critical thinking based learning

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

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

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

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

The new question-of-the-week is:

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

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

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

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

Current Events

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

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

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

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

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

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

An Issue of Equity

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

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

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

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

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

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

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

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

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

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

Designing experiences for critical thinking

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

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

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

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

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

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

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

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

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONING

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

TALK TIME / CONTROL

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

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

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

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

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

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

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

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

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

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

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

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

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

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

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

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

19k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

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

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

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

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

The critical thinking-oriented adaptations of problem-based learning models: a systematic review.

• Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Critical thinking is a significant twenty-first century skill that is prioritized by higher education. Problem-based learning is becoming widely accepted as an effective way to enhance critical thinking. However, as the results of studies that use PBL to develop CT have had mixed success, PBL models need to be modified to guarantee positive outcomes. This study is a systematic review that analyzed how studies have adapted Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to become more Critical Thinking (CT)-oriented, evaluated the effectiveness of these adaptations, and determined why certain adaptations were successful. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) by searching the scientific databases Scopus and Web of Science. Twenty journal articles were chosen based on their adherence to the inclusion criteria established by PICo (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, and Context). In these studies, PBL adaptations were categorized into five classifications, with activities centered on CT development being the most prevalent approach. Researchers utilized a variety of analytical methodologies to assess the effectiveness of these adaptations and derive significant insights and formulate valid conclusions. An analysis of all selected studies revealed positive outcomes, indicating that incorporating CT elements into PBL was effective in enhancing students' CT. These findings were categorized into nine factors that contribute to the successful adaptation of PBL to be CT-oriented.

1. Introduction

The twenty-first century is an era of innovation, requiring individuals to possess skills for academic excellence, success in the workplace, and the capability to cope with life. Examples of such transferable skills include communication, collaboration, creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking (CT) ( Hidayati et al., 2022 ). Of these, CT is frequently cited as the most crucial ( National Association of Colleges Employers, 2016 ) for individuals to adapt to this quickly changing society ( Alper, 2010 ). Universities view the development of students' CT skills as one of their most significant educational objectives ( Facione, 2011 ; Erikson and Erikson, 2019 ) and must therefore continually refine their teaching techniques ( Bezanilla et al., 2019 ) and establish a learning environment that improves students' CT capabilities ( Evendi et al., 2022 ). In this way, universities can foster twenty-first-century talents with extraordinary academic performance and excellent professional skills ( Hidayati et al., 2022 ).

Problem-based learning is gaining popularity as a method for enhancing critical thinking. However, PBL models must be adapted to ensure beneficial outcomes, as the results of studies employing PBL to enhance CT have not always been positive. Thus, it is essential to determine which aspects contribute to the success of a PBL-adapted model for developing CT and explore the reason for the success. This paper offers a systematic review of how studies have altered PBL to become more focused on critical thinking, the evaluation of those modifications, and the factors that contribute to enhanced critical thinking.

1.1. Critical thinking

While the importance of CT has been widely acknowledged, scholars from different research fields have conceptualized and defined it differently. For instance, philosophy scholars view CT as the ability to challenge an assumption, evaluate the argument and relevant information, and draw correct conclusions ( Fisher, 2011 ); psychology scholars view CT as a broad range of thinking skills, including problem solving, decision making, and hypothesis testing ( Halpern, 2010 ). The literature generally conceptualizes CT as comprising two equally important elements—skills (CTSs) and dispositions (CTDs). Facione (1990) believes that critical thinkers are unsuccessful if they cannot apply their CT skills effectively.

For this paper, CT is understood as consisting of: (i) making judgments ( Chaffee, 1994 ; Snyder and Snyder, 2008 ; Papathanasiou et al., 2014 ; Ennis, 2018 ); (ii) evaluation ( Facione, 1990 ; Yanchar and Slife, 2004 ; Fisher, 2011 ; and (iii) reasoning ( Facione, 1990 ; Ennis, 2011 ; Elder and Paul, 2012 ). Characteristics commonly recognized as indispensable for CTD include: (1) open-mindedness ( Ennis, 1987 ; Facione, 1990 ); (2) fair-mindedness ( Facione, 1990 ; Elder and Paul, 2001 ); (3) inquisitiveness ( Facione, 1990 ; Elder and Paul, 2001 ); (4) respect for reason ( Ennis, 1987 ; Lipman, 1991 ); and (5) propensity to explore alternatives ( Elder and Paul, 2001 ).

CTSs and CTDs are not innate qualities but must be developed through learning and practice. However, conventional teaching approaches: (1) are not conducive to developing students' CT; (2) lack authenticity ( Sharma and Elbow, 2000 ); and (3) are inadequate for developing students' CTSs ( Drennan and Rohde, 2002 ). Education and teaching systems need to be designed to facilitate CT learning ( Dekker, 2020 ) by selecting the most recent effective instructional strategies ( Karakoc, 2016 ).

1.2. Problem-based learning

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered instructional method that enhances CT ( Facione et al., 2000 ; Choi et al., 2014 ; Carter et al., 2017 ), including CTSs ( Facione et al., 2000 ) and CTDs ( Dehkordi and Heydarnejad, 2008 ). PBL occurs among small groups of students who explore problems and find solutions collaboratively ( Yuan et al., 2008 ); it is a continual scientific learning process designed to accustom students to think critically ( Nurcahyo and Djono, 2018 ). PBL begins by challenging students to solve complicated, ill-structured problems ( Barrows, 1986 ) and provides opportunities inside and outside of the classroom to analyze information and consider different viewpoints ( Dwyer et al., 2015 ); students share their thoughts, listen to those of others, reflect on their own ideas, and ultimately obtain a suitable solution to a problem. The required self-directed learning, interpersonal communication, and reasoning foster CT ( Orique and McCarthy, 2015 ).

1.3. Problem-based learning and critical thinking

Liu and Pásztor (2022) meta-analysis of 50 relevant empirical studies with 5,210 participants and 58 effect sizes concluded that PBL was effective for fostering CT. However, Lee et al. (2016) meta-analysis of eight studies concluded that PBL was not effective for enhancing nursing students' CT. These contradictory conclusions suggest that teachers must adapt PBL according to the objectives to be attained ( Barrows, 1996 ). Researchers from different academic fields, such as Kamin et al. (2003) , Fujinuma and Wendling (2015) , and Evendi et al. (2022) have adapted PBL to improve students' CT.

This study thus sought to: (1) examine how studies have adapted PBL to be more focused on CT development; (2) examine the result of those studies; and (3) explore the reasons for successful modifications. It filled the gap left by the systematic reviews that are focused on the impacts of PBL model instead of adapted CT-oriented PBL models on CT development.

1.4. Research questions

The formulation of the research question for this study was based on the PICo framework, which has been developed specifically for qualitative reviews and identifies the key aspects of Population, Phenomenon of Interest, and Context ( JBI, 2011 ). Utilizing these concepts, the authors incorporated three primary aspects into the review: college students (Population), CT improvement (Phenomenon of Interest), and participation in CT-oriented PBL intervention (Context). The principal research question was thus: How can the PBL model be adapted to enhance students' critical thinking abilities? This broad question was further refined into several specific research questions:

(1) What adaptations can be made to PBL to enhance the CT of college students and what is the rationale for these adaptations?

(2) How are the results of CT-oriented PBL interventions evaluated?

(3) To what extent are these adapted PBL models successful and what factors contribute to their success?

2. Methodology

A protocol encompassing search terms, databases, screening criteria, and analytical methods was established to guide the literature search and generate the initial data set ( Yang et al., 2017 ). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) ( Page et al., 2021 ) were employed to identify pertinent papers concerning PBL adaptations for teaching CTSs and CTDs at the undergraduate level in higher education. Two databases were utilized: Scopus and Web of Science (WOS).

2.1. Search strategy

The key search terms were derived from several sources: previous studies; an online thesaurus; keywords suggested by WOS and Scopus; and the research questions.

Two independent researchers identified research articles published in Scopus or WOS between January 2001 and mid-August 2022 by using a combination of the key search terms with a Boolean operator, phrase searching, and truncation to produce the search string. For WOS, the search string was TS = (PBL or “problem based learning” or “problem-based learning”) AND (“critical thinking” or “think critically”) AND (university or college or undergraduate or “higher education” or “tertiary education”). For Scopus, the search string was TITLE-ABS-KEY (PBL or “problem based learning” or “problem-based learning”) AND (“critical thinking” or “think critically”) AND (university or college or undergraduate or “higher education” or “tertiary education”).

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on PICo ( JBI, 2011 ). Articles were included if they: (1) undertook empirical research; (2) involved undergraduate students; (3) used PBL-adapted models as the main instructional intervention; (4) included research tools to collect CTS and CTD data; (5) explored students' learning experiences; (6) evaluated CTS and/or CTD as the main research outcome; and (7) published in an English peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Studies were excluded if they: (1)were review papers or not empirical papers; (2) did not adapt PBL models for their own research purposes; (3) involved non-undergraduate college students; (4) did not collect CTS and CTD data; (5) did not evaluate CTS and/or CTD as the main research outcome; (6) did not report CTS and/or CTD outcomes; (7) published in languages other than English; and (8) were not published in peer-reviewed journals, e.g., conference proceedings or book chapters.

2.3. Selection of articles

Articles were screened and selected according to PRISMA. Duplicate records and non-research or non-English articles were removed. Two independent reviewers then screened as many articles as possible to not miss any potentially eligible article. Records with a title and/or abstract that suggested the work involved PBL and CT were retained even though they did not fully meet the inclusion criteria for the title and/or abstract. The reviewers then rigorously applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria as they examined the full text of the retained articles. This meant that all eligible articles involved a modified PBL as the pedagogical intervention and evaluated CTS or CTD as the main research outcome. Finally, a database of selected articles was created for data extraction and analysis.

Figure 1 shows the number of records included at the identification, screening, selection and inclusion stages of the review process. The initial database searches uncovered 719 publications. After 70 duplicate records were eliminated, the literature was screened for journal or review articles that were written in English. This reduced the number of records to 499. After evaluating the abstracts of these articles, 292 records were deleted. The entire text of the remaining 207 papers were reviewed; 187 articles that failed to meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, leaving 20 journal articles to be included in this systematic review.

