research develops critical thinking

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

18 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis.

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• How it works

What is Critical Thinking in Academics – Guide With Examples

Published by Grace Graffin at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

In an era dominated by vast amounts of information, the ability to discern, evaluate, and form independent conclusions is more crucial than ever. Enter the realm of “critical thinking.” But what does this term truly mean? 

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the disciplined art of analysing and evaluating information or situations by applying a range of intellectual skills. It goes beyond mere memorisation or blind acceptance of information, demanding a deeper understanding and assessment of evidence, context, and implications.

Moreover, paraphrasing in sources is an essential skill in critical thinking, as it allows for representing another’s ideas in one’s own words, ensuring comprehension.

Critical thinking is not just an academic buzzword but an essential tool. In academic settings, it serves as the backbone of genuine understanding and the springboard for innovation. When students embrace critical thinking, they move from being passive recipients of information to active participants in their own learning journey.

They question, evaluate, and synthesise information from various sources, fostering an intellectual curiosity that extends beyond the classroom. Part of this involves understanding how to integrate sources into their work, which means not only including information from various places, but also doing so in a cohesive and logical way.

The importance of critical thinking in academics cannot be overstated. It equips students with the skills to discern credible sources from unreliable ones, develop well-informed arguments, and approach problems with a solution-oriented mindset.

The Origins and Evolution of Critical Thinking

The idea of critical thinking isn’t a new-age concept. Its roots reach back into ancient civilisations, moulding the foundations of philosophy, science, and education. To appreciate its evolution, it’s vital to delve into its historical context and the influential thinkers who have championed it.

Historical Perspective on the Concept of Critical Thinking

The seeds of critical thinking can be traced back to Ancient Greece, particularly in the city-state of Athens. Here, the practice of debate, dialogue, and philosophical inquiry was valued and was seen as a route to knowledge and wisdom. This era prized the art of questioning, investigating, and exploring diverse viewpoints to reach enlightened conclusions.

In medieval Islamic civilisation, scholars in centres of learning, such as the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, played a pivotal role in advancing critical thought. Their works encompassed vast areas, including philosophy, mathematics, and medicine, often intertwining rigorous empirical observations with analytical reasoning.

The Renaissance period further nurtured critical thinking as it was a time of revival in art, culture, and intellect. This era championed humanistic values, focusing on human potential and achievements. It saw the rebirth of scientific inquiry, scepticism about religious dogma, and an emphasis on empirical evidence.

Philosophers and Educators Who Championed Critical Thinking

Several philosophers and educators stand out for their remarkable contributions to the sphere of critical thinking:

Known for the Socratic method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue, Socrates would ask probing questions, forcing his pupils to think deeply about their beliefs and assumptions. His methodology still influences modern education, emphasising the answer and the path of reasoning that leads to it.

A student of Socrates, Plato believed in the importance of reason and inquiry. His allegory of the cave highlights the difference between blindly accepting information and seeking true knowledge.

He placed great emphasis on empirical evidence and logic. His works on syllogism and deductive reasoning laid the foundation for systematic critical thought.

Al-Farabi And Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Islamic philosophers, who harmonised Greek philosophy with Islamic thought, emphasised the importance of rationality and critical inquiry.

Sir Francis Bacon

An advocate for the scientific method, Bacon believed that knowledge should be based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation rather than mere reliance on accepted truths.

A modern proponent of critical thinking, Dewey viewed it as an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge. He emphasised that students should be taught to think for themselves rather than just memorise facts.

Paulo Freire

Recognised for his ideas on “problem-posing education,” Freire believed that students should be encouraged to question, reflect upon, and respond to societal issues, fostering critical consciousness.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers are not defined merely by the knowledge they possess, but by the manner in which they process, analyse, and use that knowledge. While the profile of a critical thinker can be multifaceted, certain core traits distinguish them. Let’s delve into these characteristics:

1. Open-mindedness

Open-mindedness refers to the willingness to consider different ideas, opinions, and perspectives, even if they challenge one’s existing beliefs. It allows critical thinkers to avoid being trapped in their own biases or preconceived notions. By being open to diverse viewpoints, they can make more informed and holistic decisions.

• Listening to a debate without immediately taking sides.
• Reading literature from different cultures to understand various world views.

2. Analytical Nature

An analytical nature entails the ability to break down complex problems or information into smaller, manageable parts to understand the whole better. Being analytical enables individuals to see patterns, relationships, and inconsistencies, allowing for deeper comprehension and better problem-solving.

• Evaluating a research paper by examining its methodology, results, and conclusions separately.
• Breaking down the components of a business strategy to assess its viability.

3. Scepticism

Scepticism is the tendency to question and doubt claims or assertions until sufficient evidence is presented. Skepticism ensures that critical thinkers do not accept information at face value. They seek evidence and are cautious about jumping to conclusions without verification.

• Questioning the results of a study that lacks a control group.
• Doubting a sensational news headline and researching further before believing or sharing it.

4. Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility involves recognising and accepting the limitations of one’s knowledge and understanding. It is about being aware that one does not have all the answers. This trait prevents arrogance and overconfidence. Critical thinkers with intellectual humility are open to learning and receptive to constructive criticism.

• Admitting when one is wrong in a discussion.
• Actively seeking feedback on a project or idea to enhance it.

5. Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is the ability to think sequentially and make connections between concepts in a coherent manner. It involves drawing conclusions that logically follow from the available information. Logical reasoning ensures that decisions and conclusions are sound and based on valid premises. It helps avoid fallacies and cognitive biases.

• Using deductive reasoning to derive a specific conclusion from a general statement.
• Evaluating an argument for potential logical fallacies like “slippery slope” or “ad hominem.”

The Difference Between Critical Thinking and Memorisation

In today’s rapidly changing educational landscape, there is an ongoing debate about the importance of rote memorisation versus the significance of cultivating critical thinking skills. Both have their place in learning, but they serve very different purposes.

Nature Of Learning

• Rote Learning: Involves memorising information exactly as it is, without necessarily understanding its context or underlying meaning. It’s akin to storing data as-is, without processing.
• Analytical Processing (Critical Thinking): Involves understanding, questioning, and connecting new information with existing knowledge. It’s less about storage and more about comprehension and application.

Depth of Engagement

• Rote Learning: Often remains at the surface level. Students might remember facts for a test, but might forget them shortly after.
• Analytical Processing: Engages deeper cognitive skills. When students think critically, they’re more likely to retain information because they’ve processed it deeper.

Application in New Situations

• Rote Learning: Information memorised through rote often does not easily apply to new or unfamiliar situations, since it is detached from understanding.
• Analytical Processing: Promotes adaptability. Critical thinkers can transfer knowledge and skills to different contexts because they understand underlying concepts and principles.

Why Critical Thinking Produces Long-Term Academic Benefits

Here are the benefits of critical thinking in academics. 

Enhanced Retention

Critical thinking often involves active learning—discussions, problem-solving, and debates—which promotes better retention than passive memorisation.

Skill Development

Beyond content knowledge, critical thinking develops skills like analysis, synthesis, source evaluation , and problem-solving. These are invaluable in higher education and professional settings.

Adaptability

In an ever-evolving world, the ability to adapt is crucial. Critical thinkers are better equipped to learn and adapt because they don’t just know facts; they understand concepts.

Lifelong Learning

Critical thinkers are naturally curious. They seek to understand, question, and explore, turning them into lifelong learners who continually seek knowledge and personal growth.

Improved Decision-Making

Analytical processing allows students to evaluate various perspectives, weigh evidence, and make well-informed decisions, a skill far beyond academics.

Preparation for Real-World Challenges

The real world does not come with a textbook. Critical thinkers can navigate unexpected challenges, connect disparate pieces of information, and innovate solutions.

Steps in the Critical Thinking Process

Critical thinking is more than just a skill—it is a structured process. By following a systematic approach, critical thinkers can navigate complex issues and ensure their conclusions are well-informed and reasoned. Here’s a breakdown of the steps involved:

Step 1. Identification and Clarification of the Problem or Question

Recognizing that a problem or question exists and understanding its nature. It’s about defining the issue clearly, without ambiguity. A well-defined problem serves as the foundation for the subsequent steps. The entire process may become misguided without a clear understanding of what’s being addressed.

Example: Instead of a vague problem like “improving the environment,” a more specific question could be “How can urban areas reduce air pollution?”

Step 2. Gathering Information and Evidence

Actively seeking relevant data, facts, and evidence. This might involve research, observations, experiments, or discussions. Reliable decisions are based on solid evidence. The quality and relevance of the information gathered can heavily influence the final conclusion.

Example: To address urban air pollution, one might gather data on current pollution levels, sources of pollutants, existing policies, and strategies employed by other cities.

Step 3. Analysing the Information

Breaking down the gathered information, scrutinising its validity, and identifying patterns, contradictions, and relationships. This step ensures that the information is not just accepted at face value. Critical thinkers can differentiate between relevant and irrelevant information and detect biases or inaccuracies by analysing data.

Example: When examining data on pollution, one might notice that certain industries are major contributors or that pollution levels rise significantly at specific times of the year.

Step 4. Drawing Conclusions and Making Decisions

After thorough analysis, formulating an informed perspective, solution, or decision-based on the evidence. This is the culmination of the previous steps. Here, the critical thinker synthesises the information and applies logic to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Example: Based on the analysis, one might conclude that regulating specific industries and promoting public transportation during peak pollution periods can help reduce urban air pollution.

Step 5. Reflecting on the Process And The Conclusions Reached

Take a step back to assess the entire process, considering any potential biases, errors, or alternative perspectives. It is also about evaluating the feasibility and implications of the conclusions. Reflection ensures continuous learning and improvement. Individuals can refine their approach to future problems by evaluating their thinking process.

Example: Reflecting on the proposed solution to reduce pollution, one might consider its economic implications, potential industry resistance, and the need for public awareness campaigns.

The research done by our experts have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• Authentic Sources

The Role of Critical Thinking in Different Academic Subjects

Critical thinking is a universal skill applicable across disciplines. Its methodologies might differ based on the subject, but its core principles remain consistent. Let us explore how critical thinking manifests in various academic domains:

1. Sciences

• Hypothesis Testing: Science often begins with a hypothesis—a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Critical thinking is essential in formulating a testable hypothesis and determining its validity based on experimental results.
• Experimental Design: Designing experiments requires careful planning to ensure valid and reliable results. Critical thinking aids in identifying variables, ensuring controls, and determining the best methodologies to obtain accurate data.
• Example: In a biology experiment to test the effect of light on plant growth, critical thinking helps ensure variables like water and soil quality are consistent, allowing for a fair assessment of the light’s impact.

