how literature improves critical thinking

Ask us anything

(about education).

OPINION Voices from the Idaho EdNews Community

Reading literature helps develop critical-thinking skills

When’s the last time you read a book? The chances you didn’t read one during the last year have radically increased.

For adults it’s roughly one in four — 24 percent according to the Pew Research Center. For my peers, youth, it’s about the same — 22 percent of 13-year-olds and 27 percent of 17-year-olds versus 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively, three decades ago according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

That’s especially unfortunate considering literature can help young adults develop important critical-thinking skills. For instance, U.S. News & World Report recently listed book clubs among five useful tools for developing critical-thinking skills before college.

“Students who read for understanding find it far easier to think critically than those who rush to finish,” writes the story’s author, Meghan Moll, a professional science, math, and ACT tutor with Varsity Tutors. “Analyzing a book requires you to delve deeper and ponder complex questions.”

My own experience with literature bears this out. In his best-selling novels “Jurassic Park” and “The Lost World,” Michael Crichton didn’t just take me on an entertaining roller-coaster ride. My favorite author reignited my childhood passion for prehistoric animals, sparked my intense interest in science, and continually fuels my own creativity.

His novels underscore the importance of critical thinking. “Jurassic Park” gave me a perspective on how humans interact with the biological world and what we can do to alter things — especially with genetic engineering. While the story line shows how people can use science to do beautiful things and change situations for the better, it also demonstrates how we can make devastating mistakes.

It’s probably no surprise that when my English teacher, Mrs. Hodgin, asked her classes at Moscow High School to participate in the Letters About Literature contest last year I wrote about the tangible, positive impact Dr. Crichton’s works have had on me. Sponsored by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress, Letters About Literature encourages students in grades 4-12 to write a letter to an author — living or dead — whose book affected them personally.

I was the State of Idaho’s winner for Level 3 (grades 9-12) last year. The $100 gift card I won funded a hobby that’s kind of turning into a career — raising and researching ants. Thus, Dr. Crichton hasn’t just fueled my interest in the natural world — in a way he’s also helping fund my exploration of it.

The 2015-2016 Letters About Literature contest begins soon, and I encourage teachers and parents throughout Idaho to get their students involved. It’s an excellent project for classes and individual students.

The Center for the Book in the Library of Congress begins accepting entries Nov. 2. They must be postmarked by Dec. 4 for Level 3 (grades 9-12) or Jan. 11 for Level 2 (grades 7-8) and Level 1 (grades 4-6).

After the first two rounds of judging at the Library of Congress, the letters go through the next rounds back in their writers’ home states. The Idaho Commission for Libraries coordinates our local judging. Learn more about it online at http://libraries.idaho.gov/lal .

Meanwhile, if you, your child, or your students haven’t found a book that’s personally affected them, I urge you to resolve that. The benefits of literature are legion. Reading improves vocabulary, organizational skills, and the ability to read, comprehend, and analyze text. Plus, it can provide people with important historical perspective, encourage sympathy for other human beings, and promote appreciation for diversity and understanding of other cultures.

Moreover, literature can help students develop the critical-thinking skills many employers think are lacking in today’s college graduates before they even get to college.

Senior Miles Maxcer is the student council president at Moscow High School. He is currently reading a lot of nonfiction about leadership and different leaders while still conducting an independent study on ants. Read Miles’ winning letter at: http://libraries.idaho.gov/files/Level3WinnerMaxcer.pdf

Miles Maxcer

Republish this story on your website », get ednews in your inbox.

Weekly round up every Friday

A look inside Christian nationalism — with an Idaho emphasis

Higher ed budget requests focus on staff additions, pay raises, critchfield discusses weighted formula, trade-offs in budget proposal, ‘i don’t believe that they left voluntarily:’ day six from the big city coffee trial, analysis: this fall’s legislative races matter — and some matter a lot, record number of idaho schools are offering full-day kindergarten, and more are pushing to expand preschool access, administrators rate 98.4% of teachers ‘proficient’ or better, bright spots: lists of 2024 isat top performers statewide, critchfield seeks weighted student formula, new special education fund.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Writing and Critical Thinking Through Literature (Ringo and Kashyap)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 40355

• Heather Ringo & Athena Kashyap
• City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

This text offers instruction in analytical, critical, and argumentative writing, critical thinking, research strategies, information literacy, and proper documentation through the study of literary works from major genres, while developing students’ close reading skills and promoting an appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of literature.

Thumbnail: Old book bindings at the Merton College library. (CC BY-SA 3.0; Tom Murphy VII via Wikipedia ).

Critical Thinking with Literature: It’s Problem-Solving

• By Sharon Crowley
• June 29, 2015

Critical thinking tops the list of skills students need for success in the complex 21st century. When it comes to science and math, most people equate critical thinking with problem solving. In those content areas, students apply their understanding of basic concepts to a task for which the solution is not known in advance. By grappling with a challenging problem, students extend their learning. Critical thinking about literature is not so different. With a written work, the problem or task is often an open-ended, text-based question. Students use their comprehension of the text to develop interpretations—or solutions to the problem.

If you want your students to engage in higher-order thinking as they read and discuss literature, include these key elements of problem-solving activities:

Genuine, intriguing questions. To think critically, there must be something to think critically about. With literature, it’s a text that leaves your students puzzling and asking questions about a character, event, symbol, or structure. Predictable or moralistic texts with flat characters don’t generate intriguing questions. When texts are sufficiently complex, the questions that spring from them present engaging problems.

Divergent answers. Just as genuine problems in math or science allow for multiple strategies and solutions, a discussion-worthy question about a piece of literature should invite multiple interpretations or answers. In Shared Inquiry discussions, considering divergent ideas is what drives students to find deeper meaning in a text.

Ample evidence. As in math or science, for an answer or solution to be sound, there must be relevant reasons behind it. Likewise, ideas about the meaning of literary texts must be supported with the evidence from the work itself. Evidence and reasoning make ideas valid and debatable. Without evidence, ideas are simply guesses.

Opportunities to evaluate evidence. Some pieces of scientific or mathematical data are more compelling than others. The same is true when exploring a question about a rich work of literature. Collaborative discussion is a time for participants to share the evidence that supports their ideas, to weigh that evidence, and to strengthen ideas by debating each other’s assertions or suggesting additional evidence.

Collaboration. A good discussion question, or problem, is one that students want to work on together. Just as students benefit from combining their skills and perspectives when solving a math or science problem, discussing an interpretive question as a group yields more thoughtful and considered answers than if students had worked alone. Follow-up questions that ask students to clarify, elaborate, and explain their ideas help deepen and enliven the conversation.

I’m looking to enroll my daughter, in a local program in Detroit,MI

Thank you for your interest in Great Books! We’re confident your daughter would enjoy and benefit from participating in the program. Tom Kerschner, the Great Books Consultant for Michigan, will be in touch with you soon. Watch for an email ending with @greatbooks.org.

I am looking for a Great Books Program in the Detroit, Michigan, area for my ten year old daughter. Thank you, Kym

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Recent Posts

Open Resources for English Language Teaching (ORELT) Portal

Search form

You are here, unit 5: facilitating critical thinking through literature, introduction.

Literature is an effective tool for engaging students in critical thinking. By teaching children to analyse and evaluate literary texts appropriate to their age and interests, we can help them develop critical thinking skills. This involves seeing relationships between events, drawing inferences, analysing events, synthesising evidence and evaluating both the content of a text and the language used to the express ideas contained within it.

Unit outcomes

Upon completion of this unit you will be able to:

Terminology

Teacher support information

The literature class gives a teacher the opportunity to engage students in discussions about the ideas expressed in literary texts. This exercise benefits students in two ways: firstly, it gives them an opportunity to express their own ideas about life and relationships, values and beliefs, and interests and dislikes; secondly, it forces them to use a more complex set of structures and a more “advanced” range of vocabulary. As a language teacher in a literature class, you can exploit this situation by engaging students in group and pair activities to read sections of texts and then give their opinions about characters in the text, for example, or the style of writing — whether it is interesting, humorous, tragic, and so on. This will let students practise expressing opinions, drawing inferences, explaining cause-and-effect relationships, comparing facts and applying ideas they have gleaned from literature to new situations. In addition, they will learn how to analyse texts based on logical reasoning and to synthesise and evaluate the information in the texts.

Activity 1: Using literature to develop critical thinking: Drawing inferences from a text

Activity 2: Evaluating a literary text

Activity 3: From critical to creative skills: Participating in creative writing workshops

Activity 4: Collaborative creative writing: Creating a big book

Unit summary

Reflections

Resource 1: Inferring information from a literary text: A sample text

Inferential questions:

Why do you think Trudy’s mother was shouting at her?

Does Trudy understand her responsibilities?

Is Trudy a tidy person?

Look up the meaning of the word “curious” in your dictionary. Is Trudy a curious person?

Did Trudy’s grandfather finally get to spend his life with Betty?

Do you think it was normal for girls and boys to meet freely during Trudy’s grandfather’s time?

Resource 2a: Critically reflecting on and responding to literary texts: Asking evaluative questions

Resource 2b: How to write a journal entry (worksheet)

Teacher question and answer

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.6(2); Summer 2007

Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Thinking Performance in General Education Biology

Ian j. quitadamo.

*Department of Biological Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7537; and

Martha J. Kurtz

† Department of Chemistry, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7539

Increasingly, national stakeholders express concern that U.S. college graduates cannot adequately solve problems and think critically. As a set of cognitive abilities, critical thinking skills provide students with tangible academic, personal, and professional benefits that may ultimately address these concerns. As an instructional method, writing has long been perceived as a way to improve critical thinking. In the current study, the researchers compared critical thinking performance of students who experienced a laboratory writing treatment with those who experienced traditional quiz-based laboratory in a general education biology course. The effects of writing were determined within the context of multiple covariables. Results indicated that the writing group significantly improved critical thinking skills whereas the nonwriting group did not. Specifically, analysis and inference skills increased significantly in the writing group but not the nonwriting group. Writing students also showed greater gains in evaluation skills; however, these were not significant. In addition to writing, prior critical thinking skill and instructor significantly affected critical thinking performance, whereas other covariables such as gender, ethnicity, and age were not significant. With improved critical thinking skill, general education biology students will be better prepared to solve problems as engaged and productive citizens.

INTRODUCTION

A national call to improve critical thinking in science.

In the past several years, an increasing number of national reports indicate a growing concern over the effectiveness of higher education teaching practices and the decreased science (and math) performance of U.S. students relative to other industrialized countries ( Project Kaleidoscope, 2006 ). A variety of national stakeholders, including business and educational leaders, politicians, parents, and public agencies, have called for long-term transformation of the K–20 educational system to produce graduates who are well trained in science, can engage intelligently in global issues that require local action, and in general are better able to solve problems and think critically. Specifically, business leaders are calling for graduates who possess advanced analysis and communication skills, for instructional methods that improve lifelong learning, and ultimately for an educational system that builds a nation of innovative and effective thinkers ( Business-Higher Education Forum and American Council on Education, 2003 ). Education leaders are similarly calling for institutions of higher education to produce graduates who think critically, communicate effectively, and who employ lifelong learning skills to address important scientific and civic issues ( Association of American Colleges and Universities, [AACU] 2005 ).

Many college faculty consider critical thinking to be one of the most important indicators of student learning quality. In its 2005 national report, the AACU indicated that 93% of higher education faculty perceived analytical and critical thinking to be an essential learning outcome (AACU, 2005) whereas 87% of undergraduate students indicated that college experiences contributed to their ability to think analytically and creatively. This same AACU report showed that only 6% of undergraduate seniors demonstrated critical thinking proficiency based on Educational Testing Services standardized assessments from 2003 to 2004. During the same time frame, data from the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency test showed a similar trend, with undergraduates improving their critical thinking less than 1 SD from freshman to senior year. Thus, it appears a discrepancy exists between faculty expectations of critical thinking and students' ability to perceive and demonstrate critical thinking proficiency using standardized assessments (AACU, 2005).

Teaching that supports the development of critical thinking skills has become a cornerstone of nearly every major educational objective since the Department of Education released its six goals for the nation's schools in 1990. In particular, goal three of the National Goals for Education stated that more students should be able to reason, solve problems, and apply knowledge. Goal six specifically stated that college graduates must be able to think critically ( Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1991 ). Since 1990, American education has tried—with some success—to make a fundamental shift from traditional teacher-focused instruction to more student-centered constructivist learning that encourages discovery, reflection, and in general is thought to improve student critical thinking skill. National science organizations have supported this trend with recommendations to improve the advanced thinking skills that support scientific literacy ( American Association for Higher Education, 1989 ; National Research Council, 1995 ; National Science Foundation, 1996 ).

More recent reports describe the need for improved biological literacy as well as international competitiveness ( Bybee and Fuchs, 2006 ; Klymkowsky, 2006 ). Despite the collective call for enhanced problem solving and critical thinking, educators, researchers, and policymakers are discovering a lack of evidence in existing literature for methods that measurably improve critical thinking skills ( Tsui, 1998 , 2002 ). As more reports call for improved K–20 student performance, it is essential that research-supported teaching and learning practices be used to better help students develop the cognitive skills that underlie effective science learning ( Malcom et al., 2005 ; Bybee and Fuchs, 2006 ).

Critical Thinking

Although they are not always transparent to many college students, the academic and personal benefits of critical thinking are well established; students who can think critically tend to get better grades, are often better able to use reasoning in daily decisions ( U.S. Department of Education, 1990 ), and are generally more employable ( Carnevale and American Society for Training and Development, 1990 ; Holmes and Clizbe, 1997 ; National Academy of Sciences, 2005 ). By focusing on instructional efforts that develop critical thinking skills, it may be possible to increase student performance while satisfying national stakeholder calls for educational improvement and increased ability to solve problems as engaged and productive citizens.

Although academics and business professionals consider critical thinking skill to be a crucial outcome of higher education, many would have difficulty defining exactly what critical thinking is. Historically, there has been little agreement on how to conceptualize critical thinking. Of the literally dozens of definitions that exist, one of the most organized efforts to define (and measure) critical thinking emerged from research done by Peter Facione and others in the early 1990s. Their consensus work, referred to as the Delphi report, was accomplished by a group of 46 leading theorists, teachers, and critical thinking assessment specialists from a variety of academic and business disciplines ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). Initial results from the Delphi report were later confirmed in a national survey and replication study ( Jones et al., 1995 ). In short, the Delphi panel expert consensus describes critical thinking as a “process of purposeful self-regulatory judgment that drives problem-solving and decision-making” ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). This definition implies that critical thinking is an intentional, self-regulated process that provides a mechanism for solving problems and making decisions based on reasoning and logic, which is particularly useful when dealing with issues of national and global significance.

The Delphi conceptualization of critical thinking encompasses several cognitive skills that include: 1) analysis (the ability to break a concept or idea into component pieces in order to understand its structure and inherent relationships), 2) inference (the skills used to arrive at a conclusion by reconciling what is known with what is unknown), and 3) evaluation (the ability to weigh and consider evidence and make reasoned judgments within a given context). Other critical thinking skills that are similarly relevant to science include interpretation, explanation, and self-regulation ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). The concept of critical thinking includes behavioral tendencies or dispositions as well as cognitive skills ( Ennis, 1985 ); these include the tendency to seek truth, to be open-minded, to be analytical, to be orderly and systematic, and to be inquisitive ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). These behavioral tendencies also align closely with behaviors considered to be important in science. Thus, an increased focus on teaching critical thinking may directly benefit students who are engaged in science.

Prior research on critical thinking indicates that students' behavioral dispositions do not change in the short term ( Giancarlo and Facione, 2001 ), but cognitive skills can be developed over a relatively short period of time (Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch, unpublished results). In their longitudinal study of behavioral disposition toward critical thinking, Giancarlo and Facione (2001) discovered that undergraduate critical thinking disposition changed significantly after two years. Specifically, significant changes in student tendency to seek truth and confidence in thinking critically occurred during the junior and senior years. Also, females tended to be more open-minded and have more mature judgment than males ( Giancarlo and Facione, 2001 ). Although additional studies are necessary to confirm results from the Giancarlo study, existing research seems to indicate that changes in undergraduate critical thinking disposition are measured in years, not weeks.

In contrast to behavioral disposition, prior research indicates that critical thinking skills can be measurably changed in weeks. In their study of undergraduate critical thinking skill in university science and math courses, Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch (unpublished results) showed that critical thinking skills changed within 15 wk in response to Peer Led Team Learning (a national best practice for small group learning). This preliminary study provided some evidence that undergraduate critical thinking skills could be measurably improved within an academic semester, but provided no information about whether critical thinking skills could be changed during a shorter academic quarter. It was also unclear whether the development of critical thinking skills was a function of chronological time or whether it was related to instructional time.

Numerous studies provide anecdotal evidence for pedagogies that improve critical thinking, but much of existing research relies on student self-report, which limits the scope of interpretation. From the literature it is clear that, although critical thinking skills are some of the most valued outcomes of a quality education, additional research investigating the effects of instructional factors on critical thinking performance is necessary ( Tsui, 1998 , 2002 ).