Figure 1 . The flow diagram of the literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

2.4. Data extraction

To extract pertinent information from the 20 studies, Harris et al. (2014) guidelines were employed. These guidelines facilitated the extraction of information such as the author(s), year of publication, types of intervention implemented, types of data collection methods, types of data analysis methods, main findings of the study, and the effectiveness of the interventions in achieving their intended outcomes.

3. Results and discussion

The findings of the study are presented in three distinct sub-sections, each corresponding to a specific research question. The first sub-section details the types of PBL adaptations that were made to improve CT. The second sub-section presents the details of data collection and analysis implemented by each study. The last sub-section discusses the reasons for the observed improvements in student's CT as a result of these interventions.

3.1. The CT-oriented adaptations made to PBL models

An analysis revealed five distinct approaches to adapting Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to enhance Critical Thinking (CT) skills: (1) the implementation of CT-specific tools; (2) the incorporation of CT-focused activities; (3) the utilization of digital technologies; (4) the integration with other pedagogical methods; and (5) the integration with discipline-specific knowledge. As depicted in Table 1 , CT-oriented activities ( n = 6) emerged as the most prevalent strategy for augmenting CT, followed by the utilization of instructional technologies ( n = 5) and the assimilation of other instructional modes ( n = 4). Conversely, CT-oriented instruments ( n = 3) and the combination of PBL with subject-specific knowledge ( n = 2) were identified as the least frequently employed tactics for adapting PBL to foster CT development.

Table 1 . The author(s), publication date, and intervention used in studies by approach to PBL adaptation.

3.1.1. CT-oriented tools

As is depicted in Table 1 , the aforementioned studies employed various adaptations of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) with the objective of enhancing critical thinking (CT). These adaptations encompassed the utilization of CT-oriented guiding questions ( Carbogim et al., 2017 ), concept mapping ( Orique and McCarthy, 2015 ), and a CT assessment rubric ( Suryanti and Nurhuda, 2021 ). In their studies, guiding questions were implemented to stimulate and direct cognitive processes, concept maps served as a visual instrument for representing concerned issues and facilitating the development of solving plans, and the CT assessment rubric was employed to furnish lucid guidelines and expectations that facilitated self-assessment and engendered a more profound engagement with the subject matter. These aforementioned instruments possess the capacity to facilitate the development of students' critical thinking aptitudes by providing a framework for the organization and analysis of information.

3.1.2. CT-oriented activities

The studies examined in this text employed various critical thinking-oriented activities within a problem-based learning (PBL) framework to enhance the development of critical thinking skills. These activities were collaborative in nature, a characteristic inherent to PBL ( Yuan et al., 2008 ), and allowed learners to practice cognitive and/or meta-cognitive skills. With regard to the incorporation of cognitive skills, Hsu (2021) , for example, advocates for the integration of collaborative learning with PBL as it requires learners to cooperatively analyze, synthesize, and evaluate ideas to solve complex problems. Additionally, Mumtaz and Latif (2017) and Latif et al. (2018) incorporated debate among learners as it provides an opportunity for deeper analysis and appraisal of issues. The others recognized the significant correlation between meta-cognitive skills and CT improvement. For example, Fujinuma and Wendling (2015) integrated team-based active learning into their PBL model focused on meta-cognitive development to improve critical thinking. Rivas et al. (2022) emphasized individual and interactive meta-cognitive development through reflective activities because effective use of critical thinking skills requires a certain degree of consciousness and regulation of them. Rodríguez et al. (2022) used peer assessment within a PBL framework to develop a four-stage metacognitive approach due to the positive correlation between metacognition and active learning ( Biasutti and Frate, 2018 ), which can help foster higher order thinking skills ( Kim et al., 2020 ). These CT-oriented adaptations suggest that future studies could consider creating active learning environments through collaborative activities to foster cognitive and meta-cognitive skills to enhance critical thinking.

3.1.3. Digital strategies

Included research examined the incorporation of digital technologies into PBL to enhance CT. Sendag and Odabasi (2009) and Evendi et al. (2022) adapted traditional face-to-face PBL to an electronic format known as e-PBL in response to the increasing prevalence of online learning and the demonstrated efficacy of e-PBL in enhancing learning outcomes. Other studies investigated the use of videos in problem-based learning because they can present ill-structured problems in a more vivid manner ( Kamin et al., 2003 ; Roy and McMahon, 2012 ). Digital mind maps were used in conjunction with PBL by Hidayati et al. (2022) because they can create an engaging learning environment and facilitate deeper learning regardless of the learning styles of the learners.

3.1.4. PBL integrated with other pedagogical models

Researchers attempted to combine other pedagogical mode with PBL to enhance CT development. Lim (2020) integrated problem-based learning (PBL) with simulation-based learning to enable students to tackle problems that mirror real-life scenarios, thereby enhancing their professional skills and critical thinking abilities. Similarly, Xing et al. (2021) employed a clinical case-based PBL approach in conjunction with the “Status-Background-Assessment-Recommendation” (SBAR) teaching model to facilitate communication ( Abdellatif et al., 2007 ). Carbogim et al. (2018) combined PBL with the Active Learning Model for Critical Thinking (ALMCT), which comprises a series of questions designed to promote deeper understanding and exploration of meanings, relationships, and outcomes through inquiry within a clinical context or case. Aein (2018) modified PBL by incorporating inter-professional learning (IPL) to foster teamwork, enhance communication, and overcome inter-professional barriers. These studies share a common focus on the medical field and aim to improve students' professional competencies and critical thinking skills by presenting simulated real-world cases and promoting communication and collaboration among students.

3.1.5. PBL integrated with subject knowledge

Silviarza et al. (2020) and Silviariza and Handoyo (2021) are the sole authors among the studies reviewed to have undertaken research on the integration of problem-based learning (PBL) with the instruction of subject knowledge. They contend that the ability to critically solve problems is of paramount importance in the study of geography ( Nagel, 2008 ). Academics may contemplate the incorporation of problem-based learning (PBL) methodologies within fields of study that necessitate the utilization of critical thinking competencies for problem resolution and knowledge acquisition. Such an approach has the potential to augment not only students' comprehension of the subject matter but also their capacity for critical thinking.

3.2. The evaluation of CT-oriented PBL interventions

The efficacy of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) adaptations in enhancing Critical Thinking (CT) was investigated by examining the results of individual studies. To determine the overall effectiveness of modified PBL models on the development of CT skills or dispositions (CTS or CTD), it is necessary to scrutinize the instruments employed for data collection and the analytical methods utilized. Table 2 provides an overview of the article title, publication year, data collection instrument, and data analysis approach utilized in the study.

Table 2 . Evaluation of included educational intervention.

3.2.1. Data collection

The instruments employed by the studies included in this analysis can be classified according to their use in collecting either quantitative or qualitative data, as delineated in Table 2 . Quantitative instruments comprise questionnaires (e.g., Mumtaz and Latif, 2017 ; Carbogim et al., 2018 ; Latif et al., 2018 ; Lim, 2020 ; Silviarza et al., 2020 ; Hsu, 2021 ; Xing et al., 2021 ), tests (e.g., Sendag and Odabasi, 2009 ; Silviariza and Handoyo, 2021 ; Hidayati et al., 2022 ; Rivas et al., 2022 ; Evendi et al., 2022 ), and assessment rubrics (e.g., Orique and McCarthy, 2015 ; Suryanti and Nurhuda, 2021 ; Rodríguez et al., 2022 ), with questionnaires being the most commonly utilized instrument. On the other hand, several studies have employed qualitative instruments to collect CT-related data, which are less varied than their quantitative counterparts. Qualitative instruments primarily encompass recorded learning activities (e.g., Kamin et al., 2003 ; Roy and McMahon, 2012 ; Evendi et al., 2022 ), interviews (e.g., Carbogim et al., 2017 ; Aein, 2018 ; Xing et al., 2021 ), and open-ended questions (e.g., Fujinuma and Wendling, 2015 ; Mumtaz and Latif, 2017 ). Based on an analysis of the tools utilized by the studies involved in this investigation, future research exploring the adaptations of PBL for CT can employ quantitative (e.g., Silviarza et al., 2020 ), qualitative (e.g., Aein, 2018 ), or mixed methods (e.g., Carbogim et al., 2017 ).

As indicated in Table 2 , researchers employ one of two approaches in constructing data collection instruments for quantitative data: either directly utilizing tools developed by others or developing their own research instruments. For instance, widely used and well-developed instruments include the Chinese adaptation of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) and the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). Xing et al. (2021) employed the Chinese version of the CCTDI to investigate the impact of modified PBL on learners' CT disposition, while Carbogim et al. (2018) utilized the CCTST to assess students' CT skills. These extensively used tools have been demonstrated to be valid and reliable for data collection and analysis. Alternatively, researchers have endeavored to design their own instruments tailored to their specific study requirements. For example, Silviarza et al. (2020) and Hidayati et al. (2022) developed an essay test and a CTS test, respectively, based on the CT indicators proposed by Ennis (2011) . These self-made instruments were subjected to validity and reliability checks prior to being employed for data collection (e.g., Hidayati et al., 2022 ). Both of the above-discussed approaches, when implemented with established credibility and validity, are effective in collecting the desired data. On the other hand, most studies employing qualitative tools do not test validity and reliability in the same manner as quantitative studies (e.g., Kamin et al., 2003 ; Roy and McMahon, 2012 ), but instead utilize triangulation to enhance validity and reliability (e.g., Rodríguez et al., 2022 ).

3.2.2. Data analysis

As delineated in Table 2 , the studies included in this analysis employed distinct analytical methodologies based on their data collection methods. It is only through the application of analytical techniques that are appropriately tailored to the data and research objectives that researchers can derive meaningful insights and draw valid conclusions from their data.