2. Humanities

• Analysing Texts: Humanities often involve studying texts—literature, historical documents, or philosophical treatises. Critical thinking lets students decode themes, discern authorial intent, and recognise underlying assumptions or biases.
• Understanding Contexts: Recognizing a text or artwork’s cultural, historical, or social contexts is pivotal. Critical thinking allows for a deeper appreciation of these contexts, providing a holistic understanding of the subject.
• Example: When studying Shakespeare’s “Othello,” critical thinking aids in understanding the play’s exploration of jealousy, race, and betrayal, while also appreciating its historical context in Elizabethan England.

3. Social Sciences

• Evaluating Arguments: Social sciences, such as sociology or political science, often present various theories or arguments about societal structures and behaviours. Critical thinking aids in assessing the merits of these arguments and recognising their implications.
• Understanding Biases: Since social sciences study human societies, they’re susceptible to biases. Critical thinking helps identify potential biases in research or theories, ensuring a more objective understanding.
• Example: In studying economic policies, critical thinking helps weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different economic models, considering both empirical data and theoretical arguments.

4. Mathematics

• Problem-Solving: Mathematics is more than just numbers; it is about solving problems. Critical thinking enables students to identify the best strategies to tackle problems, ensuring efficient and accurate solutions.
• Logical Deduction: Mathematical proofs and theorems rely on logical steps. Critical thinking ensures that each step is valid and the conclusions sound.
• Example: In geometry, when proving that two triangles are congruent, critical thinking helps ensure that each criterion (like side lengths or angles) is met and the logic of the proof is coherent.

Examples of Critical Thinking in Academics

Some of the critical thinking examples in academics are discussed below. 

Case Study 1: Evaluating A Scientific Research Paper

Scenario: A research paper claims that a new herbal supplement significantly improves memory in elderly individuals.

Critical Thinking Application:

Scrutinising Methodology:

• Was the study double-blind and placebo-controlled?
• How large was the sample size?
• Were the groups randomised?
• Were there any potential confounding variables?

Assessing Conclusions:

• Do the results conclusively support the claim, or are there other potential explanations?
• Are the statistical analyses robust, and do they show a significant difference?
• Is the effect size clinically relevant or just statistically significant?

Considering Broader Context:

• How does this study compare with existing literature on the subject?
• Were there any conflicts of interest, such as funding from the supplement company?

Critical analysis determined that while the study showed statistical significance, the effect size was minimal. Additionally, the sample size was small, and there was potential bias as the supplement manufacturer funded the study.

Case Study 2: Analysing a Literary Text

Scenario: A reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.”

Understanding Symbolism:

• What does the green light represent for Gatsby and in the broader context of the American Dream?
• How does the Valley of Ashes symbolise societal decay?

Recognising Authorial Intent:

• Why might Fitzgerald depict the characters’ lavish lifestyles amid underlying dissatisfaction?
• What critiques of American society is Fitzgerald potentially making?

Contextual Analysis:

• How does the era in which the novel was written (Roaring Twenties) influence its themes and characters?

Through critical analysis, the reader recognises that while “The Great Gatsby” is a tale of love and ambition, it’s also a poignant critique of the hollowness of the American Dream and the societal excesses of the 1920s.

Case Study 3: Decoding Historical Events

Scenario: The events leading up to the American Revolution.

Considering Multiple Perspectives:

• How did the British government view the colonies and their demands?
• What were the diverse perspectives within the American colonies, considering loyalists and patriots?

Assessing Validity of Sources:

• Which accounts are primary sources, and which are secondary?
• Are there potential biases in these accounts, based on their origins?

Analysing Causation and Correlation:

• Were taxes and representation the sole reasons for the revolution, or were there deeper economic and philosophical reasons?

Through critical analysis, the student understands that while taxation without representation was a significant catalyst, the American Revolution was also influenced by Enlightenment ideas, economic interests, and long-standing grievances against colonial policies.

Challenges to Developing Critical Thinking Skills

In our complex and rapidly changing world, the importance of critical thinking cannot be overstated. However, various challenges can impede the cultivation of these vital skills. 

1. Common Misconceptions and Cognitive Biases

Human brains often take shortcuts in processing information, leading to cognitive biases. Additionally, certain misconceptions about what constitutes critical thinking can hinder its development.

• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
• Anchoring Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
• Misconception: Believing that critical thinking merely means being critical or negative about ideas, rather than evaluating them objectively.

These biases can skew perception and decision-making, making it challenging to objectively approach issues.

2. The Influence of Technology and Social Media

While providing unprecedented access to information, the digital age also presents unique challenges. The barrage of information, the immediacy of social media reactions, and algorithms that cater to user preferences can hinder critical thought.

• Information Overload: The sheer volume of online data can make it difficult to discern credible sources from unreliable ones.
• Clickbait and Misinformation: Articles with sensational titles designed to generate clicks might lack depth or accuracy.
• Algorithmic Bias: Platforms showing users content based on past preferences can limit exposure to diverse viewpoints.

Relying too heavily on technology and social media can lead to superficial understanding, reduced attention spans, and a narrow worldview.

3. The Danger of Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias

An echo chamber is a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system, cutting off differing viewpoints.

• Social Media Groups: Joining groups or following pages that only align with one’s beliefs can create a feedback loop, reinforcing existing opinions without challenge.
• Selective Media Consumption: Only watching news channels or reading websites that align with one’s political or social views.

Echo chambers reinforce confirmation bias, limit exposure to diverse perspectives, and can polarise opinions, making objective, critical evaluation of issues challenging.

Benefits of Promoting Critical Thinking in Education

When cultivated and promoted in educational settings, critical thinking can have transformative effects on students, equipping them with vital skills to navigate their academic journey and beyond. Here’s an exploration of the manifold benefits of emphasising critical thinking in education:

Improved Problem-Solving Skills

Critical thinking enables students to approach problems methodically, breaking them down into manageable parts, analysing each aspect, and synthesising solutions.

• Academic: Enhances students’ ability to tackle complex assignments, research projects, and unfamiliar topics.
• Beyond School: Prepares students for real-world challenges where they might encounter problems without predefined solutions.

Enhanced Creativity and Innovation

Critical thinking is not just analytical but also involves lateral thinking, helping students see connections between disparate ideas and encouraging imaginative solutions.

• Academic: Promotes richer discussions, more creative projects, and the ability to view topics from multiple angles.
• Beyond School: Equips students for careers and situations where innovative solutions can lead to advancements in fields like technology, arts, or social entrepreneurship.

Better Decision-Making Abilities

Critical thinkers evaluate information thoroughly, weigh potential outcomes, and make decisions based on evidence and reason rather than impulse or peer pressure.

• Academic: Helps students make informed choices about their studies, research directions, or group projects.
• Beyond School: Prepares students to make sound decisions in personal and professional spheres, from financial choices to ethical dilemmas.

Greater Resilience in the Face of Complex Challenges

Critical thinking nurtures a growth mindset. When students think critically, they are more likely to view challenges as opportunities for learning rather than insurmountable obstacles.

• Academic: Increases perseverance in difficult subjects, promoting a deeper understanding rather than superficial learning. Students become more resilient in handling academic pressures and setbacks.
• Beyond School: Cultivates individuals who can navigate the complexities of modern life, from career challenges to societal changes, with resilience and adaptability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue to form a judgment. It involves gathering relevant information, discerning potential biases, logically connecting ideas, and questioning assumptions. Essential for informed decision-making, it promotes scepticism and requires the ability to think independently and rationally.

What makes critical thinking?

Critical thinking arises from questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, discerning fact from opinion, recognising biases, and logically connecting ideas. It demands curiosity, scepticism, and an open mind. By continuously challenging one’s beliefs and considering alternative viewpoints, one cultivates the ability to think clearly, rationally, and independently.

What is the purpose of critical thinking?

The purpose of critical thinking is to enable informed decisions by analysing and evaluating information objectively. It fosters understanding, problem-solving, and clarity, reducing the influence of biases and misconceptions. Through critical thinking, individuals discern truth, make reasoned judgments, and engage more effectively in discussions and debates.

How to improve critical thinking?

• Cultivate curiosity by asking questions.
• Practice active listening.
• Read widely and diversely.
• Engage in discussions and debates.
• Reflect on your thought processes.
• Identify biases and challenge assumptions.
• Solve problems systematically.

What are some critical thinking skills?

• Analysis: breaking concepts into parts.
• Evaluation: judging information’s validity.
• Inference: drawing logical conclusions.
• Explanation: articulating reasons.
• Interpretation: understanding meaning.
• Problem-solving: devising effective solutions.
• Decision-making: choosing the best options.

What is information literacy?

Information literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, and use information effectively. It encompasses understanding where to locate information, determining its credibility, distinguishing between facts and opinions, and using it responsibly. Essential in the digital age, it equips individuals to navigate the vast sea of data and make informed decisions.

What makes a credible source?

• Authorship by experts or professionals.
• Reliable publisher or institution backing.
• Transparent sourcing and references.
• Absence of bias or clear disclosure of it.
• Recent publications or timely updates.
• Peer review or editorial oversight.
• Clear, logical arguments.
• Reputability in its field or domain.

How do I analyse information critically?

• Determine the source’s credibility.
• Identify the main arguments or points.
• Examine the evidence provided.
• Spot inconsistencies or fallacies.
• Detect biases or unspoken assumptions.
• Cross-check facts with other sources.
• Evaluate the relevance to your context.
• Reflect on your own biases or beliefs.

You May Also Like

In our vast world of information, conveying ideas in our own words is crucial. This brings us to the practice of “paraphrasing.” 

The vast sea of information is merely a click away in today’s fast-paced, digitally dominated world. With the proliferation of blogs, forums, news outlets, and social media platforms, anyone can become an ‘expert’ and share ‘facts’.

In academia, research, journalism, and writing, the skill of quoting sources is fundamental. Accurate and proper quoting adds credibility to your work and demonstrates respect for the original authors and their ideas.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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, notes from ferguson.

• Schools & departments

Critical thinking

Advice and resources to help you develop your critical voice.

Developing critical thinking skills is essential to your success at University and beyond.  We all need to be critical thinkers to help us navigate our way through an information-rich world. 

Whatever your discipline, you will engage with a wide variety of sources of information and evidence.  You will develop the skills to make judgements about this evidence to form your own views and to present your views clearly.

One of the most common types of feedback received by students is that their work is ‘too descriptive’.  This usually means that they have just stated what others have said and have not reflected critically on the material.  They have not evaluated the evidence and constructed an argument.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the art of making clear, reasoned judgements based on interpreting, understanding, applying and synthesising evidence gathered from observation, reading and experimentation. Burns, T., & Sinfield, S. (2016)  Essential Study Skills: The Complete Guide to Success at University (4th ed.) London: SAGE, p94.