Writing and Critical Thinking

Writing has been widely used as a tool for communicating ideas, but less is known about how writing can improve the thinking process itself ( Rivard, 1994 ; Klein, 2004 ). Writing is thought to be a vehicle for improving student learning ( Champagne and Kouba, 1999 ; Kelly and Chen, 1999 ; Keys, 1999 ; Hand and Prain, 2002 ), but too often is used as a means to regurgitate content knowledge and derive prescribed outcomes ( Keys, 1999 ; Keys et al., 1999 ). Historically, writing is thought to contribute to the development of critical thinking skills ( Kurfiss, and Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988 ). Applebee (1984) suggested that writing improves thinking because it requires an individual to make his or her ideas explicit and to evaluate and choose among tools necessary for effective discourse. Resnick (1987) stressed that writing should provide an opportunity to think through arguments and that, if used in such a way, could serve as a “cultivator and an enabler of higher order thinking.” Marzano (1991) suggested that writing used as a means to restructure knowledge improves higher-order thinking. In this context, writing may provide opportunity for students to think through arguments and use higher-order thinking skills to respond to complex problems ( Marzano, 1991 ).

Writing has also been used as a strategy to improve conceptual learning. Initial work focused on how the recursive and reflective nature of the writing process contributes to student learning ( Applebee, 1984 ; Langer and Applebee, 1985 , 1987 ; Ackerman, 1993 ). However, conclusions from early writing to learn studies were limited by confounding research designs and mismatches between writing activities and measures of student learning ( Ackerman, 1993 ). Subsequent work has focused on how writing within disciplines helps students to learn content and how to think. Specifically, writing within disciplines is thought to require deeper analytical thinking ( Langer and Applebee, 1987 ), which is closely aligned with critical thinking.

The influence of writing on critical thinking is less defined in science. Researchers have repeatedly called for more empirical investigations of writing in science; however, few provide such evidence ( Rivard, 1994 ; Tsui, 1998 ; Daempfle, 2002 ; Klein, 2004 ). In his extensive review of writing research, Rivard (1994) indicated that gaps in writing research limit its inferential scope, particularly within the sciences. Specifically, Rivard and others indicate that, despite the volume of writing students are asked to produce during their education, they are not learning to use writing to improve their awareness of thinking processes ( Resnick, 1987 ; Howard, 1990 ). Existing studies are limited because writing has been used either in isolation or outside authentic classroom contexts. Factors like gender, ethnicity, and academic ability that are not directly associated with writing but may nonetheless influence its effectiveness have also not been sufficiently accounted for in previous work ( Rivard, 1994 ).

A more recent review by Daempfle (2002) similarly indicates the need for additional research to clarify relationships between writing and critical thinking in science. In his review, Daempfle identified nine empirical studies that generally support the hypothesis that students who experience writing (and other nontraditional teaching methods) have higher reasoning skills than students who experience traditional science instruction. Of the relatively few noninstructional variables identified in those studies, gender and major did not affect critical thinking performance; however, the amount of time spent on and the explicitness of instruction to teach reasoning skills did affect overall critical thinking performance. Furthermore, the use of writing and other nontraditional teaching methods did not appear to negatively affect content knowledge acquisition ( Daempfle, 2002 ). Daempfle justified his conclusions by systematically describing the methodological inconsistencies for each study. Specifically, incomplete sample descriptions, the use of instruments with insufficient validity and reliability, the absence of suitable comparison groups, and the lack of statistical covariate analyses limit the scope and generalizability of existing studies of writing and critical thinking ( Daempfle, 2002 ).

Writing in the Biological Sciences

The conceptual nature and reliance on the scientific method as a means of understanding make the field of biology a natural place to teach critical thinking through writing. Some work has been done in this area, with literature describing various approaches to writing in the biological sciences that range from linked biology and English courses, writing across the biology curriculum, and directed use of writing to improve reasoning in biology courses ( Ebert-May et al., 1997 ; Holyoak, 1998 ; Taylor and Sobota, 1998 ; Steglich, 2000 ; Lawson, 2001 ; Kokkala and Gessell, 2003 ; Tessier, 2006 ). In their work on integrated biology and English, Taylor and Sobota (1998) discussed several problem areas that affected both biology and English students, including anxiety and frustration associated with writing, difficulty expressing thoughts clearly and succinctly, and a tendency to have strong negative responses to writing critique. Although the authors delineate the usefulness of several composition strategies for writing in biology ( Taylor and Sobota, 1998 ), it was unclear whether student data were used to support their recommendations. Kokkala and Gessell (2003) used English students to evaluate articles written by biology students. Biology students first reflected on initial editorial comments made by English students, and then resubmitted their work for an improved grade. In turn, English students had to justify their editorial comments with written work of their own. Qualitative results generated from a list of reflective questions at the end of the writing experience seemed to indicate that both groups of students improved editorial skills and writing logic. However, no formal measures of student editorial skill were collected before biology-English student collaboration, so no definitive conclusions on the usefulness of this strategy could be made.

Taking a slightly different tack, Steglich (2000) informally assessed student attitudes in nonmajors biology courses, and noted that writing produced positive changes in student attitudes toward biology. However, the author acknowledged that this work was not a research study. Finally, Tessier (2006) showed that students enrolled in a nonmajors ecology course significantly improved writing technical skills and committed fewer errors of fact regarding environmental issues in response to a writing treatment. Attitudes toward environmental issues also improved ( Tessier, 2006 ). Although this study surveyed students at the beginning and the end of the academic term and also tracked student progress during the quarter, instrument validity and reliability were not provided. The generalizability of results was further limited because of an overreliance on student self-reports and small sample size.

Each of the studies described above peripherally supports a relationship between writing and critical thinking. Although not explicitly an investigation of critical thinking, results from a relatively recent study support a stronger connection between writing and reasoning ability ( Daempfle, 2002 ). Ebert-May et al. (1997) used a modified learning cycle instructional method and small group collaboration to increase reasoning ability in general education biology students. A quasi-experimental pretest/posttest control group design was used on a comparatively large sample of students, and considerable thought was given to controlling extraneous variables across the treatment and comparison groups. A multifaceted assessment strategy based on writing, standardized tests, and student interviews was used to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate student content knowledge and thinking skill. Results indicated that students in the treatment group significantly outperformed control group students on reasoning and process skills as indicated by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) content exam. Coincidentally, student content knowledge did not differ significantly between the treatment and control sections, indicating that development of thinking skill did not occur at the expense of content knowledge ( Ebert-May et al., 1997 ). Interview data indicated that students experiencing the writing and collaboration-based instruction changed how they perceived the construction of biological knowledge and how they applied their reasoning skills. Although the Ebert-May study is one of the more complete investigations of writing and critical thinking to date, several questions remain. Supporting validity and reliability data for the NABT test was not included in the study, making interpretation of results somewhat less certain. In addition, the NABT exam is designed to assess high school biology performance, not college performance ( Daempfle, 2002 ). Perhaps more importantly, the NABT exam does not explicitly measure critical thinking skills.

Collectively, it appears that additional research is necessary to establish a more defined relationship between writing and critical thinking in science ( Rivard, 1994 ; Tsui, 1998 , 2002 ; Daempfle, 2002 ). The current study addresses some of the gaps in previous work by evaluating the effects of writing on critical thinking performance using relatively large numbers of students, suitable comparison groups, valid and reliable instruments, a sizable cadre of covariables, and statistical analyses of covariance. This study uses an experimental design similar to that of the Ebert-May et al. (1997) study but incorporates valid and reliable test measures of critical thinking that can be used both within and across different science disciplines.

Purpose of the Study

Currently there is much national discussion about increasing the numbers of students majoring in various science fields ( National Research Council, 2003 ; National Academy of Sciences, 2005 ). Although this is a necessary and worthwhile goal, attention should also be focused on improving student performance in general education science because these students will far outnumber science majors for the foreseeable future. If college instructors want general education students to think critically about science, they will need to use teaching methods that improve student critical thinking performance. In many traditional general education biology courses, students are not expected to work collaboratively, to think about concepts as much as memorize facts, or to develop and support a written thesis or argument. This presents a large problem when one considers the societal role that general education students will play as voters, community members, and global citizens. By improving their critical thinking skills in science, general education students will be better able to deal with the broad scientific, economic, social, and political issues they will face in the future.

The problem addressed by this study was to discover whether writing could improve student critical thinking performance in general education biology courses. How might writing in general education biology affect the analysis, inference, and evaluation skills that are inherent to critical thinking? What level of critical thinking skill do students bring to nonmajors biology courses? Can their critical thinking skills be measurably improved using writing? What other factors affect development of critical thinking skills? When do student critical thinking skills begin to change, and how much? In this study, the effect of writing on critical thinking performance was investigated using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) at the beginning (pretest) and end (posttest) of 10 sections of general education biology at a regional comprehensive university in the Pacific Northwest. Several research questions framed this investigation:

Does writing in laboratory affect critical thinking performance in general education biology? Does the development of analysis, inference, and evaluation skills differ between students who experience writing versus those who experience traditional laboratory instruction? What measurable effect do factors like gender, ethnicity, and prior thinking skill have on changes in critical thinking in general education biology? If critical thinking skills change during an academic quarter, when does that take place?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study context.

The study took place at a state-funded regional comprehensive university in the Pacific Northwest. All participants were nonmajor undergraduates who were taking biology to satisfy their general education science requirement. Ten total sections of general education biology offered over three academic quarters (one academic year) were included in the study. Four of the 10 sections implemented a writing component during weekly laboratory meetings (N = 158); six traditional quiz-based laboratory sections served as a nonwriting control group (N = 152). Only scores from students who had completed both the initial (pretest) and end-of-quarter (posttest) critical thinking assessments were included in the data analysis. A breakdown of participant demographics for the writing and nonwriting groups is provided in Table 1 .

Demographics for the writing and nonwriting groups

Demographics profile for the study sample. n values in parentheses.

a Other includes the ″choose not to answer″ response.

Each course section included a lecture component offered four times per week for 50 min and a laboratory component that met once a week for 2 h. Course lecture sections were limited to a maximum enrollment of 48 students, with two concurrent lab sections of 24 students. Two different instructors taught five writing sections and five other instructors taught 11 traditional sections over three consecutive quarters. Each course instructor materially participated in teaching laboratory with the help of one graduate assistant per lab section (two graduate students per course section). None of the instructors from treatment sections had implemented writing in the laboratory before the start of this study. Writing instructors were chosen on the basis of personal dissatisfaction with traditional laboratory teaching methods and willingness to try something new.

Strong efforts were made to establish equivalency between writing and nonwriting course sections a priori. Course elements that were highly similar included common lecture rooms, the use of similar (in most cases identical) textbooks, and a lab facility coordinated by a single faculty member. More specifically, three similarly appointed lecture rooms outfitted with contemporary instructional technology including dry erase boards, media cabinets, a networked computer, and digital projection were used to teach the nonmajors biology courses. The same nonmajors biology textbook was used across the writing and most of the nonwriting sections. All laboratory sections used a common lab facility and were taught on the same day of the week. Although the order in which specific labs were taught differed among sections, a common laboratory manual containing prescriptive exercises covering the main themes of biology (scientific method, cellular biology and genetics, natural selection and evolution, kingdoms of life, and a mammalian dissection) was used across all writing and nonwriting lab sections.

Primary course differences included a writing component in the laboratory, and how much time was devoted to laboratory activities. Those sections that experienced the writing treatment completed the prescriptive lab exercises in the first hour and engaged in writing during the second hour of the lab. Nonwriting sections allocated 2 h for the prescriptive lab exercises and included a traditional laboratory quiz rather than a writing assignment. The degree to which the writing and nonwriting sections included small group collaboration in laboratory varied and all course sections differed with regards to individual instructor teaching style. Although all course sections used traditional lecture exams during the quarter to assess content knowledge, the degree to which rote memorization-based exam questions were used to evaluate student learning varied.

Description of the Writing Treatment

On the first day of lecture, students in the writing treatment group were told that their laboratory performance would be evaluated using collaborative essays instead of traditional quizzes. A brief overview of the writing assignments was included in associated course syllabi. During the first laboratory session of the quarter, students were grouped into teams of three or four individuals, and the criteria for completing weekly writing assignments were further explained.

The decision to use collaborative groups to support writing in the laboratory was partly based on existing literature ( Collier, 1980 ; Bruffee, 1984 ; Tobin et al., 1994 ; Jones and Carter, 1998 ; Springer et al., 1999 ) and prior research by Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch (unpublished results), who showed that Peer Led Team Learning (one form of collaborative learning) helped to measurably improve undergraduate critical thinking skills. Small group learning was also used in the nonwriting treatment groups to a greater or lesser extent depending on individual instructor preference.

Baseline critical thinking performance was established in the academic quarters preceding the writing experiment to more specifically attribute changes in critical thinking to the writing treatment. Concurrent nonwriting course sections were also used as comparison groups. The historical baseline provided a way to determine what student performance had been before experiencing the writing treatment, whereas the concurrent nonwriting groups allowed for a direct comparison of critical thinking performance during the writing treatment. Pretest scores indicating prior critical thinking skill were also used to further establish comparability between the writing and nonwriting groups.

Laboratory activities were coordinated for all sections by a single faculty member who taught in the nonwriting group. All faculty and graduate assistants met regularly to discuss course progress, laboratory procedure, and coordinate resources. Nonwriting faculty drafted quizzes that addressed laboratory content knowledge. Writing faculty collaboratively crafted a consensus essay, or thought question, designed to elicit student critical thinking and ability to apply content knowledge. Each thought question was designed so that students had to apply lecture concepts and build on their conceptual understanding by integrating actual laboratory experiences (see Supplemental Appendix 1 , available online) for thought question examples). Weekly thought questions became progressively more difficult as the term progressed. Initial planning meetings took place just before the beginning of the academic quarter and included graduate assistant training to help them learn to consistently evaluate student writing using a modified thesis-based essay rubric (see Supplemental Appendix 2 ; Beers et al., 1994 ). A range of sample essays from poor to high quality was used to calibrate graduate assistant scoring and ensure consistency between assistants from different laboratory sections within the writing group. All graduate assistants and course instructors applied the thesis-based rubric to sample essays and worked toward consensus. Initial training ended when all graduate assistants scored within 0.5 points of each other on at least two sample essays.

Students were given weekly thought questions before beginning laboratory to help them frame their efforts during laboratory exercises. Students completed the prescriptive lab activities during the first hour, and then each student group relocated to an assigned computer lab in the same building and worked around a common computer terminal to draft a collective response to the weekly thought question. Students were allowed to use any suitable information or materials (laboratory observations, laboratory manuals, lecture notes, textbooks, the Internet, etc.) to help them address their thought question. Internal group discussions allowed students to argue individual viewpoints as they worked toward group agreement on each thought question. Essay responses to thought questions were answered using a standard five-paragraph format. Each essay included an introduction with a group-generated thesis statement, two to three body paragraphs that provided sufficient detail to support the thesis statement, and a summary paragraph that concluded the essay. Students were not allowed to work on essays outside of the laboratory environment.

Initial essay drafts were composed in Microsoft Word and submitted to the graduate assistant by the end of the laboratory period using the campus e-mail system. Graduate assistants evaluated each group's essay (typically six per lab section) and assigned an initial grade based on the thesis-based essay rubric. Graduate assistants made comments and suggestions electronically using Microsoft Word revising and track changes tools. Evaluated essays were e-mailed back to each student group, which addressed comments and suggestions during the subsequent week's laboratory writing time. Each student group submitted a final draft that was re-evaluated and assigned a final grade. During the second week, students both revised their essay from the previous week and then generated an initial draft for the current week's thought question, all within the lab writing hour. This was done to help students become more proficient writers within a short period of time. Overall, students in the writing group completed eight essays that, along with lab book scores, constituted 25% of their overall course grade. An identical percentage was used to calculate traditional quiz and lab book scores in all nonwriting course sections.

At the end of the quarter, each writing group member completed a peer evaluation for all group members, including themselves (see Supplemental Appendix 3 ). This was done to help students reflect on and evaluate their own performance, maximize individual accountability within the group, and make sure students received credit proportional to their contributions. The average peer evaluation score for each student was included as 5% of the final course grade.

Collectively, this approach to writing and evaluation was used to 1) help students reflect on and discuss deficiencies in their collective and written work, 2) provide an opportunity for students to explicitly address deficiencies in thesis development and general writing skill, 3) provide a suitable reward for student efforts to revise their work relative to established performance benchmarks, 4) improve individual accountability within each group, and 5) help students develop more efficient and effective writing skills that collectively might lead to improved critical thinking skill.

Assessment of Critical Thinking

Using critical thinking to indicate student learning performance is particularly useful because it can be measured within and across disciplines. Various instruments are available to assess critical thinking ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ; Ennis and Weir, 1985 ; Facione, 1990b ; Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, 1996 ); however, only the CCTST measures cognitive and meta-cognitive skills associated with critical thinking, is based on a consensus definition of critical thinking, and has been evaluated for validity and reliability for measuring critical thinking at the college level ( Facione, 1990a ; Facione et al., 1992 , 2004 ). The CCTST measures cognitive skills of analysis, inference, evaluation, induction, and deduction, with results expressed as raw scores or national percentile equivalents based on a national norming sample of students from 4-yr colleges and universities. Construct validity for the CCTST is high as indicated by greater than 95% consensus of the Delphi panel experts on the component skills of critical thinking. Test reliability (calculated using the KR–20 internal consistency method) is 0.78–0.84 for the form used in this study, a value considered to be within the recommended range for tests that measure a wide range of critical thinking skills ( Facione, 1991 ). The CCTST norming sample for 4-yr colleges and universities is based on a stratified sample of 2000 students from various disciplines, with approximately 30% of the norming sample comprised of science and math students. Approximately 20,000 college students complete the CCTST each year ( Insight Assessment and Blohm, 2005 ).

The CCTST contains 34 questions and is a 45-min timed assessment of critical thinking. An online version of the CCTST was administered in this study, which allowed the researchers to collect student demographics data including gender, ethnicity, age, and several others at the same time critical thinking skill was measured. Total critical thinking skill as well as analysis, inference, and evaluation component critical thinking skills ( Facione, 1990c ) were determined for each CCTST administration and compared across the writing and nonwriting groups.

