critical thinking psychology review

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Critical Thinking

Introduction, general overviews.

• Importance of Thinking Critically
• Defining Critical Thinking
• General Skills
• Specific Skills
• Metacognitive Monitoring Skills
• Critical Thinking Dispositions
• Teaching Specific Skills
• Encouraging a Disposition toward Thinking Critically
• Transfer to Other Domains
• Metacognitive Monitoring
• General or Comprehensive Assessments
• Metacognition Assessments
• Critical Thinking Disposition Assessments
• Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Assessment of Thinking in Educational Settings
• Human Memory
• Learning Theory
• Mindfulness
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Student Success in College
• Teaching of Psychology
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Remote Work
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Critical Thinking by Heather Butler , Diane Halpern LAST REVIEWED: 29 November 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 29 November 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0019

Critical thinking has been described in many ways, but researchers generally agree that critical thinking involves rational, purposeful, and goal-directed thinking (see Defining Critical Thinking ). Diane F. Halpern defined critical thinking as an attempt to increase the probability of a desired outcome (e.g., making a sound decision, successfully solving a problem) by using certain cognitive skills and strategies. Critical thinking is more than just a collection of skills and strategies: it is a disposition toward engaging with problems. Critical thinkers are flexible, open-minded, persistent, and willing to exert mental energy working on tough problems. Unlike poor thinkers, critical thinkers are willing to admit they have made an error in judgment if confronted with contradictory evidence, and they operate on autopilot much less than poor thinkers (see Critical Thinking Dispositions ). There is good evidence that critical thinking skills and dispositions can be taught (see Teaching Critical Thinking ). This guide includes (a) sources that extol the importance of critical thinking, (b) research that identifies specific critical thinking skills and conceptualizations of critical thinking dispositions, (c) a list of the best practices for teaching critical thinking skills and dispositions, and (d) a review of research into ways of assessing critical thinking skills and dispositions (see Assessments ).

The sources highlighted here include textbooks, literature reviews, and meta-analyses related to critical thinking. These contributions come from both psychological ( Halpern 2003 ; Nisbett 1993 ; Sternberg, et al. 2007 ) and philosophical ( Ennis 1962 , Facione 1990 ) perspectives. Many of these general overviews are textbooks ( Facione 2011b ; Halpern 2003 ; Nisbett 1993 ; Sternberg, et al. 2007 ), while the other sources are review articles or commentaries. Most resources were intended for a general audience, but Sternberg, et al. 2007 was written specifically to address critical thinking in psychology. Those interested in a historical reference are referred to Ennis 1962 , which is credited by some as renewing contemporary interest in critical thinking. Those interested in a more recent conceptualization of critical thinking are referred to Facione 2011a , which is a short introduction to the field of critical thinking that would be appropriate for those new to the field, or Facione 1990 , which summarizes a collaborative definition of critical thinking among philosophers using the Delphi method. Facione 2011b would be a valuable resource for philosophers teaching critical thinking or logic courses to general audiences. For psychologists teaching critical thinking courses to a general audience, Halpern 2003 , an empirically based textbook, covers a wide range of topics; a new edition is expected soon. Fisher 2001 is also intended for general audiences and teaches a wide variety of critical thinking skills. Nisbett 1993 tackles the question of whether critical thinking skills can be taught and provides ample empirical evidence to that end. Sternberg, et al. 2007 is a good resource for psychology students interested in learning how to improve their scientific reasoning skills, a specific set of thinking skills needed by psychology and other science students.

Ennis, Robert H. 1962. A concept of critical thinking: A proposed basis of research in the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review 32:81–111.

A discussion of how critical thinking is conceptualized from a philosopher’s perspective. Critical of psychology’s definition of critical thinking at the time. Emphasizes twelve aspects of critical thinking.

Facione, Peter A. 1990. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction; Executive Summary of The Delphi Report . Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Describes the critical thinking movement, definitions of critical thinking agreed upon by philosophers using the Delphi method, the assessment of critical thinking, and how critical thinking can be taught.

Facione, Peter A. 2011a. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts . Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment.

This accessible paper defines critical thinking, elaborates on specific critical thinking skills, and discusses what it means to have (or not have) a critical thinking disposition. A distinction is made between system 1 (shallow processing) and system 2 (deeper processing) thinking. Good resource for students new to the field.

Facione, Peter A. 2011b. THINK critically . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Written from a philosophical perspective this critical thinking textbook emphasizes the application of critical thinking to the real world and offers positive examples of critical thinking. Chapters cover inductive, deductive, comparative, ideological, and empirical reasoning

Fisher, Alec. 2001. Critical thinking: An introduction . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Textbook intended for college students discusses various types of reasoning, causality, argument analysis, and decision making. Includes exercises for students and teachers.

Halpern, Diane F. 2003. Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking . 4th ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This textbook, written by a cognitive psychologist, is grounded in theory and research from the learning sciences and offers practical examples. Chapters include an introduction to the topic and the correlates of critical thinking, memory, thought and language, reasoning, analyzing arguments, thinking as hypothesis testing, likelihood and uncertainty, decision making, development of problem-solving skills, and creative thinking.

Nisbett, Richard E. 1993. Rules for reasoning . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This text is rich with empirical evidence that critical thinking skills can be taught to undergraduate and graduate students. Each chapter discusses research on an aspect of reasoning (e.g., statistical reasoning, heuristics, inductive reasoning) with special emphasis on teaching the application of these skills to everyday problems.

Sternberg, Robert J., Henry L. Roediger III, and Diane F. Halpern, eds. 2007. Critical thinking in psychology . New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

This edited book explores several aspects of critical thinking that are needed to fully understand key topics in psychology such as experiment research, statistical inference, case studies, logical fallacies, and ethical judgments. Experts discuss the critical thinking strategies they engage in. Interesting discussion of historical breakthroughs due to critical thinking.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Affirmative Action
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Authoritarian Personality
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Bystander Effect
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Critical Thinking
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Discrimination
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• Heuristics and Biases
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• Intergroup Conflict
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Life-Span Development
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Microaggressions
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Peace Psychology
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Protocol Analysis
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotype Threat
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.39.149.46]
• 185.39.149.46

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

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

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

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

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Teaching Tips

On Critical Thinking

Several years ago some teaching colleagues were talking about the real value of teaching psychology students to think critically. After some heated discussion, the last word was had by a colleague from North Carolina. “The real value of being a good critical thinker in psychology is so you won’t be a jerk,” he said with a smile. That observation remains one of my favorites in justifying why teaching critical thinking skills should be an important goal in psychology. However, I believe it captures only a fraction of the real value of teaching students to think critically about behavior.

What I s Critical Thinking?

Although there is little agreement about what it means to think critically in psychology, I like the following broad definition: The propensity and skills to engage in activity with reflec tive skepticism focused on deciding what to believe or do

Students often arrive at their first introductory course with what they believe is a thorough grasp of how life works. After all, they have been alive for at least 18 years, have witnessed their fair shares of crisis, joy, and tragedy, and have successfully navigated their way in to your classroom.

These students have had a lot of time to develop their own personal theories about how the world works and most are quite satisfied with the results. They often pride themselves on how good they are with people as well as how astute they are in understanding and explaining the motives of others. And they think they know what psychology is. Many are surprised- and sometimes disappointed- to discover that psychology is a science, and the rigor of psychological research is a shock. The breadth and depth of psychology feel daunting. Regardless of their sophistication in the discipline, students often are armed with a single strategy to survive the experience: Memorize the book and hope it works out on the exam. In many cases, this strategy will serve them well. Unfortunately, student exposure to critical thinking skill development may be more accidental than planful on the part of most teachers. Collaboration in my department and with other colleagues over the years has persuaded me that we need to approach critical thinking skills in a purposeful, systematic, and developmental manner from the introductory course through the capstone experience, propose that we need to teach critical thinking skills in three domains of psychology: practical (the “jerk avoidance” function), theoretical (developing scientific explanations for behavior), and methodological (testing scientific ideas). I will explore each of these areas and then offer some general suggestions about how psychology teachers can improve their purposeful pursuit of critical thinking objectives.

