quote: “Man has responsibility, not power.” Since students already know how the Native Americans’ land had been stolen, it doesn’t take much for them to make the logical leaps. Critical-thought prompts take their thinking even deeper, especially at the beginning of the year when many need scaffolding. Some prompts include:

• … from the point of view of the Native Americans?
• … from the point of view of the settlers?
• How do you think your life might change over time as a result?
• Can you relate this quote to anything else in history?

Analyzing a topic from occupational points of view is an incredibly powerful critical-thinking tool. After learning about the Mexican-American War, Mrs. Dahl’s students worked in groups to choose an occupation with which to analyze the war. The chosen occupations were: anthropologist, mathematician, historian, archaeologist, cartographer, and economist. Then each individual within each group chose a different critical-thinking skill to focus on. Finally, they worked together to decide how their occupation would view the war using each skill.

For example, here is what each student in the economist group wrote:

• When U.S.A. invaded Mexico for land and won, Mexico ended up losing income from the settlements of Jose de Escandon. The U.S.A. thought that they were gaining possible tradable land, while Mexico thought that they were losing precious land and resources.
• Whenever Texas joined the states, their GDP skyrocketed. Then they went to war and spent money on supplies. When the war was resolving, Texas sold some of their land to New Mexico for $10 million. This allowed Texas to pay off their debt to the U.S., improving their relationship.
• A detail that converged into the Mexican-American War was that Mexico and the U.S. disagreed on the Texas border. With the resulting treaty, Texas ended up gaining more land and economic resources.
• Texas gained land from Mexico since both countries disagreed on borders. Texas sold land to New Mexico, which made Texas more economically structured and allowed them to pay off their debt.

This was the first time that students had ever used the occupations technique. Mrs. Dahl was astonished at how many times the kids used these critical skills in other areas moving forward.

Thanks to Dr. Auwal, Elena, Dr. Wilson, and Diane 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

• Our Mission

Helping Students Hone Their Critical Thinking Skills

Used consistently, these strategies can help middle and high school teachers guide students to improve much-needed skills.

Critical thinking skills are important in every discipline, at and beyond school. From managing money to choosing which candidates to vote for in elections to making difficult career choices, students need to be prepared to take in, synthesize, and act on new information in a world that is constantly changing.

While critical thinking might seem like an abstract idea that is tough to directly instruct, there are many engaging ways to help students strengthen these skills through active learning.

Make Time for Metacognitive Reflection

Create space for students to both reflect on their ideas and discuss the power of doing so. Show students how they can push back on their own thinking to analyze and question their assumptions. Students might ask themselves, “Why is this the best answer? What information supports my answer? What might someone with a counterargument say?”

Through this reflection, students and teachers (who can model reflecting on their own thinking) gain deeper understandings of their ideas and do a better job articulating their beliefs. In a world that is go-go-go, it is important to help students understand that it is OK to take a breath and think about their ideas before putting them out into the world. And taking time for reflection helps us more thoughtfully consider others’ ideas, too.

Teach Reasoning Skills 

Reasoning skills are another key component of critical thinking, involving the abilities to think logically, evaluate evidence, identify assumptions, and analyze arguments. Students who learn how to use reasoning skills will be better equipped to make informed decisions, form and defend opinions, and solve problems. 

One way to teach reasoning is to use problem-solving activities that require students to apply their skills to practical contexts. For example, give students a real problem to solve, and ask them to use reasoning skills to develop a solution. They can then present their solution and defend their reasoning to the class and engage in discussion about whether and how their thinking changed when listening to peers’ perspectives. 

A great example I have seen involved students identifying an underutilized part of their school and creating a presentation about one way to redesign it. This project allowed students to feel a sense of connection to the problem and come up with creative solutions that could help others at school. For more examples, you might visit PBS’s Design Squad , a resource that brings to life real-world problem-solving.

Ask Open-Ended Questions 

Moving beyond the repetition of facts, critical thinking requires students to take positions and explain their beliefs through research, evidence, and explanations of credibility. 

When we pose open-ended questions, we create space for classroom discourse inclusive of diverse, perhaps opposing, ideas—grounds for rich exchanges that support deep thinking and analysis. 

For example, “How would you approach the problem?” and “Where might you look to find resources to address this issue?” are two open-ended questions that position students to think less about the “right” answer and more about the variety of solutions that might already exist. 

Journaling, whether digitally or physically in a notebook, is another great way to have students answer these open-ended prompts—giving them time to think and organize their thoughts before contributing to a conversation, which can ensure that more voices are heard. 

Once students process in their journal, small group or whole class conversations help bring their ideas to life. Discovering similarities between answers helps reveal to students that they are not alone, which can encourage future participation in constructive civil discourse.

Teach Information Literacy 

Education has moved far past the idea of “Be careful of what is on Wikipedia, because it might not be true.” With AI innovations making their way into classrooms, teachers know that informed readers must question everything. 

Understanding what is and is not a reliable source and knowing how to vet information are important skills for students to build and utilize when making informed decisions. You might start by introducing the idea of bias: Articles, ads, memes, videos, and every other form of media can push an agenda that students may not see on the surface. Discuss credibility, subjectivity, and objectivity, and look at examples and nonexamples of trusted information to prepare students to be well-informed members of a democracy.

One of my favorite lessons is about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus . This project asks students to explore what appears to be a very real website that provides information on this supposedly endangered animal. It is a wonderful, albeit over-the-top, example of how something might look official even when untrue, revealing that we need critical thinking to break down “facts” and determine the validity of the information we consume. 

A fun extension is to have students come up with their own website or newsletter about something going on in school that is untrue. Perhaps a change in dress code that requires everyone to wear their clothes inside out or a change to the lunch menu that will require students to eat brussels sprouts every day. 

Giving students the ability to create their own falsified information can help them better identify it in other contexts. Understanding that information can be “too good to be true” can help them identify future falsehoods. 

Provide Diverse Perspectives 

Consider how to keep the classroom from becoming an echo chamber. If students come from the same community, they may have similar perspectives. And those who have differing perspectives may not feel comfortable sharing them in the face of an opposing majority. 

To support varying viewpoints, bring diverse voices into the classroom as much as possible, especially when discussing current events. Use primary sources: videos from YouTube, essays and articles written by people who experienced current events firsthand, documentaries that dive deeply into topics that require some nuance, and any other resources that provide a varied look at topics. 

I like to use the Smithsonian “OurStory” page , which shares a wide variety of stories from people in the United States. The page on Japanese American internment camps is very powerful because of its first-person perspectives. 

Practice Makes Perfect 

To make the above strategies and thinking routines a consistent part of your classroom, spread them out—and build upon them—over the course of the school year. You might challenge students with information and/or examples that require them to use their critical thinking skills; work these skills explicitly into lessons, projects, rubrics, and self-assessments; or have students practice identifying misinformation or unsupported arguments.

Critical thinking is not learned in isolation. It needs to be explored in English language arts, social studies, science, physical education, math. Every discipline requires students to take a careful look at something and find the best solution. Often, these skills are taken for granted, viewed as a by-product of a good education, but true critical thinking doesn’t just happen. It requires consistency and commitment.

In a moment when information and misinformation abound, and students must parse reams of information, it is imperative that we support and model critical thinking in the classroom to support the development of well-informed citizens.

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Critical thinking – A skill and a process

Now, that oversimplified approach to learning certainly is the first step to studying as well. However, in order to be successful in our studies, we need to do more than just contain and repeat information. We need to be able to assess the value of the information, its correctness, and its contribution to any given debate. Ideally, we are able to put it into context with other aspects of our knowledge, too. This is what makes us students, this is what makes us critical thinkers.

Critical thinking is not just one skill, rather it is the result of a number of skills applied effectively. In order to be able to think critically, you’ll need to be able reason. You’ll need to be able to assess the source of the information you’re given and you’ll be able to reflect on its accuracy or validity, depending on your task.

By thinking critically, you are applying each of those skills in order to evaluate the information in front of you. This can be a theory, a new research result, or even a news item. Critical thinking allows you to apply an objective approach to your learning, rather than subjectively following either the proposed information you’re given, or your own opinion rather than clear and convincing arguments and facts.

Critical thinking is a process of continuing evaluation and reflection. It is most powerful, when leading to a change of view in ourselves or in others.

This is where critical thinking becomes relevant outside the world of studying. By being critical of what we read, hear and see, we are engaging with the society we live in actively. We are not perceiving anything as given, but are rather reflecting on the value and correctness of the way society works.