Research Design

A quasi-experimental pretest/posttest control group design was used for this study to determine whether critical thinking performance in the writing group differed significantly from the nonwriting group. This design was chosen in order to compare critical thinking performance between intact groups, and because it was not feasible to randomly assign students from one course section to another within the sample. Frequency distributions of pretest/posttest changes in total critical thinking skill and analysis, inference, and evaluation component critical thinking skills were constructed to provide some indication of sample randomness and to inform assumptions for subsequent statistical analyses of covariance (see Figure 1 , A–D).

(A–D) Frequency distribution of change in critical thinking skills. Distribution of change in critical thinking skill for the experimental sample. Changes are indicated using raw scores from CCTST pre- and posttests for total critical thinking skill (A) as well as analysis (B), inference (C), and evaluation (D) component critical thinking skills.

The pretest/posttest control group design was also used in order to minimize internal validity threats that could potentially compete with the effects of the writing treatment on student critical thinking performance. This design is widely used in educational research, and generally controls for most threats to internal validity ( Campbell and Stanley, 1963 ). Internal threats that remain a concern include history, maturation, pretest sensitization, selection, and statistical regression toward the mean. In the current study, history and maturation threats were minimized to the extent that the CCTST pretest and posttest were administered only 9 wk apart, and class standing and age covariables that indicate maturation were included in the statistical analysis. Pretest sensitization and selection are larger concerns for this design. Pretest sensitization was minimized in several ways: 1) prior critical thinking skill indicated by the CCTST pretest was used as a covariable in statistical analyses, 2) pretest/posttest to posttest only comparison studies conducted by Insight Assessment indicate CCTST pretest sensitization is minimized ( Facione, 1990a ), and 3) neither the students, instructors, nor the test administrators have access to the correct answers on the CCTST, so repeat performance on the posttest is less likely. Selection threats were also reduced by using CCTST pretest scores in the statistical analyses, thereby making it more difficult to detect statistically significant differences in critical thinking performance between the writing and nonwriting groups. Statistical regression toward the mean, which was observed to some extent in this study, was minimized because this study used a valid and reliable instrument to assess critical thinking ( Facione, 1990a ). Regression threats were also minimized to the extent that students with higher initial scores regressed much less than students with lower initial scores.

The generalizability of study results is limited because all data were collected at a single university. Specific threats to external validity include selection-treatment interaction and treatment diffusion. These threats were minimized because writing was mandatory for all treatment group participants, thereby minimizing volunteer effects. Because the writing also took considerable student effort, it is less likely that treatment diffusion occurred. In summary, the pretest/posttest control group design was used to minimize internal and external validity threats and maximize the ability to determine the effects of writing on student critical thinking performance.

Study Variables and Data Analysis

Effect of writing on critical thinking performance..

General education biology students were divided into writing and nonwriting groups (independent variable). Changes in CCTST pretest/posttest scores (dependent variable) were determined to discover whether writing influenced student critical thinking performance. Two CCTST outcome measures were used to statistically test for writing effect: 1) raw scores for total critical thinking skill, and 2) raw scores for analysis, inference, and evaluation component skills. Results were reported using raw scores and corresponding national percentile rank so that critical thinking performance outcomes would be more meaningful and intuitive. Conversion of CCTST raw scores to national percentile ranking was done using SPSS (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) statistical software and a linear estimation conversion script based on an equivalency scale from Insight Assessment (Millbrae, CA).

Several covariables were included in the analysis to increase statistical accuracy and precision, and to more specifically isolate the effects of writing on critical thinking performance. CCTST pretest scores were used to indicate initial critical thinking skill. Gender and ethnicity helped to account for male/female or race-specific changes in critical thinking performance and were also used to identify potential sources of performance bias. Academic term and time of day were used to account for critical thinking differences due to the time of year each course was offered and the time of day each student took the course, respectively. Class standing and age were used to indicate maturation related to time in college and chronological age, respectively. Finally, the instructor covariable was used to account for performance differences due to individual teaching styles.

Statistical Analysis of Effect of Writing.

Several statistical analyses were conducted to determine the effects of writing on critical thinking performance in general education biology. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test provided insight regarding differences in overall critical thinking performance between the writing and nonwriting groups. Change in CCTST total raw scores and national percentile ranking was used as composite measures of critical thinking ( Facione, 1990c ) in this initial analysis. Second, changes in particular component critical thinking skills (analysis, inference, and evaluation) were evaluated using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) test because of the three dependent variables. The ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests also provided some insight into the effect the covariables had on critical thinking performance in general education biology. Collectively, these statistical tests allowed for a more accurate and precise analysis because variance associated with the covariables could be more specifically isolated from the writing treatment. Mean, SE, and effect size were also compared between the writing and nonwriting groups. Effect size, represented in standard units, was used to compare the magnitude of writing effect in the study.

Analysis of Thought Question Performance.

Performance on weekly thought questions was analyzed to discover specifically when and how much student critical thinking skills changed during the academic term. This analysis also provided context for CCTST critical thinking performance measures. Specifically, average scores from a representative sample of writing course sections (approximately 100 students) were used to compare initial essay drafts across the weeks of the term to discover when students began to show changes in their first attempt at each essay. Weekly performance on final revised essays was also compared to determine how student final submissions changed over time. Finally, the weekly difference between each initial essay and each final essay was compared to determine how much the revision process changed during the term. These calculations collectively helped to provide a profile of critical thinking performance over time.

Participant Demographics

Student demographics provided in Table 1 indicated an overall distribution of approximately 49% freshmen, 31% sophomores, 11% juniors, and 9% seniors. Approximately 74% of the writing group students were freshmen and sophomores, whereas 82% of the nonwriting group was underclassmen. Overall, 61% of the sample was female and 39% male, with near identical gender distribution across the writing and nonwriting groups. The predominant ethnicity in the sample was Caucasian (>83%), with Asian American (5%), Latino/Hispanic (3%), African American (2%), and Native American (1%) students comprising the remainder of the sample. About 6% of the sample classified themselves as having some other ethnicity or chose not to identify their ethnic heritage.

Statistical Assumptions

Analysis of covariance and multivariate analysis of covariance tests were used to compare critical thinking performance between the writing and nonwriting groups. The evaluated assumptions for the ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests were homogeneity of slopes, homogeneity of covariances, and normality. An analysis evaluating the homogeneity of slopes assumption indicated that the relationship between the covariables and the critical thinking performance dependent variable did not differ significantly by the writing/nonwriting independent variable for the ANCOVA test, F(2, 307) = 1.642, p = 0.195, power = 0.346, partial η 2 = 0.011, or the MANCOVA test, F(6, 610) = 1.685, p = 0.122, power = 0.645, partial η 2 = 0.016. These results confirmed that both analyses of covariance met the homogeneity of slopes assumption. The homogeneity of covariance assumption was tested using Levene's and Box's tests. Levene's test results for the ANCOVA indicated that error variances were not equal across writing and nonwriting groups, F(1,308) = 7.139, p = 0.008. Similarly, Box's test results indicated that covariance was not equal for the writing and nonwriting groups, F(6, 684,530) = 4.628, p = 0.000. These results indicated that the ANCOVA/MANCOVA tests did not meet the homogeneity of covariance assumption. To more fully evaluate this assumption, distributions of total and component critical thinking skill were constructed (see Figure 1 , A–D). Furthermore, the writing and nonwriting groups were highly similar in size and no post hoc tests were conducted. On the basis of these data, it was determined that the ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests were the best statistical measures to answer the research questions. Finally, the normality assumption was evaluated using the previously constructed frequency distributions for total change in critical thinking ( Figure 1 A) as well as change in analysis ( Figure 1 B), inference ( Figure 1 C), and evaluation ( Figure 1 D) critical thinking skills. Frequency distributions of total and component critical thinking dependent variables indicated that each approximated a standard normal curve.

Effect of Writing on Total Critical Thinking Performance

The ANCOVA test of total critical thinking performance showed that writing and nonwriting groups differed significantly, F(1, 300) = 19.357, p < 0.0001, power = 0.992, partial η 2 = 0.061 (see Table 2 ). The strength of the relationship between the writing/nonwriting groups and critical thinking performance was modest but significant, accounting for more than 6% of the variance in critical thinking performance.

ANCOVA results for total critical thinking performance

Analysis of covariance for the writing and nonwriting groups. Tested covariables included gender, ethnicity, class standing, age, prior critical thinking skill (CCTST pre-test), academic term, time of day, and instructor.

a Significance tested at 0.05 level.

Descriptive statistics of total critical thinking performance in the writing and nonwriting groups were also calculated (see Table 3 ). The writing group showed an average CCTST raw score change of 1.18 compared with the nonwriting group, which showed an average raw score change of −0.51. These critical thinking raw scores equated to gains in national percentile rank of 7.47 (45th to 53rd percentile) for the writing group and −2.09 (42nd to 40th percentile) for the nonwriting group. Critical thinking improvement in the writing group was approximately nine times greater than the nonwriting group (see Figure 2 ).

Writing effect on total critical thinking performance: CCTST raw scores

Comparison of writing and nonwriting group performance based on CCTST raw scores. CCTST raw score range was 0–34; n values in parentheses.

Effect of writing on total critical thinking national percentile rank. Comparison of total critical thinking national percentile gains between writing and nonwriting groups. Percentile ranking was computed using CCTST raw scores, an equivalency scale from Insight Assessment, and a linear conversion script in SPSS.

The ANCOVA test of total critical thinking skill indicated that gender, ethnicity, age, class standing, and academic term did not significantly affect critical thinking performance (see Table 2 ). Covariables that significantly affected total critical thinking performance included 1) CCTST pretest score, F(1, 300) = 19.713, p < 0.0001, power = 0.993, partial η 2 = 0.062, 2) instructor, F(1, 300) = 7.745, p < 0.006, power = 0.792, partial η 2 = 0.025, and 3) time of day, F(1300) = 6.291, p < 0.013, power = 0.705, partial η 2 = 0.021. The effect of prior critical thinking skill (CCTST pretest) was moderately strong, accounting for more than 6% of the variance in total critical thinking performance. The effect of instructor and time of day were smaller, accounting for 2.5 and 2%, respectively, of total critical thinking performance variance. Critical thinking improvement associated with CCTST pretest score was approximately 2.5 times greater than for instructor and nearly three times greater than for time of day.

Effect of Writing on Component Critical Thinking Performance

The MANCOVA test indicated that analysis, inference, and evaluation critical thinking skills differed significantly between the writing and nonwriting groups, Wilks λ = 0.919, F(3, 296) = 8.746, p < 0.0001, power = 0.995, partial η 2 = 0.081 (see Table 4 ). The strength of the relationship between writing and component critical thinking performance was modest but significant, accounting for more than 8% of the variance in critical thinking performance.

MANCOVA results for component critical thinking performance

Multivariate analysis of covariance for the writing and nonwriting groups. Tested covariables included gender, ethnicity, class standing, age, prior critical thinking skill (CCTST pretest), academic term, time of day, and instructor.

Specifically, significant gains in analysis and inference skills were observed in the writing group but not the nonwriting group. No statistically significant gains in evaluation skill were observed in either group (see Table 5 ). National percentile rank equivalents for CCTST component raw scores indicated the writing group gained 10.51 percentile in analysis skill (42nd to 52nd percentile), 6.05 percentile in inference skill (45th to 52nd percentile), and 5.16 percentile in evaluation skill (46th to 52nd percentile). The nonwriting group showed a national percentile rank change of −4.43 percentile in analysis skill (47th to 42nd percentile), −2.23 percentile in inference skill (42nd to 40th percentile), and 1.37 percentile in evaluation (44th to 45th percentile; see Figure 3 ). Critical thinking performance for the writing group was 15 times greater for analysis and 8 times greater for inference skills than for the nonwriting group. Although neither the writing nor the nonwriting group showed significant gains in evaluation skill, the writing group showed more than 3 times greater improvement than did the nonwriting group.

Effect of writing on component critical thinking performance

Comparison of writing and nonwriting group performance based on critical thinking component skill raw scores (CCTST subscales). Score range was 0–7 (analysis), 0–16 (inference), and 0–11 (evaluation).

Effect of writing on component critical thinking national percentile rank. Comparison of component critical thinking national percentile gains between writing and nonwriting groups. Percentile ranking was computed using CCTST raw scores, an equivalency scale from Insight Assessment, and a linear conversion script in SPSS.

The MANCOVA test of analysis, inference, and evaluation skills indicated that gender, ethnicity, age, class standing, academic term, and time of day did not significantly affect critical thinking performance. Critical thinking performance was affected by prior analysis, inference, and evaluation skill (CCTST component pretest scores) and instructor (see Table 4 ). Specifically, component pretest scores had a large effect on critical thinking, accounting for 38% (analysis), 32% (inference), and 39% (evaluation) of critical thinking performance variance. The effect of instructor was smaller, accounting for 4.4% of variation in critical thinking skill. The effect of prior component critical thinking skill was approximately 4.5 times greater than the effect of writing, and nearly 9 times greater than the effect of instructor.

Student Thought Question Performance

Critical thinking performance on student essays was evaluated by applying a thesis-based essay rubric (see Supplemental Appendix 2 ) on initial submissions and final revised essays. Average weekly performance during the academic term is shown in Figure 4 . A comparison of initial essays indicated that students improved 53.3% from week 1 (average score of 27.9%) to week 7 (average score of 81.2%). A similar comparison of final essays showed that students improved 32.5% from week 1 (average score of 54.1%) to week 7 (average score of 86.6%). The largest changes between initial and final essays occurred in week 1 (change of 26.2%), and decreased each week thereafter (24.8, 23.9, 18.8, 8, 7.8, and 5.4% for weeks 2 through 7, respectively). These results showed that students produced little evidence of critical thinking skill in their writing early in the term, but improved dramatically on both initial and revised essay submissions by the end of the term.

Profile of change in critical thinking performance in writing group. Comparison of student writing performance on weekly initial and revised essays. Essay scores were derived using a thesis-based critical thinking rubric (see Supplemental Appendix 2 ). Average essay scores were computed across writing sections.

The purpose of this study was to discover whether writing could measurably influence critical thinking performance in general education biology. Results indicated that students from the writing group significantly outperformed their nonwriting peers in both total critical thinking skill and the component critical thinking skills of analysis and inference. The writing and nonwriting groups were highly similar initially and began the academic term with comparable critical thinking ability (45th and 42nd national percentile for writing and nonwriting, respectively). By the end of the term, writing students had improved their critical thinking skill to above the 52nd percentile whereas nonwriting students decreased to below the 40th percentile. In addition to writing, prior critical thinking skill and course instructor significantly affected critical thinking performance, with prior critical thinking skill having the largest effect on critical thinking gains of any variable tested. Further analysis of the writing group showed that the largest gains in critical thinking occurred during the first few weeks of the term, with graduated improvement during the remainder of the term. A comparison of average critical thinking performance on initial essays and revised essays showed that thinking skills improvement was greater on initial essays (53%) than on final essays (33%). Collectively, the results of this study indicated that students who experienced writing in general education biology significantly improved their critical thinking skills.

The covariance analysis that was conducted provided a partial means to separate out the effects of writing, prior critical thinking skill, instructor, and multiple covariables from total and component critical thinking gains. The analysis of total critical thinking skill indicated that writing students changed their critical thinking skill from below the national average to above the national average within an academic quarter, whereas nonwriting students remained below the national average. This observation is important because it shows that students can develop critical thinking skills within a fairly short 9-wk period of time, and that writing can play a role in that process. A similar study showed critical thinking skills improve over 15 wk (Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch, unpublished results); however, this study provided no insight into whether critical thinking skills could be changed over a shorter period of time, in a different academic setting, or in response to instructional variables such as writing.

Although critical thinking gains were influenced by writing, they did not appear to be affected by gender, ethnicity, class standing, or age. In fact, statistical results indicated that these variables collectively had a very small effect on critical thinking performance. Gender distribution was nearly identical across the writing and nonwriting groups, and was predominantly female (nearly 62%). Ethnic distribution was also highly similar across the writing and nonwriting groups, but the sampling was largely Caucasian (>84%). Class standing varied a little more across the writing and nonwriting groups, with the sample largely comprised of underclassmen (70%). Although nearly three-quarters of the sample was between 18 and 21 years of age, nearly 10% was over 21, with a fair number of older nontraditional students represented. It is possible that a more diverse sample would have produced different results, or it may be that the individuals participating in this study responded particularly well to writing. Although further investigation of these variables is necessary and important, it was beyond the scope of the current study.

The analysis of component skills provided greater insight into the particular critical thinking skills that students changed in response to writing. Specifically, writing students significantly improved their analysis and inference skills whereas nonwriting students did not. Writing students also improved their evaluation skills much more than nonwriting students, although not significantly. These results indicate that the process of writing helps students develop improved analytical and inference skills. Prior research indicates that the writing to learn strategy is effective because students must conceptually organize and structure their thoughts as well as their awareness of thinking processes ( Langer and Applebee, 1987 ; Ackerman, 1993 ; Holliday, 1994 ; Rivard, 1994 ). More specifically, as students begin to shape their thoughts at the point of construction and continually analyze, review, and clarify meaning through the processes of drafting and revision, they necessarily engage and apply analysis and inference skills ( Klein, 1999 ; Hand and Prain, 2002 ). In this study, the process of writing appears to have influenced critical thinking gains. It also seems likely that writing students experienced a greater cognitive demand than nonwriting students simply because the writing act required them to hypothesize, debate, and persuade ( Rivard, 1994 ; Hand and Prain, 2002 ) rather than memorize as was the case in nonwriting control courses.