Practical Domain

Practical critical thinking is often expressed as a long-term, implicit goal of teachers of psychology, even though they may not spend much academic time teaching how to transfer critical thinking skills to make students wise consumers, more careful judges of character, or more cautious interpreters of behavior. Accurate appraisal of behavior is essential, yet few teachers invest time in helping students understand how vulnerable their own interpretations are to error.

Encourage practice in accurate description and interpretation of behavior by presenting students with ambiguous behavior samples. Ask them to distinguish what they observe (What is the behavior?) from the inferences they draw from the behavior (What is the meaning of the behavior?). I have found that cartoons, such as Simon Bond’s Uns p eakable Acts, can be a good resource for refining observation skills. Students quickly recognize that crisp behavioral descriptions are typically consistent from observer to observer, but inferences vary wildly. They recognize that their interpretations are highly personal and sometimes biased by their own values and preferences. As a result of experiencing such strong individual differences in interpretation, students may learn to be appropriately less confident of their immediate conclusions, more tolerant of ambiguity, and more likely to propose alternative explanations. As they acquire a good understanding of scientific procedures, effective control techniques, and legitimate forms of evidence, they may be less likely to fall victim to the multitude of off-base claims about behavior that confront us all. (How many Elvis sightings can be valid in one year?)

Theoretical Domain

Theoretical critical thinking involves helping the student develop an appreciation for scientific explanations of behavior. This means learning not just the content of psychology but how and why psychology is organized into concepts, principles, laws, and theories. Developing theoretical skills begins in the introductory course where the primary critical thinking objective is understanding and applying concepts appropriately. For example, when you introduce students to the principles of reinforcement, you can ask them to find examples of the principles in the news or to make up stories that illustrate the principles.

Mid-level courses in the major require more sophistication, moving students beyond application of concepts and principles to learning and applying theories. For instance, you can provide a rich case study in abnormal psychology and ask students to make sense of the case from different perspectives, emphasizing theoretical flexibility or accurate use of existing and accepted frameworks in psychology to explain patterns of behavior. In advanced courses we can justifiably ask students to evaluate theory, selecting the most useful or rejecting the least helpful. For example, students can contrast different models to explain drug addiction in physiological psychology. By examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing frameworks, they can select which theories serve best as they learn to justify their criticisms based on evidence and reason.

Capstone, honors, and graduate courses go beyond theory evaluation to encourage students to create theory. Students select a complex question about behavior (for example, identifying mechanisms that underlie autism or language acquisition) and develop their own theory-based explanations for the behavior. This challenge requires them to synthesize and integrate existing theory as well as devise new insights into the behavior.

Methodological Domain

Most departments offer many opportunities for students to develop their methodological critical thinking abilities by applying different research methods in psychology. Beginning students must first learn what the scientific method entails. The next step is to apply their understanding of scientific method by identifying design elements in existing research. For example, any detailed description of an experimental design can help students practice distinguishing the independent from the dependent variable and identifying how researchers controlled for alternative explanations. The next methodological critical thinking goals include evaluating the quality of existing research design and challenging the conclusions of research findings. Students may need to feel empowered by the teacher to overcome the reverence they sometimes demonstrate for anything in print, including their textbooks. Asking students to do a critical analysis on a fairly sophisticated design may simply be too big a leap for them to make. They are likely to fare better if given examples of bad design so they can build their critical abilities and confidence in order to tackle more sophisticated designs. (Examples of bad design can be found in The Critical Thinking Companion for Introductory Psychology or they can be easily constructed with a little time and imagination). Students will develop and execute their own research designs in their capstone methodology courses. Asking students to conduct their own independent research, whether a comprehensive survey on parental attitudes, a naturalistic study of museum patrons’ behavior, or a well-designed experiment on paired associate learning, prompts students to integrate their critical thinking skills and gives them practice with conventional writing forms in psychology. In evaluating their work I have found it helpful to ask students to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own work- as an additional opportunity to think critically-before giving them my feedback.

Additional Suggestions

Adopting explicit critical thinking objectives, regardless of the domain of critical thinking, may entail some strategy changes on the part of the teacher.

• Introduce psychology as an ope n-end ed, growing enterprise . Students often think that their entry into the discipline represents an end-point where everything good and true has already been discovered. That conclusion encourages passivity rather than criticality. Point out that research is psychology’ s way of growing and developing. Each new discovery in psychology represents a potentially elegant act of critical thinking. A lot of room for discovery remains. New ideas will be developed and old conceptions discarded.

• Require student performance that goes beyond memorization . Group work, essays, debates, themes, letters to famous psychologists, journals, current event examples- all of these and more can be used as a means of developing the higher skills involved in critical thinking in psychology. Find faulty cause-effect conclusions in the tabloids (e.g., “Eating broccoli increases your IQ!”) and have students design studies to confirm or discredit the headline’s claims. Ask students to identify what kinds of evidence would warrant belief in commercial claims. Although it is difficult, even well designed objective test items can capture critical thinking skills so that students are challenged beyond mere repetition and recall.

• Clarify your expectations about performance with explicit, public criteria. Devising clear performance criteria for psychology projects will enhance student success. Students often complain that they don’t understand “what you want” when you assign work. Performance criteria specify the standards that you will use to evaluate their work. For example, perfonnance criteria for the observation exercise described earlier might include the following: The student describes behavior accurately; offers i nference that is reasonable for the context; and identifies personal factors that might influence infer ence. Perfonnance criteria facilitate giving detailed feedback easily and can also promote student self-assessment.

• Label good examples of critical thinking when these occur spontaneously. Students may not recognize when they are thinking critically. When you identify examples of good thinking or exploit examples that could be improved, it enhances students’ ability to understand. One of my students made this vivid for me when she commented on the good connection she had made between a course concept and an insight from her literature class, “That is what you mean by critical thinking?” There after I have been careful to label a good critical thinking insight.

• Endorse a questioning attitude. Students often assume that if they have questions about their reading, then they are somehow being dishonorable, rude, or stupid. Having  discussions early in the course about the role of good questions in enhancing the quality of the subject and expanding the sharpness of the mind may set a more critical stage on which students can play. Model critical thinking from some insights you have had about behavior or from some research you have conducted in the past. Congratulate students who offer good examples of the principles under study. Thank students who ask concept-related questions and describe why you think their questions are good. Leave time and space for more. Your own excitement about critical thinking can be a great incentive for students to seek that excitement.

• Brace yourself . When you include more opportunity for student critical thinking in class, there is much more opportunity for the class to go astray. Stepping away from the podium and engaging the students to perform what they know necessitates some loss of control, or at least some enhanced risk. However, the advantage is that no class will ever feel completely predictable, and this can be a source of stimulation for students and the professor as well.

As far back as I can remember over 50 yrs. ago. I have been talking psychology to friends, or helping them to solve problems. I never thought about psy. back then, but now I realize I really love helping people. How can I become a critical thinker without condemning people?

using a case study explain use of critical thinking in counseling process.

Do you have any current readings with Critical Thinking Skills in Psychology, besides John Russcio’s work?

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

Jane Halonen received her PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1980. She is Professor of Psychology at Alverno College in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where she has served as Chair of Psychology and Dean of the Behavior Sciences Department. Halonen is past president of the Council for Teachers of Undergraduate Psychology. A fellow of APA's Division 2 (Teaching), she has been active on the Committee of Undergraduate Education, helped design the 1991 APA Conference on Undergraduate Educational Quality, and currently serves as a committee member to develop standards for the teaching of high school psychology.