Being critical does not just mean finding fault.  It means assessing evidence from a variety of sources and making reasoned conclusions.  As a result of your analysis you may decide that a particular piece of evidence is not robust, or that you disagree with the conclusion, but you should be able to state why you have come to this view and incorporate this into a bigger picture of the literature.

Being critical goes beyond describing what you have heard in lectures or what you have read.  It involves synthesising, analysing and evaluating what you have learned to develop your own argument or position.

Critical thinking is important in all subjects and disciplines – in science and engineering, as well as the arts and humanities.  The types of evidence used to develop arguments may be very different but the processes and techniques are similar.  Critical thinking is required for both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study.

What, where, when, who, why, how?

Purposeful reading can help with critical thinking because it encourages you to read actively rather than passively.  When you read, ask yourself questions about what you are reading and make notes to record your views.  Ask questions like:

• What is the main point of this paper/ article/ paragraph/ report/ blog?
• Who wrote it?
• Why was it written?
• When was it written?
• Has the context changed since it was written?
• Is the evidence presented robust?
• How did the authors come to their conclusions?
• Do you agree with the conclusions?
• What does this add to our knowledge?
• Why is it useful?

Our web page covering Reading at university includes a handout to help you develop your own critical reading form and a suggested reading notes record sheet.  These resources will help you record your thoughts after you read, which will help you to construct your argument. 

Reading at university

Developing an argument

Being a university student is about learning how to think, not what to think.  Critical thinking shapes your own values and attitudes through a process of deliberating, debating and persuasion.   Through developing your critical thinking you can move on from simply disagreeing to constructively assessing alternatives by building on doubts.

There are several key stages involved in developing your ideas and constructing an argument.  You might like to use a form to help you think about the features of critical thinking and to break down the stages of developing your argument.

Features of critical thinking (pdf)

Features of critical thinking (Word rtf)

Our webpage on Academic writing includes a useful handout ‘Building an argument as you go’.

Academic writing

You should also consider the language you will use to introduce a range of viewpoints and to evaluate the various sources of evidence.  This will help your reader to follow your argument.  To get you started, the University of Manchester's Academic Phrasebank has a useful section on Being Critical. 

Academic Phrasebank

Developing your critical thinking

Set yourself some tasks to help develop your critical thinking skills.  Discuss material presented in lectures or from resource lists with your peers.  Set up a critical reading group or use an online discussion forum.  Think about a point you would like to make during discussions in tutorials and be prepared to back up your argument with evidence.

For more suggestions:

Developing your critical thinking - ideas (pdf)

Developing your critical thinking - ideas (Word rtf)

Published guides

For further advice and more detailed resources please see the Critical Thinking section of our list of published Study skills guides.

Study skills guides  

This article was published on 2024-02-26

• Open access
• Published: 11 June 2024

Using unfolding case studies to develop critical thinking for Graduate Entry Nursing students: an educational design research study

• Rachel Macdiarmid   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4791-7417 1 ,
• Eamon Merrick   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-6360 2 , 3 &
• Rhona Winnington   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6504-2856 1  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  399 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

202 Accesses

Metrics details

Graduate Entry Nursing (GEN) programmes have been introduced as another entry point to nurse registration. In the development of a new GEN programme, a problem-based approach to learning was used to develop critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills of motivated and academically capable students.

To explore and evaluate the design and delivery of course material delivered to GEN students embedded in authentic learning pedagogy from the perspectives of both GEN students and academic staff using an unfolding case study approach.

An educational design research approach was used to explore the learning experiences of GEN students using an unfolding case study approach situated in experiential pedagogy and the teaching experiences of the academics who designed it. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with students once they had finished the course and weekly reflective diary recordings by academic staff throughout implementation. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Student reflections highlighted that this cohort had insight into how they learned and were comfortable voicing their needs to academic staff. While the unfolding case studies were not liked by all participants, for some it offered a unique learning opportunity; particularly when scaffolded with podcasts, simulation labs, tutorials and clinical placements. Staff reflections primarily aligned with student experiences.

The gaps highlighted in the delivery of the course suggest that a blended pedagogical approach to graduate entry nurse education is required. Specifically, GEN students are aware of the learning needs and are happy to express these to academic staff, thus suggesting that engaging with a co-design curriculum approach will benefit future cohorts.

Peer Review reports

Graduate entry nursing students begin their degrees as experienced learners and must develop critical thinking skills within the shortened degree time frame.

What is already known

Graduate entry students are experienced and academically capable learners who begin with a diverse range of life and career experiences.

What this paper adds

Graduate entry students would benefit by being involved in curriculum design to acknowledge the unique skill set that they bring.

Introduction

Graduate Entry Nursing (GEN) degrees, or second degrees leading to eligibility for nursing registration, have recently been introduced to New Zealand. GEN students are known to be academically capable, motivated, and driven, bringing with them a range of life experiences, and have often had significant careers before enrolment [ 1 , 2 ]. Previous research has identified that teaching and learning methods must be carefully planned and innovative [ 1 ].

Pre-registration nursing education programmes prepare nursing students to provide safe nursing care with crucial skills expected of nursing graduates, including critical thinking and clinical reasoning. Clinical reasoning enables students to approach clinical issues with a problem-solving lens that relies on gathering assessment data and intervening and evaluating the patient’s response to the intervention [ 3 ].

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) aligns with the fundamental elements of authentic learning approaches [ 4 ], where learning is situated in real-world contexts [ 5 ]. Problem-based learning is considered to be an experiential teaching and learning approach that helps students develop a critical lens and clinical reasoning skills [ 6 , 7 ]. The use of PBL in nursing education is well established with previous research focused on students’ experiences and satisfaction [ 8 ]; factors that facilitate or hinder students' learning [ 9 ]; and the development of critical thinking skills [ 10 ].

Graduate entry nursing students report enjoyment of the active learning sets that enabled discussion surrounding case studies, scenarios, and practice issues [ 11 ]. Cangelosi’s [ 12 ] phenomenological study found that although time-poor, GEN students welcomed learning opportunities that were not traditional and facilitated their development and growth.

However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of PBL in nursing. For example, McCormick et al. [ 13 ] compared undergraduate student performance using differing teaching approaches, such as unfolding simulation scenarios versus recorded lectures and found these to be of benefit to students. Carter and Welch [ 14 ] compared the results of associate degree nursing students who attended lectures to those whose learning was informed by an unfolding case study. In contrast to McCormick’s et al.’s [ 13 ] earlier positive results, these authors found both groups of students performed worse in the post-test.

As previous research has identified that new graduate nurses do not always have critical thinking skills, using an unfolding case study approach can reflect the reality of clinical practice where not all the relevant information is known at the first encounter with the patient [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

Nonetheless, while several studies have investigated the use of unfolding case studies in undergraduate preregistration programmes there is little evidence that supports the use of these with more academically capable GEN students. This article reports on a qualitative interpretivist study that used an educational design methodology to explore the experiences of GEN students who participated in the programme of learning and the experiences of the academics who designed it.

Educational Design Research (EDR) is an iterative, pragmatic, and reflective methodology well suited to small projects [ 17 ]. It has arisen from design-based research and can include both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. EDR was selected as it fitted with our desire to develop new ways of teaching alongside gaining feedback from both academic staff and students. In the first phase of this research, we redesigned the teaching and learning strategies for a component of the GEN programme [ 18 ].

EDR has four phases (Table  1 ) [ 17 ]:

Aims and objectives

The study aimed to explore and evaluate the design and delivery of course material delivered to GEN students embedded in authentic learning pedagogy from the perspectives of both GEN students and academic staff using an unfolding case study approach.

Theoretical framework

To enable the development of clinical reasoning skills a scaffolded learning approach was implemented that involved unfolding case studies designed to represent the health needs of the New Zealand population, thus, encouraging critical thinking. Unfolding case studies reflective of situations that students might face in the future were used to encourage students to consider and analyse information, provoke further questioning and identify the information required to narrow their inquiries [ 14 , 15 ]. Supported by this evidence the academic staff built a learning environment where a regular teaching schedule (two days of lectures and one day of clinical labs per week), was complemented with online resources. Initial questions about the case study were provided on the learning management system. Students attended simulations where they responded to the case and answered questions critical to unpacking the ‘patients’ reality. Alongside the unfolding case studies were podcasts where experts were interviewed on topics related to the case. Tutorials enabled students to collaboratively construct answers and share their perspectives; at the end of each week students shared their answers in an online discussion forum.

Methods and setting

This study was conducted at an education facility in New Zealand offering undergraduate and GEN programmes. The participants are academics involved in the design and delivery of the course and one cohort of students of the GEN programme. This article reports on Phase 2 and 3 of the EDR approach, the academic staff’s reflective diary during course delivery, and students' feedback after the course was completed the first time. The methods were reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) [ 19 ].

Participants

Purposeful sampling was used as the researchers were keen to explore the experiences of a specific GEN cohort [ 20 ]. Academic staff involved in the weekly reflective diaries are also the research team ( n  = 3). All students in the identified cohort ( n  = 7) were invited to participate, totalling ten possible participants. Student participants were approached via an advertisement on the university’s learning management system. Students were asked to contact the research assistant, who was separate from the academic staff and was not involved in the delivery of the GEN programme; five students agreed to participate. A $20 petrol voucher was offered to those who participated.

Data collection and analysis

In keeping with education design methodology, the authors met weekly to reflect on their experiences of delivering the content and guiding students. The weekly reflective conversations, between 60–90 min in length, followed a simple format of ‘what worked, what didn’t work, and what would we (as academic staff) change?’ Face to face student interviews were conducted by the research assistant at a time and place convenient to the students using semi-structured questions that were developed by the research team (see Additional file 1 ).

The semi-structured interviews ( n  = 5) and reflective meetings ( n  = 9) were recorded and transcribed verbatim by a research assistant who had signed a confidentiality agreement. All identifying information was deleted from the transcripts by the research assistant before the research team reviewed the data; each recording and transcript was allocated a unique identifier, for example ‘participant one’.

Thematic analysis [ 21 , 22 ] was used to analyse the data. First, the research team independently read the transcribed interviews to familiarise themselves with the data and identified initial codes. Second, the researchers met and reviewed all transcripts to identify themes and reached consensus on the themes emerging from the data. Themes were established once more than 50% of the participants stated the same issue/thought/perception. A matrix was developed whereby common themes were identified, with quotes demonstrating the themes collated to establish an audit trail.

Reflexivity

Central to this study given the proximity of staff to this student cohort, a reflexive stance was essential. Reflexivity is an engendered practice and was used in this instance not to influence the direction and outcome of the research but to allow the researchers to engage in the data to produce viable and valuable outcomes for future staff and students. Specifically, this reflexive practice provided a means for the research to be rigorous through the consideration of the vulnerability of the participating student cohort, thus inciting reflection-before-action [ 23 ].