Conversely, the lack of any significant change in analysis, inference, or evaluation skills in the nonwriting group indicated that the traditional lab instruction used in the general education biology control courses did not help students develop critical thinking skills. Based on the results of this study, it could be argued that traditional lab instruction actually prevents the development of critical thinking skills, which presents a rather large problem when one considers how frequently these traditional methods are used in general education biology courses. One also has to consider that the critical thinking gains seen in the writing group might also have resulted from the relative absence of traditional lab instruction rather than writing alone. Additional research will be necessary to gain further insight into this question. Either way, changes to the traditional model of lab instruction will be necessary if the goal is to enhance the critical thinking abilities of general education biology students.

The variable that had the largest impact on critical thinking performance gains was prior critical thinking skill. This phenomenon was previously observed by Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch (unpublished results) in a related study that investigated the effect of Peer Led Team Learning on critical thinking performance. That study focused on science and math major undergraduate critical thinking performance at a major research university, and found that, in addition to Peer Led Team Learning, prior critical thinking skill significantly influenced critical thinking performance (Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch, unpublished results). Specifically, students with the highest prior critical thinking skill showed the largest performance gains, whereas students with low initial skill were at a comparative disadvantage. The fact that prior critical thinking skill also had a large effect on critical thinking performance in this study increases the generalizability of the observation and underscores its importance. Simply put, students who have not been explicitly taught how to think critically may not reach the same potential as peers who have been taught these skills, not because they lack the cognitive hard-wiring to perform but because they lack the tools to build their knowledge. Is it reasonable or just to expect otherwise comparable students to perform at similar levels when only some of them have the keys for success? If we hope to improve the perception of science in this country, we need to educate people on how to think about important scientific issues, and not simply argue a position based on one school of thought. By helping general education students to develop critical thinking skills, it is hoped that they will be better able to think rationally about science.

The observation that students who come to general education biology with greater critical thinking skills leave with the largest skill gains has important implications for the K–12 school system as well. If a high proportion of students are coming to institutions of higher education lacking critical thinking skills, why are these skills not being explicitly taught in the K–12 system? Ideally, students would learn the foundational tenets of critical thinking at an earlier age, and be able to refine and hone these skills as they progress through the K–20 education system. The results of this study reinforce the idea that students should be explicitly taught critical thinking skills and be expected to practice them as early and often as possible.

Although its effect was smaller than writing or prior critical thinking skill, the instructor variable also played a significant role in student critical thinking performance, accounting for 2.5% of the total variance in critical thinking gains. Determining the particular qualities of each instructor that contributed to student critical thinking success and further separating instructor and writing effects will require additional research. Previous research indicates that teaching style positively influences certain aspects of student learning ( Grasha, 1994 ; Hativa et al., 2001 ; Bain, 2004 ), but the qualities that specifically influence student critical thinking gains have not been sufficiently investigated. Additional research in this area is necessary.

Faculty considering whether to use writing in the laboratory may wonder about how much time and energy it takes to implement, if efforts to change will translate into improved student learning, and how these changes affect disciplinary content. From a practical perspective, implementing writing did not take more time and effort per se; rather, it required faculty to reconceptualize how they spent their instructional time. Instead of individually developing course materials, writing faculty collaborated to a greater extent than nonwriting faculty on course design and assessments that required students to demonstrate their critical thinking skill. Interviews of faculty from the writing and nonwriting groups indicated that writing faculty felt the course was less work because they collaborated with colleagues and because students demonstrated improved thinking skill. Writing faculty generally became more comfortable with the new model after ∼2–3 wk when students began to show observable changes in writing proficiency and critical thinking. Together, collaboration with colleagues and observed gains in critical thinking tended to create a positive feedback loop that helped to sustain writing faculty efforts. In contrast, nonwriting faculty similarly wanted their students to think better but were convinced that traditional methods would be more effective, and so remained closed to change. There were some logistical challenges with writing, like scheduling computer labs where students could draft and revise their weekly essay responses under instructor and teaching assistant supervision. Teaching assistants (and faculty) also needed to be trained on how to evaluate writing using a rubric. Finally, with regards to content coverage, no lecture or laboratory content was killed in order to implement writing because writing and nonwriting students both performed the same lab activities. Collectively, the benefits of using writing in laboratory should encourage faculty who want their students to learn to think critically to give it a try.

Future Directions

This study showed that writing affects student critical thinking skill in a nonmajors biology course, but the results have generated more questions than have been answered. How does writing specifically produce gains in critical thinking performance? What factors influence student prior critical thinking skill? How do instructors specifically influence student gains in critical thinking? Future studies that analyze student essays in more detail would provide greater insight into how writing influences critical thinking skill. Using writing in other nonmajor science courses such as chemistry, geology, or physics could also be done to determine the transferability of this method. Additional studies that investigate student prior critical thinking skill and instructor variables are also necessary. These future studies would further contribute to the knowledge base in this area, and also address some of its identified limitations ( Ebert-May et al., 1997 ; Daempfle, 2002 ). Results from these studies would also increase the generalizability of the results from this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Building on existing research and on the basis of several lines of evidence presented in this study, we conclude that writing positively influences critical thinking performance for general education biology students. Those students with prior critical thinking skill may have a comparative advantage over other general education biology students who have not developed these same skills. To rectify that inequity critical thinking skills should be explicitly taught early and used often during the K–20 academic process. As it appears that particular instructors improve student critical thinking skills more than others, students should be discerning in their choice of instructors if they want to improve their critical thinking skills. Whether writing as a method to improve critical thinking skills will prove useful in other general education science courses will likely depend on a host of factors, but it has potential. Further study of writing in general education science will be necessary to verify these results and discover the breadth and depth of how writing affects critical thinking skill.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Drs. Holly Pinkart, Roberta Soltz, Phil Mattocks, and James Johnson and undergraduate researchers Matthew Brewer, Dayrk Flaugh, Adam Wallace, Colette Watson, Kelly Vincent, and Christine Weller for their valuable contributions to this study. The authors also acknowledge the generous financial support provided by the Central Washington University Office of the Provost and the Office of the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies.

• Ackerman J. M. The promise of writing to learn. Writ. Commun. 1993; 10 (3):334–370. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC: 1989. Science for All Americans. A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Applebee A. N. Writing and reasoning. Rev. Educ. Res. 1984; 54 (4):577–596. [ Google Scholar ]
• Association of American Colleges Universities. Washington, DC: 2005. Liberal Education Outcomes: A Preliminary Report on Student Achievement in College. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bain K. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beers T., McIssac C., Henderson B., Gainen J. Writing: thesis and support scoring guide. 1994. [accessed 25 August 2006]. http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/RUB_WTHS.PDF .
• Bruffee K. A. Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” Coll. Engl. 1984; 46 (7):635–653. [ Google Scholar ]
• Business-Higher Education Forum, and American Council on Education. Washington, DC: 2003. Building a Nation of Learners: The Need for Changes in Teaching and Learning To Meet Global Challenges. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bybee R. W., Fuchs B. Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006; 43 (4):349–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnevale A. P. American Society for Training Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. Workplace Basics: The Essential Skills Employers Want. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State University; 1996. ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Test. [ Google Scholar ]
• Champagne A., Kouba V., Mintzes J., Wandersee J., Novak J. Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View. New York: Academic Press; 1999. Written product as performance measures; pp. 224–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collier K. G. Peer-group learning in higher education: the development of higher order skills. Stud. High. Educ. 1980; 5 (1):55–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daempfle P. A. New York: U.S. Department of Education; 2002. Instructional Approaches for the Improvement of Reasoning in Introductory College Biology Courses: A Review of the Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May D., Brewer C., Allred S. Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. Bioscience. 1997; 47 (9):601–607. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educ. Leadership. 1985; 43 (2):44–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H., Weir E. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications; 1985. The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990a. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test—College Level. Technical Report 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990b. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test—College Level. Technical Report 3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990c. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test—College Level. Technical Report 4. Interpreting the CCTST, Group Norms, and Sub-Scores. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1991. Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in Research, Evaluation, and Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. American Philosophical Association. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A., Facione N. C., Giancarlo C. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1992. Test Manual: The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A, Facione N. C. Insight Assessment. 2004. [accessed 30 June 2006]. Test of everyday reasoning. http://www.insightassessment.com/test-ter.html . [ Google Scholar ]
• Giancarlo C. A., Facione P. A. A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. J. Gen. Educ. 2001; 50 (1):29–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grasha A. F. A matter of style: the teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. Coll. Teach. 1994; 42 (4):142–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hand B., Prain V. Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: a case study. Sci. Educ. 2002; 86 (6):737–755. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hativa N., Barak R., Simhi E. Exemplary university teachers: knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. J. High. Educ. 2001; 72 (6):699–729. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holliday W. G. The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994; 31 (9):877–893. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes J., Clizbe E. Facing the 21st century. Bus. Educ. Forum. 1997; 52 (1):33–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holyoak A. R. A plan for writing throughout (not just across) the biology curriculum. Am. Biol. Teach. 1998; 60 (3):186–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howard V. A. Thinking on paper: a philosopher's look at writing. In: Howard V. A., editor. Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center. New York: Routledge; 1990. pp. 84–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Insight Assessment. Blohm S. Annual number of users for the CCTST form 2000. 2005 [accessed 8 December 2006]; [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones E. A., Hoffman S., Moore L. M., Ratcliff G., Tibbets S., Click B., III . Report no. NCES-95-001. University Park, PA: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.; 1995. National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduates' Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and Listening, and Critical Thinking. Final project report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones G. M, Carter G. Small groups and shared constructions. In: Mintzes J. J., Wandersee J. H., Novak J. D., editors. Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1998. pp. 261–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly G. J., Chen C. The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999; 36 (8):883–915. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keys C. W. Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Sci. Educ. 1999; 83 (2):115–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keys C. W., Hand B., Prain V., Collins S. Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999; 36 (10):1065–1084. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein P. Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Ed. Psychol. Rev. 1999; 11 (3):203–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein P. D. Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instr. Sci. 2004; 32 (3):191–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klymkowsky M. W. Can nonmajors courses lead to biological literacy? Do majors courses do any better? Cell. Biol. Educ. 2006; 4 :42–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokkala I., Gessell D. A. Writing science effectively: biology and English students in an author-editor relationship. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2003; 32 (4):252–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurfiss J. G. Association for the Study of Higher Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University; 1988. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities. [ Google Scholar ]
• Langer J. A., Applebee A. N. Learning to write: learning to think. Educ. Horizons. 1985; 64 (1):36–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Langer J. A., Applebee A. N. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; 1987. How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. NCTE research report no. 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawson A. E. Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. J. Biol. Educ. 2001; 35 (4):165–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malcom S. M., Abdallah J., Chubin D. E., Grogan K. A System of Solutions: Every School, Every Student. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marzano R. J. Fostering thinking across the curriculum through knowledge restructuring. J. Reading. 1991; 34 (7):518–525. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century; 2005. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995. National Science Education Standards. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. Washington, DC: Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century; 2003. Bio 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: Directorate for Education and Human Resources; 1996. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Office of Educational Research Improvement. Washington, DC: 1991. Striving for excellence: The National Education Goals. [ Google Scholar ]
• Project Kaleidoscope. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2006. Transforming America's Scientific and Technological Infrastructure: Recommendations for Urgent Action. [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnick L. B. Education and Learning To Think. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivard L. P. A review of writing to learn in science: implications for practice and research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994; 31 (9):969–983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Springer L., Donovan S. S., Stanne M. E. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1999; 69 (1):21–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steglich C. S. A writing assignment that changes attitudes in biology classes. Am. Biol. Teach. 2000; 62 (2):98–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor K. L., Sobota S. J. Writing in biology: an integration of disciplines. Am. Biol. Teach. 1998; 60 (5):350–353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tessier J. Writing assignment in a nonmajor introductory ecology class. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2006; 35 (4):25–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin K. G., Tippins D. J., Gallard A. J. Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In: Gabel D. L., editor. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan; 1994. pp. 45–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui L. ASHE annual meeting paper. Miami, FL: 1998. A review of research on critical thinking; pp. 5–8. 1998 November. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui L. Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: evidence from four institutional case studies. J. High. Educ. 2002; 73 (6):740–763. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 1990. National Goals for Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson G., Glaser E. M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Cleveland, OH: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich); 1980. [ Google Scholar ]

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Case for Reading Fiction

• Christine Seifert

It’s an easy way to build emotional intelligence.

When it comes to reading, we may be assuming that reading for knowledge is the best reason to pick up a book. Research, however, suggests that reading fiction may provide far more important benefits than nonfiction. For example, reading fiction predicts increased social acuity and a sharper ability to comprehend other people’s motivations. Reading nonfiction might certainly be valuable for collecting knowledge, it does little to develop EQ, a far more elusive goal.

Some of the most valuable skills that managers look for in employees are often difficult to define, let alone evaluate or quantify: self-discipline, self-awareness, creative problem-solving, empathy, learning agility, adaptiveness, flexibility, positivity, rational judgment, generosity, and kindness, among others. How can you tell if your future employees have these skills? And if your current team is lacking them, how do you teach them? Recent research in neuroscience suggests that you might look to the library for solutions; reading literary fiction helps people develop empathy , theory of mind , and critical thinking .

• CS Christine Seifert is a professor of communication at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah, where she teaches rhetoric, strategy, and professional writing

Partner Center

• Corpus ID: 18027278

Critical Thinking : A Literature

• Emily R Lai
• Published 2011
• Education, Philosophy

15 Citations

Effecting change on students’ critical thinking in problem solving.

• Highly Influenced

Implementation of the Jigsaw Model to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills

Student’s critical thinking in solving open-ended problems based on their personality type, cognitive-behavioural reflective training for improving critical thinking disposition of nursing students, investigating critical thinking in prospective teachers: metacognitive skills, problem solving skills and academic self-efficacy, modeling the relationships between school administrators' creative and critical thinking dispositions with decision making styles and problem solving skills *, preparatory school learners’ level of critical thinking proficiency and its correlation with their academic achievement in ethiopia: the missing ingredient, teaching grammar to promote critical thinking in efl classrooms, a research on critical thinking tendencies and factors that affect critical thinking of higher education students, 49 references, the disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill.

• Highly Influential

Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring.

• 17 Excerpts

Assessing Students' Critical Thinking Performance: Urging for Measurements Using Multi-Response Format.

Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (the delphi report).

• 31 Excerpts

Assessing the Effectiveness of Critical Thinking Instruction

Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis, conceptualizing critical thinking.

• 11 Excerpts

Critical Thinking: The Nature of Critical and Creative Thought

Demystifying critical thinking, alternative instructional strategies for creative and critical thinking in the accounting curriculum, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

How to Encourage Critical Thinking Skills While Reading: Effective Strategies

Encouraging critical thinking skills while reading is essential to children’s cognitive development. Critical thinking enables them to engage deeply with a topic or a book, fostering a better understanding of the material. It is a skill that does not develop overnight but can be nurtured through various strategies and experiences.

One effective way to cultivate critical thinking in children is by sharing quality books with them and participating in discussions that facilitate an exchange of ideas and opinions. Through these conversations, children can draw on their existing knowledge, problem-solving abilities, and experiences to expand their understanding of a subject.

Parents and teachers help kids think more deeply about things. They can do this by answering questions that help kids compare different ideas, look at things from different angles, guess what might happen, and develop new solutions.

Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Reading

Critical thinking helps us understand what we read better. It helps us ask questions and think more deeply about the text. Critical thinking skills can help us analyze, evaluate, and understand what we read.

By incorporating critical thinking, readers can differentiate between facts and opinions, forming their views based on logical reasoning and evidence. This ability is particularly crucial in today’s information abundance, where readers are often exposed to biased or unreliable content. According to Critical Thinking Secrets , using critical thinking in reading allows learners to exercise their judgment in assessing the credibility of the information.

Furthermore, critical thinking promotes creativity and problem-solving skills. Practicing critical thinking allows learners to devise new and innovative ideas to address various challenges. This skill improves academic performance and prepares young minds for future professional endeavors.

Engaging with quality books and participating in thought-provoking discussions can nurture critical thinking abilities in children. Reading Rockets emphasizes the importance of exposing children to texts that challenge their thinking and encourage them to ask questions, fostering the development of critical thinking skills over time.

Teachers also play a significant role in promoting critical thinking in the classroom. Employing various instructional strategies, such as problem-based learning, asking open-ended questions, and providing opportunities for group discussions, can help students cultivate critical thinking habits.

Developing a Reading Environment That Fosters Critical Thinking

Creating a reading environment that promotes critical thinking enables students to engage with texts more deeply and develop essential analytical skills. The following sub-sections outline strategies for choosing thought-provoking materials and encouraging open discussions.

Choosing Thought-Provoking Materials

Selecting suitable reading materials is critical to stimulating critical thinking among students. Teachers should look for texts that:

• Are relevant and relatable to students’ lives and interests
• Present various perspectives and diverse characters
• Pose challenging questions and open-ended problems

By incorporating such texts into the classroom, students can be exposed to new ideas and viewpoints, promoting critical thinking and engagement with the material. For instance, in Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking , teachers are advised to choose compelling topics and maintain relevance to foster critical thinking

Encouraging Open Discussions

Fostering an environment where open discussions occur is essential to promoting critical thinking skills while reading. Teachers should:

• Create a culture of inquiry by posing open-ended questions and encouraging students to form opinions and debates
• Facilitate discussions by asking students to explain their thinking processes and share their interpretations of the text
• Respect all opinions and viewpoints, emphasizing that the goal is to learn from each other rather than reach a “correct” answer

Students who feel comfortable participating in discussions are more likely to develop critical thinking skills. The Reading Rockets emphasizes the importance of reading together and engaging in conversations to nurture critical thinking in children.