Student Notebook: Five Tips for Working with Teaching Assistants in Online Classes

Sarah C. Turner suggests it’s best to follow the golden rule: Treat your TA’s time as you would your own.

Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science

Aimed at integrating cutting-edge psychological science into the classroom, Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science offers advice and how-to guidance about teaching a particular area of research or topic in psychological science that has been

European Psychology Learning and Teaching Conference

The School of Education of the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg is hosting the next European Psychology Learning and Teaching (EUROPLAT) Conference on September 18–20, 2017 in Salzburg, Austria. The main theme of the conference

Privacy Overview

BOOK REVIEW article

Book review: critical thinking: a concise guide.

• 1 Département de Psychologie, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France
• 2 CRP-CPO, UR UPJV 7273, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France

A Book Review on Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide

Tracy Bowell, Robert Cowan, and Gary Kemp (New York, NY: Routledge), 2020, 348 Pages, ISBN: 9780815371434.

“To believe or not to believe, that is the question” should be an automatic question we ask ourselves. Thus, scientists' aim should be to provide reasons and evidence when many people do not believe in science. These kinds of questions are even more important during health crisis when the general population have to follow scientists' recommendations [i.e., coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)]. Indeed, multiple factors can lead people to relay misinformation or be victim of false reasoning ( Apuke and Omar, 2020 ). Bowell, Cowan, and Kemp's book ( Bowell et al., 2020 ) is a great start to learn how to distinguish good arguments from false reasoning or rhetorical techniques. Synthesis and simplification of information, logical and analytical reasoning, as well as systematical evaluation of verbal content will be taught in this book, which come close to the very definition of critical thinking ( Jacobs et al., 1997 ). To help the reader through the book, the authors made a chapter summary in the introduction and at the beginning and the end of each chapter. While some of the eight chapters are quite independent, a few of them are bonded together (3 and 4, 5, and 6).

Evaluation of the Book's Content

The first chapter introduces us to the critical thinking with lots of definitions. Basics of argumentation, are explained and many practical examples (i.e., Martin Luther King's “I have a dream” speech) are put forward. Open-mindedness and self-questioning are explicitly promoted and encouraged.

Chapter 2 leads to a non-exhaustive list of rhetoric methods seeking to persuade without using arguments. Many tips are provided to spot these attempts in a speech and to judge the relevance of arguments without being under the influence of rhetorical elements. Overall, it is an easy-to-read chapter that teaches how to dodge non-argumentative ploys.

Both Chapters 3 and 4 are dedicated to logical reasoning. They are the most elaborated chapters of the book and introduce a lot of principles, models, and definitions. Chapter 3 starts with the question of deductive validity, which will be discussed through the concepts of true, false, valid, or invalid concerning arguments and their components. Chapter 4 introduces probabilistic reasoning and logic. Probabilities, mathematics models, and methods to judge the relevance of an argument are at the center of this chapter.

Again, both Chapters 5 and 6 are paired, as they are, respectively, dedicated to argument reconstruction and judgment. Longer than the other ones, Chapter 5 focuses on the process of extracting an argument in order to reconstruct it in its simplest form. Chapter 6 deals with argument analysis in two parts. The first part is about methods to assess both validity and relevance of a given argument. The second part includes some practical tips and advices to provide constructive criticism of an argumentation. After reading Chapter 6, you will be able to successfully pass the Ennis–Weir Critical Thinking Test ( Ennis and Weir, 1985 ), a critical thinking test based on a flawed arguments letter.

The last two chapters are mostly independent from the rest of the book and are easy to read, although you do not have mathematical skills. Chapter 7 is probably the most on time chapter these days. It introduces pseudo-reasoning, fallacious, and misleading arguments (i.e., uses of ad hominem fallacy when responding to someone's argument by making an attack upon the person rather than addressing the argument itself). Beyond the concept, the authors explain a very interesting paradox: why these arguments should not be considered as reliable and why so many of us still tend to accept them.

The last chapter is a philosophical opening on epistemological and sociological questions. Concepts of truth or false, knowledge, and believing are discussed, leaving the reader to make up his own mind on the subject. The main purpose of this chapter is to add nuance to what we may consider as true, or not, even before analyzing logical structures and relevance of arguments.

Researchers in philosophy, psychology, and education agree that critical thinking covers skills of analysis, logical reasoning, judgment, and decision making ( Lai et al., 2011 ). All these topics are explored in this book, allowing the reader to have an insight on what can be defined as critical thinking such as the mastery of language, logic, argumentation, and problem solving. Technical concepts are explained by different methods such as the schematization of arguments into syllogisms with premise(s) and conclusion(s) and the use of extended examples to decompose and analyze a speech. In addition, this fifth edition introduces the use of Venn diagrams to illustrate categorical deductive logic. Many detailed examples have also been added, as well as the discussion of current phenomena (i.e., fake news). We strongly encourage librarians and teachers to recommend this book to train critical thinking psychology students in university ( Lacot et al., 2016 ) and earlier at school when possible ( Hand et al., 2018 ). Indeed, from both practical and academic point of view, this book could be addressed to undergraduate students to enable them to develop an open-mindedness and a deep reflection around their own knowledge and the concepts addressed during their training and practice (i.e., therapies, models). Anyone, regardless of their previous knowledge, could benefit from this book, as there are lots of example, practical exercises and definitions. Finally, this book's additional contribution compared to previous books is to provide a methodical, simple, and complete explanation of the fundamental concepts related to critical thinking in a practical, playful, and concrete manner with numerous illustrations drawn from the real world. We hope this book will be translated in different languages in the future, as the flawed arguments and shortcuts are well-spread in the world.

Author Contributions

VG wrote the manuscript. MH drafted it. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This book was bought with funding from the ANR Education à l'Esprit Critique (EEC)—grant number ANR-18-CE28-0018-07.

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.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nabila Terchani for kindly handling all administrative issues.

Apuke, O. D., and Omar, B. (2020). Fake news and COVID-19: modelling the predictors of fake news sharing among social media users. Telemat. Inform. 56:101475. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101475

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bowell, T., Cowan, R., and Kemp, G. (2020). Critical Thinking: A concise guide, 5th Edn . New York, NY : Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351243735

Ennis, W. R., and Weir, E. E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test : An Instrument for Teaching and Testing . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

Google Scholar

Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., and Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: a randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Sci. Educ. 102, 693–710. doi: 10.1002/sce.21341

CrossRef Full Text

Jacobs, P. M., Ott, B., Sullivan, B., Ulrich, Y., and Short, L. (1997). An approach to defining and operationalizing critical thinking. J. Nurs. Educ. 36, 19–22.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Lacot, E., Blondelle, G., and Hainselin, M. (2016). From Bill Shankly to the Huffington post: how to increase critical thinking in experimental psychology course? Front. Psychol. 7:538. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00538

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lai, E., Bay-Borelli, M., Kirkpatrick, R., Lin, A., and Wang, C. (2011). Critical Thinking: A Literature Review Research Report . London, UK: Pearson.

Keywords: cognitive bias, belief, judgment, knowledge, open-mind, self-questioning

Citation: Gravet V and Hainselin M (2021) Book Review: Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Front. Psychol. 12:656331. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.656331

Received: 20 January 2021; Accepted: 27 February 2021; Published: 09 April 2021.

Edited and reviewed by: Myint Swe Khine , Curtin University, Australia

Copyright © 2021 Gravet and Hainselin. 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: Mathieu Hainselin, mathieu.hainselin@u-picardie.fr

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
• Front Psychol

How Do Critical Thinking Ability and Critical Thinking Disposition Relate to the Mental Health of University Students?

Associated data.