This helps us to be better employees, by reflecting on where processes and ways of working can be improved. It helps us to more engaged citizens, as we are reflecting on political campaigns and their truthfulness and value for us when we are asked to participate in an election. Critical thinking pushes ourselves and our environment to continuously adapt and improve.

When you think critically, you open up a whole new way of engaging with the world around you.

Find out more about 'Go the Distance'

Am I ready to be a distance learner?

Distance learning can open up opportunities for study. You might have not studied for a while, you might be returning to education, or you might not have had the chance to study at a higher level before. This free course, Am I ready to be a distance learner?, will help to boost your confidence. You'll explore useful skills so you can discover ...

Free course

Level: 1 Introductory

Taking your first steps into higher education

What is university study like? Is it for me? If you are asking yourself these questions, this free course is for you. Taking your first steps into higher education provides insights into how subjects are studied at university. This introduction to carefully selected materials helps you decide what you might want to study. You will be ...

Are you ready for postgraduate study?

This free course, Are you ready for postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and ensure you are ready to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Level: 3 Advanced

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Wednesday, 15 November 2017
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'angels with a book statue' - Copyright free
• Image 'Am I ready to be a distance learner?' - Copyright free
• Image 'Are you ready for postgraduate study?' - Copyright free
• Image 'Taking your first steps into higher education' - Copyright: Image courtesy of chanpipat at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Rate and Review

Rate this article, review this article.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Article reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills Before College

Here are six ways high school students can sharpen their critical thinking skills for college success.

Learn to Think Critically Before College

Getty Images | iStockphoto

When teens read books that challenge norms, it can shed light on how the mind of a critical thinker works.

Holding politicians accountable, choosing the right friends and doing advanced math. Depending on who you ask, these actions may require a common denominator: the ability to think critically.

In college , students make important decisions, get exposure to different world views and hone skills in their academic fields of interest . Students can prepare to make the most of their college experience by becoming better critical thinkers while still in high school.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Scholars sometimes differ in how they describe and define critical thinking.

Daniel Willingham, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia , says someone using the term could mean one of two things. They could mean thinking at times when others might not, like when someone considers the writer’s viewpoint after reading a newspaper commentary. Or, they could mean thinking sharply when solving problems or completing tasks, Willingham says.

“The way you would want to approach these two types of critical thinking really differs,” Willingham says. “If there were a formula for getting kids to think critically, we’d be using it in schools.”

David Hitchcock, professor emeritus of philosophy at McMaster University in Canada, wrote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on critical thinking and "came to the conclusion that it’s not really a specific kind of thinking. It’s just good thinking. It’s reflective thinking, careful thinking, rational thinking.”

And it's important regardless of how one may choose to describe it, experts say.

“Given that critical thinking allows you to arrive at beliefs and actions that are beneficial, it seems that it is actually vital to anyone,” says Eileen Gambrill, professor of the graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley ’s School of Social Welfare.

Ways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

Here are six ways high school students can develop critical-thinking skills before college:

• Build your domain-specific skillset.
• Conduct experiments.
• Question your presumptions.
• Read books written by critical thinkers.
• Start a critical thinking club.
• Talk to peers with different perspectives.

Build Your Domain-Specific Skillset

People who view critical thinking as someone’s ability to use problem-solving skills to complete tasks can become better critical thinkers by improving their fundamental understanding of the subject they are studying, Willingham says.

“Think about the different domains that students study – science, literature and math , for example. These domains have different definitions of what it means to understand something," he says. You sort of have to respect those distinctions among the domains.”

Conduct Experiments

High school students who complete lab assignments as part of science courses are familiar with experimentation. Hitchcock outlines that as one of numerous mental processes that make up the critical thinking process.

Experimenting involves seeking answers, which requires open-mindedness. Hitchcock recommends that students investigate topics they find interesting.

“If you’ve got an issue that’s important to you personally, inquire into it in a personal way,” he says. “Don’t get in the habit of jumping to conclusions. Consider alternatives. Think it through.”

 Question Your Presumptions

“Most of us are ignorant about things,” Gambrill says. “Anything that students assume they know, they can start questioning.”

Students have presumptions, which form over time when they accept something they hear as truth. Critical thinkers challenge ideas presented by leaders, such as teachers and politicians, Gambrill says.

“Authoritarians love people who can’t think critically,” she says.

Read Books Written by Critical Thinkers

Reading books that challenge norms can help high school students understand how the mind of a critical thinker works. Doing so can help them realize that knowledge “is in a constant state of flux,” Gambrill says.

Gambrill recommends “Teachers Without Goals, Students Without Purposes” by Henry Perkinson, a book that challenges traditional notions of education and teaching.

Start a Critical Thinking Club

“Critical thinking is, in fact, very dangerous,” she says. “Asking questions is often viewed as a really bad thing, when in fact it is the essential thing.” 

Some students may be worried about asking critical questions in a classroom setting. Gambrill recommends they start a student-run club at their high school to facilitate conversations driven by open-mindedness. 

Teachers can also create classroom atmospheres that encourage students to ask critical questions, she says.  

Talk to Peers With Different Perspectives

Much like in college, students in high school can meet peers who have opposing viewpoints. Considering alternative viewpoints can help students become better critical thinkers, experts say.

“Cultivate conversations with people who think differently,” Hitchcock says. “Try to understand the thought processes of people who come at issues in a different way than yourself. Get an appreciation for the variety of ways you can think about something."

18 Tips for Incoming College Freshmen

Tags: high school , colleges , education , students

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

• Family Portal

Home » Stories » How Montessori Education Develops Critical Thinking Skills

How Montessori Education Develops Critical Thinking Skills Washington Montessori School New Preston, Connecticut

• June 3, 2023
• Development

How Montessori Education Develops Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking and learning go hand in hand. When we help children to develop critical thinking skills early on, we give them the essential building blocks for wise decision-making in the future. Evaluating problems from all angles, ensuring final decisions are based on facts, and being able to adapt when faced with new, contradictory information are all hallmarks of critical thinking.

This important learning skill is an integral part of the Montessori school approach, which has seen a major resurgence in the 21st century.

Modern-day Montessori education began in a poverty-stricken district of Rome in 1906. Dr. Maria Montessori was a medical doctor who had been invited to provide care and education for the unschooled children. She observed the children closely, applied her understanding of the scientific method, researched current theories of learning and developed a new approach to teaching. Instead of stifling the children’s natural instinct for hands-on learning and self-direction, Montessori learning encourages it, leading to profound benefits in children’s critical thinking skills and cognitive development.

But how exactly does Montessori education foster these skills?

Montessori Learning and Critical Thinking

Montessori education emphasizes independence and freedom within limits for children. Its curriculum is characterized by child-led endeavors, where students can pick from a wide range of activities, helping to facilitate self-directed learning.

Encouraging children to “take the wheel” and choose the direction of their education contrasts with the more structured, teacher-led approach. Montessori education has benefits that aren’t typically achieved in more traditional schools, like the fostering of valuable critical thinking skills at a young age.

To do this, the Montessori school will carefully prepare a learning environment for the children. Teachers offer various books and activities on many different topics that engage children’s curiosity, so children have the freedom to choose and explore what they gravitate toward.

Critical thinking skills are developed when children have the freedom to work with interactive materials and solve complex puzzles. By encouraging this freedom, Montessori education helps children develop their problem-solving and critical thinking skills more quickly and more effectively.

Benefits of Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Montessori Education

Critical thinking skills are taught at a Montessori school to give children the necessary foundation to make difficult, complex decisions as they transition into adolescence and eventually adulthood.

Encouraging children to think critically can also greatly enhance their ability to solve problems. A great example of this is the “Pink Tower” used in Montessori learning. Children stack various-sized cubes to create a tower, effectively developing problem-solving, semantic memory, and sensory perception skills, all of which are essential to developing at a young age.

Advanced critical thinking skills in Montessori education also foster creativity and innovation. When children can take a step back from rigid rules and expectations, their creative minds flourish. In fact, a recent study found that children attending a Montessori school score higher in creativity and academic ability.

Curiosity is another aspect of Montessori education. Ideas and concepts tend to stick when children have genuine love, interest, and curiosity for them. Additionally, Montessori learning can lead to the formation of a greater sense of resilience and adaptability — which comes in handy when students face the challenges of adulthood.

Montessori Education and Cognitive Development

Montessori education encourages children to do what they do best: engaging in hands-on, experiential learning. Classrooms provide a stimulating environment that allows children to learn at their own pace. Through activities that build independent thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making, Montessori learning enhances and nurtures a child’s holistic cognitive growth.