Active Reading Strategies

Active reading is an essential skill for encouraging critical thinking skills while reading. This involves consciously engaging with the material and connecting with what you know or have read before. This section discusses key strategies that can help you become an active reader.

Annotating and Note-Taking

Annotating the text and taking notes as you read allows you to engage with the material on a deeper level. This process of actively engaging with the text helps you to analyze and retain information more effectively. As you read, it is important to make marginal notes or comments to highlight key points and draw connections between different sections of the material.

Asking Questions While Reading

One important aspect of critical reading is questioning the material. This means not taking everything you read at face value and considering the author’s interpretation and opinion . As you read, develop the habit of asking questions throughout the process, such as:

• What is the author’s main argument?
• What evidence supports this argument?
• How is the information presented in a logical manner?
• What are the possible opposing viewpoints?

By asking questions, you can better understand the author’s viewpoint and the evidence presented, which helps to develop your critical thinking skills.

Summarizing and Paraphrasing

Summarizing and paraphrasing are essential skills for critical reading. Summarizing the material allows you to condense key points and process the information more easily. Paraphrasing, or rephrasing the ideas in your own words, not only helps you better understand the material, but also ensures that you’re accurately interpreting the author’s ideas.

Both summarizing and paraphrasing can enhance your critical thinking skills by compelling you to analyze the text and identify the main ideas and supporting evidence. This way, you can make informed judgments about the content, making your reading more purposeful and engaging.

Developing critical thinking skills while reading literature involves a comprehensive understanding of various literary devices. This section highlights three primary aspects of literary analysis: Recognizing Themes and Patterns, Analyzing Characters and Their Motivations, and Evaluating the Author’s Intent and Perspective.

Recognizing Themes and Patterns

One way to foster critical thinking is through recognizing themes and patterns in the text. Encourage students to identify recurring themes, symbols, and motifs as they read. Additionally, examining the relationships between different elements in the story can help create connections and analyze the overall meaning.

For example, in a story about the struggles of growing up, students might notice patterns in the protagonist’s journey, such as recurring conflicts or milestones. By contemplating these patterns, learners can engage in deeper analysis and interpretation of the text.

Analyzing Characters and Their Motivations

Character analysis is an essential aspect of literary analysis, as understanding characters’ motivations can lead to a thorough comprehension of the narrative. Encourage students to analyze the motives behind each character’s actions, focusing on the factors that drive their decisions.

For instance, in a novel where two characters have differing goals, have students consider why these goals differ and how the characters’ motivations impact the story’s outcome. This exploration can lead to thought-provoking discussions about human behavior, facilitating the development of critical thinking skills.

Evaluating the Author’s Intent and Perspective

Critical thinking is essential to evaluating the author’s intent and perspective. This process involves deciphering the underlying message or purpose of the text and analyzing how the author’s experiences or beliefs may have influenced their writing.

One strategy for accomplishing this is to examine the historical or cultural context in which the work was written. By considering the author’s background, students can better understand the ideas or arguments presented in the text.

For example, if reading a novel set during a significant historical period, like the Civil Rights Movement, understanding the author’s experience can help students analyze narrative elements, enhancing their critical thinking abilities.

Methods to Encourage Critical Thinking Beyond Reading

While reading is essential to developing critical thinking skills, it can be further enhanced by incorporating certain activities in daily routines that promote critical thinking.

Debates and Group Discussions

Debates and group discussions are excellent methods for encouraging critical thinking. By participating in debates or discussions, learners exchange diverse ideas, challenge each other’s reasoning, and evaluate the strength of their arguments. These activities require participants to think and respond quickly, synthesize information, and analyze multiple perspectives.

Teachers and parents can facilitate debates and group discussions by selecting topics that are relevant and related to the subject matter. Promoting respectful dialogue and modeling effective listening skills are also important aspects of setting up successful debates or discussions.

Exploring Other Media Formats

In addition to reading, exploring other media formats like documentaries, podcasts, and videos can help stimulate critical thinking in learners. Different mediums present information in unique ways, providing learners with various perspectives and fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Using diverse media formats, individuals can compare and contrast information, question what they know, and further develop their analytical skills. It is essential that educators and parents encourage learners to explore these formats critically, assessing the credibility of the sources and ensuring accuracy in the information consumed.

Assessing Progress and Providing Feedback

Developing critical thinking skills while reading requires continuous assessment and feedback. Monitoring students’ progress in this area and providing constructive feedback can help ensure development and success.

Setting Measurable Goals

Establishing clear, measurable goals for critical thinking is vital for both students and educators. These goals should be specific, achievable, and time-bound. To effectively assess progress, consider using a variety of assessments, such as:

• Classroom discussions
• Reflective writing assignments
• Group projects
• Individual presentations

These different assessment methods can help determine if students are reaching their critical thinking goals and guide educators in adjusting their instruction as needed.

Providing Constructive Feedback

Constructive feedback is essential for students to improve their critical thinking skills. When providing feedback, consider the following guidelines:

• Be specific and focused on the critical thinking aspects of students’ work
• Link feedback directly to the established goals and criteria
• Encourage self-assessment and reflection
• Highlight strengths and areas for improvement
• Offer realistic suggestions for improvement

By implementing these strategies, educators can ensure that students receive the necessary support and guidance to develop their critical thinking skills while reading.

• Virtual Learning
• Why The Reading Ranch?
• About the Founder, Owner & Director
• General Information • The Reading Ranch
• Policies • The Reading Ranch
• The Reading Ranch Calendar
• Employment • The Reading Ranch
• The Reading Ranch Gallery
• Summer 2022 Schedule
• Pre-K Programs
• Tuition • The Reading Ranch
• The Reading Ranch Blog
• Reading Ranch Articles
• Contact The Reading Ranch
• Reading Ranch Locations • Texas

Blogging eHow

A How-to, Tech and Business Magazine!

The Role of Literature in Developing Critical Thinking

Literature has long been a cornerstone of education, offering more than just stories and poems. It serves as a powerful tool for developing critical thinking skills.

When you read literature, you are not just absorbing words; you are engaging in a complex process of analysis, interpretation, and questioning. This engagement helps to sharpen cognitive abilities, making you more adept at understanding and evaluating the world around you.

The act of reading literature requires you to delve into the minds of characters, understand their motivations, and analyze the consequences of their actions. This process encourages you to think deeply and critically about various aspects of the text. Whether it's a novel, a poem, or a play, literature challenges you to look beyond the surface and explore underlying themes and messages.

Moreover, literature often presents complex moral and ethical dilemmas, forcing you to weigh different perspectives and make judgments. This kind of mental exercise is invaluable for developing critical thinking skills.

By engaging with literature, you learn to question assumptions, consider multiple viewpoints, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the world.

Literature's Historical Role in Education

The importance of literature in education is not a new concept. Historically, literature has played a crucial role in shaping minds and fostering critical thinking. During the Renaissance, for example, the study of classical texts was considered essential for developing a well-rounded intellect. Scholars like Erasmus and Montaigne emphasized the importance of literary studies in cultivating critical and analytical skills.

The Enlightenment further solidified literature's role in education. Thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau used literature to challenge societal norms and provoke critical thought. Their works encouraged readers to question authority and think independently. This period saw a surge in the production of literary works that aimed to educate and enlighten the masses.

In more recent history, literature has continued to be a vital part of educational curricula. From the Romantic period to the modern era, literary studies have been recognized for their ability to develop critical thinking skills. By engaging with complex texts, students learn to analyze, interpret, and critique, skills that are essential for academic and personal growth.

Techniques for Analyzing Literature

Literary analysis is a multifaceted process that involves various techniques and methods. One common approach is close reading, which requires you to pay meticulous attention to the text's details. This technique helps you uncover deeper meanings and understand the author's intent. By focusing on elements like word choice, imagery, and structure, you can gain a more profound understanding of the text.

Another essential technique is thematic analysis. This involves identifying and exploring the central themes of a literary work. Themes often serve as the backbone of a text, providing insight into the author's message and the work's broader implications. By examining themes, you can develop a more nuanced interpretation of the text and its relevance to contemporary issues.

Contextual analysis is also crucial for understanding literature. This method involves examining the historical, cultural, and social context in which a work was produced. Understanding the context can provide valuable insights into the text's meaning and significance. By considering factors like the author's background, the time period, and societal norms, you can develop a more comprehensive interpretation of the work.

Exploring Different Literary Genres

Different literary genres offer unique opportunities for developing critical thinking skills. Poetry, for instance, often uses condensed language and rich imagery, requiring you to unpack layers of meaning. The brevity and intensity of poetry challenge you to think deeply and interpret complex emotions and ideas.

Drama, on the other hand, presents its own set of challenges and opportunities. Plays often involve intricate plots and multifaceted characters, requiring you to analyze dialogue, stage directions, and character interactions. The performative aspect of drama also adds another layer of complexity, encouraging you to consider how a text might be brought to life on stage.

Prose, including novels and short stories, offers a more extended narrative form, allowing for in-depth character development and intricate plot structures. This genre provides ample material for analysis and interpretation, from exploring character motivations to examining narrative techniques. Each genre, with its unique characteristics, contributes to the development of critical thinking in different ways.

Classic Works That Challenge Minds

Classic works of literature have long been recognized for their ability to develop critical thinking skills. Take, for example, Shakespeare's "Hamlet." This play delves into complex themes of revenge, madness, and morality, challenging readers to grapple with ethical dilemmas and psychological intricacies. The rich language and intricate plot require careful analysis and interpretation.

Another classic, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," explores themes of creation, responsibility, and the limits of scientific inquiry. The novel raises questions about the ethical implications of scientific advancement and the consequences of playing God. By engaging with these themes, readers are encouraged to think critically about the moral and ethical dimensions of scientific progress.

George Orwell's "1984" is yet another example of a classic work that fosters critical thinking. The novel's dystopian setting and exploration of totalitarianism prompt readers to question the nature of power, control, and freedom. Orwell's incisive critique of political systems encourages readers to think deeply about the implications of government surveillance and propaganda.

Modern Literature and Today's Issues

Modern literature continues to play a vital role in developing critical thinking skills, particularly in addressing contemporary issues. Authors like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Ta-Nehisi Coates use their works to explore themes of identity, race, and social justice. Their writings challenge readers to confront uncomfortable truths and question societal norms.

For instance, Adichie's novel "Americanah" delves into the complexities of race and identity in both Nigeria and the United States. The book encourages readers to think critically about the intersections of culture, race, and personal identity. By presenting diverse perspectives, Adichie prompts readers to question their assumptions and broaden their understanding.

Similarly, Coates' "Between the World and Me" offers a powerful exploration of race in America. Written as a letter to his son, the book challenges readers to confront the realities of systemic racism and its impact on individuals and society. Coates' poignant and thought-provoking prose encourages readers to engage deeply with issues of race and justice.

Literature's Impact on Personal Growth

Engaging with literature can lead to significant personal growth and development. One of the most profound impacts of literature is its ability to foster empathy. By immersing yourself in the lives and experiences of characters, you develop a deeper understanding of different perspectives and emotions. This empathy extends beyond the pages of a book, influencing how you interact with others in the real world.

Literature also enhances cultural awareness. Reading works from diverse authors and cultures exposes you to different ways of thinking and living. This exposure broadens your horizons and helps you appreciate the richness and diversity of human experience. It encourages you to question stereotypes and challenge preconceived notions.

Moreover, literature provides a deeper understanding of the human condition. Through stories, poems, and plays, you explore fundamental questions about life, love, loss, and identity. This exploration helps you reflect on your own experiences and develop a more profound sense of self-awareness. Literature, in this way, becomes a mirror, reflecting and illuminating the complexities of the human experience.

Advanced Courses and Critical Thinking

Advanced academic courses, such as the IB English Literature HL, play a crucial role in developing critical thinking skills. These courses challenge students to engage deeply with complex texts, encouraging them to analyze, interpret, and critique. The rigorous curriculum and high expectations push students to think critically and develop sophisticated analytical skills.

In these courses, students are often required to write detailed essays and participate in discussions that demand a high level of critical engagement. They learn to construct well-reasoned arguments, support their ideas with evidence, and consider multiple perspectives. This process not only enhances their understanding of literature but also hones their critical thinking abilities.

Moreover, the diverse range of texts studied in advanced courses exposes students to different genres, cultures, and historical periods. This diversity encourages students to think broadly and make connections between different works and ideas. By engaging with a wide array of texts, students develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of literature and its role in society.

Effective Teaching Strategies

Effective teaching strategies are essential for using literature to develop critical thinking skills. One such strategy is Socratic questioning, which involves asking open-ended questions that encourage students to think deeply and critically. This method helps students explore different interpretations and develop their analytical skills.

Group discussions are another valuable strategy. By discussing texts with their peers, students are exposed to different perspectives and ideas. These discussions encourage students to articulate their thoughts, listen to others, and refine their interpretations. The collaborative nature of group discussions fosters a deeper understanding of the text and enhances critical thinking.

Writing assignments also play a crucial role in developing critical thinking skills. By writing essays and analyses, students learn to organize their thoughts, construct coherent arguments, and support their ideas with evidence. Writing encourages students to engage deeply with the text and develop their analytical and interpretive skills. These assignments provide a platform for students to express their ideas and demonstrate their critical thinking abilities.

The Enduring Influence of Literature

In summary, literature plays a vital role in developing critical thinking skills. From historical contexts to modern-day issues, literature challenges readers to analyze, interpret, and question. The techniques of literary analysis, the exploration of different genres, and the study of classic and modern works all contribute to this development.

Engaging with literature also fosters personal growth, enhancing empathy, cultural awareness, and self-understanding. Advanced academic courses, such as the IB English Literature HL , further challenge students to think critically and engage deeply with complex texts. Effective teaching strategies, including Socratic questioning, group discussions, and writing assignments, support this development.

The impact of literature on critical thinking is profound and lasting. By engaging with literature, you develop skills that are essential for understanding and navigating the world. Literature not only enriches your mind but also shapes your perspective, making you a more thoughtful, empathetic, and critical thinker.

• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Curriculum, competency development, and assessment methods of MSc and PhD pharmacy programs: a scoping review

• Dana ElKhalifa 1 ,
• Ola Hussein 2 ,
• Abeer Hamid 3 ,
• Nour Al-Ziftawi 4 ,
• Israa Al-Hashimi 5 &
• Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  989 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Background/objectives

We aim to systematically review and evaluate the current landscape of postgraduate pharmacy education to a) identify current evidence, best practices, challenges, recommendations, and solutions; and b) develop a framework to optimize postgraduate pharmacy programs.

A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were utilized. The search covered studies published from January 2011 to September 2023. Following the principles of Arksey and O'Malley's framework, data charting and extraction were performed using a pre-designed data collection tool, followed by the synthesis and grouping of studies based on common themes.

Of the 5542 articles found, the review included 36 eligible ones focusing on pharmacy postgraduate education (PhD and MSc), grouped into three themes: 1) courses and curriculum; 2) training and skills development; 3) assessment and mentorship methods. Utilized methodologies included descriptive analyses, questionnaires, surveys, trials, and focus groups/interviews. The studies underscored the need for competency-based curricula with regular evaluations, career planning, and diverse course offerings. Identified key skills and competencies in the studies included soft skills, communication, research, desperate skills (e.g., leadership and management), and critical thinking. The studies also emphasized the value of comprehensive evaluation and peer review methods. Challenges included balancing academic and real-world requirements, training, limited resources, time constraints, and faculty workload.

Evidence-based suggestions to improve postgraduate pharmacy education include the implementation of practice-oriented courses, value of tailored/or comprehensive assessments, focus on real-world skills, effectiveness of advanced teaching methods, and mentorship role. The proposed framework can guide program enhancement and highlight the need to improve programs holistically, entailing the three themes.

Peer Review reports

Pharmacy is a dynamic discipline of science, rapidly expanding with a rising number of students pursuing postgraduate studies in the field [ 1 ]. Postgraduate education is pivotal in shaping and advancing pharmacy practice across diverse settings, effectively addressing significant challenges and bridging crucial gaps. Such a specialized knowledge would ultimately contribute to improved patient care and population health outcomes. Further, postgraduate education programs must ensure the provision of teaching across diverse specialized domains. These include, but are not limited to, professional education, drug discovery, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutics, biotechnology, biochemistry, pharmacogenetics, pharmacokinetics, pharmacognosy, pharmacology, pharmacotherapy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, and pharmacoinformatics. Additionally, these programs should aim to contribute to advancing and improving healthcare systems, pharmacy laws and ethics, and proficiency in working with advanced machines and analytical techniques [ 2 , 3 ], all of which have positive impacts for the quality and safety of patient care and the overall health of populations.

Postgraduate pharmacy education faces a range of challenges. These include the surplus of postgraduates in traditional disciplines as compared to available emerging jobs in the market, curricula that fail to align with the demands of pharmaceutical practice settings, maintaining traditional teaching methods despite the dynamic change in the pharmaceutical industry, and advanced global practice and technology [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Notably, pharmacy postgraduate education in low- and middle-income nations confronts numerous challenges and gaps related to education, systems, and practice. Further, teaching methods at different universities are diverse [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. As a result, it is unclear whether these universities are effectively optimizing and tailoring their educational strategies to meet the current needs of postgraduate students and align with the demands of pharmaceutical industries and healthcare systems [ 3 ]. Nevertheless, institutions offering postgraduate education have a fundamental responsibility to provide high-quality education, necessitating the continuous evaluation and enhancement of their curricula to align with the developing needs of future graduates and prospective employers. This holds particular significance as postgraduate students carry the expectation that their universities have designed high-quality educational programs to fulfill their diverse needs [ 4 ].