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (AUTEC) (19/233). Given the potential power differential in the student/staff relationship present, participants were approached via an online advertisement and followed up by an independent research assistant. This is key to the success of the project, as such research undertakings have the potential for conflict of interest to exist [ 24 ]. The academic staff recordings were also undertaken with the knowledge that these would remain confidential to the participants and transcriber only, with a memorandum of understanding completed to this effect. Participant information sheets were given to students interested in joining the study to ensure they knew what it entailed and how their safety and identity would be managed. Written consent was obtained before the interviews were undertaken, with oral consent obtained at the beginning of each interview.

Three dominant themes emerged, which focused on the experiences of both GEN students and teaching staff. These were:

Reflective learning: Students and staff ability to clarify what worked and what did not work

Evaluation of learning: Students and staff being insightful about their ways of learning and needs

Challenges: Planning and delivering appropriate content for GEN students is challenging for teaching staff.

Within these overarching themes, subthemes were developed and will be presented in the following data results (Table 2 ).

Reflective learning

The exploration of student and staff experiences and responses to the unfolding case studies unearths what worked and what was problematic for both parties.

Unfolding case study as problem-based approach

The student experiences of using an unfolding case study approach were divided. Some students enjoyed the case scenarios but did not necessarily find them beneficial in terms of knowledge advancement as.

“ I personally, like the case studies but personally I didn’t really find that they enhanced my learning in like the clinical setting ” (P1)

or that they were relevant to clinical practice in that.

“… some of it was definitely relatable but I just found it was very different in the clinical setting compared with doing this theoretical case setting ” (P1).

A second student supported this idea that the case studies did not add practical clinical knowledge value as.

“ I mean for me the case studies weren’t challenging…I didn’t think the case studies added anything extra into my practice, they didn’t challenge my clinical reasoning or anything like that ” (P2).

Of note was that those students with previous professional healthcare backgrounds found the use of an unfolding case study approach problematic in that.

“ I found that quite a challenge. I think because with my clinical background I was sort of going straight into, yeah like I wanted more information so you know I probably would have preferred…to have a different case study every week or have all the information…and I’d be like well what about this, what about that? ” (P5).

Participant One, however, noted that while the case studies may not have added knowledge value, they were helpful at times as.

“ …one example is we learnt about arterial blood gases and then I was on placement I came across that literally [on] day one, so was really nice to be able to put something that I’d learnt in class into practice ” (P1).

While some students were less keen on the case study approach and found them hard work, others thought they provided opportunities to encourage discussion, clinical reasoning, and autonomous thinking as.

“ there was no right or wrong answer, you just had to prove your point to say I think it is this because of this, and someone else can say something else and just kind of still prove it because it was a quite grey [area] but I actually found that it really got us thinking ” (P3).

Moreover, the same participant acknowledged that.

“…I think that’s the whole idea of the course [GEN Programme] because at this level they shouldn’t be spoon-feeding you…you should be able to think for yourself and reason things out ” (P3).

Although some discord was present with regard to the case study approach, one participant did acknowledge the value of being able to break down a huge scenario into manageable sections to enhance understanding and clinical decision-making, as.

“ when you break it down it makes it easier to kind of work out what you’re going to do and what steps you’re going to do ” (P4), and that “ because you start looking at the smaller things that you need to do rather than just the big bits ” (P4).

It appears, however, that staff involved in the programme of learning were pleased with the overall notion that problem-based learning approach offered a ‘practical’ means through which to discuss what is the hands-on job of nursing. Specifically,

“ the second session around child abuse and recognising child abuse…took me a bit by surprise as I wasn’t expecting that to go very well and it went extraordinarily well, mostly because it was case based again and story based ” (L1).

Moreover, with regard to encouraging discussion and clinical reasoning at a postgraduate level,

“ I think we’ve really pulled out the difference [of] what we’re expecting of them [GEN students] as opposed to what they may have been used to” (L1).

Use of podcasts

While the use of technology is not necessarily a completely new strategy in tertiary education, here we have linked podcasts recorded with experts in their fields which related to the unfolding case studies, Again, however, there was division in the value of podcast recordings, with some students really enjoying them, saying.

“ I liked the podcasts yeah, I found the podcasts really good especially when there was [sic] different people talking about it, yeah...podcasts are good, like to just chuck on in the car or at the gym ” (P2).

Moreover, some found them easy to listen to because.

“… it’s a different way to learn because like you’ve got YouTube videos and you’ve got books and stuff but podcasts are kind of like easy ” (P2).

Some students found the podcasts particularly engaging saying.

…I just remember listening to it and I think I was in the car and I had stopped because I was on my way home…and I was still listening to it in the garage like when I was home and I was like oh this is a really interesting podcast ” (P2).

Participant three also thought podcasts a positive addition to the resources saying.

“ yeah they were helpful…there was one I listened to…they were talking about dying…I know that [one of the lecturers’] kind of research is kind of talking about death, euthanasia and all this kind of thing, and for some reasons, I don’t know why, maybe that’s why I still remember, I can say it’s the only podcast I really listened to and it was really good because it gave me a good insight as to what is happening… ” (P3)

This positive response was also noted in face-to-face class time as one staff member reported that.

“ they [the students] loved the person who was interviewed, and the feedback was it was really nice to hear a conversation about different perspectives ” (L1).

Yet, not all students were of this opinion, with some advising the podcasts were too long (approximately 60 min each), that they can be distracting, that they preferred videos and images or an in-person discussion, saying.

“ I find podcasts…I tend to switch off a bit, a bit quicker than if I was watching something, I would probably prefer, rather than watching a podcast [sic] I’d rather have an in-class discussion with the person” (P4).

Participant one said that they too struggled with podcasts because.

“ I’m more visual so I like to look at things and see like a slide I guess or what they’re talking about or, so I sort of zone out when it’s just talking and nothing to look at, so that’s what I personally struggle with, they [podcasts] are helpful it’s just I’m more a visual learner ” (P1).

While there were some negative responses to the podcasts, another participant acknowledged their value but offered their own solutions to learning, saying that.

“ I listened to a few podcasts that were put up, because they’re just easy to listen to ” (P2).

but felt that overall there were insufficient resources made available to students and therefore.

“ just went to YouTube and just, any concepts that I was unfamiliar with or stuff in class that we went over and when I went home I was like [I have] no idea what they talked about, I just found my own videos on YouTube… ” (P2).

Evaluation of learning

Learning experiences are unique to each GEN student, as are those experienced by the teaching staff. The data collected highlighted this clearly from both perspectives, offering a particularly strong insight into how this cohort of students’ function.

Approaches to learning

It was evident that these GEN students were aware of their approach to learning and that perhaps the structure of the teaching module did not align with their needs as.

“ I’m not really the best at utilising online things I’m a really hands on learner and things like a lecture…but you know if it’s yeah, more like class time, it’s sort of more my, my learning style [I] guess ” (P5).

A number of students were able to identify that they were visual learners as.

“ I use videos more because I guess I’m more of a visual learner as well and I learn better by seeing things instead of reading a huge article, I think that [videos] it helps me a bit more” (P4).

Another student, however, preferred a discussion based approach as opposed to either videos or podcasts saying that.

“ if it’s interesting, if it’s a topic that you can like relate to [through a podcast] or something it’s fine, but for me I just switch off not really taking a lot of the information [in] whereas in a discussion setting you can ask questions and you can interact with the person, yeah I find that would be a bit more helpful ” (P4).

This approach to learning through discussion was also noted when the teaching staff reflected on their experiences in that in one teaching session the GEN students.

“ were engaged, they were round a table with the second speaker talking and what I think enabled the discussion was that she [the speaker] was using her data as stories and so she was reading them, actually she got them [the students] to read them out” (L3).

The notion of learning styles, however, was not as linear as being visual or auditory or practical, as one student noted that a combination of styles was preferable to enhance learning, saying that.

“ if we weren’t able to have lectures like a recorded lecture so that there was a PowerPoint and just someone actually talking you through it, like I know there’s the YouTube videos…some of them were a little bit helpful, but like I just felt that sometimes we missed the teaching aspect of it. There’s a lot of self-directed stuff but definitely like a recorded lecture every week to go along with the readings and extra videos to watch ” (P5).

Students as insightful and engaged

While GEN students are known for their tenacity and ability to cope with the pressure and fast paced delivery, some students discovered that this did not necessarily equate with their preferred approach to learning. This cohort of GEN students were insightful in terms of their strengths and weaknesses in relation to knowledge acquisition. The use of the unfolding case studies, however, caused some frustrations as.

“ for me it was challenging in the fact that I felt I actually got frustrated because I’m thinking well I want to know this, I want to know that and yeah not getting all the information that I wanted at the time ” (P5).

This participant went further, saying that.

“ I definitely found that difficult [lack of information] I felt like [I] wasn’t getting as much information as I wanted to be able to make my clinical decisions ” (P5),

however this may have been due to the student’s background as their.

“my background is in paramedicine ” where “ we get a lot of information in a very short amount of time ” (P5).

Some fundamental issues were raised by the participants in terms of how much study is required for them to acquire the new knowledge. As one student highlighted,

“ I have a really terrible memory, so I kind of need to listen to things a few times or write it down and then watch a video and do some more reading and then like it’s good having another element to get into your brain you know ” (P2).

For one student, a solution to this was to ensure they did their preparation before attending class as.

“ you’re supposed to have read these things before coming to class, some people don’t but my kind of person, I’d read before coming to class and I tended to answer those questions so the critical, analytical part of me would be trying to find out and come up with a reasonable answer…” (P3).

For another participant, they took an alternative pathway to learning as they.

“ I just watch it and I don’t take [it in], it just sits in the back of my head because sometimes it’s building on top of previous knowledge so just, I just watch it to see if I can gain anything from that, I don’t necessarily take down notes or anything, but I just watch it so that it’s there you know ” (P4).

The pace of content delivery appeared problematic for some students, especially in relation to the practical sessions, with one student highlighting that.

“ personally I didn’t’ really like it and most of the time they were rushing, I was always like can I write this down to go back home to like really make sense of it and then sometimes obviously, sometimes I would have to say can I stay back and practice this thing again [as] I didn’t grab it as quickly as others did and the essence of the labs is that it’s grab all of these things ” (P3).

Challenges: Teaching staff experiences of GEN student learning

While on the whole the teaching staff were able to gauge the learning needs of this GEN cohort, the expectations of both parties did not always align, with one staff member reporting that.

“ the two biggest challenges was [sic] getting them [the students] to unpack already learned behaviour and [to] acknowledge their own limitations or bias ” (L1),

however by the end of the semester the same staff member reported that.