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

Theories of psychotherapy suggest that human mental problems associate with deficiencies in critical thinking. However, it currently remains unclear whether both critical thinking skill and critical thinking disposition relate to individual differences in mental health. This study explored whether and how the critical thinking ability and critical thinking disposition of university students associate with individual differences in mental health in considering impulsivity that has been revealed to be closely related to both critical thinking and mental health. Regression and structural equation modeling analyses based on a Chinese university student sample ( N = 314, 198 females, M age = 18.65) revealed that critical thinking skill and disposition explained a unique variance of mental health after controlling for impulsivity. Furthermore, the relationship between critical thinking and mental health was mediated by motor impulsivity (acting on the spur of the moment) and non-planning impulsivity (making decisions without careful forethought). These findings provide a preliminary account of how human critical thinking associate with mental health. Practically, developing mental health promotion programs for university students is suggested to pay special attention to cultivating their critical thinking dispositions and enhancing their control over impulsive behavior.

Introduction

Although there is no consistent definition of critical thinking (CT), it is usually described as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanations of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations that judgment is based upon” (Facione, 1990 , p. 2). This suggests that CT is a combination of skills and dispositions. The skill aspect mainly refers to higher-order cognitive skills such as inference, analysis, and evaluation, while the disposition aspect represents one's consistent motivation and willingness to use CT skills (Dwyer, 2017 ). An increasing number of studies have indicated that CT plays crucial roles in the activities of university students such as their academic performance (e.g., Ghanizadeh, 2017 ; Ren et al., 2020 ), professional work (e.g., Barry et al., 2020 ), and even the ability to cope with life events (e.g., Butler et al., 2017 ). An area that has received less attention is how critical thinking relates to impulsivity and mental health. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between CT (which included both CT skill and CT disposition), impulsivity, and mental health among university students.

Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Mental Health

Associating critical thinking with mental health is not without reason, since theories of psychotherapy have long stressed a linkage between mental problems and dysfunctional thinking (Gilbert, 2003 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Cuijpers, 2019 ). Proponents of cognitive behavioral therapy suggest that the interpretation by people of a situation affects their emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions. Those with mental problems are inclined to bias or heuristic thinking and are more likely to misinterpret neutral or even positive situations (Hollon and Beck, 2013 ). Therefore, a main goal of cognitive behavioral therapy is to overcome biased thinking and change maladaptive beliefs via cognitive modification skills such as objective understanding of one's cognitive distortions, analyzing evidence for and against one's automatic thinking, or testing the effect of an alternative way of thinking. Achieving these therapeutic goals requires the involvement of critical thinking, such as the willingness and ability to critically analyze one's thoughts and evaluate evidence and arguments independently of one's prior beliefs. In addition to theoretical underpinnings, characteristics of university students also suggest a relationship between CT and mental health. University students are a risky population in terms of mental health. They face many normative transitions (e.g., social and romantic relationships, important exams, financial pressures), which are stressful (Duffy et al., 2019 ). In particular, the risk increases when students experience academic failure (Lee et al., 2008 ; Mamun et al., 2021 ). Hong et al. ( 2010 ) found that the stress in Chinese college students was primarily related to academic, personal, and negative life events. However, university students are also a population with many resources to work on. Critical thinking can be considered one of the important resources that students are able to use (Stupple et al., 2017 ). Both CT skills and CT disposition are valuable qualities for college students to possess (Facione, 1990 ). There is evidence showing that students with a higher level of CT are more successful in terms of academic performance (Ghanizadeh, 2017 ; Ren et al., 2020 ), and that they are better at coping with stressful events (Butler et al., 2017 ). This suggests that that students with higher CT are less likely to suffer from mental problems.

Empirical research has reported an association between CT and mental health among college students (Suliman and Halabi, 2007 ; Kargar et al., 2013 ; Yoshinori and Marcus, 2013 ; Chen and Hwang, 2020 ; Ugwuozor et al., 2021 ). Most of these studies focused on the relationship between CT disposition and mental health. For example, Suliman and Halabi ( 2007 ) reported that the CT disposition of nursing students was positively correlated with their self-esteem, but was negatively correlated with their state anxiety. There is also a research study demonstrating that CT disposition influenced the intensity of worry in college students either by increasing their responsibility to continue thinking or by enhancing the detached awareness of negative thoughts (Yoshinori and Marcus, 2013 ). Regarding the relationship between CT ability and mental health, although there has been no direct evidence, there were educational programs examining the effect of teaching CT skills on the mental health of adolescents (Kargar et al., 2013 ). The results showed that teaching CT skills decreased somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and insomnia in adolescents. Another recent CT skill intervention also found a significant reduction in mental stress among university students, suggesting an association between CT skills and mental health (Ugwuozor et al., 2021 ).

The above research provides preliminary evidence in favor of the relationship between CT and mental health, in line with theories of CT and psychotherapy. However, previous studies have focused solely on the disposition aspect of CT, and its link with mental health. The ability aspect of CT has been largely overlooked in examining its relationship with mental health. Moreover, although the link between CT and mental health has been reported, it remains unknown how CT (including skill and disposition) is associated with mental health.

Impulsivity as a Potential Mediator Between Critical Thinking and Mental Health

One important factor suggested by previous research in accounting for the relationship between CT and mental health is impulsivity. Impulsivity is recognized as a pattern of action without regard to consequences. Patton et al. ( 1995 ) proposed that impulsivity is a multi-faceted construct that consists of three behavioral factors, namely, non-planning impulsiveness, referring to making a decision without careful forethought; motor impulsiveness, referring to acting on the spur of the moment; and attentional impulsiveness, referring to one's inability to focus on the task at hand. Impulsivity is prominent in clinical problems associated with psychiatric disorders (Fortgang et al., 2016 ). A number of mental problems are associated with increased impulsivity that is likely to aggravate clinical illnesses (Leclair et al., 2020 ). Moreover, a lack of CT is correlated with poor impulse control (Franco et al., 2017 ). Applications of CT may reduce impulsive behaviors caused by heuristic and biased thinking when one makes a decision (West et al., 2008 ). For example, Gregory ( 1991 ) suggested that CT skills enhance the ability of children to anticipate the health or safety consequences of a decision. Given this, those with high levels of CT are expected to take a rigorous attitude about the consequences of actions and are less likely to engage in impulsive behaviors, which may place them at a low risk of suffering mental problems. To the knowledge of the authors, no study has empirically tested whether impulsivity accounts for the relationship between CT and mental health.

This study examined whether CT skill and disposition are related to the mental health of university students; and if yes, how the relationship works. First, we examined the simultaneous effects of CT ability and CT disposition on mental health. Second, we further tested whether impulsivity mediated the effects of CT on mental health. To achieve the goals, we collected data on CT ability, CT disposition, mental health, and impulsivity from a sample of university students. The results are expected to shed light on the mechanism of the association between CT and mental health.

Participants and Procedure

A total of 314 university students (116 men) with an average age of 18.65 years ( SD = 0.67) participated in this study. They were recruited by advertisements from a local university in central China and majoring in statistics and mathematical finance. The study protocol was approved by the Human Subjects Review Committee of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Each participant signed a written informed consent describing the study purpose, procedure, and right of free. All the measures were administered in a computer room. The participants were tested in groups of 20–30 by two research assistants. The researchers and research assistants had no formal connections with the participants. The testing included two sections with an interval of 10 min, so that the participants had an opportunity to take a break. In the first section, the participants completed the syllogistic reasoning problems with belief bias (SRPBB), the Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCSTS-CV), and the Chinese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), respectively. In the second session, they completed the Barrett Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11), Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), and University Personality Inventory (UPI) in the given order.

Measures of Critical Thinking Ability

The Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test was employed to measure CT skills (Lin, 2018 ). The CCTST is currently the most cited tool for measuring CT skills and includes analysis, assessment, deduction, inductive reasoning, and inference reasoning. The Chinese version included 34 multiple choice items. The dependent variable was the number of correctly answered items. The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the CCTST is 0.56 (Jacobs, 1995 ). The test–retest reliability of CCTST-CV is 0.63 ( p < 0.01) (Luo and Yang, 2002 ), and correlations between scores of the subscales and the total score are larger than 0.5 (Lin, 2018 ), supporting the construct validity of the scale. In this study among the university students, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the CCTST-CV was 0.5.