There is a noticeable absence of a definitive guide on how universities can effectively address the expanding challenges within pharmacy postgraduate education. This is primarily because accreditation bodies focus predominantly on evaluating and reviewing undergraduate curricula, neglecting the unique challenges of postgraduate education in pharmacy. Furthermore, international experiences and needs in pharmacy education vary significantly between countries. This raises the following research question: what insights, perspectives, challenges, and recommendations can inform the optimization of postgraduate (PhD and MSc) pharmacy programs at universities worldwide? To answer this question, it is essential to conduct this scoping review to systematically chart the available evidence and understand the current body of knowledge about pharmacy postgraduate education. Through this endeavor, our objectives are a) to identify current insights, perspectives, challenges, and recommendations that can assist various postgraduate pharmacy programs in addressing potential gaps within their systems and possibly refining their existing educational structures (e.g., curricula) and approaches (e.g., educational methods) to enhance the overall learning process for their students; and b) to develop a framework to optimize postgraduate pharmacy programs.

Study design

We conducted a scoping review to synthesize and map the available evidence and identify a framework for improving educational programs for postgraduate degrees in pharmacy. Scoping reviews tackle broad subjects and usually aim to recognize research gaps in the existing literature [ 11 ]. While conducting this review, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, which contains 22 reporting items [ 12 ]. Our filled PRISMA-ScR checklist for this scoping review is included in Supplementary Material 1.

The study protocol was drafted and reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist [ 13 ]. While it was not previously published, it is available as supplementary material (Supplementary Material 2).

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria for studies included in this scoping review: i) Studies published in peer-reviewed journals; ii) The primary focus of the studies should be on curriculum and education development within MSc and PhD Pharmacy programs; iii) Studies needed to discuss related aspects such as competencies, assessment methods, and courses; iv) They need to be published in English between the period of January 2011- September 2023; v) To encompass various aspects of graduate pharmacy education, studies were included if they employed qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method study designs.

Conversely, studies were excluded if they: i) Focused on public health, PharmD, diploma, or clinical practice-based master programs that do not include research/thesis, as these programs often have distinct educational objectives compared to research-based postgraduate programs; ii) Addressed initiatives to improve research unrelated to postgraduate programs, because the focus of this review is solely on postgraduate education; iii) Were centered on dual pharmacy (PharmD)/master of public health (MPH), as these programs are mainly interdisciplinary in nature and do not specifically reflect the unique challenges of research-oriented programs; iv) Focused on genetic counseling, because this field has a distinct aim and is not directly related to postgraduate research-based pharmacy education; v) Were associated with other non-pharmacy-related programs, as our focus is on Pharmacy; vi) Focused solely on university facilities, because our target is the educational content; vii) Were categorized as commentaries or review articles, to avoid bias in reporting and prioritize original research content.

Information sources/literature search

The search for relevant studies was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies published between January 2011 and September 2023. The search strategy utilized related keywords: postgraduate, higher education, graduate, PhD, MSc, masters, education, curriculum, courses, syllabus, skills, competencies, assessment, evaluation, pharmacy, and pharmaceutical sciences. Search limits were applied to the title/abstract and English language. Three investigators independently performed the initial screening of the titles and abstracts to identify eligible articles. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and agreement. Specialized journals were also specifically reached to identify relevant articles, specifically the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, Pharmacy Education, European Journal of Education, Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, and Health Education Journal. The final search strategy for each database is presented in Table S1 (Supplementary Material 3). Finally, the removal of duplicates, title/abstract screening, and full-text screening were conducted using the Rayyan application [ 14 ].

Studies selection and data charting

Three reviewers independently screened all included citations and full-text articles and agreed on their eligibility. A standardized data extraction tool was created using Microsoft Excel and utilized to chart data from all eligible articles. In addition, the following information was collected independently by three reviewers: authors, year of publication, focus of the study, title, relevant/irrelevant, objectives, country, challenges, recommendations, and conclusion. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and agreement between the authors.

We followed the framework proposed by Arksey and 'O'Malley for data synthesis and charting [ 11 ]. Eligible studies were grouped based on common themes. Our grouping focused on the following three themes in Table  1 : i) Courses, curriculum, and syllabus; ii) Training, competencies, and skills development; and iii) Assessment, evaluation, and mentorship methods.

Development of the conceptual model

To develop a comprehensive conceptual model guiding the creation of collective, high-quality pharmacy postgraduate (MSc/PhD) programs, we conducted a rigorous literature review focusing on the challenges, recommendations, factors, and successful interventions. To synthesize this information, we employed the Arksey and 'O'Malley framework for data synthesis and charting. The model development process involved the following steps:

Identification of key themes: Based on the literature review, three primary themes emerged as critical for postgraduate pharmacy program development:

Courses, curriculum, and syllabus

Training, competencies, and skill development

Assessment, evaluation, and mentorship methods

Model construction: A conceptual model was constructed around these themes, incorporating essential components, including:

Curriculum design and development, including necessary and optional elements

Competency-based curriculum development

Training and skills development aligned with student, program, and job market needs

Diverse assessment and evaluation methods to measure program effectiveness, student learning, and job market impact

Successful interventions and international experiences

Model enrichment: To ensure comprehensiveness, the model was expanded to include additional factors and emerging trends deemed important to the study team. For instance, under the "courses and curriculum" theme, we incorporated elements like needs assessment, regular evaluation, and program refinement to promote the concept of program sustainability. Additionally, we explored the potential of using advanced tools like artificial intelligence for assessment, evaluation, and mentorship, based on what has been reported within the included studies.

Overall, this systematic approach, grounded in both literature and practical examples, resulted in a robust conceptual model to inform the development and evaluation of collective, high-quality pharmacy postgraduate programs.

Literature search

After removing duplicates, 5542 articles were identified from the different searched databases (Fig.  1 ). After titles and abstracts screening, 5461 citations were excluded because they matched our exclusion criteria, leaving 81 full-text articles to be further assessed for eligibility. Among them, 45 were excluded and summarized with their exclusion reasons in Table S3 in Supplementary Material 3. The remaining articles ( n  = 36) matched our inclusion criteria and were included in this scoping review.

PRISMA flow diagram of the studies selection process

Study characteristics

Based on their primary focus, the included studies were classified into three commonly identified themes, as defined in Table  1 . Study characteristics are summarized in Table  2 , including the study authors, publication year, focus, objectives, place of origin, design, and main findings. Among them, 14 addressed courses, curriculum, and syllabus issues; 9 discussed training, competencies, and skills development; and 13 targeted topics pertaining to assessment, evaluation, and mentorship methods (Fig.  2 ). The studies implemented various designs, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method (Fig.  2 ).

Distribution of the research methods employed in the included studies per identified theme

The included publications on various pharmacy postgraduate educational programs (MSc, PhD, or both) were segregated based on their focus on the three themes (Fig.  3 ). Notably, most research articles concentrated on master’s programs compared to PhD programs, validating that more research is conducted on this program type (Fig.  3 ). In addition, the distribution of research on Master programs across the three themes revealed a larger number of publications focusing on courses, curriculum, and syllabus (Fig.  3 ). In contrast, research on PhD programs disclosed that training, competencies, and skills development garnered the most attention, implying a distinct focus on research efforts and underlining the necessity of competencies/skills development for PhD graduates (Fig.  3 ). Details on the distribution of the articles by country are outlined in Fig.  4 a.

A radar chart comparing the three identified themes based on the postgraduate program type

Distribution of research articles: ( a ) Overall 36 articles by country; ( b ) Articles based on country and identified theme

Courses, curriculum and syllabus

As outlined in Fig.  2 , 14 publications were dedicated to enhancing courses and curricula for various specialized MSc and PhD programs. These originated from nine countries, and as outlined in Fig.  4 b, most of these studies were conducted in the USA ( n  = 5, 35.71%), followed by Australia ( n  = 2, 14.29%). Additional contributing countries encompassed Jordan, Iran, Portugal, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and China (Table  2 ). Five of the identified studies emphasized the importance of specialized courses for improving postgraduate education (Table  2 ), such as research ethics, preparation for future faculty roles, pharmacoinformatics, and laboratory experience [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. In the context of curriculum development, nine studies specifically addressed the design, format, review, and restructuring of postgraduate pharmacy programs to meet students' present and future needs [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Methodologies utilized in these studies included descriptive analyses, cross-sectional questionnaires, and surveys, as well as the incorporation of focus groups and interviews (Table  2 ).

Training, competencies and skills development

Nine published studies evaluated specific skills necessary for inclusion in postgraduate curricula (Fig.  2 ). Most of these studies originated from the USA ( n  = 7, 77.7%), with the remaining two published in India and Poland (Fig.  4 a). Most studies ( n  = 8, 88.9%) primarily focused on PhD students, while only two included MSc students (Fig.  3 ). The studies shed light on the need for developing competencies and skills in research, curriculum development, communication, health administration and leadership, industrial training, and critical thinking and problem-solving (Table  2 ). Study designs were varied and encompassed mixed-methods, cross-sectional surveys, retrospective studies, interviews, and descriptive studies (Table  2 ).

Assessment, evaluation and mentorship methods

The third group of studies ( n  = 13) embraced approaches and criteria for assessing students' performance, methods for delivering certain lectures, and mentorship (Table  2 ). Consistent with the previous themes, the majority of the studies ( n  = 5, 38.46%) were based in the USA, while two articles originated from Jordan ( n  = 2, 15.38%) (Fig.  4 ). The remaining studies originated in the United Kingdom, India, Denmark, China, Australia, and Ukraine. Six studies within this group focused on assessment methods, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive evaluation and peer review (Table  2 ) [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Two studies specifically emphasized the significance of evaluating students' performance without merely focusing on testing theoretical understanding [ 41 , 42 ] (Table  2 ). Additionally, four studies advocated the added value of artificial intelligence and computer-based tools in delivering lectures and elucidating certain life sciences concepts [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ] (Table  2 ). Three studies evaluated postgraduate mentorship models, highlighting the positive impact of dual mentors [ 48 , 49 , 50 ] (Table  2 ).

The conceptual model content

To visualize the relationships among the identified themes and relevant key components, we developed a conceptual model (Fig.  5 ). Figure 5  presents the final summary derived from our comprehensive literature review of the core elements proposed for a collective high-quality pharmacy postgraduate (MSc/PhD) educational program. To our knowledge, this is the first model to be developed and published on the specific topic of pharmacy postgraduate educational programs. All the identified insights, perspectives, challenges, and recommendations that can inform the optimization of postgraduate pharmacy programs at universities worldwide have been grouped together to allow for the development of this coherent model outlining the following themes:

A conceptual framework for developing a collective high-quality Pharmacy postgraduate (MSc/PhD) educational program. This illustration was developed based on the recommendations discussed in the literature from the relevant identified themes

This theme encompasses curriculum design and development. Studies investigating the key concept of curriculum design and development, particularly emphasizing the importance of aligning the curriculum to concepts of competency-based learning, job market demands, career planning, collaboration, research, specialization areas, and others. It was noted that a number of concepts are needed to develop a comprehensive postgraduate program that is essential for graduates’ success and meets the needs of the job market.

Training, competencies and skill development

This theme included the main components a program could target to implement effective change in students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and competencies required in real-world practice. It was noted that skills relevant to other disciplines, e.g., leadership and management, data science, as well as various non-science communication skills, are highly essential for the modern job market. Additionally, the necessity of providing students with training on additional non-academic career skills was deemed crucial and had a positive influence on students’ skills and competencies, as well as the effectiveness of programs to produce graduates who can meet the demands of employers in the modern job market.

This theme features the role of effective assessment and mentorship in program development and student success. Various assessment strategies, such as mentorship, advanced assessment tools, merged assessment, and peer assessment, were all positive experiences reported in the literature with the potential benefit of conducting successful assessments of students learning and intervention effectiveness, both of which are related to successful program implementation and development.

Principal findings

This scoping review aimed to map the existing literature on postgraduate education in pharmacy systematically. We identified 36 primary studies addressing the curriculum, skills development, and/or assessment approaches of postgraduate (MSc and PhD) pharmacy programs on an international scale. The studies were categorized and will be discussed based on their primary focus into three distinct themes: i) courses, curriculum, and syllabus issues; ii) training, competencies, and skills development; and iii) assessment, evaluation, and mentorship methods.

A group of studies explored the importance of different universal and specific courses within diverse pharmacy postgraduate curricula.

One of the crucial topics explored in the literature for its critical value in pharmacy postgraduate education is research ethics (RE). RE education is an integral component that equips students with the necessary skills to adhere to ethical standards when designing and conducting clinical and biomedical research [ 51 , 52 ]. Unfortunately, the findings indicate that ethics training in postgraduate programs related to pharmacy and medical sciences remains insufficient, particularly in developing countries such as Jordan and Iran [ 17 , 19 , 42 ]. Ahmed et al. also reported that, on a global scale, only 10% of research-based master programs offered standalone research ethics courses, and 40% offered some discussions within their curriculum [ 19 ]. Consequently, it is recommended that postgraduate schools consider integrating comprehensive research ethics training into their curricula, especially in developing countries. Furthermore, there is a need for additional studies in developed countries to explore this aspect further.

While many students pursue higher education to enter academia, postgraduate schools often prioritize research skills over teaching skills [ 53 ]. Teaching assistantships can offer students interested in academia practical teaching experiences [ 54 ]. However, not all students can access such opportunities, necessitating a compromise. For instance, integrating embedded lectures and courses into the curriculum can provide a viable solution. Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) was a valuable course to prepare graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for academic teaching [ 15 ]. The course syllabus included practical teaching experience and lecture delivery under dual supervision [ 15 ]. By the end of the course, many PFF graduates could secure faculty positions, and the course was distinguished as sustainable and valuable for students planning to work in academia [ 15 ]. The same course was taught to doctoral public health students and it showed excellent outcomes [ 55 ]. Similar courses can be adopted in postgraduate programs, especially PhD, as optional electives for students interested in academia.

A study by Fox et al. highlighted the urgent need to include pharmacoinformatics courses in pharmacy master's programs [ 18 ]. In particular, careers in pharmacoinformatics require students to have advanced conceptual knowledge and hands-on experiential education [ 56 ]. Recommended lecture topics encompass drug formulary management, advanced pharmacy and medical informatics, supply chain management, evidence-based medicine, and health policy [ 18 ]. Notably, the study revealed higher expectations for pharmacoinformatics knowledge for MSc graduates compared to their BSc counterparts, emphasizing the necessity for developing a comprehensive postgraduate pharmacoinformatics curriculum [ 18 ].

Another important curricular element is laboratory experience, particularly in basic sciences postgraduate programs. For example, the Non-Stop Lab Week (NSLW) was formed as part of the master's program at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, to equip students with real-life lab experience [ 16 ]. Over 1 week, students independently conducted molecular assay projects in an environment mirroring a real laboratory setting [ 16 ]. Most students found the NSLW's intensity very suitable and beneficial for their careers [ 16 ]. After graduation, they found this exposure to be similar to their experience in their current workplaces [ 16 ]. Often, postgraduate students focus solely on specific skills aligned with their thesis supervisor's area of expertise, potentially missing out on essential skills for future roles in the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, experiences like the NSLW help expose students to the actual work environment. Likewise, programs may add curricular modules for students to get hands-on exposure to different research projects during their first semester, offering insights into potential future careers and a great scientific breadth while connecting with potential thesis supervisors.

Concentrating on a few specific courses is insufficient, and crafting a comprehensive curriculum poses a complex challenge [ 57 ]. There is a notable shift towards Competency-Based Education (CBE) in contemporary postgraduate and undergraduate pharmacy and medical education systems due to its demonstrated effectiveness [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]. CBE occurs when a curriculum incorporates comprehensive tasks, such as systems of instruction, didactic and experiential courses, and assessments to demonstrate proficiency in taught skills and concepts [ 60 ]. Various studies advocated incorporating CBE when developing postgraduate pharmacy curricula [ 21 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Keller et al. suggested some curricular components and building blocks to be included in postgraduate pharmacy education, encompassing the decision on core competencies, foundational concepts, lectures, syllabus, thematic training, research seminars, research integrity, supervision, student feedback, evaluation, assessment, stipends and financial support, and alumni networking [ 25 ]. They also proposed a set of competencies to be taught in PhD health sciences programs, categorized into three domains [ 25 ]:

Scientific knowledge: information literacy, research methods, scientific writing, ethics and integrity, and professional conduct.

Management and Organization: self-management, project management, and teaching.

Leadership and personal: leadership and communication.

Pharmacy education continues to adapt to the evolving needs of diverse pharmacy career paths. Initiatives for developing curriculum recommendations have been undertaken, focusing on equipping graduates with knowledge and skills for future career paths. A key initiative is the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Research and Graduate Affairs Committee report [ 20 ]. The AACP report was developed based on data from different universities within the USA [ 21 ]. It addressed universal skills applicable to all pharmacy disciplines to be incorporated into different curricula [ 21 ]. These identified skills were grouped into five domains [ 21 ]:

Foundational knowledge.

Scientific communications.

Leadership and management.

Personal and professional development.

The three key proposals endorsed by the report were the need to concentrate on career guidance, external peer review, and preparing students for roles in academia [ 21 ]. In another study by Koster et al., three distinct pharmacy-related master's programs tailored for community or hospital pharmacists were described [ 27 ]. These programs were adapted to pharmacy education based on the CanMEDS framework, which originally describes the required skills for physicians to effectively address the needs of the individuals they serve [ 27 ]. In addition, the authors highlighted the importance of experiential (workplace) education over traditional on-campus education and the need to expose the students to a mixture of both [ 27 ].