“ I think we made a lot of progress in getting them to acknowledge how they learn ” (L1).

Moreover, the challenges anticipated in teaching GEN students were not those that transpired in that.

“ I actually thought going into the first paper I was pretty excited as to how it was going to roll out, the problems I encountered were not the problems I anticipated ” (L3).

The vocality of this cohort was tangible, however, when content did not meet their needs, interest or expectations with the students saying,

“ that they didn’t do the materials because it wasn’t of interest to them and requested other teaching very much related to the assignment as opposed to anything else …” (L1).

It was expected that the GEN students would be participatory both in class and online irrespective of their ways of learning, but there was a difference in both responses and comfort with this form of engagement. One student that talked about the unfolding case study and the online component of assessment as being problematic said that.

“.. we had to put up about 250 words of something related to the case study every week and then we spoke to someone else, [I] didn’t really like the responses…I didn’t really like having to respond to someone else ” (P3).

Yet in contrast to this statement, the teaching staff were delighted that.

“…actually I got some fantastic questions from one of the students…emailed to me on Monday night about the case that was online for them, questions that I didn’t talk about in [the] lecture, I didn’t introduce the concept…they’re talking about concepts that are currently undergoing international clinical trials” (L1).

This study explored the experiences of both GEN students and academics using unfolding case studies situated in experiential learning pedagogy. The use of unfolding case studies supported with podcasts embraced our idea of developing content situated in real-life contexts. Learning was scaffolded using different teaching approaches such as podcasts, and experiential simulated learning, to offer learners multiple ways of engaging with content. Scaffolding is recognised as learning material being broken into smaller chunks of learning and in this way aligns with case-based learning [ 25 ]. In this way, we hoped that not only would students engage in problem-solving, and develop clinical decision-making skills [ 26 , 27 ], but that they would also achieve deep and lifelong learning and ultimately have an ‘aha’ moment when it all made sense.

Reflections on using an unfolding case study approach

Findings were divided, with some students enjoying the unfolding case studies and others describing them as not sufficiently challenging. The scaffolded learning approach that we developed incorporated a range of teaching approaches that enabled them to engage with the content in a way that fitted in with their lifestyle, even if the teaching method did not align with their individual learning preferences. Students reported differing views about the case studies; some enjoyed the unfolding nature while others wanted more context and direction to feel that they could make an informed clinical decision. Nonetheless, even though they did not like information being presented in smaller chunks one student recognised it meant they analysed the information they received more deeply.

Other learning tools such as podcasts were not always valued by participants and yet, the fact that students were able to provide feedback on their use does indicate that they at least attempted to engage with them.

Student reflections indicate that perhaps the use of unfolding case studies as a learning approach is not the solution to engagement, and that often more traditional teaching methods were preferred Indeed, Hobbs and Robinson’s [ 28 ] study of undergraduate nursing students in the US supported Carter and Welch’s [ 14 ] findings that the use of unfolding case studies were of no direct benefit, whilst Ellis et al.’s., [ 29 ] study confirmed that for final year nurse practitioner students unfolding case studies were beneficial in developing critical thinking and stimulating clinical reasoning. Considering these two conflicting findings, further consideration is needed of how to engage highly motivated GEN students.

As such, our results suggest it can be difficult to predict the needs of the GEN students given the diversity of their previous academic qualifications, career, and often significant life experience they bring to the programme [ 30 , 31 ]. Interestingly students in this study simultaneously demonstrated insight into their needs supporting their previous academic study experience and felt sufficiently secure to voice them, which supports evidence found in D’Antonio et al.’s [ 32 ] study. This suggests that GEN students’ capabilities need to be embraced and incorporated when planning curriculum and scaffolding learning. Anecdotally, we have found that students embrace experiential learning such as that offered in simulation labs whether this involves the use of simulated manikins or not, it seems the hands-on learning offers not only the opportunity to experience simulated reality but also fosters collaboration and problem solving with peers that enables them to dwell in learning of what it is to be a nurse.

Graduate entry students recognised as experienced learners

Our students were not overwhelmingly supportive of the pedagogical approach of unfolding case studies we adopted. As previously recognised GEN students are experienced learners and whilst having differing educational backgrounds bring individual experience and knowledge of their own approach to their learning. Nonetheless, the value of their previous learning experience appears problematic in that those learned behaviours and attitudes need to be refocused to engage with learning how to become a nurse, as demonstrated in the academic staff reflections. Despite this background experience and perceived confidence, some students reflected that online engagement that involved exploring the case studies in discussion forums with colleagues was uncomfortable. This was surprising to the academic staff and contrasted sharply with their reflections on the activity but has been previously noted by Boling et al., [ 33 ].

Implications

Given the disparity that exists between student and academic staff experiences, as demonstrated in our study, co-designing content delivery may offer a progressive solution. By engaging ‘students as partners’ it offers them a much deeper level of involvement in future teaching delivery through collaboration and reciprocation of ideas, thus culminating in appropriate curriculum design [ 34 ]. Collaborating with students in course design might facilitate students learning as they become cognisant of the active engagement of academic staff [ 9 , 10 , 35 ]. In the future, we aim to involve students in any curriculum review and course development to ensure their perspectives influence curriculum design and content delivery.

Even so, our initial intention of scaffolding learning by offering different ways for students to engage with content is supported by recent research by Dong et al. [ 36 ] who found that students performed better academically in a flipped classroom. This point, in association with our findings, suggests that the best approach to content delivery for graduate entry nursing students is to ensure students are involved in curriculum and course design alongside the delivery of learning experiences that are well facilitated and supported by faculty so that students are aware of the expectations, required of them, and importantly how they will be assessed.

Limitations

We acknowledge that the sample size in this study is small in terms of generalisability. However, our findings offer interesting, detailed and in-depth insights into the experiences and needs of both GEN students and the academic staff involved in the development and delivery of educational material. Further work needs to be undertaken to evaluate the experiences of GEN students from a range of educational providers. A longitudinal study has been undertaken to explore the motivations and experiences of GEN students in Australasia [ 37 ], which will also support these findings regarding the learning needs of GEN students.

This study has provided a platform through which academics and GEN students can share their insights of teaching and learning experiences. The results offer a clear insight into what these students expect and need to expedite their learning and how teaching staff must respond. While participants' views were somewhat mixed in relation to the use of unfolding case studies and scaffolded learning these results demonstrate how GEN students are aware of their personal ways of learning and how this translates in terms of education needs. The sharing of these experiences provides an insightful lens through which to re-evaluate pedagogical approaches for GEN students. As such, we suggest that to meet the needs of GEN student’s not only is a blended pedagogical approach appropriate but expanding education design boundaries further through a co-design focused approach to GEN programme design.

Availability for data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due privacy and ethical restrictions of the participants, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Downey KM, Asselin ME. Accelerated master’s programs in nursing for non-nurses: An integrative review of students’ and faculty’s perceptions. J Prof Nurs. 2015;31(3):215–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.10.002 .

Pellico LH, Terrill E, White P, Rico J. Integrative review of graduate entry programs. J Nursg Educ. 2012;51(1):29–37. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20111130-01 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, Jeong SYS, Noble D, Norton CA, et al. The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: An educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ patients. Nurse Educ Today. 2010;30(6):515–20.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Smith SB, Kennedy S. Authentic teaching to promote active learning: Redesign of an online RN to BSN evidence-based practice nursing course. J Prof Nurs. 2020;36(2):56–61. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.07.005 .

Herrington J, Reeves TC, Oliver R. Authentic Learning Environments. In: Spector J, Merrill M, Elen J, Bishop M, editors. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 401–12.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Herrington J, Reeves TC, Oliver R. A guide to authentic e-learning. London and New York: Routledge; 2009.

Book   Google Scholar  

Merisier S, Larue C, Boyer L. How does questioning influence nursing students’ clinical reasoning in problem-based learning? A scoping review.  Nurse Educ Today. 2018;65:108–15.

Spiers JA, Williams B, Gibson B, Kabotoff W, McIlwraith D, Sculley A, et al. Graduate nurses’ learning trajectories and experiences of problem-based learning: A focused ethnography study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(11):1462–71. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.03.002 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Svensson J, Axén A, Andersson EK, Hjelm M. Nursing students’ experiences of what influences achievement of learning outcomes in a problem-based learning context: A qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Open. 2021;8(4):1863–9.  Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.842 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Martyn J, Terwijn R, Kek MYCA, Huijser H. Exploring the relationships between teaching, approaches to learning and critical thinking in a problem-based learning foundation nursing course. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(5):829–35. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.023 .

Maddison C, Strang G. Do action learning sets facilitate collaborative, deliberative learning?: A focus group evaluation of Graduate Entry Pre-registration Nursing (GEN) students’ experience. Nurse Educ  Pract. 2018;28:285–91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.023 .

Cangelosi PR. Voices of graduates from second-degree baccalaureate nursing programmes. J Prof Nurs. 2007;23(2):91–7.

McCormick MJ, de Slavy JR, Fuller B. Embracing technology: Using an unfolding case simulation to enhance nursing students’ learning about Parkinson Disease. J Neurosci Nurs. 2013;45(1):14–20. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0b013e318275b220 .

Carter JT, Welch S. The effectiveness of unfolding case studies on ADN nursing students’ level of knowledge and critical thinking skills. Teach Learn Nurs. 2016;11:143–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2016.05.004 .

Carr KC. Using the unfolding case study in midwifery education. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60:283–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12293 .

Yousey YK. The use of unfolding case studies: Innovation in online undergraduate nursing education. J Nurs EducPract. 2013;3(4):21–9. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v3n4p21 .

McKenney S, Reeves T. Conducting Educational Design Research. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2018. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com .

Macdiarmid R, Winnington R, Cochrane T, Merrick E. Using educational design research to develop authentic learning for graduate entry students in New Zealand. Nurse Educ Prac. 2021; 51(01) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.102965

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Parahoo K. Nursing Research: principles, process and issues. 3rd ed. London: Palgrave MacMillan; 2014.

Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 843–60.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Edwards S. Reflecting differently. New dimensions: reflection-before-action and reflection-beyond-action. Int Prac Dev J. 2017;7(1):1–14. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.19043/ipdj.71.002 .

Ferguson LM, Yonge O, Myrick F. Students’ involvement in faculty research: Ethical and methodological issues. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3(4):56–8.

Coffman S, Iommi M, Morrow K. Scaffolding as active learning in nursing education. Teach Learn Nurs. 2023;18(1):232–7.

Bowman K. Use of online unfolding case studies to foster critical thinking. J Nurs Educ. 2017;56(11):701–2.