This is essential because healthy cognitive development and a child’s burgeoning critical thinking skills are deeply intertwined.

Cognitive development refers to the process by which a child’s understanding of the world changes as they mature. Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves the ability to analyze, evaluate, and form judgments about given information. It’s an aspect of human development in people of all ages.

As cognitive abilities develop, the capacity for critical thinking increases. Cognitive development lays the groundwork for critical thinking by fostering the ability to process information, create logical connections, understand complex concepts, and solve problems.

When children engage in critical thinking tasks, as they do in a Montessori school, they profoundly strengthen their cognitive abilities.

Why Consider Washington Montessori School for Your Child?

Washington Montessori School ’s mission is to inspire students through deeply engaging interactive and explorative learning. We help to strengthen critical thinking skills and cognitive development by widening children’s experience in their everyday classroom, which in turn widens their world.

Washington Montessori School uses the scientifically backed Montessori learning approach, emphasizing the importance of curiosity, enrichment, and creativity. Additionally, we have hands-on, experiential learning with multi-age classrooms, instead of the usual lecture-based learning and age-segregated classrooms found in traditional systems.

Children of all ages have thrived in Washington Montessori School’s unique learning environment. We not only nurture academic success, but also offer opportunities for leadership development, collaboration, athleticism, and artistic expression.

We encourage families to visit and explore our classrooms for themselves. In true Montessori fashion, we believe that our schools are best understood when experienced in person. Additionally, we offer variable tuition options , so all children have the opportunity to attend.

Children learn through doing. Montessori education creates an environment where children learn at an optimal pace because they are fully engaged and involved in their own education. With interactive activities and a wide range of learning resources, they have the chance for advanced cognitive development and lasting critical thinking skills.

Montessori education provides the perfect balance of challenging academics and exciting exploration. In a time when making educated and informed decisions is more important than ever, parents should consider sending their children to an environment that enriches cognitive development, critical thinking, and confidence for young minds.

About the Author

WMS Newsletter

Sign up for instant news and updates.

We will not share your email with third parties.

Next Steps —

• 240 Litchfield Turnpike New Preston, CT 06777
• 860.868.0551
• Why Montessori School
• Our Teachers
• Diversity & Inclusion Statement
• Parent Login
• Make a Gift
• Community Fundraising Events

© 2023 Washington Montessori School. All rights reserved.

• Website by UX Studio
• Privacy & Terms

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The effects of using collaborative digital storytelling on academic achievement and skill development in biology education

• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sinan Bilici   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0610-2126 1 , 3 &
• Rabia Meryem Yilmaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0453-1357 2  

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of the use of digital storytelling on academic achievement, critical thinking dispositions, co-regulation, and narrative skills of 10th grade students. To this end, the study was conducted using a semi-experimental design with a convenience sample. The participants consisted of 64 students (33 in experimental and 31 in control group) who were studying in a high school. After the groups were trained, a two-week pilot study was conducted by forming collaborative groups among the students. This was followed by eight weeks of main implementation, during which students presented their projects to the class every two weeks. Following the digital story presentations in the experimental group, feedback was provided by the course instructor and peers. In addition, rubric scores were generated by the researchers for each digital story. Academic achievement test, critical thinking disposition scale, co-regulatory skills scale, and digital story evaluation rubric were used as data collection tools at the end of the process. Independent samples t-test, repeated ANOVA, and regression analysis were performed on the collected data. According to the results, digital story activities had moderate positive effects on students’ academic achievement and critical thinking, and high positive effects on co-regulation. In addition, the narrative skills of the students in the experimental group increased significantly over the weeks with a difference of 27.44 points. There was also evidence that storytelling ability was a significant predictor of academic achievement and that this ability increased significantly over the weeks. The results showed that the collaborative creation of a digital story by the students had a positive effect on their academic achievement and the development of their skills.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

With the technological explosion of communication and globalization, there is a shift from traditional understandings of literacy to exploring different forms of meaning-making. In this direction, it has been noted that today’s students, referred to as Generation Z, use information technologies to create information, transform data into information and share it, and also learn in different ways compared to previous generations (Malita & Martin, 2010 ; Toki & Pange, 2014 ). These students, who have grown up with digital technologies, prefer multimedia content that is rich in visual and auditory terms to content that is mainly textual (France & Wakefield, 2011 ). Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to use contemporary learning methods to attract students’ attention (Ohler, 2006 ; Smeda et al., 2014 ). Appropriate teaching approaches supported by contemporary technologies and original teaching methods that create the desired skills for students come to the fore as a need in this sense (Seferoğlu, 2015 ). Digital storytelling, which is considered as one of these teaching methods, has emerged as a result of the combination of today’s transformative technologies and traditional stories (Sadik, 2008 ; Yang & Wu, 2012 ).

In this study, the digital storytelling method was used, which is an innovative pedagogical method that attracts the attention of today’s youth who tend to use technology (Smeda et al., 2014 ). Potential positive aspects such as digital storytelling providing a student-centered, fun and interactive collaborative environment (Chan et al., 2017 ; Çetin, 2021 ; Lantz et al., 2020 ), encouraging critical thinking in the product design process (Hung et al., 2012 ; Malita & Martin, 2010 ), improving narrative skills through efforts to create an original scenario (Dogan & Robin, 2008 ; Foley, 2013 ), and improving learning performance as a result of active interaction (Figg & McCartney, 2010 ) guided this study. Digital storytelling makes this study important because it is a student-centered innovation that combines the power of both traditional storytelling and technology, and its use in education has grown in recent years. The integration of the digital storytelling method, which is economical and easy to implement, into learning environments, especially with the help of existing technologies in the field of education, will have an important place in students’ acquisition of many 21st century skills (Yuksel-Arslan et al., 2016 ). In this regard, it is believed that examining academic success variables along with 21st century skills such as critical thinking dispositions, co-regulation, and narrative skills that are expected of today’s students provides a holistic and broad perspective to the study.

2 Theoratical framework

2.1 digital storytelling.

Digital stories are powerful learning and teaching tools that combine traditional storytelling skills with digital components such as text, images, sound recordings, music, and video (Robin, 2016 ). Digital stories revolve around a chosen topic and often have a specific point of view, similar to traditional storytelling. Digital stories consist of personal perspective, interesting question, emotional content, sound effects, musical power, economy, and pacing (Bull & Kajder, 2004 ; Robin, 2006 ). Although there are different types in the literature covering many disciplines at different educational levels, it is possible to divide the most common types into three categories in terms of content: personal, historical, and didactic stories (Robin, 2008 ).

Digital storytelling, which is a student-centered and constructivist approach, is seen as an educational technology and literacy learning tool that uses almost all the skills expected of 21st-century students (Dogan & Robin, 2009 ; Lantz et al., 2020 ; Yuksel-Arslan et al., 2016 ). It is often mentioned in the literature that it provides a strong foundation for 21st-century literacy, such as digital, global, technological, media, visual, and information literacy (Chan et al., 2017 ; Çetin, 2021 ; Di-Blass et al., 2009 ; Robin, 2008 ; Xu et al., 2011 , Yang & Wu, 2012 ). Due to the potential impact of digital storytelling on skill development, the current study focuses on critical thinking dispositions, narrative skills, and co-regulatory skills in addition to academic achievement.

It is stated that when students collaborate, the learning process can become more interesting and enjoyable despite the repetitive nature of the learning process (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012 ). At this point, it is seen that digital storytelling comes to the forefront as an effective collaborative tool in learning environments. Students who participate in digital storytelling activities perform a dual function of learning and having fun together (Toki & Pange, 2014 ). It is argued that in almost all processes of digital storytelling, from the idea stage to the sharing of products, it often creates an environment for collaboration, communication, and interaction among students (Nam, 2017 ; Ming et al., 2014 ). Technology becomes the focus in the background as students work together to develop their projects. Thus, the process also provides an opportunity to interact with the content and each other while creating digital stories (Lantz et al., 2020 ). When digital stories are created in a collaborative environment, students can take on different roles such as designers, listeners, commentators, readers, writers, communicators, artists, and thinkers (Bull & Kajder, 2004 ). Within the group, students can actively exchange ideas and give and receive feedback. Sharing and evaluating digital stories among peers also allows students to express themselves, talk critically with each other, develop tolerance, and take responsibility (Hung et al., 2012 ; Malita & Martin, 2010 ). Their efforts to synthesize the information they have gathered about the topic into an original scenario also contribute to the development of narrative skills. On the other hand, it is argued that the process of cooperation and communication within the group is effective for students to build the content together, provides more meaningful learning and supports their academic success (Figg & McCartney, 2010 ; Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ).