For quantitative data, researchers utilized descriptive analysis to determine the means and proportions of CT-related data. Several studies employed this method, including Mumtaz and Latif (2017) , Carbogim et al. (2018) , Latif et al. (2018) , Suryanti and Nurhuda (2021) , and Rivas et al. (2022) . In addition to descriptive analysis, other statistical techniques were also frequently employed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used by Sendag and Odabasi (2009) and Fujinuma and Wendling (2015) to compare the means of multiple groups and determine whether there were any statistically significant differences between them. The t -test technique to compare the means of experimental and control group was also commonly used, as seen in studies by Carbogim et al. (2018) , Latif et al. (2018) , Silviarza et al. (2020) , and Xing et al. (2021) .

In contrast to the quantitative methods described above, content analysis was typically applied to qualitative data. Studies that employed this method include Kamin et al. (2003) . In addition to content analysis, narrative summary was also used to present and interpret qualitative data (e.g., Mumtaz and Latif, 2017 ).

3.3. Examination of the findings from PBL-adapted interventions

3.3.1. interventional outcomes.

The results of individual studies were examined to explore the success of PBL adaptations for improving CT. Table 3 summarizes the CT development outcomes of each intervention. All the studies had positive outcomes with students showing increased CT. This indicates that the planful integration of CT elements into PBL was effective and necessary for enhancing students' CT which cannot be assured with PBL that do not have CT-oriented adaptations ( Lee et al., 2016 ).

Table 3 . The main findings of each study.

3.3.2. Positive findings

Although all of their studies reported positive outcomes in the development of critical thinking (CT), the depth of their research varied. Some studies documented general improvements in CT as a result of instructional interventions, while others reported enhancements in specific CT sub-skills. For instance, Silviarza et al. (2020) discovered that engaging students in debates and encouraging them to confirm information through research promoted critical thinking. Similarly, Aein (2018) found that challenging students to respond to difficulties posed by their peers with concealed features of disorders prompted them to think critically about current and potential health concerns. On the other hand, several researchers confirmed that problem-based learning (PBL) oriented toward CT improved CT sub-skills. Latif et al. (2018) , for example, reported that exposing students to challenging real-life situations encouraged them to conduct research based on their arguments, fostering the CT processes of analysis and interpretation. Carbogim et al. (2017) argued that pairing PBL with guided questions enhanced students' abilities to analyze, reason, and generate solutions for safe care action, demonstrating intellectual stimulation for CT.

Although critical thinking (CT) encompasses both critical thinking skills (CTSs) and critical thinking dispositions (CTDs), only three studies have specifically investigated the development of students' CTDs. Carbogim et al. (2018) employed the Portuguese version of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) to evaluate CTDs and discovered that integrating problem-based learning (PBL) with the Active Learning Model for Critical Thinking (ALMCT) influenced the acquisition of an analytical disposition. Hsu (2021) utilized Yeh and study of substitute teachers' professional knowledge (1999 ) Inventory of Critical-Thinking Disposition (ICTD) to determine that support for social contacts enhanced students' CT cognitive development. Lim (2020) applied Yoon (2004) self-report questionnaire to assess CTDs and found a correlation between CTDs and problem-solving abilities. These findings indicate that current research primarily concentrates on the development of CTS, suggesting that future studies should not overlook the development of CTD.

3.3.3. Success factors

An analysis of the key CT-related findings from each study, as presented in Table 3 , was conducted to explore the reasons for successful adaptation of problem-based learning (PBL). These findings were categorized into nine factors that contribute to the successful adaptation of PBL to be CT-oriented, as delineated in Table 4 . These factors comprise self-directed learning, CT-related activities, interaction, problem-solving skills, metacognitive activities, authentic learning, positive atmosphere, self-efficacy, and role of teacher. These factors can serve as the principles upon which CT-oriented PBL models should be based.

Table 4 . Classification of the main findings from the studies by theme.

As is shown in Table 4 , the nine principles are identified. The principle of self-directed learning refers to students accepting responsibility for their own learning and actively participating in the learning process ( Kamin et al., 2003 ). CT-related activities refer to the activities of students applying their learning to enhance CT, such as debating (e.g., Latif et al., 2018 ). Interaction refers to students: (1) being assigned to small groups and sharing their learning within the group and across groups ( Kamin et al., 2003 ; Fujinuma and Wendling, 2015 ; Silviarza et al., 2020 ); (2) sharing their knowledge with other students ( Orique and McCarthy, 2015 ); (3) peer discussions on how to solve problems ( Lim, 2020 ; Hidayati et al., 2022 ); (4) challenging each others' views ( Aein, 2018 ); and (5) debating with each other ( Rivas et al., 2022 ). CT propensity in PBL has also been found to be associated with problem-solving abilities and metacognitive skills ( Rodríguez et al., 2022 ). Authentic learning in PBL is key to developing students' CT skills which involve authentic real-world problem that contain diverse, difficult, and ill-structured answers ( Hidayati et al., 2022 ) and utilizing relevant real-world experiences to solve it ( Latif et al., 2018 ). The problems are authentic ( Hidayati et al., 2022 ), relevant to learners' real-world experiences ( Latif et al., 2018 ), and contain diverse, difficult, and ill-structured answers. There was scant scholarly attention given to the learning environment and self-efficacy even though a positive learning environment can assist students to enhance their CT ( Evendi et al., 2022 ). Likewise, self-efficacy has received scant scholarly attention. After simulated PBL, students' learning self-efficacy was positively linked to CT propensity and problem-solving ability ( Lim, 2020 ). Teachers had a significant impact on PBL students, particularly when they assumed the role of facilitator rather than merely transmitting information ( Hsu, 2021 ), were less the center of attention in the classroom ( Sendag and Odabasi, 2009 ), and provided examples that were appropriate for the students' level of learning.

The principles for PBL adaptations for CT development align with those of original PBL models but are optimized to maximize CT development. For instance, Carter et al. (2017) assert that students should be at the center of learning, Barrows (1986) posits that PBL problems should be ill-structured, and Yuan et al. (2008) contend that students should collaborate to solve problems. These principles are intrinsic to PBL. Consequently, the design of new PBL models to enhance CT should adhere to the fundamental principles or characteristics of PBL.

4. Conclusions

In this study, a systematic review was undertaken of published articles associated with PBL adaptations as educational interventions to improve students' CT skills and dispositions. Using the 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria and the PICo approach, this paper explored the methods used to adapt the PBL model to optimize CT development, examined the effectiveness of those models and explored the reasons why these adaptations were successful with the intent to fulfill the gap of the limited number of systematic reviews on adapting the original PBL model to be a more CT oriented model.

Five distinct categories of the strategies employed to adapt PBL were found: activities centered on CT development, incorporation of digital technologies, integration of alternative pedagogical approaches, utilization of CT-specific instruments, and combination of PBL with discipline-specific knowledge. These adaptations were found to be effective in augmenting students' CT skills and dispositions, although the methodologies employed for data collection and analysis varied across studies. Future research is warranted to investigate the potential of these adaptations in diverse educational contexts.

Nine factors that contribute to the successful adaptation of PBL to be more CT-oriented were identified. They are: self-directed learning, CT-related activities, interaction with peers and teachers, problem-solving skills, metacognitive activities, authentic learning, positive atmosphere, high self-efficacy, and supportive teachers. These principles are congruent with those of traditional PBL models but have been specifically designed to optimize CT development. Future research could explore the relative significance of each of these factors in fostering CT development and examine their interplay. Additionally, researchers could investigate the effective integration of these factors into PBL models across diverse educational contexts and disciplines.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abdellatif, A., Bagian, J. P., Barajas, E. R., Cohen, M., Cousins, D., Denham, C. R., et al. (2007). Communication during patient hand-overs. Joint Comm. J. Qual. Patient Safety . doi: 10.1016/S1553-7250(07)33128-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aein, F. (2018). Midwifery students' experiences of problem solving based interprofessional learning: a qualitative study. Women Birth 31, e374–e379. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.02.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alper, A. (2010). Critical thinking disposition of pre-service teachers. Egitimve Bilim. 35, 14.

Google Scholar

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med. Educ. 20, 481–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Direct. Teach. Learn. 1996, 3–12. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219966804

Bezanilla, M. J., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Poblete, M., and Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019). Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: the teacher's view. Think. Skills Creat. 33, 100584. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584

Biasutti, M., and Frate, S. (2018). Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: validity and reliability of the group metacognition scale (GMS). Educ. Technol. Res. Dev . 66, 321–1338. doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9583-0

Carbogim, F. C., Barbosa, A. C. S., de Oliviera, L. B., de Sá Diaz, F. B. B., Toledo, L. V., Alves, K. R., et al. (2018). Educational intervention to improve critical thinking for undergraduate nursing students: a randomized clinical trial. Nurse Educ. Pract . 33, 121–126. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.10.001

Carbogim, F. D. C., Oliveira, L. B. D., Mendonça, É. T. D., Marques, D. A., Friedrich, D. B. D. C., and Püschel, V. A. D. A. (2017). Teaching critical thinking skills through problem based learning. Texto Contexto-Enfermagem 26, 17. doi: 10.1590/0104-07072017001180017

Carter, A. G., Creedy, D. K., and Sidebotham, M. (2017). Critical thinking evaluation in reflective writing: development and testing of carter assessment of critical thinking in midwifery (reflection). Midwifery 54, 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.08.003

Chaffee, J. (1994). Thinking Critically . 4th Edn . Houghton: Mifflin.

Choi, E., Lindquist, R., and Song, Y. (2014). Effects of problem-based learning vs. traditional lecture on Korean nursing students' critical thinking, problem-solving and self-directed learning. Nurse Educ. Today 34, 52–56. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.012

Dehkordi, A. H., and Heydarnejad, M. S. (2008). The effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of Iranian nursing students' critical thinking. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 24, 740–743.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Dekker, T. J. (2020). Teaching critical thinking through engagement with multiplicity. Think. Skills Creat. 37, 100701. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100701

Drennan, L., and Rohde, F. (2002). Determinants of performance in advanced undergraduate management accounting: an empirical investigation. Accoun. Finan . 42, 27–40. doi: 10.1111/1467-629X.00065

Dwyer, C. P., Boswell, A., and Elliott, M. A. (2015). An evaluation of critical thinking competencies in business settings. J. Educ. Bus. 90, 260–269. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1038978

Elder, L., and Paul, R. (2001). Critical thinking: thinking to some purpose. J. Dev. Educ. 25, 40.