Gonslaz L, Nielsen A, Lasatar K. Developing students clinical reasoning skills: A faculty guide. J Nurse Educ. 2021;60(9):485–93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20210708-01 .

Hobbs J, Robinson C. Learning and Transfer Effects of an Unfolding Case Study in an Adult Health Nursing Course. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2022;43(1):47–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000801 .

Ellis M, Hampton D, Makowski A, Falls C, Tovar E, Scott L, et al. Using unfolding case scenarios to promote clinical reasoning for nurse practitioner students. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2023;35(1):55–62. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000806 .

Macdiarmid R, Turner R, Winnington R, McClunie-Trust P, Donaldson A, et al. What motivates people to commence a graduate entry nursing programme: a mixed method scoping review. BMC Nurs. 2021;20:47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00564-9 .

Winnington R, Shannon K, Turner R, Jarden R, McClunie-Trust P, Merrick E, Donaldson A, Macdiarmid R. Learning experiences of first year graduate entry nursing students in New Zealand and Australia: a qualitative case study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01233-9 .

D’Antonio P, Beal MW, Underwood PW, Ward FR, McKelvey M, Guthrie B, et al. Great expectations: points of congruencies and discrepancies between incoming accelerated second-degree nursing students and faculty. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49(12):713–7. Available from https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100831-08 .

Boling EC, Hough M, Krinsky H, Saleem H, Stevens M. Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspective on what promotes positive online learning experiences. Int Higher Educ. 2012;15(2):118–26. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006 .

Bovill C. Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. High Educ. 2020;79:1023–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w .

Paige JB, Smith RO. Nurse faculty experiences in problem-based learning: An interpretive phenomenologic analysis. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2013;34(4):233–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dong Y, Yin H, Du S, Wang A. The effects of flipped classroom characterized by situational and collaborative learning in a community nursing course: A quasi-experimental design. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;105. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105037

Macdiarmid R, McClunie-Trust P, Shannon K, Winnington R, Donaldson A, Jarden R, et al. What Motivates People to Start a Graduate Entry Nursing Programme: An Interpretive Multi-Centred Case Study. SAGE Open Nursing. 2021;7. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608211011310 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The corresponding author received funding from Faculty of Health and Environmental Science at AUT.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, 90 Akoranga Drive, Northcote, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand

Rachel Macdiarmid & Rhona Winnington

Nursing and Midwifery Directorate NSLHD, Royal North Shore Hospital, Level 7 Kolling Building, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia

Eamon Merrick

Nursing Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RM*: Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing original draft and review/editing. EM: Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing original draft and review/editing. RW: Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation formal analysis, writing original draft and review/editing. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Macdiarmid .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval and consent to participate was obtained from Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (19/233). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and policies as per the ethical approval obtained. The authors can confirm that informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to interviews occurring. Consent was both written and verbal.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Macdiarmid, R., Merrick, E. & Winnington, R. Using unfolding case studies to develop critical thinking for Graduate Entry Nursing students: an educational design research study. BMC Nurs 23 , 399 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02076-8

Download citation

Received : 06 December 2023

Accepted : 06 June 2024

Published : 11 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02076-8

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

• Graduate entry nursing
• Nursing education
• Problem-based learning
• Unfolding case-study
• Experiential pedagogy

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

More From Forbes

10 elements of critical thinking – and how to develop them.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

creative idea.Concept of idea and innovation

My 6/7/24 post here – “Your Three Most Important Career Skills” – focused on the importance – and paucity – of critical thinking, critical listening, and critical reading.

Predictably, it prompted much reader response, mostly asking for elaboration.

What Comprises Critical Thinking

1. open-mindedness.

Malcolm Forbes postulated, “The role of education is to replace an empty mind with an open one.” Critical thinking needs receptivity to new ideas and perspectives, and willingness to reconsider one’s beliefs or opinions – no matter how fundamental – when new evidence or arguments arise.

2. Curiosity

“I’m not necessarily smarter than anyone else,” explained Albert Einstein. “I’m infinitely more curious.” He had a natural inclination – from early childhood – to ask questions, seek information, and explore various viewpoints. His favorite question: “What if…?”

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, 3. mental stamina.

Critical thinking is difficult, rigorous, almost always takes time and patience, and can be exhausting. That’s OK, but you should never let a conclusion be the place where you got tired of thinking. Push on.

4. Analysis

Analysis breaks down complex information into smaller parts, to understand its components and how they relate. It’s our left brain at work: linear, logical, methodical, sequential, rational, and objective. It engages in deductive thinking. Computers also do this.

5. Interpretation and Inference

Interpretation makes meaning out of data, relying not just on the brain, but also on experience. It’s our transcendental right brain having fun: creative, intuitive, random, holistic, and playful. It engages in inductive thinking, which today’s computers can’t do, but which A.I. is trying. Through inference, we make sensible deductions based on available information; reach reasonable, workable conclusions; and assess the viability of those conclusions.

6. Evaluation

What’s it worth? To make better decisions, we must accurately assess the credibility, relevance, and significance of information, arguments, and/or evidence.

7. Articulation

“If you can’t explain something to a six-year-old,” declared Albert Einstein, “you probably don’t understand it yourself.” Critical intake and critical output are one and the same.

8. Problem-solving

Both sides of our brains solve problems, just differently. Critical thinking is about the ability to do both with equal aplomb.

9. Self-Accountability and Reflection

Bertrand Russell advised, "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you’ve long taken for granted." In this case – our own thinking processes, biases, and assumptions – “now and then” should mean “always and ever.”

10. Metacognition

Avid self-awareness of one's own thinking processes, cognitive strategies, and sphere of awareness can insure ongoing improvement of critical skills.

Developing Your Critical Thinking

1. think creatively.

“Curiosity is the key to creativity,” said Akio Morita, founder of Sony. Cultivate your creativity by exploring the unknown and the ambiguous. Welcome different perspectives, alternative solutions, and new thinking. Always be looking for the spark. Listen to the new guy.

2. Ask Questions

Nothing starts until there is a question – or better, multiple questions. Cultivate a curious mindset by asking probing questions. Question assumptions, biases, and implications. Nothing is off the table.

3. Seek Diverse Perspectives

Diversity is much more than demographics. “Diversity,” explained Malcolm Forbes, “is the art of thinking independently together.” Welcome a variety of viewpoints and opinions, especially those different from your own. Engage in active discussions with people who hold different beliefs. Constantly challenge what you know or believe.

4. Evaluate Information

Learn to critically – and objectively – evaluate the credibility, relevance, and reliability of sources of information. Today’s chaotic media circus, further manipulated by special interests, elevates this challenge.

5. Practice Analytical Thinking

As analytical thinking is more orderly than creative thinking, it can be practiced every day. Good idea.

6. Develop Logical Reasoning Skills

Practice deductive and inductive reasoning to draw logical conclusions from what you already have. But remember, logic and creativity are often at odds.

Things look different in the rear-view mirror, and a day (or more) later.

8. Learn Different Problem-Solving Techniques

Different problems can be solved different ways. Conversely, many problems can be solved many ways.

9. Learn Active Listening

Identify the barriers to active listening – presuppositions, for example – and eliminate them. Fast.

10. Read. Read. Read!

Reading is the most proactive and stimulating way of taking in the world, not by clicking on little blue links, but by real reading: wide, deep, and time-consuming reading, which has a positive effect on thinking. Great leaders are great readers. This we know.

None of this happens in a day, but starting it happens any day.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Translate this page from English...

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

Defining Critical Thinking

Fostering Tolerance and Inclusivity: The Transformative Impact of Ideological and Political Education on University Students

• Published: 19 June 2024

Cite this article

• Wei Zhao 1 &
• Xiaoguang Zhang 2  

Explore all metrics

Ideological and political education (IPE) encompasses a multifaceted domain within the educational landscape, aiming to instill a comprehensive understanding of fundamental beliefs, values, and political processes. This study explores the effects of IPE on university students, with a specific focus on its contribution to fostering a more tolerant and inclusive mindset. The study utilizes a quantitative methodology, collecting information from 221 participants via a standardized survey and processing it with SPSS software for analysis. The study contributes novelty by delving into the transformative potential of IPE, particularly in fostering tolerance and inclusivity among students. The study indicates that active engagement in IPE programs can foster greater awareness and understanding of key political ideologies. Moreover, exposure to such education correlates positively with increased civic engagement among students. The results also suggest that comprehensive IPE enhances critical thinking skills and analytical abilities. Additionally, this form of education contributes to the development of a more tolerant and inclusive mindset among students. Finally, the study hints at an impact on students’ beliefs and behaviors in society. This research not only illuminates the complex dynamics of IPE within university settings but also underscores the transformative potential it holds for shaping well-informed, engaged, and socially conscious individuals.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

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

Abdalla, M., & Abdalla, M. (2021, July). The Grey Hoodie Project: Big tobacco, big tech, and the threat on academic integrity. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 287–297).

Alsaleh, N. J. (2020). Teaching critical thinking skills: Literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 19 (1), 21–39.

Google Scholar  

Asif, T., Guangming, O., Haider, M. A., Colomer, J., Kayani, S., & Amin, N. U. (2020). Moral education for sustainable development: Comparison of university teachers’ perceptions in China and Pakistan. Sustainability, 12 (7), 3014.

Article   Google Scholar  

Awaah, F. (2020). Indigenous (cultural) knowledge related to the concept of politics as a difficult topic in public administration. Breaking barriers to learning: The culturo techno-contextual approach (CTCA) (pp. 182–192). Slough, UK and Delhi: Sterling Publishers.

Baber, H. (2020). Intentions to participate in political crowdfunding-from the perspective of civic voluntarism model and theory of planned behavior. Technology in Society, 63 , 101435.

Bar-Tal, D., Vered, S., & Fuxman, S. (2021). Between open-minded critical thinking and closed-minded allegiance: Educational tensions in societies involved in intractable conflict. Political Psychology, 42 , 3–28.

Bernardi, R. A., Bean, D. F., & Massey, D. W. (2004). The influence of political ideology on DIT scores: Fact or artifact?. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting , 9 .

Boluk, K. A., Cavaliere, C. T., & Duffy, L. N. (2021). A pedagogical framework for the development of the critical tourism citizen. Activating critical thinking to advance the sustainable development goals in tourism systems (pp. 19–35). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bowyer, B., & Kahne, J. (2020). The digital dimensions of civic education: Assessing the effects of learning opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 69 , 101162.

Budnyk, O., Rembierz, M., Arbeláez-Encarnación, T. F., Rojas-Bahamón, M. J., Arbeláez-Campillo, D. F., Chinchoy, A., & Matveieva, N. (2022). Formation of tolerance in the inclusive environment of an educational institution. Amazonia Investiga, 11 (56), 305–319.