2.2 Critical thinking and digital storytelling

Critical thinking, defined as a judgment process that guides problem solving and decision making, has two dimensions: ability and disposition. While critical thinking skill is the ability to think critically easily and skillfully with mental effort, critical thinking disposition is seen as the desire, sense of responsibility, and attitude necessary for a person to think critically (Facione, 1990 ). Because it is a factor that affects performance in all areas of social life, the development and promotion of students’ critical thinking skills is considered one of the main goals of today’s educational process (Facione, 2011 ; Giancarlo & Facione, 2001 ).

The literature emphasizes that digital storytelling has an important place in promoting critical thinking (Lampert, 2007 ) and students’ critical reflection on what they have learned (Robin, 2016 ). The digital storytelling process provides students with opportunities to think critically, from identifying topics to sharing, inspiring, encouraging thinking, creativity, interaction, reflecting on their knowledge, and problem solving (Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ; Ohler, 2006 ; Robin, 2008 ; Xu et al., 2011 ). In the process of creating a digital story, students have the freedom to be critical in the selection of content that will support their story in a meaningful way (Chan et al., 2017 ; Czarnecki, 2009 ). As a contemporary, student-centered pedagogy, this study suggests that digital storytelling can be effectively integrated into the learning environment to enhance students’ critical thinking dispositions.

2.3 Cooperative learning and digital storytelling

Collaborative learning is defined as an interactive process in which authority and responsibility are shared among group members and all members are united around a common goal (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012 ; Tezci & Perkmen, 2016 ). During collaborative learning, the organization of activities takes place at different levels of social interaction: individual, pair, and group levels (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011 ). Co-regulation at the group level is expressed as a dynamic regulation process and interaction that coordinates the self-regulation processes between two or more peers in the learning process (Didonato, 2013 ).

Digital storytelling is known to be a powerful method and collaborative tool that promotes classroom collaboration and student knowledge construction (Boase, 2008 ; Hung et al., 2012 ; Yuksel et al., 2011 ). When students are asked to create their own digital stories, either individually or as members of a small group, it has been found that the greatest benefits of digital storytelling can be realized and that team building, cooperation, and other interpersonal skills can be improved (Reinders, 2011 ; Sadik, 2008 ). It is argued that students who create digital stories in a collaborative learning environment improve their communication skills, learn to ask questions, and express their ideas more easily (Hafner & Miller, 2011 ; Malita & Martin, 2010 ; Wang & Zhan, 2010 ). In this direction, it is believed that the digital story activities implemented in the current study will facilitate students’ acquisition of the collaborative skills required today.

2.4 Narrative skill and digital storytelling

When individuals construct stories, many cognitive and linguistic skills play a role in their writing processes (Bumgarner, 2012 ; Ohler, 2013 ). Therefore, narrative skill is seen as a complex product creation process that requires a high level of thinking and interaction in the human mind (Karadağ & Maden, 2013 ; Özbay & Barutçu, 2013 ). The many benefits of storytelling are highlighted, allowing listeners to effortlessly assimilate information and incorporate it into their existing schemas (Csikar & Stefaniak, 2018 ). Although narrative skill plays an important role in the transfer of information and its transformation into gains in learning processes, this skill does not develop spontaneously (Temizkan, 2011 ).

It is argued that the use of various tools and techniques offered by modern technologies, such as digital storytelling, provides important opportunities to improve narrative skills in this sense (Bumgarner, 2012 ; Campbell, 2012 ; Dogan & Robin, 2008 ; Foley, 2013 ; Ohler, 2013 ; Oskoz & Elola, 2014 ). Digital storytelling helps students to manage and understand their story writing processes (Yamaç & Ulusoy, 2016 ) and positively affects their narrative skills, ideas, organization, and sentence fluency (Ohler, 2006 ; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009 ). Particular emphasis has been placed on the impact of scriptwriting, which is considered the first and most important step in the digital storytelling process, on narrative skills (Ohler, 2006 ; Robin, 2008 ; Xu et al., 2011 ). In this research, it is believed that with the effective integration of digital storytelling into the learning environment, students will increase their academic achievement and improve their narrative skills.

2.5 Significance of the study

Its potential to mobilize and develop 21st century skills (Smeda et al., 2014 ; Wang & Zhan, 2010 ) has made digital storytelling the focus of the current study. In the literature, the pedagogical effects of digital storytelling on students’ academic achievement (Figg & McCartney, 2010 ; Yang & Wu, 2012 ), collaboration (Hung et al., 2012 ; Yuksel et al., 2011 ), attitudes (Sadik, 2008 ; Smeda et al., 2014 ; Yang & Wu, 2012 ), motivation (Chan et al., 2017 ; Di-Blas et al., 2009 ), critical thinking (Czarnecki, 2009 ; Yang & Wu, 2012 ), active learning (Boase, 2008 ; Ohler, 2006 ; Xu et al., 2011 ), writing skills (Oskoz & Elola, 2014 ; Tanrıkulu, 2021 ), communication (Malita & Martin, 2010 ; Sarıca & Usluel, 2016a ), problem solving (Abdel-Hack & Halwa, 2014; Yang & Wu, 2012 ), creativity (Bedir-Erişti, 2016 ; Nordmark & Milrad, 2012 ), reflection (Kim & Li, 2021 ), interest (Ivala et al., 2013 ), social learning (Ming et al., 2014 ; Robin, 2006 ), and deep learning (Barber, 2016 ) were examined. Foreign language teaching comes to the fore as a discipline of study (Fu et al., 2021 ; Hafner & Miller, 2011 ; Ming et al., 2014 ).

The current study was conducted in a high school biology course. It is known that due to the high cognitive load and the excess of scientific concepts and principles, students encounter difficulties in science-based lessons and have difficulties in understanding and remembering the concepts taught (Condy et al., 2012 ; Csikar & Stefaniak, 2018 ). From this perspective, the process of creating a digital story has the potential to improve learning as a result of students’ active interaction with the content, their groupmates, and the teacher, and is well suited for group work (Figg & McCartney, 2010 ; Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ). It was considered important to examine the variables of co-regulatory skills and academic achievement. In addition, although there are digital story-oriented studies in secondary school science education (Çiçek, 2018 ; Dewi et al., 2018 ; Hung et al., 2012 ) and university biology education (Frisch & Saunders, 2008 ; Karakoyun & Yapıcı, 2016 ) in the literature, no study was found to investigate the effect of the digital story, especially in high school biology education. However, although critical thinking is considered as an important educational goal (Facione, 2011 ), there are few studies in the literature on the effect of digital storytelling on critical thinking, and current studies focused on the skill dimension of critical thinking (Csikar & Stefaniak, 2018 ; Yang & Wu, 2012 ). The fact that the high school period coincides with the age range of 12–18 years, when thinking skills mature, makes critical thinking education important during this period (Erdem & Genç, 2015 ). In the current study, investigating the effect of digital storytelling on the critical thinking dispositions of high school students is considered valuable in this sense. On the other hand, the prominence of digital storytelling as a powerful approach that can develop narrative skills by initiating a high level of interaction and thought process in the minds of individuals (Abdel-Hack & Helwa, 2014 ; Ohler, 2006 ; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009 ) has guided the variable preferences in this study. The story scenarios that high school students construct during digital story activities are believed to activate many cognitive skills and enhance their academic performance. In this direction, the current study aimed to examine the effect of digital storytelling on 10th grade students’ academic achievement, critical thinking dispositions, co-regulation, and narrative skills. To this end, answers to the following sub-problems were sought:

10th grade students in the experimental and control groups

Is there a significant difference in levels of academic achievement?

Is there a significant difference in levels of critical thinking disposition?

Is there a significant difference in levels of co-regulation skills?

Is there a significant difference between the narrative skills of the experimental group students according to the weeks?

Is there a correlation between academic achievement, critical thinking disposition, co-regulation, and narrative skill levels of students in the experimental group?