The second critical thinking test employed in this study was adapted from the belief bias paradigm (Li et al., 2021 ). This task paradigm measures the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments independently of one's prior beliefs (West et al., 2008 ), which is a strongly emphasized skill in CT literature. The current test included 20 syllogistic reasoning problems in which the logical conclusion was inconsistent with one's prior knowledge (e.g., “Premise 1: All fruits are sweet. Premise 2: Bananas are not sweet. Conclusion: Bananas are not fruits.” valid conclusion). In addition, four non-conflict items were included as the neutral condition in order to avoid a habitual response from the participants. They were instructed to suppose that all the premises are true and to decide whether the conclusion logically follows from the given premises. The measure showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.83) in a Chinese sample (Li et al., 2021 ). In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the SRPBB was 0.94.

Measures of Critical Thinking Disposition

The Chinese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory was employed to measure CT disposition (Peng et al., 2004 ). This scale has been developed in line with the conceptual framework of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. We measured five CT dispositions: truth-seeking (one's objectivity with findings even if this requires changing one's preconceived opinions, e.g., a person inclined toward being truth-seeking might disagree with “I believe what I want to believe.”), inquisitiveness (one's intellectual curiosity. e.g., “No matter what the topic, I am eager to know more about it”), analyticity (the tendency to use reasoning and evidence to solve problems, e.g., “It bothers me when people rely on weak arguments to defend good ideas”), systematically (the disposition of being organized and orderly in inquiry, e.g., “I always focus on the question before I attempt to answer it”), and CT self-confidence (the trust one places in one's own reasoning processes, e.g., “I appreciate my ability to think precisely”). Each disposition aspect contained 10 items, which the participants rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale. This measure has shown high internal consistency (overall Cronbach's α = 0.9) (Peng et al., 2004 ). In this study, the CCTDI scale was assessed at Cronbach's α = 0.89, indicating good reliability.

Measure of Impulsivity

The well-known Barrett Impulsivity Scale (Patton et al., 1995 ) was employed to assess three facets of impulsivity: non-planning impulsivity (e.g., “I plan tasks carefully”); motor impulsivity (e.g., “I act on the spur of the moment”); attentional impulsivity (e.g., “I concentrate easily”). The scale includes 30 statements, and each statement is rated on a 5-point scale. The subscales of non-planning impulsivity and attentional impulsivity were reversely scored. The BIS-11 has good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.81, Velotti et al., 2016 ). This study showed that the Cronbach's α of the BIS-11 was 0.83.

Measures of Mental Health

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 was used to assess mental health problems such as depression (e.g., “I feel that life is meaningless”), anxiety (e.g., “I find myself getting agitated”), and stress (e.g., “I find it difficult to relax”). Each dimension included seven items, which the participants were asked to rate on a 4-point scale. The Chinese version of the DASS-21 has displayed a satisfactory factor structure and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92, Wang et al., 2016 ). In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the DASS-21 was 0.94.

The University Personality Inventory that has been commonly used to screen for mental problems of college students (Yoshida et al., 1998 ) was also used for measuring mental health. The 56 symptom-items assessed whether an individual has experienced the described symptom during the past year (e.g., “a lack of interest in anything”). The UPI showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92) in a Chinese sample (Zhang et al., 2015 ). This study showed that the Cronbach's α of the UPI was 0.85.

Statistical Analyses

We first performed analyses to detect outliers. Any observation exceeding three standard deviations from the means was replaced with a value that was three standard deviations. This procedure affected no more than 5‰ of observations. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which facets of critical thinking were related to mental health. In addition, structural equation modeling with Amos 22.0 was performed to assess the latent relationship between CT, impulsivity, and mental health.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of all the variables. CT disposition such as truth-seeking, systematicity, self-confidence, and inquisitiveness was significantly correlated with DASS-21 and UPI, but neither CCTST-CV nor SRPBB was related to DASS-21 and UPI. Subscales of BIS-11 were positively correlated with DASS-21 and UPI, but were negatively associated with CT dispositions.

Descriptive results and correlations between all measured variables ( N = 314).

Regression Analyses

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of CT skill and disposition on mental health. Before conducting the analyses, scores in DASS-21 and UPI were reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of mental health. Table 2 presents the results of hierarchical regression. In model 1, the sum of the Z-score of DASS-21 and UPI served as the dependent variable. Scores in the CT ability tests and scores in the five dimensions of CCTDI served as predictors. CT skill and disposition explained 13% of the variance in mental health. CT skills did not significantly predict mental health. Two dimensions of dispositions (truth seeking and systematicity) exerted significantly positive effects on mental health. Model 2 examined whether CT predicted mental health after controlling for impulsivity. The model containing only impulsivity scores (see model-2 step 1 in Table 2 ) explained 15% of the variance in mental health. Non-planning impulsivity and motor impulsivity showed significantly negative effects on mental health. The CT variables on the second step explained a significantly unique variance (6%) of CT (see model-2 step 2). This suggests that CT skill and disposition together explained the unique variance in mental health after controlling for impulsivity. 1

Hierarchical regression models predicting mental health from critical thinking skills, critical thinking dispositions, and impulsivity ( N = 314).

CCTST-CV, The Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test; SRPBB, Syllogistic Reasoning Problems with Belief Bias .

Structural equation modeling was performed to examine whether impulsivity mediated the relationship between CT disposition (CT ability was not included since it did not significantly predict mental health) and mental health. Since the regression results showed that only motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity significantly predicted mental health, we examined two mediation models with either motor impulsivity or non-planning impulsivity as the hypothesized mediator. The item scores in the motor impulsivity subscale were randomly divided into two indicators of motor impulsivity, as were the scores in the non-planning subscale. Scores of DASS-21 and UPI served as indicators of mental health and dimensions of CCTDI as indicators of CT disposition. In addition, a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples was established to test for direct and indirect effects. Amos 22.0 was used for the above analyses.

The mediation model that included motor impulsivity (see Figure 1 ) showed an acceptable fit, χ ( 23 ) 2 = 64.71, RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.073. Mediation analyses indicated that the 95% boot confidence intervals of the indirect effect and the direct effect were (0.07, 0.26) and (−0.08, 0.32), respectively. As Hayes ( 2009 ) indicates, an effect is significant if zero is not between the lower and upper bounds in the 95% confidence interval. Accordingly, the indirect effect between CT disposition and mental health was significant, while the direct effect was not significant. Thus, motor impulsivity completely mediated the relationship between CT disposition and mental health.

Illustration of the mediation model: Motor impulsivity as mediator variable between critical thinking dispositions and mental health. CTD-l = Truth seeking; CTD-2 = Analyticity; CTD-3 = Systematically; CTD-4 = Self-confidence; CTD-5 = Inquisitiveness. MI-I and MI-2 were sub-scores of motor impulsivity. Solid line represents significant links and dotted line non-significant links. ** p < 0.01.

The mediation model, which included non-planning impulsivity (see Figure 2 ), also showed an acceptable fit to the data, χ ( 23 ) 2 = 52.75, RMSEA = 0.064, CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.06. The 95% boot confidence intervals of the indirect effect and the direct effect were (0.05, 0.33) and (−0.04, 0.38), respectively, indicating that non-planning impulsivity completely mediated the relationship between CT disposition and mental health.

Illustration of the mediation model: Non-planning impulsivity asmediator variable between critical thinking dispositions and mental health. CTD-l = Truth seeking; CTD-2 = Analyticity; CTD-3 = Systematically; CTD-4 = Self-confidence; CTD-5 = Inquisitiveness. NI-I and NI-2 were sub-scores of Non-planning impulsivity. Solid line represents significant links and dotted line non-significant links. ** p < 0.01.