Elder, L., and Paul, R. (2012). Critical thinking: competency standards essential to the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 4. J. Dev. Educ. 35, 30–31.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). “A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities,” in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , eds J. B. Baron and R. J. Sternberg (New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt and Co), 9–26.

Ennis, R. H. (2011). Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to. Inquiry Crit. Think. Across Discipl. 26, 4. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews201126214

Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi 37, 65–184. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Erikson, M. G., and Erikson, M. (2019). Learning outcomes and critical thinking–good intentions in conflict. Stud. Higher Educ. 44, 2293–2303. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1486813

Evendi, E., Al Kusaeri, A. K., Pardi, M. H. H., Sucipto, L., Bayani, F., and Prayogi, S. (2022). Assessing students' critical thinking skills viewed from cognitive style:Study on implementation of problem-based e-learning model in mathematics courses. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ . 18, pem2129. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/12161

Facione, P., Facione, N., and Giancarlo, C. (2000). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill. Informal Logic. p. 20. doi: 10.22329/il.v20i1.2254

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction-The Delphi Report . Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

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

Facione, P. A., and Facione, N. C. (1994). Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric . Available online at: http://www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Holistic-Critical-Thinking-Scoring-Rubric-HCTSR (accessed April 20, 2023).

Fisher, A. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Introduction . Cambridge University Press.

Fujinuma, R., and Wendling, L. A. (2015). Repeating knowledge application practice to improve student performance in a large, introductory science course. Int. J. Sci. Educ . 37, 2906–2922. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1114191

Halpern, D. (2010). Undergraduate Education in Psychology: A Blueprint for the Future of the Discipline . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Harris, J. D., Quatman, C. E., Manring, M. M., Siston, R. A., and Flanigan, D. C. (2014). How to write a systematic review. Am. J. Sports Med. 42, 2761–2768. doi: 10.1177/0363546513497567

Hidayati, N., Zubai Dah, S., and Amnah, S. (2022). The PBL vs. digital mind maps integrated PBL: choosing between the two with a view to enhance learners' critical thinking. Particip. Educ. Res . 9, 30–343. doi: 10.17275/per.22.69.9.3

Hsu, Y. (2021). An action research in critical thinking concept designed curriculum based on collaborative learning for engineering ethics course. Sustainability 13, 2621. doi: 10.3390/su13052621

JBI (2011). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual . Adelaide: University of Adelaide.

Kamin, C., O'Sullivan, P., Deterding, R., and Younger, M. (2003). A comparison of critical thinking in groups of third-year medical students in text, video, and virtual PBL case modalities. Acad. Med . 78, 204–211. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200302000-00018

Karakoc, M. (2016). The significance of critical thinking ability in terms of education. Int. J. Human. Soc. Sci. 6, 81–84.

Kim, H. J., Yi, P., and Hong, J. I. (2020). Students' academic use of mobile technology and higher-order thinking skills: the role of active engagement. Educ. Sci . 10, 47. doi: 10.3390/educsci10030047

Latif, R., Mumtaz, S., Mumtaz, R., and Hussain, A. (2018). A comparison of debate and role play in enhancing critical thinking and communication skills of medical students during problem based learning. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ . 46, 336–342. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21124

Lee, J., Lee, Y., Gong, S., Bae, J., and Choi, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. BMC Med. Educ . 16, 240. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7

Lim, M.-H. (2020). Effectiveness of simulation linked problem based learning on nursing college students in South Korea. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud . 9, 15. doi: 10.36941/ajis-2020-0018

Lipman, B. L. (1991). How to decide how to decide how to…: modeling limited rationality. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1105–1125. doi: 10.2307/2938176

Liu, Y., and Pásztor, A. (2022). Effects of problem-based learning instructional intervention on critical thinking in higher education: a meta-analysis. Think. Skills Creat. 45, 101069. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101069

Mumtaz, S., and Latif, R. (2017). Learning through debate during problem-based learning: an active learning strategy. Adv. Physiol. Educ . 41, 390–394. doi: 10.1152/advan.00157.2016

Nagel, P. (2008). Geography: the essential skill for the 21st century. Soc. Educ. 72, 354.

National Association of Colleges Employers (2016). Class of 2016 Believes it is “Career Ready,” But is It? Available online at: http://tinyurl.com/ya8a559g (accessed April 20, 2023).

Nurcahyo, E., and Djono, D. (2018). The implementation of discovery learning model with scientific learning approach to improve students' critical thinking in learning history. Int. J. Multicul. Multirel. Understand . 5, 106. doi: 10.18415/ijmmu.v5i3.234

Orique, S. B., and McCarthy, M. A. (2015). Critical thinking and the use of nontraditional instructional methodologies. J. Nurs. Educ . 54, 455–459. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20150717-06

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

Papathanasiou, I. V., Kleisiaris, C. F., Fradelos, E. C., Kakou, K., and Kourkouta, L. (2014). Critical thinking: the development of an essential skill for nursing students. Acta Inform. Med. 22, 283. doi: 10.5455/aim.2014.22.283-286

Peng, M., Wang, G., Chen, J., Chen, M., Bai, H., Li, S., et al. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Chinese critical thinking disposition inventory. Chin. J. Nurs . 39, 7–10 (In Chinese).

Rivas, S., and Saiz, C. (2012). Validación y propiedades psicométricas de la prueba de pensamiento crítico PENCRISAL. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada 17, 18–34.

Rivas, S. F., Saiz, C., and Ossa, C. (2022). Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in higher education. Front. Psychol . 13, 913219. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913219

Rodríguez, M. F., Nussbaum, M., Pertuzé, J., Avila, C., Caceres, J., Valenzuela, T., et al. (2022). Using metacognition to promote active learning in large business management classes. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int . 59, 410–420. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2021.1887750

Roy, R. B., and McMahon, G. T. (2012). Video-based cases disrupt deep critical thinking in problem-based learning. Med. Educ . 46, 426–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04197.x

Saiz, C., and Rivas, S. F. (2008). Evaluación en pensamiento crítico: una propuesta para diferenciar formas de pensar. Ergo. Nueva Época 22–23, 25–66.

Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp. Educ. Psychol . 19, 460–475. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

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

Sharma, M. B., and Elbow, G. S. (2000). Using Internet Primary Sources to Teach Critical Thinking Skills in Geography . Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Silviariza, W. Y., and Handoyo, B. (2021). Improving critical thinking skills of geography students with spatial-problem based learning (SPBL). Int. J. Instr. 14, 133–152. doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.1438a

Silviarza, W., Sumarmi, S., and Handoyo, B. (2020). Using of Spatial Problem Based Learning (SPBL) model in geography education for developing critical thinking skills. J. Educ. Gifted Young Sci. 8, 1045–1060. doi: 10.17478/jegys.737219

Snyder, L. G., and Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. J. Res. Bus. Educ. 50, 90.

Suryanti, N., and Nurhuda, N. (2021). The effect of problem-based learning with an analytical rubric on the development of students' critical thinking skills. Int. J. Instruct. 14, 665–684. doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14237a

Xing, C., Zhou, Y., Li, M., Wu, Q., Zhou, Q., Wang, Q., et al. (2021). The effects of CPBL + SBAR teaching mode among the nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today , 100, 104828. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104828

Yanchar, S. C., and Slife, B. D. (2004). Teaching critical thinking by examining assumptions. Teach. Psychol. 31, 85–90. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top3102_2

Yang, E. C. L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., and Arcodia, C. (2017). A systematic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism. Tour. Manag. 58, 89–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.011

Yeh Y. C. A. study of substitute teachers' professional knowledge personal teaching effificacy, teaching behavior in criticalthinking instruction. J. Chengchi. Univ. (1999). 78, 55–84.

Yoon, J. (2004). Development of an instrument for the measurement of critical thinking disposition: in nursing . (Unpublished theses), Seoul: Catholic University.

Yuan, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Klunklin, A., and Williams, B. A. (2008). Improvement of nursing students' critical thinking skills through problem-based learning in the People's Republic of China: a quasi-experimental study. Nurs. Health Sci. 10, 70–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2007.00373.x

Zainul, A. (2001). Alternative Assessment. PAU-PPAI, DirJen Dikti: DepDikNas . Available online at: http://www.academia.edu/5158544/Pengukuran_Assesment_Dan_Penilaian_Evaluation_Hasil_Belajar/Pdf_file (accessed April 20, 2023).

Keywords: higher education, problem-based learning, critical thinking, educational intervention, systematic review, pedagogical adaption

Citation: Yu L and Zin ZM (2023) The critical thinking-oriented adaptations of problem-based learning models: a systematic review. Front. Educ. 8:1139987. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1139987

Received: 08 January 2023; Accepted: 02 May 2023; Published: 24 May 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Yu and Zin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Zuhana Mohamed Zin, zuhana.kl@utm.my

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Sci Educ
• v.29(1); 2019 Mar

Advancing Critical Thinking Through Learning Issues in Problem-Based Learning

Carol c. thompson.

Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ USA

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Materials and Methods

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

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

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

Participants

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

Data Collection

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

Data Analysis

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

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

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

Discussions within LIs (minutes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final class session examples (brackets indicate overlapping speech)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Limitations

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

Future Directions

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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

The author declares that there is conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review

Article sidebar, main article content.

It is often assumed that problem-based learning is an effective approach for fostering the development and/or improvement of students’ critical thinking. To shed light on the connection between problem-based learning and critical thinking, this scoping review maps out how the notion of critical thinking is conceptualized in relation to problem-based learning in the literature about problem-based learning in the context of higher education. Eight academic databases were searched and a total of 66 peer-reviewed articles were identified as eligible for review. Our findings indicate that there is a plurality of positions regarding the meaning of critical thinking and the concept’s relation to problem-based learning. What is more, more often than not, no explicit explanation for why this connection is thought to exist is presented.

Article Details

1. Publication and Promotion : In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials

2. C opyright : Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.

3. Prior Publication and Attribution : Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere

4. Author Representations : The Author represents and warrants that the Work:

(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;

(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;

(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.

Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.

5. Licensing and Reuse : Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.

• Campus Life
• ...a student.
• ...a veteran.
• ...an alum.
• ...a parent.
• ...faculty or staff.
• Class Schedule
• Crisis Resources
• People Finder
• Change Password

UTC RAVE Alert

Critical thinking and problem-solving, jump to: , what is critical thinking, characteristics of critical thinking, why teach critical thinking.

• Teaching Strategies to Help Promote Critical Thinking Skills

References and Resources

When examining the vast literature on critical thinking, various definitions of critical thinking emerge. Here are some samples:

• "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action" (Scriven, 1996).
• "Most formal definitions characterize critical thinking as the intentional application of rational, higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, problem recognition and problem solving, inference, and evaluation" (Angelo, 1995, p. 6).
• "Critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996b).
• "Critical thinking is the ability to think about one's thinking in such a way as 1. To recognize its strengths and weaknesses and, as a result, 2. To recast the thinking in improved form" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996c).

Perhaps the simplest definition is offered by Beyer (1995) : "Critical thinking... means making reasoned judgments" (p. 8). Basically, Beyer sees critical thinking as using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper. In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something (statements, news stories, arguments, research, etc.).

Back        

Wade (1995) identifies eight characteristics of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves asking questions, defining a problem, examining evidence, analyzing assumptions and biases, avoiding emotional reasoning, avoiding oversimplification, considering other interpretations, and tolerating ambiguity. Dealing with ambiguity is also seen by Strohm & Baukus (1995) as an essential part of critical thinking, "Ambiguity and doubt serve a critical-thinking function and are a necessary and even a productive part of the process" (p. 56).

Another characteristic of critical thinking identified by many sources is metacognition. Metacognition is thinking about one's own thinking. More specifically, "metacognition is being aware of one's thinking as one performs specific tasks and then using this awareness to control what one is doing" (Jones & Ratcliff, 1993, p. 10 ).

In the book, Critical Thinking, Beyer elaborately explains what he sees as essential aspects of critical thinking. These are:

• Dispositions: Critical thinkers are skeptical, open-minded, value fair-mindedness, respect evidence and reasoning, respect clarity and precision, look at different points of view, and will change positions when reason leads them to do so.
• Criteria: To think critically, must apply criteria. Need to have conditions that must be met for something to be judged as believable. Although the argument can be made that each subject area has different criteria, some standards apply to all subjects. "... an assertion must... be based on relevant, accurate facts; based on credible sources; precise; unbiased; free from logical fallacies; logically consistent; and strongly reasoned" (p. 12).
• Argument: Is a statement or proposition with supporting evidence. Critical thinking involves identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments.
• Reasoning: The ability to infer a conclusion from one or multiple premises. To do so requires examining logical relationships among statements or data.
• Point of View: The way one views the world, which shapes one's construction of meaning. In a search for understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena from many different points of view.
• Procedures for Applying Criteria: Other types of thinking use a general procedure. Critical thinking makes use of many procedures. These procedures include asking questions, making judgments, and identifying assumptions.

Oliver & Utermohlen (1995) see students as too often being passive receptors of information. Through technology, the amount of information available today is massive. This information explosion is likely to continue in the future. Students need a guide to weed through the information and not just passively accept it. Students need to "develop and effectively apply critical thinking skills to their academic studies, to the complex problems that they will face, and to the critical choices they will be forced to make as a result of the information explosion and other rapid technological changes" (Oliver & Utermohlen, p. 1 ).

As mentioned in the section, Characteristics of Critical Thinking , critical thinking involves questioning. It is important to teach students how to ask good questions, to think critically, in order to continue the advancement of the very fields we are teaching. "Every field stays alive only to the extent that fresh questions are generated and taken seriously" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996a ).

Beyer sees the teaching of critical thinking as important to the very state of our nation. He argues that to live successfully in a democracy, people must be able to think critically in order to make sound decisions about personal and civic affairs. If students learn to think critically, then they can use good thinking as the guide by which they live their lives.

Teaching Strategies to Help Promote Critical Thinking

The 1995, Volume 22, issue 1, of the journal, Teaching of Psychology , is devoted to the teaching critical thinking. Most of the strategies included in this section come from the various articles that compose this issue.

• CATS (Classroom Assessment Techniques): Angelo stresses the use of ongoing classroom assessment as a way to monitor and facilitate students' critical thinking. An example of a CAT is to ask students to write a "Minute Paper" responding to questions such as "What was the most important thing you learned in today's class? What question related to this session remains uppermost in your mind?" The teacher selects some of the papers and prepares responses for the next class meeting.
• Cooperative Learning Strategies: Cooper (1995) argues that putting students in group learning situations is the best way to foster critical thinking. "In properly structured cooperative learning environments, students perform more of the active, critical thinking with continuous support and feedback from other students and the teacher" (p. 8).
• Case Study /Discussion Method: McDade (1995) describes this method as the teacher presenting a case (or story) to the class without a conclusion. Using prepared questions, the teacher then leads students through a discussion, allowing students to construct a conclusion for the case.
• Using Questions: King (1995) identifies ways of using questions in the classroom:
• Reciprocal Peer Questioning: Following lecture, the teacher displays a list of question stems (such as, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of...). Students must write questions about the lecture material. In small groups, the students ask each other the questions. Then, the whole class discusses some of the questions from each small group.
• Reader's Questions: Require students to write questions on assigned reading and turn them in at the beginning of class. Select a few of the questions as the impetus for class discussion.
• Conference Style Learning: The teacher does not "teach" the class in the sense of lecturing. The teacher is a facilitator of a conference. Students must thoroughly read all required material before class. Assigned readings should be in the zone of proximal development. That is, readings should be able to be understood by students, but also challenging. The class consists of the students asking questions of each other and discussing these questions. The teacher does not remain passive, but rather, helps "direct and mold discussions by posing strategic questions and helping students build on each others' ideas" (Underwood & Wald, 1995, p. 18 ).
• Use Writing Assignments: Wade sees the use of writing as fundamental to developing critical thinking skills. "With written assignments, an instructor can encourage the development of dialectic reasoning by requiring students to argue both [or more] sides of an issue" (p. 24).
• Written dialogues: Give students written dialogues to analyze. In small groups, students must identify the different viewpoints of each participant in the dialogue. Must look for biases, presence or exclusion of important evidence, alternative interpretations, misstatement of facts, and errors in reasoning. Each group must decide which view is the most reasonable. After coming to a conclusion, each group acts out their dialogue and explains their analysis of it.
• Spontaneous Group Dialogue: One group of students are assigned roles to play in a discussion (such as leader, information giver, opinion seeker, and disagreer). Four observer groups are formed with the functions of determining what roles are being played by whom, identifying biases and errors in thinking, evaluating reasoning skills, and examining ethical implications of the content.
• Ambiguity: Strohm & Baukus advocate producing much ambiguity in the classroom. Don't give students clear cut material. Give them conflicting information that they must think their way through.
• Angelo, T. A. (1995). Beginning the dialogue: Thoughts on promoting critical thinking: Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6-7.
• Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996a). The role of questions in thinking, teaching, and learning. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996b). Structures for student self-assessment. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univclass/trc.nclk
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996c). Three definitions of critical thinking [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Cooper, J. L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7-8.
• Jones, E. A. & Ratcliff, G. (1993). Critical thinking skills for college students. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, University Park, PA. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 358 772)
• King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum: Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1) , 13-17.
• McDade, S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching Psychology, 22(1), 9-10.
• Oliver, H. & Utermohlen, R. (1995). An innovative teaching strategy: Using critical thinking to give students a guide to the future.(Eric Document Reproduction Services No. 389 702)
• Robertson, J. F. & Rane-Szostak, D. (1996). Using dialogues to develop critical thinking skills: A practical approach. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(7), 552-556.
• Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (1996). Defining critical thinking: A draft statement for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Strohm, S. M., & Baukus, R. A. (1995). Strategies for fostering critical thinking skills. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 50 (1), 55-62.
• Underwood, M. K., & Wald, R. L. (1995). Conference-style learning: A method for fostering critical thinking with heart. Teaching Psychology, 22(1), 17-21.
• Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24-28.

Other Reading

• Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, & active learning in the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
• Bernstein, D. A. (1995). A negotiation model for teaching critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 22-24.
• Carlson, E. R. (1995). Evaluating the credibility of sources. A missing link in the teaching of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 39-41.
• Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.
• Halpern, D. F., & Nummedal, S. G. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 82-83.
• Isbell, D. (1995). Teaching writing and research as inseparable: A faculty-librarian teaching team. Reference Services Review, 23(4), 51-62.
• Jones, J. M. & Safrit, R. D. (1994). Developing critical thinking skills in adult learners through innovative distance learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on the practice of adult education and social development. Jinan, China. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 373 159)
• Sanchez, M. A. (1995). Using critical-thinking principles as a guide to college-level instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 72-74.
• Spicer, K. L. & Hanks, W. E. (1995). Multiple measures of critical thinking skills and predisposition in assessment of critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 391 185)
• Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 23-39.

On the Internet

• Carr, K. S. (1990). How can we teach critical thinking. Eric Digest. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://ericps.ed.uiuc.edu/eece/pubs/digests/1990/carr90.html
• The Center for Critical Thinking (1996). Home Page. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/
• Ennis, Bob (No date). Critical thinking. [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/for442/ct.htm
• Montclair State University (1995). Curriculum resource center. Critical thinking resources: An annotated bibliography. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/CRC/Bibliographies/CriticalThinking.html
• No author, No date. Critical Thinking is ... [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://library.usask.ca/ustudy/critical/
• Sheridan, Marcia (No date). Internet education topics hotlink page. [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://sun1.iusb.edu/~msherida/topics/critical.html

Walker Center for Teaching and Learning

• 433 Library
• Dept 4354
• 615 McCallie Ave
•   423-425-4188

• Our Mission

Understanding How the Brain Thinks

Neurologist and teacher Judy Willis describes how brains develop critical thinking skills.