3.1 Research design

The study used a quasi-experimental design with a pretest-posttest equivalent control group. The quasi-experimental design is often used in educational and psychological studies due to the difficulty in determining unbiased samples (Büyüköztürk et al., 2013 ; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010 ). In the quasi-experimental design with paired pretest-posttest control groups, two of the prepared groups are attempted to be equal on certain variables. Then, the equal groups are randomly assigned to the treatment groups and the experimental and control groups are determined. Equivalence is tested by applying pre-tests to the study groups, then the implementation process begins. At the end of the process, post-tests are conducted and the results are compared (Creswell, 2012 ; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010 ). Although the inability to impartially assign the participants seems to be the main problem of this design, the use of pre-tests for the qualifications to be examined in the groups makes the design useful and appropriate. In the current study, since there is no specific grading system among the classes in the selected school, the academic achievement pre-test was conducted to all branches of the 10th grade before the implementation process. The Academic Achievement Test was conducted as a pretest to determine if the students were equal in terms of academic achievement. The two classes with the closest pre-test mean scores were assigned as the experimental and control groups (10/A class control, 10/D class experimental group). At the end of the experimental process, post-tests were administered to the groups. Figure  1 illustrates the paired quasi-experimental design preferred in the study. The fact that the sample group was in the same school as the researcher facilitated communication and coordination with the students and the biology teacher. In addition, the researcher was able to quickly intervene in technical problems that arose in the computer science class.

Quasi-experimental design in this study

3.2 Sample group

The study group of the research was selected from the 10th grade students of a high school using the convenience sampling method, one of the non-random sampling methods. In order to determine the equivalence of the groups, the academic achievement pre-test was conducted to the branches. The two classes with the closest pre-test mean scores were assigned as the experimental and control groups. One-factor ANOVA analyses were conducted on the pre-tests of academic achievement, and it was determined that the groups were equivalent to each other ( p  > .05). In the current study, the class size of the experimental group was 33 and the class size of the control group was 31, for a total of 64 students. Demographic information about the sample group is presented in Table  1 .

The demographic characteristics of the sample group were collected using an information form prepared by the researchers. It can be seen that most of the participants have mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones, and a significant number of them do not have their own computer. Only 5 of the students had created a digital story before this study. 34 students indicated that they could use computers at an intermediate level and 16 students stated that they could use computers at a good level.

3.3 Implementation process

The implementation process of the study, including the administration of pre-tests, training of groups, pilot implementation, main implementation, and post-tests, took a total of 13 weeks. Figure  2 summarizes the stages of the experimental implementation process by week.

Experimental implementation process by week

Lectures were given by the same teacher in both experimental and control groups. Before the implementation, the groups were informed in the first week and the training plans were made. Four-hour (2 + 2) training sessions were given to the experimental group to create a digital story and to the control group to create a PowerPoint presentation. After the training, the students in both the experimental and control groups were divided into 7 groups. The decision of who would be in the groups was left to the students and they were divided into groups of 4–5 people with their friends whom they thought could work in harmony with each other. After the preparation and planning process, a two-week pilot implementation was conducted to test the system and identify problems before the main implementation. In the pilot implementation, small groups of students in the experimental group were asked to create digital stories by distributing the topics and developing solutions to the problems they encountered. After the pilot implementation, another 8-week implementation was carried out. The topics addressed in the experimental and control groups during the implementations are shown in Fig.  3 . The Cell Division unit, in which digital stories were created during the implementation process, includes the subtopics of Mitosis and Asexual Reproduction and Meiosis and Sexual Reproduction. The related topics cover a period of 10 weeks in the curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2018 ). Due to the length of time required for this unit, only this unit was focused on in the study.

The implementation process flow in the experimental and control groups

In this process, which was carried out in collaboration with the students, the researchers mostly followed the story development processes, provided guidance where needed, and ensured data collection. The researchers were actively involved in all processes of group determination, pre-testing, training of experimental and control groups, implementation, and post-testing.

3.4 Data collection tools

The Critical Thinking Disposition Scale, the Co-regulation Skills Scale, and the Digital Story Evaluation Rubric were taken from sources in the literature, and the Academic Achievement Test was developed by the researchers. The relationship between the data collection instruments and the research questions is shown in Table  2 .

3.4.1 Academic achievement test

First, the objectives and outcomes related to the “cell division” unit in the current 10th grade biology curriculum of the Ministry of National Education were identified to determine the behaviors to be measured in the academic achievement test. Then, a pool of 36 multiple-choice questions was created in the first stage at different levels according to Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy to cover the acquisitions. Based on expert opinion, 18 additional questions were added to the pool of questions for the test form, and the levels of some questions were changed. To ensure the content validity of the test, specification tables were created before and after the item analysis. For the construct and content validity of the prepared achievement test, opinions were obtained from an assessment and evaluation specialist, a biology faculty member, a Computer and Instructional Technologies Education (CEIT) faculty member, and two biology teachers. The control form of the test was conducted to a total of 121 students in the 11th grade who had been exposed to the same unit of study the previous year.

In evaluating the item difficulty index and item discrimination index, the values specified by Turgut and Baykul ( 2015 ) were taken as a reference. As a result of the analyses performed on the test form, 25 items with item discrimination index (r) less than 0.30 were excluded from the test. 29 items with item discrimination index of 0.30 and above and item difficulty between 0.27 and 0.73 were included in the final test. The calculated mean difficulty index of the final test was 0.50, and the mean discrimination index was 0.38. These data show that the final test is at the average level of difficulty and can discriminate between those who know and those who do not know at a good level. The KR-20 value, which indicates the internal reliability of the test, was calculated to be 0.82.

3.4.2 Critical thinking disposition scale

The UF/EMI (University of Florida Engagement, Maturity, and Innovativeness Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument) critical thinking disposition scale used in this study was developed by researchers at the University of Florida and adapted into Turkish by Kılıç and Şen ( 2014 ). It is a five-point Likert-type scale consisting of three sub-dimensions; there are 11 items in the engagement sub-dimension, 7 items in the cognitive maturity sub-dimension, and 7 items in the innovativeness sub-dimension. It has been reported that the scale was tested by applying it to 342 students studying in the 9th and 10th grades of secondary education for the validity and reliability study. By applying confirmatory factor analysis for construct validity, X 2 /sd ratio was calculated as 2.99 (813.66/272) and RMSEA = 0.08. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated as 0.91 for the total scale, 0.88 for the engagement sub-dimension, 0.70 for the cognitive maturity sub-dimension, and 0.73 for the innovativeness sub-dimension. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients were obtained as 0.89 for the total scale, 0.87 for the engagement sub-dimension, 0.68 for the cognitive maturity sub-dimension, and 0.65 for the innovativeness sub-dimension.

3.4.3 Co-regulation skill scale

The co-regulation skill scale used in the study was developed by DiDonato ( 2013 ) and adapted into Turkish by Pan and Tanrıseven ( 2016 ). Before it was used in this study, the scale was conducted to three 10th grade students to determine if the scale was appropriate for use with high school students. The students indicated that the scale was clear and easy to understand. After receiving a detailed evaluation from the students and consulting the opinions of two experts in the field, the scale was applied. This scale consists of 19 items and measures students’ behaviors related to cooperative organization of the learning process. It was stated that the scale, which is a 4-point Likert type, was applied to 100 pre-service teachers for validity and reliability study. The researchers conducted confirmatory factor analysis to test the validity of the scale, which has a single factor structure. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, the fit indices of the model were found to be RMSEA = 0.074 (> 0.05); NFI = 0.94 (> 0.90); CFI = 0.95 (> 0.95); it has been reported to be detected as AGFI = 0.87 and GFI = 0.91. The factor loads of the scale items ranged from 0.26 to 0.70, and the root mean square error (RMSEA) was calculated to be 0.068. The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient calculated to determine the reliability of the scale was 0.89. In the current study, the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to be 0.83.

3.4.4 Digital storytelling evaluation rubric

This measurement tool, developed by Sarıca and Usluel ( 2016b ), consists of a total of 30 criteria, 8 for the story section, 4 for the storyboard section, and 18 for the digital story section. It was reported that the created rubric was presented to the opinion of five experts working on digital stories and two experts in the field of measurement and evaluation, and weighted kappa coefficients were calculated by two independent raters for reliability. According to the results they obtained, it was stated that all the criteria of the story, storyboard and digital story sections showed a significant and good level of agreement.

3.5 Data analysis

The analysis types that meet each research question are given in Table  3 .

The analysis of the variables of academic achievement, critical thinking disposition, co-regulation, and narrative skills revealed no missing data or extreme values in the dataset. The normality analyses indicated that the data had a normal distribution. The kurtosis and skewness values of all variables in question were determined by Tabachnick et al. ( 2007 ) to be between + 1.50 and − 1.50. Analysis of variance assumptions were tested and it was found that the variances were homogeneously distributed ( p  > .05).