A very important curriculum component is career planning and professional skills development. This is particularly important because many postgraduates move into postdoctoral training, even if they do not plan to take a research career path [ 61 ]. Regrettably, career discussions usually happen close to graduation [ 20 ]. Indeed, early career guidance and mentoring, ideally at the program's commencement, would empower students to make more informed decisions about their future career paths. Traditionally, pursuing a PhD was synonymous with academic positions. Still, this perception has evolved in the last decade, necessitating an educational shift to prepare students for broader career options [ 20 ]. The current job market reveals a growing "supply–demand" gap, with limited academic sector vacancies and an increasing number of postgraduate students graduating annually. Therefore, there must be a shift to diversify curriculum content, gearing it towards paths beyond traditional academic careers. For example, in a study by Fuhrmann et al., biomedical PhD students indicated that they were considering various career paths (research and non-research), which underlines the necessity for a comprehensive doctoral curriculum [ 20 ]. To aid students in achieving their career goals, the development of their plans, including career planning and professional skills training, can be encouraged through discussions with program mentors. Moreover, programs may allow flexible mandatory electives where students can select their preferred courses based on their constructed career plans.

It is crucial to have regular curriculum revisions to ensure that the educational content remains current and aligns with the expanding industry requirements and needs. An example of these revisions was published by Allen et al., in which a pharmaceutical medicine curriculum was reviewed at an Australian university based on cross-sectional survey findings to identify required updates to the program [ 24 ]. They developed a two-year, part-time, fully online program with interactive assessments to support students' career goals [ 24 ]. In another study, Barrett et al. presented a qualitative description of an established Master’s program in drug discovery and development [ 22 ]. The program was initially a course that was refined and expanded based on student and market demands, covering various stages of drug development [ 22 ]. The curriculum encompasses topics delivered as courses by different colleges, including epidemiology, nanotechnology, pharmacogenomics, and project management [ 22 ]. The authors reported that most program graduates secured jobs in the pharmaceutical industry upon graduation, emphasizing the significance of regular program evaluations and refinement [ 22 ]. Similarly, Lypson et al. outlined the newly adopted program evaluation process at the University of Michigan Health System, involving dedicated faculty and formal resident members [ 23 ]. This process also benefits from standardization of meetings, content experts, a transition from paper to electronic committee materials, and a focus on continuous improvement efforts for the program [ 23 ].

To uphold the quality of pharmacy postgraduate programs, supervisors must ensure students meet program requirements and graduate efficiently. Incorporating blended learning, which combines online and on-campus classroom experiences, has been suggested as a valuable learning tool [ 62 , 63 ]. Furthermore, introducing dual postgraduate degrees alongside undergraduate education in pharmacy programs can enable students to attain advanced degrees in a shorter duration efficiently. Implementing a hybrid teaching format can also be helpful, particularly for working professionals.

Training, skills and competencies development

Student preparation should extend beyond curricular coursework to encompass practical training and skill development, including cultivating critical thinking skills. Postgraduate pharmacy students must acquire skills and competencies to excel in their future roles. While some skills may be specific to student specialization, others are universally applicable and should be integrated into most specialized medical and pharmaceutical programs. Furthermore, the current job market demands more than traditional scientific research skills. Students may also need to demonstrate disparate skills in business, policy management, and advanced technologies. Therefore, the curriculum should incorporate relevant course content to address these multifaceted requirements. Competencies are frequently defined as meaningful job-related skills, knowledge, attitudes, and abilities essential for competent performance in distinct professions [ 60 ]. Key skills and competencies highlighted in the literature regarding pharmacy postgraduate education encompass research competencies, curriculum development training, communication skills, health administration and leadership training, industrial training, and critical thinking and problem-solving.

In a study published by Poloyac et al., core research competencies for a PhD program were developed in a clinical pharmaceutical sciences curriculum [ 29 ]. Eight major competencies were identified for students to integrate preclinical and clinical evidence into their research successfully [ 29 ]. These competencies included: i) literature review and evaluation; ii) hypothesis generation; iii) research methods and study design; iv) statistical methods and data evaluation; v) grantsmanship; vi) presentation and delivery of oral and written scientific information; vii) ethical conduct of research; viii) leadership, management, and multidisciplinary teamwork [ 29 ]. Each category features subcategories of competencies, and evaluation rubrics were created to assess students' performance [ 29 ]. These competencies provide a valuable framework that can be adapted for other research-based postgraduate programs.

As previously discussed, some students pursue higher education to enter academia, emphasizing the need to acquire essential competencies to excel in their potential roles. Given that curriculum development and revision are ongoing and dynamic processes, training postgraduate pharmacy students on curriculum development becomes invaluable for those aspiring to pursue an academic career in pharmacy. Newton et al. demonstrated the effectiveness of incorporating a faculty simulation of curriculum development seminar for MSc and PhD pharmacy students, offering a practical and successful tool to prepare them for the responsibilities associated with academic roles [ 30 ].

Research, being a multifaceted interdisciplinary field, demands excellent communication skills. Thus, students must undergo training in presentation, negotiation, and conflict management skills. Additionally, employers' appreciation of diverse soft skills highlights the importance of cultivating a broad skill set in graduates [ 64 ]. Studies have highlighted substantial benefits for doctoral pharmacy students who received training to enhance their communication skills, improve confidence in discussing findings, and enhance public speaking abilities [ 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, integrating courses and lectures focused on communication into the curriculum emerges as an invaluable component, aiding students in cultivating and strengthening their personal and interpersonal communication capabilities.

Specialized programs often require students to develop unique skills and competencies relevant to their areas of study. For instance, a master’s degree in health-system pharmacy administration and leadership training (HSPAL) was a novel program developed within the Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [ 33 ]. That program combined Master’s education with practical HSPAL residency [ 33 ]. The program was designed to provide a balanced curriculum encompassing leadership, management, clinical, administrative, and didactic courses to prepare students for pharmacy administrative positions and leadership careers [ 33 ]. The program indicated attainment of the main core competencies and outcomes by enrolled students and graduates [ 33 ]. Furthermore, supervisors noted a greater likelihood of hiring graduates for administrative positions [ 33 ].

Many pharmacy programs often encompass laboratory components involving traditional basic sciences practice labs. However, there is a recognized need to integrate elements that provide students with the necessary knowledge for pharmaceutical industry practice, particularly those aspiring to work in drug discovery and development. A study revealed that most graduate programs inadequately address industry-related skills, emphasizing the importance of incorporating experiences that better prepare graduates for non-academic careers [ 35 ]. In another study by McLaughlin et al., a qualitative analysis of employers’ expectations for pharmaceutical sciences PhD graduates was conducted to understand the skills sought by employers [ 34 ]. The authors identified themes such as depth and breadth of knowledge, collaboration, communication, adaptability, experiential training, research productivity, and motivation [ 34 ]. Thus, integrating a holistic lab experience throughout the study duration, rather than limiting exposure to technical skills, can add significant value. This could be implemented by placing students in local and international pharmaceutical industries for mandatory practical experiences.

Critical thinking and problem-solving are among the highly desired skills in pharmacy postgraduates and are key to successful research conduct and evaluation of published evidence. However, various barriers may hinder their acquisition, including students' perceptions, limited metacognitive skills, biases, and the need for effortful thinking [ 65 ]. Though challenging, developing and nurturing these skills is not impossible in a thoughtful and encouraging educational environment. Research from India and Poland explored these skills in pharmacy postgraduate education [ 36 , 37 ]. Research from India investigated the performance and perception of students and their instructors regarding utilizing critical appraisal tools [ 37 ]. Both students and instructors reported that journal club (JC) criticism activities were vital in pharmacy postgraduate education, contributing to an enhancement in critical appraisal skills among participating students [ 37 ]. Research from Poland reported that graduates had insufficient knowledge of and attitudes toward evidence-based pharmacy, especially in their critical appraisal of scientific articles and problem-solving skills [ 36 ]. The study suggested that blended learning, combining classroom and online multi-module courses, could enhance the learning experience [ 36 ]. Further research evaluating critical-thinking and problem-solving training in pharmacy postgraduate education across diverse countries is essential to draw wide-ranging conclusions and recommend improvements in relevant curricula.

Assessment, evaluation and mentorship

Competency-based education proves beneficial when students' competence is continually assessed throughout the program [ 66 , 67 ]. A well-defined course syllabus should outline the timeline, assessment approaches, deadlines, and submissions and emphasize feedback and constructive criticism [ 66 , 67 ]. Course instructors should decide on the course objectives and identify potentially relevant embedded assessment tools to achieve these goals [ 40 ]. For instance, a program-level assessment process was developed for an MSc in Pharmaceutical Sciences program using an iterative data collection process, peer evaluation, and discussions [ 40 ]. The main assessment domains were cognitive (knowledge-based), affective (emotion-based), and psychomotor (action-based) [ 68 ]. The assessment was developed utilizing Bloom's taxonomy, which includes cognitive (knowledge-based), affective (emotion-based), and psychomotor (action-based) domains, and can guide the setting of course goals based on complexity and specificity [ 40 , 68 ]. Program success can be evaluated through student evaluations and feedback on course content, format, assessment methods, and suggestions [ 40 , 68 ].

A set of publications explored the performance assessment of pharmacy postgraduate students. In a descriptive study by Robinson et al., a comprehensive competency review assessing postgraduates' competencies was discussed [ 38 ]. Students were required to provide written evidence for each competency, and the instructor would either accept it if found satisfactory or reject it while requesting a rewritten version to ensure the development of the required competencies [ 38 ]. Based on students' performance, the faculty member may suggest elective courses during the program's second half [ 38 ]. Similarly, in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant Application Writing Assessment for pharmacology postgraduate students, grades improved considerably upon resubmission, with survey responses indicating increased student confidence in grant writing capability [ 39 ]. The study emphasized improving writing skills through writing, revision, submission, constructive feedback, rewriting, and resubmitting [ 39 ]. Together, these findings underline the importance of midpoint evaluations for various competencies. While this process may be time-consuming for students and faculty, it is considered a worthwhile investment in time, cost, and effort.

Assessing students' understanding of theoretical concepts alone may not be sufficient; they should also be evaluated based on their actions and practical applications. For instance, a study conducted in Jordan reported a high theoretical understanding of plagiarism among pharmacy postgraduate students. However, when given practical assignments, overall performance was unsatisfactory, revealing a high prevalence of plagiarism [ 41 ]. Therefore, educational institutions should ensure students learn various paraphrasing methods and are educated on useful references for plagiarism checking. In another study conducted in the same country, the adherence rate of postgraduate students to ethical standards related to data confidentiality and informed consent when dealing with human subjects was also inadequate [ 42 ]. Hence, assessing students’ performance in applying theoretical concepts is also recommended to ensure they are highly competent in real-world settings.

The careful selection of tools and methods for delivering lectures is crucial, especially in the context of advancing technologies and artificial intelligence. In postgraduate education, 3D virtual computer simulation methods were deemed advantageous [ 44 , 46 ]. In a randomized controlled study, using 3D technology to demonstrate drug-receptor interactions significantly enhanced students’ understanding and performance compared to traditional 2D graphics [ 44 ]. Similarly, a computer-simulated method in experimental animal modeling in postgraduate pharmacology improved the experimental outcomes and confidence when conducted before an isolated live tissue-based bioassay [ 46 ]. Moreover, a pilot study assessing the value of technology (Lecture Tools) as an active learning method in teaching pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics demonstrated a positive experience [ 45 ]. Lecture Tools is a cloud-based system that permits various question designs, student participation, and in-class evaluations [ 45 ]. Students can use any smart device, like laptops, tablets, or mobile phones, and take notes within the same slide of the teaching presentation [ 45 ]. Despite the provision of real-time interactions, there are limitations, including weak faculty preparedness for using this tool, the time required for preparing the lecture slides, and limited lecture time [ 45 ]. Other tools have also proven valuable for undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy education, offering interactive and easily accessible sessions, such as Coursera and EdX platforms, Socrative, Yammer, and the Lecture Capture System [ 69 , 70 , 71 ].

Postgraduate supervision is crucial to students' success, emphasizing the need for high-quality and sufficient mentorship. Swedish PhD students indicated that poor supervision prolonged their studies and delayed the completion of their thesis projects [ 49 ]. Every student has the right to guarantee that their mentorship is provided by qualified supervisors capable of effectively mentoring postgraduate students. When interviewed, supervisors expressed a need for training regarding the required instructions, guidance, and clarification of their roles as mentors [ 49 ]. In a study by Yue et al., which investigated Master’s mentor competence, it was reported that a mentor’s development can be encouraged via supportive policy, time, and appropriate programs [ 50 ]. Secondly, the mentor’s competencies should be assessed through mentor training and evaluation [ 50 ]. Lastly, mentors should endorse all competencies voluntarily [ 50 ]. The dual-mentorship model is a promising key initiative to improve mentorship in postgraduate education. Soucy et al. advocated for the dual-mentored PhD model, where each student is supervised by two expert mentors from different organizations, leading to superior outcomes [ 48 ]. Graduates of this program demonstrated great success, graduating two years earlier than traditional Ph.D. program students without compromising the outcomes [ 48 ].

After discussing each theme in detail, we employed a visual presentation to summarize the major identified challenges (Fig.  6 ), offering educators and readers an overview of the current potential challenges. Understanding these barriers can ensure that postgraduate pharmacy programs are effective and subject to continuous improvement. Table S4 (Supplementary Material 3) provides a detailed explanation of the identified challenges.

A summary of the major recognized challenges from each of the three identified themes

Study recommendations

Based on the insights driven from this scoping review, we have synthesized and developed a conceptual framework outlining an optimal structure for Pharmacy postgraduate programs (Fig.  5 ). This framework elucidates evidence-based recommendations for universities to improve the educational experience for students and for refining pharmacy postgraduate programs. While implementing this framework, it is noteworthy that research and improvement efforts should be tailored to each program context and capacity.

This model can be utilized by various stakeholders. The use of such a model should be tailored to the specific target audience and the overall context. Several stakeholders could benefit from the model; for example, investigators could focus their research on a theme or a subcategory to develop and examine the effectiveness of an intervention. Likewise, postgraduate students could use this model to identify the key knowledge areas, skills, and competencies they need to master in order for them to stay ahead of the continuously changing demands of the job market. Additionally, educators, management teams, and administrators at postgraduate programs could use the model for the continuous development and refinement of their postgraduate programs.

This scoping review highlights various recommendations to be explored in future research efforts. First, all included studies were observational and descriptive, with only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a limited number of mixed-method studies. Thus, we suggest the need for well-designed RCTs and mixed-method research studies evaluating postgraduate programs focusing on the three presented themes. RCTs would provide valuable high-level evidence to support future research and practice applications. At the same time, mixed-method studies can facilitate the collection and evaluation of unique quantitative and qualitative data in individual program contexts. Second, future research should investigate educational programs from the need assessment and/or program objective development stage to the final evaluation of programs and their improvements. Exploring the utilization of well-established frameworks from the literature will allow the development of research and/or program evaluation following a systematic and comprehensive approach. Third, there are few publications on the assessment and evaluation methods. Accordingly, investigating this theme can provide valuable information on the effectiveness of the implemented programs and guide the process of program improvement and development. Fourth, our findings suggest that research involving MSc programs focuses more on courses, curriculum, and syllabus topics and less on training, competencies, and skills development. Given the growing need for competent professionals, investigating training and competencies within MSc programs will assist in preparing competent graduates. On the other hand, there were limited studies exploring courses and curriculum topics in PhD programs. Therefore, studies investigating the development or evaluation of PhD-tailored curricula and courses, particularly those focusing on competency-based education, should be considered in future research efforts. Finally, we have identified a need for additional international research efforts, from both developing and developed countries, to advance postgraduate pharmacy education on a global scale.

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths and limitations inherent to the scoping review.

It is noteworthy that this review is, to our knowledge, the first to systematically synthesize and chart available evidence on pharmacy postgraduate (MSc and PhD) education. Such a systematic approach offered many strengths relevant to conceptual and theoretical aspects and other strengths relevant to the standard methodology utilized in this scoping review. Studies discussed educational program implementation in detail, which provided a comprehensive overview and opportunity to learn from programs at various stages of implementation (i.e., both programs at advanced stages with successful implementation practices and nascent programs with identified improvement opportunities). The details provided in this review and in individual studies could be utilized to inform the implementation and improvement of other programs at the international level. Moreover, the included studies utilized diverse research methodologies and offered valuable insights into the current literature landscape on MSc and PhD pharmacy programs. The review also resulted in the development of an evidence-based conceptual framework for enhancing pharmacy postgraduate education. Further, included herein are outcomes of the examination of the postgraduate pharmacy educational curriculum, competency development, and assessment methods. Another strength of this study is the use of these defined themes to guide the framework constriction, analysis and presentation of findings. Additionally, methodological strengths included a) utilization of standard methodology (i.e., PRISMA-ScR) to conduct this review; b) employment of the framework proposed by Arksey and 'O'Malley for data synthesis and charting; c) utilization of a comprehensive search strategy documented in the supplementary material to increase the transparency and replicability of the search strategy; and d) utilization of major databases and journals relevant to the field of pharmacy education research to ensure comprehensiveness. Despite these strengths, this review has some limitations. Firstly, due to its scoping nature, the outcomes of the studies were not assessed using formal quality assessment tools; thus, interpretation of findings and efforts to implement any intervention or recommendation would require further investigation. However, to ensure the inclusion of high-quality data and to mitigate this limitation, we included articles from peer-reviewed journals only. Secondly, the included studies were descriptive and observational, with only one RCT. Thus, well-designed RCT studies evaluating pharmacy postgraduate programs are recommended for future research efforts. Lastly, the inclusion criteria were limited to studies published in English between 2011 and 2023; this might affect the inclusion of articles published in non-English or before 2011.