This study examined how critical thinking skill and disposition are related to mental health. Theories of psychotherapy suggest that human mental problems are in part due to a lack of CT. However, empirical evidence for the hypothesized relationship between CT and mental health is relatively scarce. This study explored whether and how CT ability and disposition are associated with mental health. The results, based on a university student sample, indicated that CT skill and disposition explained a unique variance in mental health. Furthermore, the effect of CT disposition on mental health was mediated by motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity. The finding that CT exerted a significant effect on mental health was in accordance with previous studies reporting negative correlations between CT disposition and mental disorders such as anxiety (Suliman and Halabi, 2007 ). One reason lies in the assumption that CT disposition is usually referred to as personality traits or habits of mind that are a remarkable predictor of mental health (e.g., Benzi et al., 2019 ). This study further found that of the five CT dispositions, only truth-seeking and systematicity were associated with individual differences in mental health. This was not surprising, since the truth-seeking items mainly assess one's inclination to crave for the best knowledge in a given context and to reflect more about additional facts, reasons, or opinions, even if this requires changing one's mind about certain issues. The systematicity items target one's disposition to approach problems in an orderly and focused way. Individuals with high levels of truth-seeking and systematicity are more likely to adopt a comprehensive, reflective, and controlled way of thinking, which is what cognitive therapy aims to achieve by shifting from an automatic mode of processing to a more reflective and controlled mode.

Another important finding was that motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity mediated the effect of CT disposition on mental health. The reason may be that people lacking CT have less willingness to enter into a systematically analyzing process or deliberative decision-making process, resulting in more frequently rash behaviors or unplanned actions without regard for consequences (Billieux et al., 2010 ; Franco et al., 2017 ). Such responses can potentially have tangible negative consequences (e.g., conflict, aggression, addiction) that may lead to social maladjustment that is regarded as a symptom of mental illness. On the contrary, critical thinkers have a sense of deliberativeness and consider alternate consequences before acting, and this thinking-before-acting mode would logically lead to a decrease in impulsivity, which then decreases the likelihood of problematic behaviors and negative moods.

It should be noted that although the raw correlation between attentional impulsivity and mental health was significant, regression analyses with the three dimensions of impulsivity as predictors showed that attentional impulsivity no longer exerted a significant effect on mental effect after controlling for the other impulsivity dimensions. The insignificance of this effect suggests that the significant raw correlation between attentional impulsivity and mental health was due to the variance it shared with the other impulsivity dimensions (especially with the non-planning dimension, which showed a moderately high correlation with attentional impulsivity, r = 0.67).

Some limitations of this study need to be mentioned. First, the sample involved in this study is considered as a limited sample pool, since all the participants are university students enrolled in statistics and mathematical finance, limiting the generalization of the findings. Future studies are recommended to recruit a more representative sample of university students. A study on generalization to a clinical sample is also recommended. Second, as this study was cross-sectional in nature, caution must be taken in interpreting the findings as causal. Further studies using longitudinal, controlled designs are needed to assess the effectiveness of CT intervention on mental health.

In spite of the limitations mentioned above, the findings of this study have some implications for research and practice intervention. The result that CT contributed to individual differences in mental health provides empirical support for the theory of cognitive behavioral therapy, which focuses on changing irrational thoughts. The mediating role of impulsivity between CT and mental health gives a preliminary account of the mechanism of how CT is associated with mental health. Practically, although there is evidence that CT disposition of students improves because of teaching or training interventions (e.g., Profetto-Mcgrath, 2005 ; Sanja and Krstivoje, 2015 ; Chan, 2019 ), the results showing that two CT disposition dimensions, namely, truth-seeking and systematicity, are related to mental health further suggest that special attention should be paid to cultivating these specific CT dispositions so as to enhance the control of students over impulsive behaviors in their mental health promotions.

Conclusions

This study revealed that two CT dispositions, truth-seeking and systematicity, were associated with individual differences in mental health. Furthermore, the relationship between critical thinking and mental health was mediated by motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity. These findings provide a preliminary account of how human critical thinking is associated with mental health. Practically, developing mental health promotion programs for university students is suggested to pay special attention to cultivating their critical thinking dispositions (especially truth-seeking and systematicity) and enhancing the control of individuals over impulsive behaviors.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by HUST Critical Thinking Research Center (Grant No. 2018CT012). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

XR designed the study and revised the manuscript. ZL collected data and wrote the manuscript. SL assisted in analyzing the data. SS assisted in re-drafting and editing the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

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.

1 We re-analyzed the data by controlling for age and gender of the participants in the regression analyses. The results were virtually the same as those reported in the study.

Funding. This work was supported by the Social Science Foundation of China (grant number: BBA200034).