4.1 Differences between academic achievement levels

The results of the independent group t-test analysis, which was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the academic achievement post-test scores of the groups, are presented in Table  4 .

According to Table  4 , the post-test academic achievement mean of the experimental group students ( M =  76.82, SD =  13.72) was significantly higher than the mean of the control group students ( M =  68.35, SD =  16.68) ( t (62)= -2.224, p  < .05)

4.2 Differences between critical thinking disposition levels

The results of the independent group t-test analysis, which was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the groups’ post-test scores on critical thinking dispositions, are presented in Table  5 .

According to Table  5 , a significant difference was found between the experimental and control groups in the engagement factor ( t (62)= -2.190, p  < .05), cognitive maturity factor ( t (62)= -3.736, p  < .001) and total scale scores ( t (62)= -2.830, p  < .05) in favor of the experimental group. In the innovativeness factor, although there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups ( t (62)= -1.631, p  > .05), the mean of the experimental group ( M  = 29.18, SD  = 3.66) was higher than the mean of the control group ( M  = 27.74, SD  = 3.37) was higher.

4.3 Differences between co-regulation skill levels

The results of the independent group t-test analysis, which was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the groups’ post-test scores on co-regulationskills, are presented in Table  6 .

According to Table  6 , the post-test mean of the experimental group students’ co-regulation skills ( M  = 66.15, SD  = 4.94) was significantly higher than the control group students’ mean ( M  = 59.00, SD  = 6.73) ( t (62)= -4.862, p  < .001)

4.4 Change of narrative skill levels by week

The results of the one-factor repeated ANOVA test showing the change in narrative skill scores according to the weeks in the experimental group are presented in Table  7 .

According to the findings in Table  7 , there was a statistically significant difference between the students’ digital story scores by week [ F (2.142, 68.551) = 847.214, p  < .001]. The change in the mean score of narrative skill over time is shown in Fig.  4

Increase in narrative skill scores by week

4.5 The relationship between academic achievement and other variables

The results of the multiple regression analysis performed to determine the power of the variables in predicting the academic achievement of the students in the experimental group are presented in Table  8 .

Mahalanobis distance values were examined in the dataset of the study for multiple regression analysis, and it was found that all values were less than the critical x 2 table value ( D 2  < 18.47, p  > .001) for three independent variables, were normally distributed, and did not contain extreme values. According to Seçer ( 2015 ), there should be at least 15 participants for each predictor variable. In this study, the number of participants is 64. The values of Durbin-Watson (1.783), tolerance (0.773), and VIF (1.293) show that there is no multilinear problem in the analysis. When examining the data in Table  8 , the regression model that was established was statistically significant ( F  = 6.185; p  < .05). These three variables together explain 39% of the total variance in the academic achievement post-test. When the t-test results were analyzed for significance of the standardized regression coefficient ( β ), it was found that only narrative skill was a significant predictor of Academic Achievement Post-test scores ( β  = 0.353; t  = 2.140; p  < .05). The relative order of importance of the predictor variables on the academic achievement posttest: narrative skills, critical thinking disposition, and co-regulatory skills. The mathematical regression model that emerged within the conditions of this study regarding the prediction of the academic achievement post-test is “Academic achievement=-73.889 + 0.296 narrative skills”.

5 Discussions and implications

This study aimed to examine the effect of using digital storytelling on 10th grade students’ academic achievement, critical thinking disposition, co-regulation, and narrative skills. In the study, students in the experimental group actively interacted with their teachers, friends, and subject content throughout the collaborative digital storytelling process, produced creative products that reflected their perspectives, and became the heroes of their own stories. The study, which was conducted in such an environment where high levels of participation and motivation are effective, had important findings that are a contribution to the literature.

According to the results, students in the experimental group who created digital stories were more successful at the end of the process than students in the control group. This result shows parallelism with other studies in the literature (Çiçek, 2018 ; Figg & McCartney, 2010 ; Foley, 2013 ; Gömleksiz & Pullu, 2017 ; Hung et al., 2012 ; Korucu, 2020 ; Robin, 2006; Yang & Wu, 2012 ). The obtained results can be primarily explained by the constructivist environmental features revealed by the collaborative digital story creation activities. It is believed that the constructivist environment features such as cooperation, active participation, and interaction during the digital story creation process among the students in the experimental group positively affected the learning outcomes. It is known that digital stories are a teaching tool that supports learning, encourages cooperation, improves creativity and decision making, and enables students to actively participate in the learning process and learn from each other (Balaman-Uçar, 2016 ; Dogan & Robin, 2008 ; Robin, 2006 ; Smeda et al., 2014 ). It is argued that active interaction and communication with the content, peers, and teachers throughout the digital storytelling process provides students with more meaningful learning and supports their achievement (Figg & McCartney, 2010 ; Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ). On the other hand, the fact that students who create digital stories create meaning with their perspective and add comments to their products (Malita & Martin, 2010 ; Robin & McNeil, 2012 ; Sadik, 2008 ; Yuksel-Arslan et al., 2016 ) may have affected their achievement by allowing them to take in more information.

The positive effect of digital storytelling on academic achievement can also be related to its multi-sensory and information embodiment aspect. In fact, it is emphasized that the flexible and dynamic nature of digital storytelling uses many cognitive processes by activating the senses. It can activate students’ visual and auditory senses in different ways than printed textbooks and by integrating visual images with written text. It also improves and accelerates student comprehension (Dreon et al., 2011 ; Nordmark & Milrad, 2012 ; Sadik, 2008 ). It has been stated that digital stories can be used to transform soft information into concrete information and make difficult concepts more understandable, because some abstract information may be difficult for students to understand due to their cognitive abilities (Ohler, 2013 ; Robin, 2008 ; Yuksel-Arslan, 2016). On the other hand, the fact that digital storytelling facilitates the recall and retention of information, especially with its effect on memory, may be related to the increase of students’ academic success (Bromberg et al., 2013 ; Csikar & Stefaniak, 2018 ; Di-Blas et al., 2009 ; Sarıca & Usluel, 2016b ; Wang & Zhan, 2010 ). It is believed that students’ active participation in the collaborative process to improve their products and the repetition of similar processes in each product contribute positively to students’ performance by supporting recall and permanence (Balaman-Uçar, 2016 ).

According to the results obtained in the study, the digital storytelling process significantly increased the critical thinking disposition of the students. This result can be explained primarily by the desire and motivation (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001 ) generated by the digital storytelling process. It is stated that the relaxed atmosphere and lively environment created by digital storytelling encourages students to interact, talk, and discuss critically with each other more than traditional methods (Karami et al., 2012 ). It contributes significantly to the development of critical thinking, which is a desirable educational outcome for students, and to critically reflect on what they have learned (Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ; Lampert, 2007 ; Robin, 2016 ). Students critically consider multiple perspectives when researching and selecting multimedia content that meaningfully supports their stories and ideas, and when deciding what information to include to convey their message (Chan et al., 2017 ; Czarnecki, 2009 ; Kulla-Abbott, 2006 ). It is expected that the presence of students with different abilities and different views will create a diversity of ideas. In this sense, the process of digital storytelling with the group can be seen as a process in which students see, accept, and respect each other’s differences. In the current study, it is believed that students’ constructive criticism of their peers’ ideas and products and feedback on group activities (Balaman-Uçar, 2016 ; Wang & Zhan, 2010 ) also contribute to increasing their critical thinking disposition. Although there was no significant difference between the groups in the " innovativeness " dimension of the critical thinking disposition scale, the results in favor of the experimental group in terms of mean scores support the view that students with high innovative tendencies try to learn new information by researching, reading, questioning, and acting selectively thanks to their curiosity and impulses (Kılıç & Şen, 2014 ). From an educational perspective, it is emphasized that the stages of the digital story creation process are highly related to the transferable and applicable skills of critical thinking in innovative individuals, such as idea formation, selection, comparison, inference, organization, and review (Boase, 2008 ; Jenkins & Lonsdale, 2007 ; Lantz et al., 2020 ).