Causton, J., & MacLeod, K. (2020). From behaving to belonging: The inclusive art of supporting students who challenge us . ASCD.

Clay, K. L., & Rubin, B. C. (2020). “I look deep into this stuff because it’sa part of me”: Toward a critically relevant civics education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 48 (2), 161–181.

Cress, C. M., Collier, P. J., & Reitenauer, V. L. (2023). Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning and civic engagement across academic disciplines and cultural communities . Taylor & Francis.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cruz, G., Payan-Carreira, R., Dominguez, C., Silva, H., & Morais, F. (2021). What critical thinking skills and dispositions do new graduates need for professional life? Views from Portuguese employers in different fields. Higher Education Research & Development, 40 (4), 721–737.

Devkota, K. R. (2021). Inequalities reinforced through online and distance education in the age of COVID-19: The case of higher education in Nepal. International Review of Education, 67 (1–2), 145–165.

Dewantara, J. A., Suhendar, I. F., Rosyid, R., & Atmaja, T. S. (2019). Pancasila as ideology and characteristics civic education in Indonesia. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies, 1 (5), 400–405.

Donbavand, S., & Hoskins, B. (2021). Citizenship education for political engagement: A systematic review of controlled trials. Social Sciences, 10 (5), 151.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2020). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life . Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice. Theory into Practice, 59 (1), 22–31.

Handayani, E. T., & Aminatun, D. (2020). Students’ point of view on the use of WhatsApp group to elevate writing ability. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1 (2), 31–37.

Hao, H. (2022). Analysis of ecological environment problems and countermeasures in ideological and political education in colleges and universities. Journal of Environmental and Public Health , 2022.

Hassan, L., & Hamari, J. (2020). Gameful civic engagement: A review of the literature on gamification of e-participation. Government Information Quarterly, 37 (3), 101461.

Hennekam, S., & Shymko, Y. (2020). Coping with the COVID-19 crisis: Force majeure and gender performativity. Gender, Work & Organization, 27 (5), 788–803.

Hopkins, N., & Reicher, S. (2021). Mass gatherings, health, and well-being: From risk mitigation to health promotion. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15 (1), 114–145.

Idris, F., Zulkipli, I. N., Abdul-Mumin, K. H., Ahmad, S. R., Mitha, S., Rahman, H. A., & Naing, L. (2021). Academic experiences, physical and mental health impact of COVID-19 pandemic on students and lecturers in health care education. BMC Medical Education, 21 , 1–13.

Imhoff, R., Zimmer, F., Klein, O., António, J. H., Babinska, M., Bangerter, A., & Van Prooijen, J. W. (2022). Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 6 (3), 392–403.

Jian, C. (2023). A study on the teaching mode of advanced English ideological and political education. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 2 (1), 105–107.

Kim, J., & Maloney, E. J. (2020). Learning innovation and the future of higher education . JHU Press.

Lee, C. D., White, G., & Dong, D. (2021). Educating for civic reasoning and discourse . National Academy of Education.

Lei, P. (2021). Changes and integration of ideological and political education structure in colleges and universities in computer network age. 2021 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (ICAIE) (pp. 432–435). IEEE.

Lerman, L. V., Gerstlberger, W., Lima, M. F., & Frank, A. G. (2021). How governments, universities, and companies contribute to renewable energy development? A municipal innovation policy perspective of the triple helix. Energy Research & Social Science, 71 , 101854.

Liu, X., Xiantong, Z., & Starkey, H. (2023). Ideological and political education in Chinese universities: Structures and practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43 (2), 586–598.

Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2021). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Education and Information Technologies , 1–25.

Nguyen, T., Netto, C. L., Wilkins, J. F., Bröker, P., Vargas, E. E., Sealfon, C. D., & Stein, G. M. (2021). Insights into students’ experiences and perceptions of remote learning methods: From the COVID-19 pandemic to best practice for the future. Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 91). Frontiers.

Pais, A., & Costa, M. (2020). An ideology critique of global citizenship education. Critical Studies in Education, 61 (1), 1–16.

Rahiem, M. D. (2021). Remaining motivated despite the limitations: University students’ learning propensity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review, 120 , 105802.

Reichert, F., Lange, D., & Chow, L. (2021). Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the aims of civic education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98 , 103248.

Saud, M. (2020). Civic engagement, youth socialisation and participation in public spheres in Indonesia. Children and Youth Services Review, 119 , 105669.

Sayfulloevna, S. S. (2023). Safe learning environment and personal development of students. International Journal of Formal Education, 2 (3), 7–12.

Shaw, A., Liu, O. L., Gu, L., Kardonova, E., Chirikov, I., Li, G., & Loyalka, P. (2020). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Validating the Russian HEIghten® critical thinking assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (9), 1933–1948.

Sheppard, J., & Thomas, C. B. (2021). Community pharmacists and communication in the time of COVID-19: Applying the health belief model. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17 (1), 1984–1987.

Singer, A., Montgomery, G., & Schmoll, S. (2020). How to foster the formation of STEM identity: Studying diversity in an authentic learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 1–12.

Su, Y., Lee, D. K. L., & Xiao, X. (2022). “I enjoy thinking critically, and I’m in control”: Examining the influences of media literacy factors on misperceptions amidst the COVID-19 infodemic. Computers in Human Behavior, 128 , 107111.

Veeh, C. A., Plassmeyer, M., Nicotera, N., & Brewer, S. E. (2019). A combined measure of civic engagement for use among emerging adults. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10 (1), 13–34.

Vincent, A. (2023). Modern political ideologies . John Wiley & Sons.

Wagemans, M. M. (2022). An inclusive mindset towards transgender youth through inner dialogue (Master’s thesis).

Williams, D. A., & Thorn, B. E. (1989). An empirical assessment of pain beliefs. Pain, 36 (3), 351–358.

Wusqo, I. U., Setiawati, F. A., Istiyono, E., & Mukhson, A. (2022). Exploratory factor analysis of environmental awareness assessment based on local wisdom by using summated rating and Likert scale. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 8 (2), 243–255.

Yang, Z., & Talha, M. (2021). A coordinated and optimized mechanism of artificial intelligence for student management by college counselors based on big data. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine , 2021.

Zajda, J., & Vissing, Y. M. (2022). Discourses of globalisation, ideology and social justice. Globalisation, ideology and social justice discourses (pp. 1–12). Springer International Publishing.

Zmigrod, L., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2021). The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes: A data-driven approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376 (1822), 20200424.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Marxism, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China

Library, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China

Xiaoguang Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Zhao .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Consent to Participate

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

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhao, W., Zhang, X. Fostering Tolerance and Inclusivity: The Transformative Impact of Ideological and Political Education on University Students. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02119-0

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2024

Accepted : 04 June 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02119-0

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

• Ideological and political education
• Civic engagement
• Critical thinking
• Political ideologies
• Beliefs and behaviors
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Practical Things You Study in College

Published: June 20, 2024

College is a transformative time where you gain not only academic knowledge but also essential skills that will benefit you in the real world. The process of learning new skills or improving existing ones to advance in your current role or prepare for new opportunities is known as “upskilling.”

Upskilling can involve gaining deeper knowledge in a specific area, acquiring new technical abilities, or enhancing soft skills such as communication and leadership. College is an excellent place to upskill because it provides a structured environment where students can access a wide range of resources and learning opportunities. 

Whether you’re a traditional student fresh out of high school or a non-traditional student returning to education, the skills you develop in college are crucial. Below, we’ll take a closer look at the skills you will learn while earning a college degree.

Why Should I Upskill in College?

The benefits of upskilling are numerous. For employees, it can lead to increased job satisfaction, higher productivity, and better career advancement opportunities. Upskilling can also make you more adaptable to changes within your industry, thus future-proofing your career. 

Employers value candidates who demonstrate a commitment to lifelong learning and continuous improvement, as these individuals are better equipped to drive innovation and contribute to organizational growth. By acquiring additional skills during your college years, you position yourself as a versatile asset in the workforce. This combination of academic achievement and practical expertise makes you more attractive to potential employers and sets the stage for a successful and rewarding career.

While earning your college degree, you will have the opportunity to master both technical and soft skills. Technical skills refer to specific, teachable abilities required for particular tasks, often involving specialized training from your major program of study. Soft skills are interpersonal attributes like communication and teamwork that are essential for effective collaboration and problem-solving in the workplace. Employers look for college students with a solid mix of technical and soft skills when recruiting for jobs.

What Are the Best Technical Skills to Learn in College?

Technical skills are specific abilities or knowledge required to perform specialized tasks within your job sector. Choosing a college major that delivers the appropriate technical skills for your career aspirations is critical. 

Business management, computer science, and health science are among the most popular majors to study in college due to their relevance and demand in the modern workforce. 

Business Management Skills

Business management programs offer technical skills in areas such as financial analysis, project management, and strategic planning, preparing students for leadership roles in diverse industries. 

Computer Science Skills

Computer science is a powerhouse for upskilling, providing in-depth knowledge of software development, algorithms, and network security, making graduates highly sought after in the tech industry. 

Health Science Skills

Health science delivers technical skills related to healthcare practices, medical technologies, and patient care, essential for those aiming to advance in the medical field. These majors not only provide a solid foundation in their respective fields but also offer numerous opportunities for continuous learning and professional growth.

What Are the Best Soft Skills to Learn in College?

The best skills to learn in college are soft skills, including critical thinking, communication, and time management. Mastering these skills will enable you to succeed both academically and professionally. Below, we’ll take a closer look at these soft skills and how you can improve them.

Critical Thinking

One of the most important skills to develop is critical thinking, which involves analyzing information, evaluating evidence, and making reasoned decisions. Critical thinking is crucial not only for success in school but also for navigating complex real-world issues. This skill is particularly valued by employers, as it demonstrates an individual’s ability to handle challenging situations and make informed decisions in the workplace. 

Your mastery of critical thinking will come from active engagement with your course material. You can hone your observational skills, ask questions to deepen your understanding and break complex problems into smaller parts.

Communication

Another essential skill to learn in college is effective communication . This includes both verbal and written communication, which are vital for collaborating with peers, presenting ideas, and writing reports or research papers. Good communication skills enable students to express their thoughts clearly and persuasively. Furthermore, strong communication skills facilitate better teamwork and collaboration, as students learn to listen actively, provide constructive feedback, and work together towards common goals. 

To improve your communication skills, focus on both verbal and written communication. Participate in group projects and presentations to practice speaking clearly and confidently. Enhance your writing by organizing your thoughts logically and using appropriate grammar and vocabulary. Your college likely has a writing center that will assist you with composing reports and papers.