Limitations of the conceptual model

Although this model can provide a valuable foundation for developing collective, high-quality pharmacy postgraduate programs, there are some limitations to take into consideration before utilizing or interpreting the information provided, which include:

First, concerning methodological rigor, there is a need for a more robust and structured methodology for developing this model, such as the Delphi method, which would ultimately enhance its robustness. Nevertheless, the development of the model relied on a comprehensive literature review and synthesis. The model utilized a rich dataset originating from primary studies and implementing various research methodologies, e.g., survey research, qualitative interviews, and mixed-methods research. The various methodologies used in the primary studies, the various types of data originated and data qualities, as well as the unique experiences of various postgraduate programs, enriched this model and improved its quality.

Second is the issue of contextual applicability. Developing countries can find it difficult and costly to implement or adapt this model into their educational programs, mainly due to the cost and availability of necessary resources. For instance, certain components of the model could require expensive resources that are not readily affordable in low-income countries. Therefore, these educational programs should customize this model in a cost-effective approach, taking into consideration their available resources.

Finally, the consideration of stakeholders’ perspectives is crucial. Various stakeholders are required to provide their perspectives and input effectively to evaluate this model before its utilization. To elaborate, educators, program administrators, and employers representing the job market may find the model or some aspects of the model not applicable to their scope of interest or resources or may identify additional factors or priorities that are not explicitly addressed in the model.

Conclusions

Postgraduate pharmacy education represents a vital transition from undergraduate learning to unique, practice-oriented knowledge, preparing graduates for exceptional service across diverse pharmacy areas, topics, pursuits, and settings. Therefore, tailored pharmacy programs at higher education institutions must constantly evaluate various aspects of their educational systems with ongoing updates to remain relevant. This scoping review offered a wide breadth of evidence-based suggestions, recommendations, gaps, improvement opportunities, and conclusions pertaining to key areas of a) practice-oriented courses, curricula, and modules; b) performance-based assessments; c) real-world competencies, applied skills, and training; d) diverse tools and methods for teaching and learning; e) programs emphasizing the crucial role of mentorship and support in diverse pharmacy postgraduate topics. This review resulted in developing a conceptual framework, which can serve as a reverence for improving and developing Pharmacy postgraduate educational programs. Various opportunities for further research were also recognized to address various challenges and identified gaps in pharmacy postgraduate education.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Brazeau GA, Meyer SM, Belsey M, Bednarczyk EM, Bilic S, Bullock J, et al. Preparing pharmacy graduates for traditional and emerging career opportunities. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009 Dec 17;73(8):157. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20221350 .

Scahill SL, Atif M, Babar ZU. Defining pharmacy and its practice: a conceptual model for an international audience. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017 May 12;6:121–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29354558 .

Poloyac SM, Block KF, Cavanaugh JE, Dwoskin LP, Melchert RB, Nemire RE, et al. Competency, Programming, and Emerging Innovation in Graduate Education within Schools of Pharmacy: The Report of the 2016–2017 Research and Graduate Affairs Committee. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017 Oct;81(8):S11–S11. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29200459 .

Doran MR, Lott WB. A duty of care. Trends Biochem Sci. 2013 Jan 1;38(1):1–2. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23157921/ .

Wu-Pong S, Gobburu J, O’Barr S, Shah K, Huber J, Weiner D, et al. The future of the pharmaceutical sciences and graduate education: recommendations from the AACP Graduate Education Special Interest Group. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013 May 13;77(4):S2–S2. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23716757 .

Hadi MA, Awaisu A. Postgraduate programs in clinical pharmacy and pharmacy practice: are we heading in the right direction? Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 May 12;74(4):72b-72b. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20585434/ .

Pillai G, Chibale K, Constable EC, Keller AN, Gutierrez MM, Mirza F, et al. The Next Generation Scientist program: capacity-building for future scientific leaders in low- and middle-income countries. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):233. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1331-y .

Atif M, Razzaq W, Mushtaq I, Malik I, Razzaq M, Scahill S, et al. Pharmacy Services beyond the Basics: A Qualitative Study to Explore Perspectives of Pharmacists towards Basic and Enhanced Pharmacy Services in Pakistan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 31;17(7):2379. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32244475 .

Al-Worafi YM. The challenges of pharmacy education in Yemen. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014 Oct 15;78(8):146. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25386011 .

Bilal AI, Tilahun Z, Gebretekle GB, Ayalneh B, Hailemeskel B, Engidawork E. Current status, challenges and the way forward for clinical pharmacy service in Ethiopian public hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 May 19;17(1):359. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28526021 .

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005F 1;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018O 2;169(7):467–73.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Humana y Diet. 2016;20(2):148–60.

Google Scholar  

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev . 2016;5(1):210. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Medina MS, Tomsek JJ, Bowers-Pippin J. The use of mentors and partnerships in a preparing future faculty program at a Health Sciences Center. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2015;7(2):145–50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.11.008 .

Freitas MJ, Silva JV, Korrodi-Gregório L, Fardilha M. Non-stop lab week: A real laboratory experience for life sciences postgraduate courses. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2016 May 6;44(3):297–303. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20947 .

Nikravanfard N, Khorasanizadeh F, Zendehdel K. Research Ethics Education in Post-Graduate Medical Curricula in I.R. Iran. Dev World Bioeth. 2017 Aug 1;17(2):77–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12122 .

Zainal INA, Karim NAA, Soh YC, Suleiman AK, Khan TM, Hameed MA, et al. Key Elements of Pharmacoinformatics for the Degrees of Bachelor and Master of Pharmacy. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017 Apr 7;51(4):419–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017701977

Ahmed WS, Nebeker C. Assessment of research ethics education offerings of pharmacy master programs in an Arab nation relative to top programs worldwide: A qualitative content analysis. PLoS One. 2021 Feb 19;16(2):e0238755–e0238755. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33606694 .

Fuhrmann CN, Halme DG, O’Sullivan PS, Lindstaedt B. Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011;10(3):239–49. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21885820 .

Eddington (Chair) ND, Aubé J, Das SK, Ellingrod VL, Hansen R, Madhavan SS, et al. Report of the 2014–2016 AACP Research and Graduate Affairs Committee. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016 Nov 25;80(9):S21. Available from: http://www.ajpe.org/content/80/9/S21.abstract .

Barrett JE, McGonigle P, Clark JE. Graduate Education in Pharmacology: Addressing the need for specialized training for pharmaceutical and biotechnology careers. Pharmacol Res. 2016;113:327–31. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661816308453 .

Lypson ML, Prince MEP, Kasten SJ, Osborne NH, Cohan RH, Kowalenko T, et al. Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process. BMC Med Educ. 2016 Feb 17;16:65. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26887758 .

Allen GM, Chisholm O. Postgraduate Education in Pharmaceutical Medicine in Australia: Evaluation and Evolution to a Global Program Over 20 Years. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018 Oct 5;53(5):654–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018793129 .

Keller F, Dhaini S, Briel M, Henrichs S, Höchsmann C, Kalbermatten D, et al. How to Conceptualize and Implement a PhD Program in Health Sciences-The Basel Approach. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2018 Apr 24;5:2382120518771364–2382120518771364. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29780889 .

Chisholm O. Curriculum Transformation: From Didactic to Competency-Based Programs in Pharmaceutical Medicine. Front Pharmacol. 2019 Mar 21;10:278. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30949056 .

Koster AS, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Woerdenbag HJ, Mulder WMC, Wilffert B, Schalekamp T, et al. Alignment of CanMEDS-based Undergraduate and Postgraduate Pharmacy Curricula in The Netherlands. Pharm (Basel, Switzerland). 2020 Jul 10;8(3):117. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664306 .

Gu J, Liu Y, Xu F, Zhang Y, Shao R, Lu T, et al. Development and challenges of professional Master of pharmacy education in China. J Chinese Pharm Sci. 2021;30(1):69–78.

Poloyac SM, Empey KM, Rohan LC, Skledar SJ, Empey PE, Nolin TD, et al. Core competencies for research training in the clinical pharmaceutical sciences. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011 Mar 10;75(2):27. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21519417 .

Newton GD, Hagemeier NE. A curriculum development simulation in a graduate program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011 Nov 10;75(9):184. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22171112 .

Garces H, Black EP. Corporate communication strategies are applicable for teaching non-science communication skills to pharmaceutical sciences PhD students. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2015;7(2):265–72. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877129714001579 .

Ponzio NM, Alder J, Nucci M, Dannenfelser D, Hilton H, Linardopoulos N, et al. Learning Science Communication Skills Using Improvisation, Video Recordings, and Practice, Practice, Practice. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2018 Mar 30;19(1):19.1.15. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29904514 .

Colmenares EW, McLaughlin JE, Morbitzer KA, Eckel SF. Development and perceived value of a master’s degree in health-system pharmacy administration training. Am J Heal Pharm. 2021 Jan 1;78(1):74–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxaa338 .

McLaughlin JE, Minshew LM, Gonzalez D, Lamb K, Klus NJ, Aubé J, et al. Can they imagine the future? A qualitative study exploring the skills employers seek in pharmaceutical sciences doctoral graduates. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 9;14(9):e0222422–e0222422. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31498853 .

Lebovitz L, Swaan PW, Eddington ND. Trends in Research and Graduate Affairs in Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy, Part 2: Students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020 May 1;84(5):7642. Available from: http://www.ajpe.org/content/84/5/7642.abstract .

Panczyk M, Cieålak I, Zarzeka A, Jaworski M, Gotlib J. Effective training of phd students with evidence-based pharmacy ñ the use of online multi-module course. Acta Pol Pharm - Drug Res. 2019;76(1):185–94.

Gajbhiye S, Tripathi R, Parmar U, Khatri N, Potey A. Critical appraisal of published research papers - A reinforcing tool for research methodology: Questionnaire-based study. Perspect Clin Res. 2019/05/14. 2021;12(2):100–5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34012907 .

Robinson GFWB, Moore CG, Mctigue KM, Rubio DM, Kapoor WN. Assessing Competencies in a Master of Science in Clinical Research Program: The Comprehensive Competency Review. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(6):770–5.

Leak RK, O’Donnell LA, Surratt CK. Teaching Pharmacology Graduate Students how to Write an NIH Grant Application. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015 Nov 25;79(9):138. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28435165 .

Bloom TJ, Hall JM, Liu Q, Stagner WC, Adams ML. Developing an Assessment Process for a Master’s of Science Degree in a Pharmaceutical Sciences Program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016 Sep 25;80(7):125. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27756933 .

Abu Farha R, Mukattash T, Al-Delaimy W. Predictors of Plagiarism Research Misconduct: A Study of Postgraduate Pharmacy Students in Jordan. J Acad Ethics. 2020;(0123456789). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09386-x .

Swedan S, Khabour OF, Alzoubi KH, Aljabali AAA. Graduate students reported practices regarding the issue of informed consent and maintaining of data confidentiality in a developing country. Heliyon. 2020 Sep 19;6(9):e04940–e04940. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32995624 .

Alcorn SR, Cheesman MJ. Technology-assisted viva voce exams: A novel approach aimed at addressing student anxiety and assessor burden in oral assessment. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2022M;14(5):664–70.

Richardson A, Bracegirdle L, McLachlan SIH, Chapman SR. Use of a three-dimensional virtual environment to teach drug-receptor interactions. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013 Feb 12;77(1):11. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23459131 .

Swanson HI, Piascik MT. A Pilot Study on the Use of Lecture Tools to Enhance the Teaching of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2014 Jan 1;1:JMECD.S19011. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S19011 .

Jalgaonkar S V, Joshi SS, Gajbhiye S V, Singh KNM, Sayyed MP. Perception of postgraduate students in pharmacology toward animal simulation model. Indian J Pharmacol. 2019;51(6):400–6. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32029962 .

Volodymyrovych TY, Tetiana K, Yaroslavovych TB. Experience in Using Peer-to-Peer Platforms and Immersive Technologies in the Training of Future Masters of Pharmacy in Medical Lyceum. Int J Comput Sci Netw Secur. 2022;22(2):23–8.

Soucy K, Fairhurst RM, Lynn GM, Fomalont K, Wynn TA, Siegel RM. Breaking the Mold: Partnering with the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program to Accelerate PhD Training. Trends Immunol. 2016;37(12):813–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2016.10.005 .

Raffing R, Jensen TB, Tønnesen H. Self-reported needs for improving the supervision competence of PhD supervisors from the medical sciences in Denmark. BMC Med Educ. 2017 Oct 23;17(1):188. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29058586 .

Yue J-J, Chen G. An exploration of the structure of pharmaceutical mentors’ competence at universities in Western China. Stud Educ Eval. 2019;63:1–8. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X1930001X .

Masic I, Hodzic A, Mulic S. Ethics in medical research and publication. Int J Prev Med. 2014 Sep;5(9):1073–82. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25317288 .

Stankovic B, Stankovic M. Educating about biomedical research ethics. Med Heal Care Philos. 2014;17(4):541–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9561-1 .

Brownell SE, Tanner KD. Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and..tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012;11(4):339–46. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23222828 .

Smith CR, Delgado C. Developing a Model of Graduate Teaching Assistant Teacher Efficacy: How Do High and Low Teacher Efficacy Teaching Assistants Compare? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021 Mar;20(1):ar2–ar2. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33444107 .

Koblinsky SA, Hrapczynski KM, Clark JE. Preparing future faculty and professionals for public health careers. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl(Suppl 1):S125–31. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25706007 .

Fox BI, Flynn AJ, Fortier CR, Clauson KA. Knowledge, skills, and resources for pharmacy informatics education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011 Jun 10;75(5):93. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21829267 .

Khan RA, Spruijt A, Mahboob U, van Merrienboer JJG. Determining “curriculum viability” through standards and inhibitors of curriculum quality: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Sep 5;19(1):336. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31488128 .

Ten Cate O. Competency-Based Postgraduate Medical Education: Past, Present and Future. GMS J Med Educ . 2017 Nov 15;34(5):Doc69–Doc69. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29226237 .

Kerdijk W, Snoek JW, van Hell EA, Cohen-Schotanus J. The effect of implementing undergraduate competency-based medical education on students’ knowledge acquisition, clinical performance and perceived preparedness for practice: a comparative study. BMC Med Educ. 2013 May 27;13:76. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23711403 .

van der Vleuten CPM. Competency-based education is beneficial for professional development. Perspect Med Educ. 2015 Dec;4(6):323–5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553242 .

Council NR. Research Training in the Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Research Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12983/research-training-in-the-biomedical-behavioral-and-clinical-research-sciences .

Karamizadeh Z, Zarifsanayei N, Faghihi AA, Mohammadi H, Habibi M. The study of effectiveness of blended learning approach for medical training courses. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2012/01/01. 2012 Jan;14(1):41–4. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22737553 .

Liu Q, Peng W, Zhang F, Hu R, Li Y, Yan W. The Effectiveness of Blended Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jan 4;18(1):e2–e2. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26729058 .

Touloumakos AK. Expanded Yet Restricted: A Mini Review of the Soft Skills Literature. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 4;11:2207. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33013574 .

Persky AM, Medina MS, Castleberry AN. Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Pharmacy Students. Am J Pharm Educ . 2019 Mar;83(2):7033. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30962645 .

Chimea T La, Kanji Z, Schmitz S. Assessment of clinical competence in competency-based education. Can J Dent Hyg CJDH = J Can l’hygiene Dent JCHD. 2020 Jun 1;54(2):83–91. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33240368 .

Gruppen LD, Mangrulkar RS, Kolars JC. The promise of competency-based education in the health professions for improving global health. Hum Resour Health. 2012 Nov 16;10:43. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23157696 .

Adams NE. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Jul;103(3):152–3. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26213509 .

Subhi Y, Andresen K, Bojsen SR, Nilsson PM, Konge L. Massive open online courses are relevant for postgraduate medical training. Dan Med J. 2014;61(10):1–5.

Munusamy S, Osman A, Riaz S, Ali S, Mraiche F. The use of Socrative and Yammer online tools to promote interactive learning in pharmacy education. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019;11(1):76–80. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877129717300709 .

Hussain FN, Al-Mannai R, Diab MI, Agouni A. Investigating the use of a lecture capture system within pharmacy education: Lessons from an undergraduate pharmacy program at Qatar University. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2020;17(1):1–14.

Download references

The College of Pharmacy, Qatar University provided the funding for the publication of this article. 

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pharmacy, Aspetar Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar

Dana ElKhalifa

College of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Ola Hussein & Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim

Department of Pharmacy, Al-Maarif University College, Ramadi, Iraq

Abeer Hamid

Department of Pharmacy, Aman Hospital, Doha, Qatar

Nour Al-Ziftawi

Clinical Imaging Department, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar

Israa Al-Hashimi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DK, OH, & MI worked on developing the study protocol. DK, OH, & NA screened and identified eligible articles. DK, OH, & AH grouped the studies, extracted the required data, and summarized the results. DK drafted the initial manuscript. AH, IA, & MI revised and edited the manuscript. MI supervised all the steps and provided guidance and feedback throughout the whole process of constructing this review. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dana ElKhalifa or Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

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

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

ElKhalifa, D., Hussein, O., Hamid, A. et al. Curriculum, competency development, and assessment methods of MSc and PhD pharmacy programs: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 989 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05820-5

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2024

Accepted : 25 July 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05820-5

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

• Postgraduate

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]