Another finding was that the co-regulation skills scores were significantly higher in the experimental group that created the digital story. In this sense, some studies in the literature (Hafner & Miller, 2011 ; Ming et al., 2014 ; Ohler, 2013 ; Robin, 2006 ; Smeda et al., 2014 ; Wang & Zhan, 2010 ; Yuksel et al., 2011 ) have found that storytelling leads students to communicate more with each other, teaches them to work with the group, prepares an environment for cooperation, and encourages them to work together to achieve certain goals. It is known that due to the nature of digital storytelling, it provides more opportunities for collaborative learning activities, communication and interaction between group members at almost every stage, from brainstorming ideas to the sharing step (Balaman-Uçar, 2016 ; Nam, 2017 ; Ming et al., 2014 ). It has been reported that thanks to this interaction provided by group work, students participate more in learning processes, knowledge construction is shared among group members, they have the opportunity to work more together, their responsibility skills develop, and they help each other more thanks to the responsibility they take on (Hung et al., 2012 ; Karakoyun & Yapıcı, 2016 ; Sadik, 2008 ; Smeda et al., 2014 ; Yang & Wu, 2012 ).

The study concluded that the narrative skills of students in the experimental group increased significantly over the weeks. Consistent with this result, various studies (Balaman-Uçar, 2016 ; Campbell, 2012 ; Dogan & Robin, 2008 ; Foley, 2013 ; Girmen et al., 2019 ; Yamaç & Ulusoy, 2016 ) have found that narrative skills improved over time in the digital storytelling process and that more skilled products were observed. By consistently organizing thoughts (Ohler, 2006 ; Oskoz & Elola, 2014 ; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2010), digital storytelling activates students’ writing skills (Abdel-Hack & Helwa, 2014 ) and improves ideas, organization, and sentence fluency. It has been stated that it has a positive effect on IT and provides fluency in story writing (Yamaç & Ulusoy, 2016 ). However, it has been argued that a well thought out and well written script will make the digital story more effective and successful (Dogan & Robin, 2008 ; Ohler, 2006 ; Robin, 2008 ). In this regard, it is believed that especially the personal perspective and comments on the digital story narration make it interesting, give students a chance to make their voices or comments heard, and students adopt their stories more easily (Reinders, 2011 ; Robin & McNeil, 2012 ; Xu et al., 2011 ).

The regression results show that the variables in the model explain 39% of the dependent variable. The remaining 61% can be attributed to other factors. This result may be due to the small sample size and can be expressed as a limitation of the study. However, in future studies, researchers can strengthen the model by adding new variables to the model in addition to the independent variables used in this study. According to the model, the relationship between narrative skills and academic achievement can be explained by students’ efforts to create effective and original narratives by combining the information they have researched on the topic in a scenario during the digital storytelling process. This is because it is emphasized that storytelling skills play an important role in transferring the information learned in the learning-teaching process and transforming it into an outcome (Temizkan, 2011 ). While the creation of a story scenario is a complex skill that involves the processes of continuous thinking, organizing, rethinking, and rearranging (Abdel-Hack & Helwa, 2014 ), it is stated that the iterative cycle of this process has a positive impact on student achievement (Balaman-Uçar, 2016 ). In particular, it can be said that the continuous peer feedback throughout the process (Kearney, 2009 ; Kulla-Abbott, 2006 ; Robin, 2016 ) allows students to see and develop their story constructions.

6 Conclusion

This study found that digital storytelling in a collaborative environment had a positive effect on high school students’ academic achievement, critical thinking, co-regulation, and narrative skills. It also found that narrative skills were effective on academic achievement and that these skills developed throughout the digital storytelling process. In order to keep the students interested and engaged in the process, two weeks were allocated for the pilot implementation and eight weeks for the main implementation. During this process, several limitations were encountered. The first is that the scope of the study was limited to the Cell Division unit, since the main implementation period was eight weeks in total. The second is that some technical problems were encountered in the process due to the lack of modern computer infrastructure in the Information Technology classroom of the implementation school. In addition, Microsoft (MS) Photostory 3 software was preferred for creating digital stories because of its ease of setup and use. Other mobile and online applications with animation creation and video editing features could not be preferred due to the lack of mobile devices in the entire working group and the lack of technical infrastructure. Some suggestions that could be beneficial in line with the results of the study are as follows:

Given the significant impact of collaborative digital storytelling on academic performance, critical thinking, collaborative regulation, and narrative skills, incorporating digital story activities into the classroom may help high school students develop these skills.

Students can be encouraged to use digital stories as a tool when preparing their homework and projects.

The current study was conducted in a 10th grade biology class. An interdisciplinary study can compare data from different courses with numerical and verbal content to see which students are more successful or interested.

The consistency of digital storytelling with other topics in biology courses can be examined with more comprehensive studies that include different biology topics.

Unlike MS Photo Story 3 software, depending on the educational level of the sample and their ability to use information technology, other desktop, mobile and online tools can be used.

Studies can be conducted to determine the difference between the processes of creating digital stories individually and in groups.

Abdel-Hack, E. M., & Helwa, H. S. A. A. (2014). Using digital storytelling and weblogs instruction to enhance EFL narrative writing and critical thinking skills among EFL majors at faculty of education. Educational Research , 5 (1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.14303/er.2014.011 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Balaman-Uçar, S. (2016). Dijital öykülemenin İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin yazma becerilerine olan etkisi (tez No. 435230) [Doktora Tezi . Hacettepe Üniversitesi-Ankara].Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.

Barber, J. F. (2016). Digital storytelling: New opportunities for humanities scholarship and pedagogy. CogentArts & Humanities , 3 (1), 1181037. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.1181037 .

Bedir-Erişti, S. D. (2016). Participatory design-based digital storytelling and creativity indicators in elementary school. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry , 7 (4), 462–492. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.28031 .

Boase, C. (2008). Digital storytelling for reflection and engagement: A study of the uses and potential of digital storytelling Report Produced as Part of the Phase 1 of The Higher Education Academy/JISC Higher Education e-Learning Pathfinde Programme. https://gjamissen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/boase_assessment . pdf.

Bromberg, N. R., Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., & Andrade, A. D. (2013). Engaging students: Digital storytelling in information systems learning. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 5 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.17705/1pais.05101 .

Bull, G., & Kajder, S. (2004). Digital storytelling in the language arts classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology , 32 (4), 46–49.

Google Scholar  

Bumgarner, B. L. (2012). Digital storytelling in writing: A case study of student-teacher attitudes toward teaching with technology (Publication No. 3533990) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (15. Baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.

Campbell, T. A. (2012). Digital storytelling in an elementary classroom: Going beyond entertainment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69 (2012), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.424 .

Çetin, E. (2021). Digital storytelling in teacher education and its effect on the digital literacy of pre-service teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 39 , 100760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100760 .

Chan, B. S., Churchill, D., & Chiu, T. K. (2017). Digital literacy learning in higher education through digital storytelling approach. Journal of International Education Research , 13 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v13i1.9907 .

Çiçek, M. (2018). Investigating the effects of digital storytelling use in sixth-grade science course: a mixed-method research study (Publication No.507290) [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University-Ankara]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.

Condy, J., Chigona, A., Gachago, D., Ivala, E., & Chigona, A. (2012). Pre-service students’ perceptions and experiences of digital storytelling in diverse classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET , 11 (3), 278–285.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.) [DX Reader version]. http://basu.nahad.ir/ .

Csikar, E., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2018). The utility of storytelling strategies in the biology classroom. Contemporary Educational Technology , 9 (1), 42–60.

Czarnecki, K. (2009). Storytelling in context. Library Technology Reports , 45 (7), 5.

Dewi, N. R., Kannapiran, S., & Wibowo, S. W. A. (2018). Development of digital storytelling-based science teaching materials to improve students’ metacognitive ability. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia , 7 (1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i1.12718 .

Di-Blas, N., Garzotto, F., Paolini, P., & Sabiescu, A. (2009, December). Digital storytelling as a whole-class learning activity: Lessons from a three-years project. In Joint International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (pp. 14–25).

DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self-and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science , 41 (1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9 .

Dogan, B., & Robin, B. (2008, March). Implementation of digital storytelling in the classroom by teachers trained in a digital storytelling workshop. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 902–907).

Dogan, B., & Robin, B. (2009, March). Educational uses of digital storytelling: Creating digital storytelling contests for K-12 students and teachers. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 633–638).

Dreon, O., Kerper, R. M., & Landis, J. (2011). Digital storytelling: A tool for teaching and learning in the YouTube generation. Middle School Journal , 42 (5), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2011.11461777 .

Erdem, A. R., & Genç, G. (2015). Lise öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerileri ile eleştirel düşünme becerileri arasındaki ilişki. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi , 5 (8), 32–44.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . American Philosophical Association , 3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED315423.pdf .

Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment , 2007 (1), 1–23.

Figg, C., & McCartney, R. (2010). Impacting academic achievement with student learners teaching digital storytelling to others: The ATTTCSE digital video project. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 10 (1), 38–79.