Time management

Time management is also a critical skill that students must master in college. Balancing coursework, extracurricular activities, part-time jobs, and personal responsibilities requires effective time management strategies. Students who can prioritize tasks set realistic deadlines, and avoid procrastination are more likely to achieve their academic and personal goals. Employers look for candidates who can manage their time efficiently, as this skill directly impacts an individual’s ability to meet deadlines and handle multiple projects.

To refine your time management skills, set clear, achievable goals and prioritize your tasks based on deadlines and importance. Use tools like planners, calendars, or time management apps to organize your schedule and track your progress. Break larger tasks into smaller, manageable steps to avoid feeling overwhelmed. Allocate specific time slots for studying, attending classes, and participating in extracurricular activities. 

How Can I Improve My Study Skills While in College?

Improving your study skills while you are in college will help you achieve academic success. Good study habits, such as active recall, note-taking, self-explanation, and creating a study routine, can greatly enhance your ability to understand and retain complex information. 

Create a Study Routine

Establishing a consistent study routine helps to develop a habit of regular studying. It includes setting specific times for studying each day, breaking down study sessions into manageable chunks, and sticking to the schedule. A well-structured routine ensures that you cover all necessary material and maintain a balanced approach to your studies.

Practice Active Recall

Active recall is a study technique where you actively stimulate your memory during the learning process . Instead of passively reading or highlighting text, test yourself on the material to enhance your retention and understanding. This method helps to identify gaps in your knowledge and solidify your learning.

Take Effective Notes

Effective note-taking involves summarizing key concepts, ideas, and information during lectures or reading assignments. This skill helps you retain and comprehend the material better and provides a useful resource for review before exams. Good note-taking techniques include using bullet points, headings, and highlighting important information.

Use the Self-Explanation Technique

The self-explanation technique involves explaining the material you are studying in your own words, which helps deepen your understanding and retention of the subject. When you rephrase concepts and teach them to yourself or others, it forces you to process the information more thoroughly, identify gaps in your knowledge, and reinforce learning. 

As we have seen, mastering both technical skills and soft skills during your college years is crucial for standing out in today’s competitive job market. Employers increasingly seek candidates who not only possess the specialized knowledge required for specific roles but also demonstrate strong interpersonal abilities such as communication, teamwork, and problem-solving . These skills combined make you more versatile and adaptable, enhancing your employability across various industries.

As you embark on your college journey, remember that developing these skills is an ongoing process that will serve you well beyond your academic years. By embracing these practices, you will be well-equipped to tackle challenges and seize opportunities in both your academic and professional endeavors.

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone.

Related Articles

• New Zealand
• United Kingdom

Sharpening Your Critical Thinking Skills: Approaches and Exercises for Cybersecurity Experts

Stay Informed With Our Weekly Newsletter

Receive crucial updates on the ever-evolving landscape of technology and innovation.

By clicking 'Sign Up', I acknowledge that my information will be used in accordance with the Institute of Data's Privacy Policy .

Cybersecurity has become an essential concern for individuals and organizations in today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Critical thinking skills are crucial for cybersecurity experts as they face increasingly complex challenges and ever-changing threats.

Critical thinking skills in cybersecurity

Critical thinking is not just an optional skill—it is a necessity when it comes to cybersecurity.

As cyber-attacks become more sophisticated and frequent , professionals in this field must be able to think critically in the face of uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity.

Critical thinking enables cybersecurity experts to assess risks, evaluate evidence, and make informed decisions that protect individuals and organisations from potential threats .

The role of critical thinking in cybersecurity

Critical thinking plays a fundamental role in cybersecurity by enabling professionals to approach problems and scenarios systematically and analytically.

By applying critical thinking, experts can identify system vulnerabilities, evaluate the effectiveness of security measures, and devise strategies to mitigate risks.

Moreover, critical thinking allows for identifying patterns, connections, and potential threats that may go unnoticed by others.

How critical thinking enhances your cybersecurity skills

Developing critical thinking skills enhances cybersecurity professionals’ overall effectiveness and efficiency.

By cultivating critical thinking, experts can improve their problem-solving abilities, identify logical fallacies, and distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information.

Additionally, critical thinking enables professionals to think creatively, finding innovative solutions to emerging cyber threats.

Furthermore, critical thinking in cybersecurity involves anticipating and adapting to rapidly evolving technological advancements.

Cybersecurity professionals must stay ahead of the curve as technology advances at an unprecedented pace.

By critically evaluating emerging technologies, experts can assess their potential risks and vulnerabilities, enabling them to develop proactive strategies to safeguard against future threats.

Additionally, critical thinking in cybersecurity extends beyond technical expertise.

It also encompasses the ability to understand cyber criminals’ motivations and tactics.

Professionals can anticipate their next move and develop effective countermeasures by critically analyzing their methods and strategies.

This holistic approach to critical thinking ensures that cybersecurity professionals are well-equipped to tackle the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats.

Developing critical thinking

Achieving proficiency in critical thinking requires a combination of self-awareness and active practice.

By understanding the key components of critical thinking and employing effective strategies, cybersecurity experts can elevate their analytical abilities to the next level.

Developing critical thinking is a journey that involves continuous learning and growth.

It is about acquiring knowledge and honing the ability to think critically and make informed decisions in the ever-evolving cybersecurity landscape.

Embracing a mindset of intellectual curiosity and a willingness to challenge assumptions is vital to fostering a solid foundation in critical thinking.

The key components of critical thinking

At its core, critical thinking involves the skills of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.

Cybersecurity professionals must be able to analyze complex situations, evaluate evidence and arguments, and synthesize information to form logical conclusions.

Additionally, critical thinking encompasses traits such as curiosity, objectivity, and persistence, which are essential for effective problem-solving.

Analytical thinking is crucial in cybersecurity, where professionals dissect intricate systems and identify vulnerabilities.

Evaluation skills are crucial when assessing the credibility of sources and the validity of information, ensuring that decisions are based on sound reasoning.

Synthesizing diverse data points and drawing meaningful connections is a hallmark of advanced critical thinking, enabling professionals to devise comprehensive security strategies.

Strategies for improving critical thinking

Improving critical thinking requires intentional effort and practice.

One useful strategy is active questioning, whereby professionals challenge assumptions, evaluate evidence, and explore alternative perspectives.

Another approach is to cultivate a habit of reflection, regularly reviewing past decisions and seeking opportunities to improve.

Furthermore, seeking diverse sources of information and engaging in collaborative discussions can help broaden one’s perspective and enhance critical thinking abilities.

Collaboration significantly enhances critical thinking skills, as it exposes individuals to different viewpoints and methodologies.

Engaging in discussions with peers and experts in the field can help cybersecurity professionals refine their analytical thinking and learn to approach problems from various angles.

Embracing a culture of continuous improvement and feedback is essential in mastering critical thinking in the dynamic realm of cybersecurity.

Practical exercises to boost critical thinking

While understanding the theory behind critical thinking is important, practical exercises can significantly enhance one’s thinking ability.

In the field of cybersecurity, where real-world scenarios demand quick thinking and accurate decision-making, the following exercises can help professionals sharpen their critical thinking.

Brainstorming exercises for better problem-solving

Brainstorming sessions allow cybersecurity experts to collectively generate ideas, explore potential solutions, and evaluate their viability.

These exercises encourage critical thinking by involving individuals with different perspectives and expertise by fostering a collaborative environment.

Brainstorming exercises stimulate creativity and help professionals consider alternative approaches to cybersecurity challenges.

Logic puzzles and how they help in cybersecurity

Logic puzzles are an excellent way to improve critical thinking skills in cybersecurity.

These puzzles require individuals to think logically, analyze information, and make deductions based on given conditions.

By solving logic puzzles, professionals can enhance their ability to identify patterns, recognize logical fallacies, and apply structured thinking to real-world cybersecurity scenarios.

Applying critical thinking to cybersecurity scenarios

The actual value of critical thinking lies in its practical application.

Professionals with strong critical thinking skills can navigate complexities and find effective solutions when faced with cybersecurity scenarios.

Identifying potential threats through critical thinking

Critical thinking enables professionals to identify potential threats and vulnerabilities others may overlook.

By actively questioning assumptions, analyzing system weaknesses, and evaluating behavior patterns, experts can identify risks and take proactive measures to mitigate them.

Through critical thinking, cybersecurity professionals can stay one step ahead of cybercriminals, safeguarding individuals and organizations from potential harm.

Using critical thinking for effective cybersecurity solutions

Effective cybersecurity solutions require technical expertise and critical thinking abilities.

By applying critical thinking, professionals can assess the effectiveness of existing security measures, illuminate areas for improvement, and devise tailored solutions.

With a critical thinking mindset, cybersecurity experts can navigate complex systems, consider multiple factors, and make well-informed decisions that enhance overall security.

Maintaining and improving your critical thinking skills

Developing critical thinking skills is ongoing, requiring continuous learning and practice.

To maintain and enhance these skills, cybersecurity professionals can adopt the following strategies:

Regular practices for honing critical thinking

Consistency is key to honing critical thinking.

Regular practices such as solving puzzles, seeking out challenging problems, and critically evaluating information can help professionals stay sharp and improve their analytical abilities.

Cybersecurity experts can stay ahead in this ever-evolving field by dedicating time and effort to critical thinking.

The role of continuous learning in critical thinking development

Critical thinking skills are developed through continuous learning.

Staying updated with the latest industry trends, technologies, and best practices expands knowledge and exposes professionals to diverse perspectives and strategies.

Cybersecurity experts can continuously refine their critical thinking abilities by seeking opportunities to learn and grow and stay at the forefront of their field.

Critical thinking skills are indispensable for professionals in the dynamic and ever-changing cybersecurity landscape.

Cybersecurity experts can sharpen their analytical abilities and approach challenges confidently by understanding the importance of critical thinking, adopting effective strategies, and practicing practical exercises.

With strong critical thinking, these professionals can protect individuals and organizations from cyber threats and contribute to a more secure digital environment.

Are you considering a career in cybersecurity?

Whether you are new to tech or a seasoned professional looking for a change, the Institute of Data’s Cybersecurity Program offers an in-depth, balanced, hands-on curriculum for IT and non-IT professionals.

To learn more about our 3-month full-time or 6-month part-time remote bootcamps, download the Cybersecurity Course Outline .

Want to learn more about our programs? Our local team is ready to give you a free career consultation . Contact us today!

Follow us on social media to stay up to date with the latest tech news

Stay connected with Institute of Data

Asking the Right Questions: Strategies for Effective Questioning Techniques in Cybersecurity

Understanding Networks and Protocols in Cybersecurity

Exploring the Building Blocks of Networking in the Cybersecurity Industry

Full-Time vs Part-Time Study: A Guide to Entering the Tech Industry

© Institute of Data. All rights reserved.

Copy Link to Clipboard