Understanding How the Brain Works

For 21st century success, now more than ever, students will need a skill set far beyond the current mandated standards that are evaluated on standardized tests. The qualifications for success in today's ever-changing world will demand the ability to think critically, communicate clearly, use continually changing technology, be culturally aware and adaptive, and possess the judgment and open-mindedness to make complex decisions based on accurate analysis of information. The most rewarding jobs of this century will be those that cannot be done by computers.

For students to be best prepared for the opportunities and challenges awaiting them, they need to develop their highest thinking skills -- the brain's executive functions. These higher-order neural networks are undergoing their most rapid development during the school years, and teachers are in the best position to promote the activation of these circuits. With the help of their teachers, students can develop the skillsets needed to solve problems that have not yet been recognized, analyze information as it becomes rapidly available in the globalized communication systems, and to skillfully and creatively take advantage of the evolving technological advances as they become available.

Factory Model of Education Prepares for "Assembly Line" Jobs

Automation and computerization are exceeding human ability for doing repetitive tasks and calculations, but the educational model has not changed. The factory model of education, still in place today, was designed for producing assembly line workers to do assigned tasks correctly. These workers did not need to analyze, create, or question.

Ironically, in response to more information, many educators are mandated to teach more rote facts and procedures, and students are given bigger books with more to memorize. In every country where I've given presentations and workshops, the problem is the same: overstuffed curriculum.

Even in countries where high-stakes standardized testing is not a dominant factor, school curriculum and emphasis have changed to provide more time for this additional rote memorization. Creative opportunities -- the arts, debate, general P.E., collaborative work, and inquiry -- are sacrificed at the altar of more predigested facts to be passively memorized. These students have fewer opportunities to discover the connections between isolated facts and to build neural networks of concepts that are needed to transfer learning to applications beyond the contexts in which the information is learned and practiced.

The High Costs of Maintaining the Factory Model

If students do not have opportunities to develop their higher order, cognitive skillsets they won't develop the reason, logic, creative problem solving, concept development, media literacy, and communication skills best suited for the daily complexities of life or the professional jobs of their future. Without these skills, they won't be able to compete on the global employment market with students currently developing their executive functions.

Instead, the best jobs will go to applicants who analyze information as it becomes available, adapt when new information makes facts obsolete, and collaborate with other experts on a global playing field. All these skills require tolerance, willingness to consider alternative perspectives, and the ability to articulate one's ideas successfully.

As educators, it is our challenge to see that all students have opportunities to stimulate their developing executive function networks so when they leave school they have the critical skillsets to choose the career and life paths that will give them the most satisfaction.

Executive Function = Critical Thinking

What my field of neurology has called "executive functions" for over 100 years are these highest cognitive processes. These executive functions have been given a variety of less specific names in education terminology such as higher order thinking or critical thinking. These are skillsets beyond those computers can do because they allow for flexible, interpretive, creative, and multidimensional thinking -- suitable for current and future challenges and opportunities. Executive functions can be thought of as the skills that would make a corporate executive successful. These include planning, flexibility, tolerance, risk assessment, informed decision-making, reasoning, analysis, and delay of immediate gratification to achieve long-term goals. These executive functions further allow for organizing, sorting, connecting, prioritizing, self-monitoring, self-correcting, self-assessing, abstracting, and focusing.

The Prefrontal Cortex: Home to Critical Thinking

The executive function control centers develop in the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The PFC gives us the potential to consider and voluntarily control our thinking, emotional responses, and behavior. It is the reflective "higher brain" compared to the reactive "lower brain". This prime real estate of the PFC comprises the highest percentage of brain volume in humans, compared to all other animals, which is roughly 20% of our brains.

Animals, compared to humans, are more dependent on their reactive lower brains to survive in their unpredictable environments where it is appropriate that automatic responses not be delayed by complex analysis. As man developed more control of his environment, the luxury of a bigger reflective brain correlated with the evolution of the PFC to its current proportions.

The prefrontal cortex is the last part of the brain to mature. This maturation is a process of neuroplasticity that includes 1) the pruning of unused cells to better provide for the metabolic needs of more frequently used neurons and 2) strengthening the connections in the circuits that are most used. Another aspect of neuroplasticity is the growth of stronger and increased numbers of connections among neurons. Each of the brain's over one billion neurons holds only a tiny bit of information. It is only when multiple neurons connect through their branches (axons and dendrites) that a memory is stored and retrievable.

This prefrontal cortex maturation, the pruning and strengthening process, continues into the twenties, with the most rapid changes in the age range of 8-16. Electricity flows from neuron to neuron through the axons and dendrites. This electrical flow carries information and also provides the stimulus that promotes the growth of these connections. Each time a network is activated -- the information recalled for review or use -- the connections become stronger and faster (speed through a circuit is largely determined by the layers of myelin coating that are built up around the axons -- this is also in response to the flow of the electric current of information transport when the circuit is activated). The stimulation of these networks during the ages of their rapid development strongly influences the development of the executive functions -- the social-emotional control and the highest thinking skillsets that today's students will carry with them as they leave school and become adults.

Preparing Students for the Challenges and Opportunities of the 21st Century

We have the obligation to provide our students with opportunities to learn the required foundational information and procedures through experiences that stimulate their developing neural networks of executive functions. We activate these networks through active learning experiences that involve students' prefrontal cortex circuits of judgment, critical analysis, induction, deduction, relational thinking with prior knowledge activation, and prediction. These experiences promote creative information processing as students recognize relationships between what they learn and what they already know. This is when neuroplasticity steps in and new connections (dendrites, synapses, myelinated axons) physically grow between formerly separate memory circuits when they are activated together. This is the physical manifestation of the "neurons that fire together, wire together" phenomenon.

Unless new rote memories are incorporated into larger, relational networks, they remain isolated bits of data in small, unconnected circuits. It is through active mental manipulation with prior knowledge that new information becomes incorporated into the already established neural network of previously acquired related memory.

Teaching that Strengthens Executive Function Networks

Making the switch from memorization to mental manipulation is about applying, communicating, and supporting what one already knows. The incorporation of rote memorization into the sturdy existing networks of long-term memory takes place when students recognize relationships to the prior knowledge stored in those networks.

When you provide students with opportunities to apply learning, especially through authentic, personally meaningful activities with formative assessments and corrective feedback throughout a unit, facts move from rote memory to become consolidated into related memory bank, instead of being pruned away from disuse.

The disuse pruning is another aspect of the brain's neuroplasticity. To best support the frequently used networks, the brain essentially dissolves isolated small neural networks of "unincorporated" facts and procedures that are rarely activated beyond drills and tests.

In contrast, opportunities to process new learning through executive functions promote its linkage to existing related memory banks through the growth of linking dendrites and synapses.

Students need to be explicitly taught and given opportunities to practice using executive functions to organize, prioritize, compare, contrast, connect to prior knowledge, give new examples of a concept, participate in open-ended discussions, synthesize new learning into concise summaries, and symbolize new learning into new mental constructs, such as through the arts or writing across the curriculum.

How to Engage Students' Developing Neural Networks to Promote Executive Function

The recommendations here are a few of the ways to engage students' developing networks of executive functions while they are undergoing their most rapid phase of maturation during the school years. Part 2 of this blog will delve more deeply into the mental manipulation strategies that promote consolidation of new input into existing memory circuits.

Judgment: This executive function, when developed, promotes a student's ability to monitor the accuracy of his or her work. Guidance, experiences, and feedback in estimation; editing and revising one's own written work; and class discussions for conflict resolution can activate the circuitry to build judgment.

Prioritizing: This executive function helps students to separate low relevance details from the main ideas of a text, lecture, math word problem, or complete units of study. Prioritizing skills are also used when students are guided to see how new facts fit into broader concepts, to plan ahead for long-term projects/reports, and to keep records of their most successful strategies that make the most efficient use of their time.

Setting goals, providing self-feedback, monitoring progress: Until students fully develop this PFC executive function, they are limited in their capacity to set and stick to realistic and manageable goals. They need support in recognizing the incremental progress they make as they apply effort towards their larger goals (see my previous two blogs about the "video game" model: How to Plan Instruction Using the Video Game Model and A Neurologist Makes the Case for the Video Game Model as a Learning Tool ).

Model Metacognition Development Yourself

Planning learning opportunities to activate executive function often means going beyond the curriculum provided in textbooks. This is a hefty burden when you are also under the mandate of teaching a body of information that exceeds the time needed for successful mental manipulation.

When you do provide these executive function-activating opportunities, students will recognize their own changing attitudes and achievements. Students will begin to experience and comment on these insights, "I thought ... would be boring, but it was pretty interesting" and "This is the first time I really understood ... " or simply, "Thanks" and "That was cool."

These student responses are teachable moments to promote metacognition. Consider sharing the processes you use to create the instruction that they respond to positively. These discussions will help students recognize their abilities to extend their horizons and focus beyond simply getting by with satisfactory grades. They can build their executive functions of long-term goal-directed behavior, advance planning, delay of immediate gratification. In this way, they can take advantage of opportunities to review and revise work -- even when it has been completed -- rather than to be satisfied with "getting it done." Your input can help students see the link between taking responsibility for class participation, collaboration, and setting high self-standards for all classwork and homework, such that they can say, "I did my best and am proud of my efforts."

As written on the gate of my college, the message we can send our students is:

Climb high. Aim Far. Your goal the sun; Your aim the stars.

Copyright © Judy Willis 2011

We apologize for the inconvenience...

To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you are a human by ticking the box below.

If you are unable to complete the above request please contact us using the below link, providing a screenshot of your experience.

https://ioppublishing.org/contacts/

Module 5: Thinking and Analysis

Problem-solving with critical thinking, learning outcomes.

• Describe how critical thinking skills can be used in problem-solving

Most of us face problems that we must solve every day. While some problems are more complex than others, we can apply critical thinking skills to every problem by asking questions like, what information am I missing? Why and how is it important? What are the contributing factors that lead to the problem? What resources are available to solve the problem? These questions are just the start of being able to think of innovative and effective solutions. Read through the following critical thinking, problem-solving process to identify steps you are already familiar with as well as opportunities to build a more critical approach to solving problems.