Foley, L. M. (2013). Digital storytelling in primary-grade classrooms (Publication No. 3560250) [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University-Tucson]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

France, D., & Wakefield, K. (2011). How to produce a digital story. Journal of Geography in Higher Education , 35 (4), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2011.560658 .

Frisch, J. K., & Saunders, G. (2008). Using stories in an introductory college biology course. Journal of Biological Education , 42 (4), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656135 .

Fu, J. S., Yang, S. H., & Yeh, H. C. (2021). Exploring the impacts of digital storytelling on English as a foreign language learners’ speaking competence. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1911008 .

Giancarlo, C. A., & Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education , 29–55.

Girmen, P., Özkanal, Ü., & Dayan, G. (2019). Digital storytelling in the language arts classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research , 7 (1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070108 .

Gömleksiz, M. N., & Pullu, E. K. (2017). Toondoo Ile dijital hikâyeler oluşturmanın öğrenci başarısına ve tutumlarına Etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies , 12 (32), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12717 .

Hadwin, A. F., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record , 113 (2), 240–264.

Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology , 15 (3), 68–86.

Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students’ learning motivation, problem-solving competence, and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 15 (4), 368–379.

Ivala, E., Gachago, D., Condy, J., & Chigona, A. (2013). Enhancing student engagement with their studies: A digital storytelling approach. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.410A012 .

Jenkins, M., & Lonsdale, J. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of digital storytelling for student reflection. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore 2007 (pp. 440–444).

Karadağ, Ö., & Maden, S. (2013). Yazma eğitimi: kuram, uygulama, ölçme ve değerlendirme. Türkçe öğretimi el kitabı (1. Baskı)(ss. 265–301). Pegem Akademi Yayınlar&#305.

Karakoyun, F., & Yapıcı, I. Ü. (2016). Use of Digital Storytelling in Biology Teaching. Universal Journal of Educational Research , 4 (4), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040427 .

Karami, M., Pakmehr, H., & Aghili, A. (2012). Another view to importance of teaching methods in curriculum: Collaborative learning and students’ critical thinking disposition. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 46() , 3266–3270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.048 .

Kearney, M. (2009). Towards a learning design for student-generated digital storytelling. The Future of Learning Design Conference . 4.

Kim, D., & Li, M. (2021). Digital storytelling: Facilitating learning and identity development. Journal of Computers in Education , 8 (1), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00170-9 .

Kılıç, H. E., & Şen, A. İ. (2014). UF/EMI eleştirel düşünme eğilimi ölçeğini Türkçeye Uyarlama çalışması. Eğitim Ve Bilim , 39 (176), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3632 .

Korucu, A. T. (2020). Fen eğitiminde kullanılan dijital hikâyelerin öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarısı, sayısal yetkinlik durumları ve sorgulama becerileri üzerindeki etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi , 28 (1), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3617 .

Kulla-Abbott, T. M. (2006). Developing literacy practices through digital storytelling (Publication No. 3285640) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-St. Louis]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences , 31 , 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091 .

Lampert, N. (2007). Critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of undergraduate education. The Journal of General Education , 17–33.

Lantz, J. L., Myers, J., & Wilson, R. (2020). Digital storytelling and young children: Transforming learning through creative use of technology. In handbook of research on integrating digital technology with literacy pedagogies (pp. 212–231). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0246-4.ch010 .

Malita, L., & Martin, C. (2010). Digital storytelling as web passport to success in the 21st century. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2 (2), 3060–3064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.465 .

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th Edition), MyEducationLab Series. Pearson.

Ming, T. S., Sim, L. Y., Mahmud, N., Kee, L. L., Zabidi, N. A., & Ismail, K. (2014). Enhancing 21st-century learning skills via digital storytelling: Voices of Malaysian teachers and undergraduates. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 118 (1), 489–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.067 .

Ministry of Education. (2018). Ministry of National Education curriculum . https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx

Nam, C. W. (2017). The effects of digital storytelling on student achievement, social presence, and attitude in online collaborative learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments , 25 (3), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1135173 .

Nordmark, S., & Milrad, M. (2012, March). Mobile digital storytelling for promoting creative collaborative learning. In 2012 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (pp. 9–16). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMUTE.2012.10 .

Ohler, J. (2006). The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership , 63 (4), 44–47.

Ohler, J. B. (2013). Digital storytelling in the classroom: New media pathways to literacy,learning, and creativity (2nd ed.). Corwin.

Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Integrating digital stories in the writing class: Towards a 21st-century literacy. Digital Literacies in Foreign Language Education: Research, Perspectives and Best Practices , 179–200.

Özbay, M., & Barutçu, T. (2013). Dil psikolojisi ve Türkçe öğretimi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 6 (11), 933–973.

Pan, V., & Tanrıseven, I. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının işbirlikli-düzenleme durumlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.86508 .

Reinders, H. (2011). Digital storytelling in the foreign language classroom. ELT World Online Blog , 26 , 1–9.

Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st-century classroom. Theory into Practice , 47 (3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916 .

Robin, B. R. (2016). The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning. Digital Education Review , 30 , 17–29.

Robin, B. (2006, March). The educational uses of digital storytelling. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 709–716).

Robin, B. R., & McNeil, S. G. (2012). What educators should know about teaching digital storytelling. Digital Education Review , 37–51.

Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development , 56 (4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8 .

Sarıca, H. Ç., & Usluel, Y. K. (2016a). The effect of digital storytelling on visual memory and writing skills. Computers & Education , 94 , 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.016 .

Sarıca, H. Ç., & Usluel, Y. K. (2016b). Eğitsel bağlamda dijital hikâye anlatımı: Bir rubrik geliştirme çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram Ve Uygulama , 6 (2), 65–84.

Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi (2. baskı). Anı Yayıncılık.

Seferoğlu, S. S. (2015). Okullarda teknoloji kullanımı ve uygulamalar: Gözlemler, sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Artı Eğitim , 123 , 90–91.

Smeda, N., Dakich, E., & Sharda, N. (2014). The effectiveness of digital storytelling in the classrooms: A comprehensive study. Smart Learning Environments , 1 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0006-3 .

Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. L. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling writers. The Reading Teacher , 63 (4), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.4.3 .

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 481–498). [DX Reader version]. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/ .

Tanrıkulu, F. (2021). Students’ perceptions about the effects of collaborative digital storytelling on writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1774611 .

Temizkan, M. (2011). Yaratıcı Yazma etkinliklerinin öykü yazma becerisi üzerindeki etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi , 11 (2), 919–940.

Tezci, E., & Perkmen, S. (2016). Oluşturmacı perspektiften teknolojinin öğrenme-öğretme sürecine entegrasyonu. K. Çağıltay, Y. Göktaş (Ed.). Öğretim teknolojilerinin temelleri: teoriler, araştırmalar, eğilimler içinde (2.baskı, ss 193–218). PegemA Yayıncılık.

Toki, E. I., & Pange, J. (2014). ICT use in early childhood education: Storytelling. Tiltai , 66 (1), 183–192.

Turgut, M. F., & Baykul, Y. (2015). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (7. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.

Wang, S., & Zhan, H. (2010). Enhancing teaching and learning with digital storytelling. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE) , 6 (2), 76–87.

Xu, Y., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 14 (4), 181–191.

Yamaç, A., & Ulusoy, M. (2016). The effect of digital storytelling in ımproving the third graders’ writing skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 9 (1), 59–86.

Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012 .

Yuksel, P., Robin, B., & McNeil, S. (2011, March). Educational uses of digital storytelling all around the world. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1264–1271). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Yuksel-Arslan, P., Yildirim, S., & Robin, B. R. (2016). A phenomenological study: Teachers’ experiences of using digital storytelling in early childhood education. Educational Studies , 42 (5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1195717 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out as part of the doctoral thesis entitled “The Effects of Digital Storytelling on High School Students’ Academic Achievements, Critical Thinking Dispositions, Co-Regulations and Narrative Skills” ( Thesis Number: 679745).

Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ministry of National Education, Van, Turkey

Sinan Bilici

Department of Software Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey

Rabia Meryem Yilmaz

Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rabia Meryem Yilmaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bilici, S., Yilmaz, R.M. The effects of using collaborative digital storytelling on academic achievement and skill development in biology education. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12638-7

Download citation

Received : 30 May 2023

Accepted : 21 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12638-7

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

• Digital storytelling
• Biology education
• Academic achievement
• Critical thinking disposition
• Co-regulation skill
• Narrative skill
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research