• Barry A., Parvan K., Sarbakhsh P., Safa B., Allahbakhshian A. (2020). Critical thinking in nursing students and its relationship with professional self-concept and relevant factors . Res. Dev. Med. Educ. 9 , 7–7. 10.34172/rdme.2020.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benzi I. M. A., Emanuele P., Rossella D. P., Clarkin J. F., Fabio M. (2019). Maladaptive personality traits and psychological distress in adolescence: the moderating role of personality functioning . Pers. Indiv. Diff. 140 , 33–40. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billieux J., Gay P., Rochat L., Van der Linden M. (2010). The role of urgency and its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours . Behav. Res. Ther. 48 , 1085–1096. 10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler H. A., Pentoney C., Bong M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence . Think. Skills Creat. 25 , 38–46. 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan C. (2019). Using digital storytelling to facilitate critical thinking disposition in youth civic engagement: a randomized control trial . Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 107 :104522. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104522 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen M. R. A., Hwang G. J. (2020). Effects of a concept mapping-based flipped learning approach on EFL students' English speaking performance, critical thinking awareness and speaking anxiety . Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51 , 817–834. 10.1111/bjet.12887 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuijpers P. (2019). Targets and outcomes of psychotherapies for mental disorders: anoverview . World Psychiatry. 18 , 276–285. 10.1002/wps.20661 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duffy M. E., Twenge J. M., Joiner T. E. (2019). Trends in mood and anxiety symptoms and suicide-related outcomes among u.s. undergraduates, 2007–2018: evidence from two national surveys . J. Adolesc. Health. 65 , 590–598. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.04.033 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer C. P. (2017). Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: Astatement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction . Millibrae, CA: The California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortgang R. G., Hultman C. M., van Erp T. G. M., Cannon T. D. (2016). Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder: testing for shared endophenotypes . Psychol. Med. 46 , 1497–1507. 10.1017/S0033291716000131 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Franco A. R., Costa P. S., Butler H. A., Almeida L. S. (2017). Assessment of undergraduates' real-world outcomes of critical thinking in everyday situations . Psychol. Rep. 120 , 707–720. 10.1177/0033294117701906 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gambrill E. (2005). Critical thinking, evidence-based practice, and mental health, in Mental Disorders in the Social Environment: Critical Perspectives , ed Kirk S. A. (New York, NY: Columbia University Press; ), 247–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education . Higher Educ. 74 . 101–114. 10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert T. (2003). Some reflections on critical thinking and mental health . Teach. Phil. 24 , 333–339. 10.5840/teachphil200326446 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory R. (1991). Critical thinking for environmental health risk education . Health Educ. Q. 18 , 273–284. 10.1177/109019819101800302 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the newmillennium . Commun. Monogr. 76 , 408–420. 10.1080/03637750903310360 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollon S. D., Beck A. T. (2013). Cognitive and cognitive-behavioral therapies, in Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, Vol. 6 . ed Lambert M. J. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 393–442. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong L., Lin C. D., Bray M. A., Kehle T. J. (2010). The measurement of stressful events in chinese college students . Psychol. Sch. 42 , 315–323. 10.1002/pits.20082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs S. S. (1995). Technical characteristics and some correlates of the california critical thinking skills test, forms a and b . Res. Higher Educ. 36 , 89–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kargar F. R., Ajilchi B., Goreyshi M. K., Noohi S. (2013). Effect of creative and critical thinking skills teaching on identity styles and general health in adolescents . Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 84 , 464–469. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.585 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leclair M. C., Lemieux A. J., Roy L., Martin M. S., Latimer E. A., Crocker A. G. (2020). Pathways to recovery among homeless people with mental illness: Is impulsiveness getting in the way? Can. J. Psychiatry. 65 , 473–483. 10.1177/0706743719885477 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee H. S., Kim S., Choi I., Lee K. U. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors associated with suicide ideation and attempts in korean college students . Psychiatry Investig. 5 , 86–93. 10.4306/pi.2008.5.2.86 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li S., Ren X., Schweizer K., Brinthaupt T. M., Wang T. (2021). Executive functions as predictors of critical thinking: behavioral and neural evidence . Learn. Instruct. 71 :101376. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101376 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin Y. (2018). Developing Critical Thinking in EFL Classes: An Infusion Approach . Singapore: Springer Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo Q. X., Yang X. H. (2002). Revising on Chinese version of California critical thinkingskillstest . Psychol. Sci. (Chinese). 25 , 740–741. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mamun M. A., Misti J. M., Hosen I., Mamun F. A. (2021). Suicidal behaviors and university entrance test-related factors: a bangladeshi exploratory study . Persp. Psychiatric Care. 4 , 1–10. 10.1111/ppc.12783 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton J. H., Stanford M. S., Barratt E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale . J Clin. Psychol. 51 , 768–774. 10.1002/1097-4679(199511)5 1 :63.0.CO;2-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng M. C., Wang G. C., Chen J. L., Chen M. H., Bai H. H., Li S. G., et al.. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Chinese critical thinking disposition inventory . J. Nurs. China (Zhong Hua Hu Li Za Zhi). 39 , 644–647. [ Google Scholar ]
• Profetto-Mcgrath J. (2005). Critical thinking and evidence-based practice . J. Prof. Nurs. 21 , 364–371. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.10.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren X., Tong Y., Peng P., Wang T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitive ability: evidence from adults and children . Intelligence 82 :101487. 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanja M., Krstivoje S. (2015). Developing critical thinking in elementary mathematics education through a suitable selection of content and overall student performance . Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 180 , 653–659. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.174 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stupple E., Maratos F. A., Elander J., Hunt T. E., Aubeeluck A. V. (2017). Development of the critical thinking toolkit (critt): a measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking . Think. Skills Creat. 23 , 91–100. 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suliman W. A., Halabi J. (2007). Critical thinking, self-esteem, and state anxiety of nursing students . Nurse Educ. Today. 27 , 162–168. 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.04.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ugwuozor F. O., Otu M. S., Mbaji I. N. (2021). Critical thinking intervention for stress reduction among undergraduates in the Nigerian Universities . Medicine 100 :25030. 10.1097/MD.0000000000025030 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velotti P., Garofalo C., Petrocchi C., Cavallo F., Popolo R., Dimaggio G. (2016). Alexithymia, emotion dysregulation, impulsivity and aggression: a multiple mediation model . Psychiatry Res. 237 , 296–303. 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.01.025 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang K., Shi H. S., Geng F. L., Zou L. Q., Tan S. P., Wang Y., et al.. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the depression anxiety stress scale−21 in China . Psychol. Assess. 28 :e88. 10.1037/pas0000207 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West R. F., Toplak M. E., Stanovich K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions . J. Educ. Psychol. 100 , 930–941. 10.1037/a0012842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida T., Ichikawa T., Ishikawa T., Hori M. (1998). Mental health of visually and hearing impaired students from the viewpoint of the University Personality Inventory . Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 52 , 413–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshinori S., Marcus G. (2013). The dual effects of critical thinking disposition on worry. PLoS ONE 8 :e79714. 10.1371/journal.pone.007971 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J., Lanza S., Zhang M., Su B. (2015). Structure of the University personality inventory for chinese college students . Psychol. Rep. 116 , 821–839. 10.2466/08.02.PR0.116k26w3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Advertisement

Situating Higher-Order, Critical, and Critical-Analytic Thinking in Problem- and Project-Based Learning Environments: A Systematic Review

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 21 March 2023
• Volume 35 , article number  39 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sofie M. M. Loyens   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2419-1492 1 ,
• Julianne E. van Meerten 2 ,
• Lydia Schaap 3 &
• Lisette Wijnia 4  

7537 Accesses

14 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Critical thinking (CT) is widely regarded as an important competence to obtain in education. Students’ exposure to problems and collaboration have been proven helpful in promoting CT processes. These elements are present in student-centered instructional environments such as problem-based and project-based learning (P(j)BL). Next to CT, also higher-order thinking (HOT) and critical-analytic thinking (CAT) contain elements that are present in and fostered by P(j)BL. However, HOT, CT, and CAT definitions are often ill-defined and overlap. The present systematic review, therefore, investigated how HOT, CT, and CAT were conceptualized in P(j)BL environments. Another aim of this study was to review the evidence on the effectiveness of P(j)BL environments in fostering HOT, CT, or CAT. Results demonstrated an absence of CAT in P(j)BL research and a stronger focus on CT processes than CT dispositions (i.e., trait-like tendency or willingness to engage in CT). Further, while we found positive effects of P(j)BL on HOT and CT, there was a lack of clarity and consistency in how researchers conceptualized and measured these forms of thinking. Also, essential components of P(j)BL were often overlooked. Finally, we identified various design issues in effect studies, such as the lack of control groups, that bring the reported outcomes of those investigations into question.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using technology to make learning fun: technology use is best made fun and challenging to optimize intrinsic motivation and engagement

Loukia David & Netta Weinstein

Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map

Melissa Bond, Katja Buntins, … Michael Kerres

Students’ perceptions of their STEM learning environment

Nicole Fairhurst, Rekha Koul & Rachel Sheffield

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Critical thinking (CT) is widely regarded as an important competence to learn, and its importance has only increased over time (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012 ). Mastery of this ability is not only necessary for students but also for working professionals and informed citizens (Bezanilla et al., 2021 ). Therefore, thinking critically is a central aim of education (e.g., Butler & Halpern, 2020 ). A meta-analysis demonstrated that the opportunity for dialogue, exposing students to authentic or situated problems and examples, and mentoring them in these habits of mind positively affected CT (Abrami et al., 2015 ). All of these pedagogical elements are, to some extent, present in student-centered instructional environments. Thus, it would seem that a good way to teach CT is by using active, student-centered instructional methods (Bezanilla et al., 2021 ; Lombardi et al., 2021 ). Problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL) are prototypical examples of active, student-centered instructional methods. Next to CT, higher-order thinking (HOT) and critical-analytic thinking (CAT) also contain elements that are present in and fostered by student-centered learning environments, such as PBL and PjBL. However, CT, HOT, and CAT definitions are often ill-defined and overlap.

For the aforementioned reasons, the present study investigated CT, HOT, and CAT in student-centered learning environments. We will focus on PBL and PjBL because these two formats are most frequently studied in the research literature and hence constitute the vast majority of student-centered instructional methods (Authors, 2022 ; Nagarajan & Overton, 2019 ). In addition, both PBL and PjBL have been included as acknowledged instructional formats in the Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences (Sawyer, 2014 ) and have specific criteria that need to be fulfilled to be labeled as PBL and PjBL. Despite their unique characteristics and origin, PBL and PjBL share common ground because of their joint roots in constructivist learning theory (Authors, 2022 ; Loyens & Rikers, 2017 ). PBL and PjBL as pedagogies can be seen as manifestations of constructivist learning. Constructivism is a theory or view on how learning happens, which holds that learners construct knowledge out of experiences. It has roots in philosophy and stresses the student’s active role in his or her knowledge-acquisition process (Loyens et al., 2012 ).