Problem-Solving Process

Step 1: define the problem.

Albert Einstein once said, “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.”

Often, when we first hear of or learn about a problem, we do not have all the information. If we immediately try to find a solution without having a thorough understanding of the problem, then we may only be solving a part of the problem.  This is called a “band-aid fix,” or when a symptom is addressed, but not the actual problem. While these band-aid fixes may provide temporary relief, if the actual problem is not addressed soon, then the problem will continue and likely get worse. Therefore, the first step when using critical thinking to solve problems is to identify the problem. The goal during this step is to gather enough research to determine how widespread the problem is, its nature, and its importance.

Step 2: Analyze the Causes

This step is used to uncover assumptions and underlying problems that are at the root of the problem. This step is important since you will need to ensure that whatever solution is chosen addresses the actual cause, or causes, of the problem.

Asking “why” questions to uncover root causes

A common way to uncover root causes is by asking why questions. When we are given an answer to a why question, we will often need to question that answer itself. Thus the process of asking “why” is an  iterative process —meaning that it is a process that we can repeatedly apply. When we stop asking why questions depends on what information we need and that can differ depending on what the goals are. For a better understanding, see the example below:

Problem: The lamp does not turn on.

• Why doesn’t the lamp turn on? The fuse is blown.
• Why is the fuse blown? There was overloaded circuit.
• Why was the circuit overloaded? The hair dryer was on.

If one is simply a homeowner or tenant, then it might be enough to simply know that if the hair dryer is on, the circuit will overload and turn off.  However, one can always ask further why questions, depending on what the goal is. For example, suppose someone wants to know if all hair dryers overload circuits or just this one. We might continue thus:

• Why did this hair dryer overload the circuit? Because hair dryers in general require a lot of electricity.

But now suppose we are an electrical engineer and are interested in designing a more environmentally friendly hair dryer. In that case, we might ask further:

• Why do hair dryers require so much energy?

As you can see from this example, what counts as a root cause depends on context and interests. The homeowner will not necessarily be interested in asking the further why questions whereas others might be.

Step 3: Generate Solutions

The goal of this step is to generate as many solutions as possible. In order to do so, brainstorm as many ideas as possible, no matter how outrageous or ineffective the idea might seem at the time. During your brainstorming session, it is important to generate solutions freely without editing or evaluating any of the ideas. The more solutions that you can generate, the more innovative and effective your ultimate solution might become upon later review.

You might find that setting a timer for fifteen to thirty minutes will help you to creatively push past the point when you think you are done. Another method might be to set a target for how many ideas you will generate. You might also consider using categories to trigger ideas. If you are brainstorming with a group, consider brainstorming individually for a while and then also brainstorming together as ideas can build from one idea to the next.

Step 4: Select a Solution

Once the brainstorming session is complete, then it is time to evaluate the solutions and select the more effective one.  Here you will consider how each solution will address the causes determined in step 2. It is also helpful to develop the criteria you will use when evaluating each solution, for instance, cost, time, difficulty level, resources needed, etc. Once your criteria for evaluation is established, then consider ranking each criterion by importance since some solutions might meet all criteria, but not to equally effective degrees.

In addition to evaluating by criteria, ensure that you consider possibilities and consequences of all serious contenders to address any drawbacks to a solution. Lastly, ensure that the solutions are actually feasible.

Step 6: Put Solution into Action

While many problem-solving models stop at simply selecting a solution, in order to actually solve a problem, the solution must be put into action. Here, you take responsibility to create, communicate, and execute the plan with detailed organizational logistics by addressing who will be responsible for what, when, and how.

Step 7: Evaluate progress

The final step when employing critical thinking to problem-solving is to evaluate the progress of the solution. Since critical thinking demands open-mindedness, analysis, and a willingness to change one’s mind, it is important to monitor how well the solution has actually solved the problem in order to determine if any course correction is needed.

While we solve problems every day, following the process to apply more critical thinking approaches in each step by considering what information might be missing; analyzing the problem and causes; remaining open-minded while brainstorming solutions; and providing criteria for, evaluating, and monitoring solutions can help you to become a better problem-solver and strengthen your critical thinking skills.

iterative process: one that can be repeatedly applied

• Problem solving. Authored by : Anne Fleischer. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• College Success. Authored by : Matthew Van Cleave. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• wocintech stock - 178. Authored by : WOCinTech Chat. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/FiGVWt . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Five whys. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Critical Thinking Development Through Project-Based Learning

• Sue Wang Central University of Finance and Economics

Project-based learning has drawn increasing attention from educators and researchers because of the multiple benefits it provides. Successful project-based learning engages students in deeper learning by using language as a tool to empower discoveries about the language itself, content, and various skills in authentic contexts. Using the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy as its analytical framework, this study examined whether project-based learning promoted EFL college students’ critical thinking and how students demonstrated their thinking skills through a book report project in a reading course.

Author Biography

Sue wang, central university of finance and economics.

School of Foreign Studies

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl. D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Beckett, G. H. (1999) Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school’s ESL classes: Goals and evaluations. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of British Columbia.

Beckett, G. H., & Miller, P. C. (Eds.). (2006). Project based second and foreign language education: Past, present and future. Information Age Publishing.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 2, 108-116.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018). Technology-integrated project-based language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. John Wiley & Sons.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2020). Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks, Routledge.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans.

Deng, Y., & Wang, X. (2009). Xiang mu qu dong pei yang EFL xue sheng zi zhu neng li de shi zheng yan jiu [An empirical study on developing learner autonomy through project-based learning]. Wai yu yu wai yu jiao xue, 8, 31-34, 46-47.

Dewey, J. (2016/1926). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. The Macmillan Company.

Eslava, R. & Lawson, P. O. (1979). A project course in spoken English, TESOL Quarterly, 13, 65-72.

Eyring, J. L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project work instruction: A case study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles.

Fried-Booth, D. L. (2002). Project work. Oxford University Press.

Gao, Y. (2010). Xiang mu xue xi zai da xue ying yu jiao xue zhong de ying yong yan jiu [The application of project-based learning in college English teaching]. Wai yu jie, 6, 42-56.

Gu, P. (2007). Duo mei ti xiang mu jiao xue fa de li lun yu shi jian [Project-based CALL pedagogy: Theory and practice]. Wai yu jie, 2, 2-8.

Gu, P., & Zhu, M. (2002). Wang shang ying yu xie zuo yu xiang mu jiao xue fa yan jiu [Online English writing and project-based learning: A case study]. Wai yu dian hua jiao xue, 88, 3-7.

Hu. K. (2020). Xin wen ke shi yu xia wai yu xue ke de jian she yu fa zhan --li nian yu lu jing [The construction and development of foreign language and literature discipline in the context of new literal arts]. Zhong guo wai yu, 17, 14-19.

Stoller, L. S. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. Forum, 35(4), 2–18.

Wang, B. (2013). Xiang mu xue xi mo shi dui da xue ying yu xue xi dong ji de ying xiang yin su fen xi [An analysis of the effects of PBL model on college English learning motivation]. Wai yu dian hua jiao xue, 149, 37-41, 68.

Wang, S. (2020). Project-based language learning in China: A literature review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(1), 66-72.

Yang, L., & Han, G. (2012). Ji yu xiang mu shi xue xi mo shi de da xue wai yu xue shu xie zuo jiao xue shi zheng yan jiu [An empirical study of the PBL approach to academic college English writing]. Wai Yu Jie, 5, 8-16.

Yu, W. (2017). Xin da xue ying yu xiang mu huo dong shi jian de xue sheng ping jia yan jiu [Students’ perceptions of the impacts of project activities in learning New Experiencing English]. Zhong guo wai yu, 14(3), 82-91.

Zhang, M. (2012). Xiang mu xue xi zai ying yu yu yan xue jiao xue zhong de ying yong yan jiu [Project-based learning in the teaching of linguistics]. He bei shi fan da xue xue bao, 14(8), 89-91.

Zhang, W. (2015). iPBL: ben tu hua de yi tuo xiang mu ying yu jiao xue mo shi [iPBL: A localized project-based English teaching and learning model]. Zhong guo wai yu, (12)2, 15-23.

Zhu, L., & Zhang, J. (2011). Shi jing fang zhen ji shu zai wai mao ying yu xiang mu xue xi zhong de ying yong [Visual simulation technology in the project-based foreign trade English]. Zhong guo dian hua jiao yu, 299, 110-113.

Copyright © 2015-2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION — All Rights Reserved

Problem Based Learning (PBL) Learning Model to Improve Critical Thinking: Bibliometric Analysis

• Deni Puji Hartono Universitas PGRI Palembang
• Haryanto Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
• Ferry Muhammad Firdous Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

This research aims to identify trends in research publications on Problem-based learning models that improve critical thinking. When a search was carried out using Scopus data search regarding "Problem-Based Learning" plus "critical thinking from data from the last 10 years between 2014 and 2024, it was found that research on Problem-Based Learning and critical thinking learning models is increasingly developing and becoming more widespread and applied. To be able to see what research is relevant regarding the Problem-Based learning model and critical thinking, bibliometric analysis is carried out. This research uses bibliometric analysis assisted by R software. The results of the analysis show that data from 2014 to 2024 has been published in 569 Scopus journals. Research on Problem-Based Learning learning models and Critical Thinking is increasing every year; in 2014, there were only 31 Scopus articles. Until 2023, research in this field will continue to increase to 68 Scopus articles. This could mean that this research is increasingly in demand and applied in educational applications.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Conference Proceedings Volume

Articel template.

Focus and Scope

Publication

Information

Current conference proceedings volume.

1 st International Conference on Teaching and Learning, 18 th Nov 2023 hosted by Faculty of Education and Teacher Training , Universitas Terbuka Pondok Cabe, South Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia

This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

A novel methodological approach for learning cybersecurity topics in primary schools

• 1241: Cyber Security Education for Industry and Academia
• Published: 24 August 2024

Cite this article

• Maja Videnovik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9859-5051 1 ,
• Sonja Filiposka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0034-2855 2 &
• Vladimir Trajkovik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8103-8059 2  

Teaching cybersecurity in primary education can equip students with the knowledge and skills to maintain online safety and establish positive digital behaviours from an early age. Traditional teaching methods are not effective in engaging students in this subject. Hence it is important to adopt innovative, interactive techniques that can sustain students' attention, participation, and openness to discussions. This paper aims to introduce a new method for teaching cybersecurity in primary schools that blends peer learning with game-based learning. This combination of approaches can provide an engaging, interactive, and dynamic learning experience for students, promoting communication and collaboration, and making the learning process more enjoyable. The effectiveness of our approach was evaluated in five elementary schools, where students from 6th to 9th grade were divided into two groups. The upper-grade students (8th and 9th) demonstrated improvement in their cybersecurity knowledge and skills through their active involvement in creating educational materials, such as lectures and games that were used to teach the lower-grade students (6th and 7th). The evaluation of the approach indicated that students enhanced their cybersecurity understanding and developed critical thinking, communication, and teamwork skills.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Rowe DC, Lunt BM, Ekstrom JJ (2011) The role of cyber-security in information technology education. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on Information technology education 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/2047594.2047628

Blažič BJ (2022) Changing the landscape of cybersecurity education in the EU: Will the new approach produce the required cybersecurity skills? Educ Inf Technol 27(3):3011–3036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10704-y

Article   Google Scholar  

Suson RL (2019) Appropriating digital citizenship in the context of basic education. Int J Educ, Learn Dev 7(4):44–66

Google Scholar  

Richardson MD, Lemoine PA, Stephens WE, Waller RE (2020) Planning for cyber security in schools: The Human Factor. Educ Plan 27(2):23–39

Kaban A (2021) Secure internet use in information technologies and software course textbooks at primary and secondary schools. Athens J Educ 8(1):37–52. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.8-1-3

Martin F, Gezer T, Wang C (2019) Educators’ perceptions of student digital citizenship practices. Comput Sch 36(4):238–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2019.1674621

Javidi G, Sheybani E (2019) Transforming cybersecurity education through consulting. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 17(1):157–168

Rahman N, Sairi I, Zizi NAM, Khalid F (2020) The importance of cybersecurity education in school. International J Inf Educ Technol 10(5):378–382. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.5.1393

Aldawood H, Skinner G (2019) Reviewing cyber security social engineering training and awareness programs—pitfalls and ongoing issues. Future Internet, 11(3) Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11030073

Pencheva D, Hallett J, Rashid A (2020) Bringing cyber to school: Integrating cybersecurity into secondary school education. IEEE Secur Priv 18(2):68–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSEC.2020.2969409

Kam HJ, Katerattanakul P (2019) Enhancing student learning in cybersecurity education using an out-of-class learning approach. J Inf Technol Educ: Innov Prac 18:029–047. https://doi.org/10.28945/4200

Muir K, Joinson A (2020) An exploratory study into the negotiation of cyber-security within the family home. Front Psychol 11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00424

Sağlam RB, Miller V, Franqueira VNL (2023) A systematic literature review on cyber security education for children. IEEE Trans Educ 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3231019

Hafeez M (2021) Effects of game-based learning in comparison of traditional learning to provide effective learning environment- a comparative review. Int J Social Sci Educ Studies 8(4). https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v8i4p100

Vankúš P (2021) Influence of game-based learning in mathematics education on students’ affective domain: a systematic review. Mathematics 9(9) Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9090986

Lee SM (2019) Her story or their own stories? Digital game-based learning, student creativity, and creative writing. ReCALL 31(3):238–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000028

Cardinot A, Fairfield JA (2019) Game-based learning to engage students with physics and astronomy using a board game. Int J Game-Based Learn 9(1):42–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2019010104

Kusuma GP, Putera Suryapranata LK, Wigati EK, Utomo Y (2021) Enhancing historical learning using role-playing game on mobile platform. Procedia Comp Sci 179:886–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.078

Marengo A, Pagano A, Soomro KA (2024) Serious games to assess university students’ soft skills: investigating the effectiveness of a gamified assessment prototype. Interact Learn Environ 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253849

Hart S, Margheri A, Paci F, Sassone V (2020) Riskio: a serious game for cyber security awareness and education. Comput Secur 95:101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101827

Sung HY, Hwang G-J (2013) A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Comput Educ 63:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019

Videnovik M, Vold T, Kiønig L, Trajkovik V (2019) Design thinking methodology for increasing quality of experience of augmented reality educational games. In 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) 1–9. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET46829.2019.8937385

Sánchez-Mena A, Martí-Parreño J (2017) Teachers´ acceptance of educational video games: a comprehensive literature review. J E-Learn Knowl Soc 13(2). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/188115/

Chen CH, Liu JH, Shou WC (2018) How competition in a game-based science learning environment influences students’ learning achievement, flow experience, and learning behavioral patterns. Educ Technol Soc 21(2):164–176

Zhao D, Muntean CH, Chis AE, Muntean G-M (2021) Learner attitude, educational background, and gender influence on knowledge gain in a serious games-enhanced programming course. IEEE Trans Educ 64(3):308–316. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2020.3044174

Leune K, Petrilli SJ (2017) Using Capture-the-Flag to enhance the effectiveness of cybersecurity education. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125659.3125686

Olano M, Sherman A, Oliva L, Cox R, Firestone D, Kubik O, Patil M, Seymour J, Thomas D (2014) SecurityEmpire: Development and evaluation of a digital game to promote cybersecurity education. USENIX Summit on Gaming, Games, and Gamification in Security Education (3GSE 14)

Chowdhury N, Gkioulos V (2023) A personalized learning theory-based cyber-security training exercise. Int J Inf Secur 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-023-00704-z

Khan MA, Merabet A, Alkaabi S, Sayed HE (2022) Game-based learning platform to enhance cybersecurity education. Educ Inf Technol 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10807-6

Triplett WJ (2023) Addressing cybersecurity challenges in education. Int J STEM Educ Sustain 3(1):47–67. https://doi.org/10.52889/ijses.v3i1.132

Hussein MH, Ow SH, Cheong LS, Thong M-K (2019) A digital game-based learning method to improve students’ critical thinking skills in elementary science. IEEE Access 7:96309–96318. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2929089

Ke F, Shute V, Clark KM, Erlebacher G (2019) Interdisciplinary design of game-based learning platforms: a phenomenological examination of the integrative design of game, learning, and assessment. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04339-1

Vlahu-Gjorgievska E, Videnovik M, Trajkovik V (2018) Computational thinking and coding subject in primary schools: Methodological approach based on alternative cooperative and individual learning cycles. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615334

Chandra S, Palvia S (2021) Online education next wave: Peer to peer learning. J Inf Technol Case Appl Res 23(3):157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2021.1980848

Topping KJ (1996) The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: a typology and review of the literature. High Educ 32(3):321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138870

Lim C, Jalil HA, Ma’rof A, Saad W (2020) Peer learning, self-regulated learning and academic achievement in blended learning courses: a structural equation modeling approach. Int J Emerg Technol Learn (IJET) 15(3):110–125. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217022/

Gamlath S (2022) Peer learning and the undergraduate journey: A framework for student success. High Educ Res Dev 41(3):699–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1877625

Ion G, Barrera-Corominas A, Tomàs-Folch M (2016) Written peer-feedback to enhance students’ current and future learning. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0017-y

Deshpande P, Lee CB, Ahmed I (2019) Evaluation of peer instruction for cybersecurity education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 720–725. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287403

Konak A (2018) Experiential learning builds cybersecurity self-efficacy in K-12 students. J Cybersecurity Educ, Res Pract 2018(1):6

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Scheider B, Asprion PM (2023) Peer instruction as teaching method in cybersecurity and data privacy. Int J Manag Knowl Learn 12. https://doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.12.1-7

Nerantzi C (2020) The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Manag Appl Res 7(2):184–195. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=883236

Xiao Y, Lucking R (2008) The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet Higher Educ 11(3):186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005

Ädel E, Löfmark A, Pålsson Y, Mårtensson G, Engström M, Lindberg M (2021) Health-promoting and -impeding aspects of using peer-learning during clinical practice education: A qualitative study. Nurse Educ Pract 55:103169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103169

Balakrishna C (2021) Design considerations for developing a game-based learning resource for cyber security education. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-based Learning 80–89. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecgbl.16.1.804

Witsenboer JWA, Sijtsma K, Scheele F (2022) Measuring cyber secure behavior of elementary and high school students in the Netherlands. Comput Educ 186:104536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104536

Amo L (2016) Addressing gender gaps in teens’ cybersecurity engagement and self-efficacy. IEEE Secur Priv 14(1):72–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2016.12

Fatokun FB, Hamid S, Norman A, Fatokun JO (2019) The impact of age, gender, and educational level on the cybersecurity behaviors of tertiary institution students: an empirical investigation on Malaysian Universities. J Phys: Conf Ser 1339(1):012098. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1339/1/012098

McCormac A, Zwaans T, Parsons K, Calic D, Butavicius M, Pattinson M (2017) Individual differences and information security awareness. Comput Hum Behav 69:151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.065

Yan Z, Xue Y, Lou Y (2021) Risk and protective factors for intuitive and rational judgment of cybersecurity risks in a large sample of K-12 students and teachers. Comput Hum Behav 121:106791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106791

Download references

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Innovations and Digital Education Dig-Ed, Solunska Glava br.3, 1000, Skopje, North Macedonia

Maja Videnovik

Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Rugjer Boshkovikj 16, 1000, Skopje, North Macedonia

Sonja Filiposka & Vladimir Trajkovik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Maja Videnovik, Sonja Filiposka and Vladimir Trajkovik. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Maja Videnovik and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maja Videnovik .

Ethics declarations

Ethic statement.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards and laws of the North Macedonia. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Videnovik, M., Filiposka, S. & Trajkovik, V. A novel methodological approach for learning cybersecurity topics in primary schools. Multimed Tools Appl (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20077-2

Download citation

Received : 04 October 2023

Revised : 11 May 2024

Accepted : 11 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20077-2

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

• Cybersecurity education
• Peer learning
• Game-based learning
• Digital educational resources
• Interactive learning environment

Advertisement

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