What is PBL?

There are many definitions of PBL in the research literature, all presenting different perspectives and ideas with regard to this educational pedagogy (Dolmans et al., 2016 ; Zabit, 2010 ). Notwithstanding the variety of definitions, different PBL implementations demonstrate some shared characteristics. Based on the original method developed at McMaster University (Spaulding, 1969 ), Barrows ( 1996 ) described six core characteristics of PBL. The first characteristic is that learning is student centered. Second, learning occurs in small student groups under the guidance of a tutor. The third characteristic refers to the tutor as a facilitator or guide. Fourth, students encounter so-called “authentic” (i.e., relating to real life) problems in the learning sequence before any preparation or study has occurred. Fifth, these problems function as triggers for students’ prior knowledge activations, which leads to the discovery of knowledge gaps. Finally, students overcome these knowledge gaps through self-directed learning, which requires sufficient time for self-study (Schmidt et al., 2009 ).

Besides the core elements, different PBL environments share similarities in terms of the process. For example, Wijnia et al. ( 2019 ) highlighted that PBL as a process consists of three separate stages: an initial discussion phase, a self-study phase, and a reporting stage. First, students are given a meaningful problem that describes an observable phenomenon or event. The instructional goal of the problem presented to the students can differ. For example, the problem could originate from professional practice or be related directly to distinctive events in a particular domain or field of study. An example of a problem related to a specific domain of study from an introductory psychology course reads as follows (Schmidt et al., 2007 ):

Coming home from work, tired and in need of a hot bath, Anita, an account manager, discovers two spiders in her tub. She shrinks back, screams, and runs away. Her heart pounds, a cold sweat is coming over her. A neighbor saves her from her difficult situation by killing the little animals using a newspaper.” Explain what has happened here. (p. 92)

During the first stage, prior knowledge is important as students come up with theories to explain the problem based on their life experiences. Because their knowledge is often limited and insufficient, students formulate learning issues (formulated as questions) to guide their research and further self-study. All this takes place in a class discussion, usually in classes with fewer than 12 students. During the second stage, students consult learning resources to gain knowledge relevant to the problem and to address the learning issue questions. These resources can be selected by the students, the tutor, or a combination of both (Wijnia et al., 2019 ). In tandem with these steps, students have to plan and monitor study activities that need to be carried out before the next class meeting (Loyens et al., 2008 ). In the final stage, students reconvene under the guidance of their tutor to share and evaluate their findings critically and elaborate on their newly acquired knowledge. Students apply this knowledge to the problem to identify plausible solutions or explanations (Loyens & Rikers, 2017 ; Wijnia et al., 2019 ).

What is PjBL?

In project-based or project-centered learning (PjBL), the learning process is organized around activities that drive students’ actions (Blumenfeld et al., 1991 ). Students learn central concepts and principles of a discipline through the projects. This “learning-by-doing” approach of PjBL could help motivate students to learn, as they play an active role in the process (Saad & Zainudin, 2022 ). Students have a significant degree of control over the project they will work on and what they will do in the project. The projects are hence student-driven and, similar to PBL, are intended to generate learner agency. Specific end products need to result from the work, although the processes to get to the end product can vary. The end products (e.g., a website, presentation, or report) serve as the basis for discussion, feedback, and revision (Blumenfeld et al., 1991 ; Helle et al., 2006 ; Tal et al., 2006 ). Also, even though different forms of PjBL exist, most start with a driving question or problem and typically incorporate the following features (Krajcik, 2015 ; Thomas, 2000 ):

Projects for which the students seek solutions or clarifications are relevant to their lives.

PjBL involves planning and performing investigations to answer questions.

Students collaborate with other students, teachers, and members of society.

PjBL is centered around producing artifacts.

Technology is used when appropriate.

In sum, students perform a series of collaborative inquiry activities that should help them acquire new, domain-specific knowledge and thinking processes to solve real-world problems. The PjBL end products must reflect learners’ knowledge of the project topic and their metacognitive knowledge (Grant & Branch, 2005 ). A project can be a problem to solve (e.g., How can we reduce the pollution in the schoolyard pond?), a phenomenon to investigate (e.g., Why do you stay on your skateboard?), a model to design (e.g., Create a scale model of an ideal high school), or a decision to make (e.g., Should the school board vote to build a new school?; Yetkiner et al., 2008 ).

Students work together and projects last for considerable periods (Helle et al., 2006 ). The role of the instructor consists of facilitating the project. That is, the instructor helps with framing and structuring the projects, monitors the development of the end product, and assesses what students have learned (Chiu, 2020 ; David, 2008 ; Helle et al., 2006 ).

What PBL and PjBL Foster

One aim of schools and colleges implementing student-centered approaches such as PBL and PjBL is to increase students’ competence in tackling complex problems common in an ever-changing world (Gijbels et al., 2005 ). To that end, several goals and desired outcomes have been put forward for PBL and PjBL. The primary goal is to educate the students to a level where they can comfortably use and retrieve information when needed and identify situations where specific knowledge and strategic processes are applicable. With these strategies and knowledge, students can start developing plausible explanations of phenomena that represent important disciplinary understandings (Loyens et al., 2012 ; McNeill & Krajcik, 2011 ). Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of P(j)BL on knowledge acquisition (e.g., Chen & Yang, 2019 ; Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009 ). In addition, both PBL and PjBL consist of collaborative learning sessions that could foster effective interpersonal communication. Such abilities can enable learners to contribute to discussions in clear and appropriate ways, help to reach conclusions and answers more easily, and identify inconsistencies and unresolved issues (Loyens et al., 2008 , 2012 ).

Further, students could develop problem-solving strategies while working on problems or projects (Krajcik et al., 2008 ). Even when problems are highly complex and ill-structured, they can be effectively analyzed, and plausible responses can be identified (Loyens et al., 2012 ). Also, because the problems and projects are specific to the students’ domain of study, the knowledge and strategies they acquire are applicable to their future professional practice. Therefore, problems and projects are believed to be more engaging, motivating, and interesting for the students (Hmelo-Silver, 2004 ; Larmer et al., 2015 ; Saad & Zainudin, 2022 ). Finally, as noted, student-centered instructional methods such as PBL and PjBL imply a different, less directive role for the teacher. Consequently, students receive more during the learning process. The success of PBL and PjBL also rests on the “preparedness of a student to engage in learning activities defined by him- or herself, rather than by a teacher” (Schmidt, 2000 , p. 243), a process referred to as self-directed learning.

Even though the research literature on P(j)BL does not explicitly state that these instructional formats should foster HOT, CT, and CAT, their design and implementations do appear to require students’ engagement in these forms of thinking. Thus, we will seek to define these constructs within the context of student-centered learning environments.

HOT, CT, and CAT

Like PBL and PjBL, many definitions of HOT, CT, and CAT can be found in the literature. We acknowledge our inability to be complete regarding the different domains and traditions (i.e., philosophical, psychological, educational) of HOT, CT, and CAT, in which definitions have been put forward. Rather, we will focus on definitions that help describe the role of HOT, CT, and CAT in student-centered learning environments.

What Is Higher Order Thinking (HOT)?

First, HOT can be seen as an overarching concept defined as “skills that enhance the construction of deeper, conceptually-driven understanding” (Schraw & Robinson, 2011 , p. 2). Framed in more traditional terms, HOT corresponds with Bloom’s taxonomy, with remembering or recalling facts reflecting lower-order cognitive thinking (i.e., concerned with the acquisition of knowledge or information) and comprehending, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating as higher-order thinking, referring to more intellectual abilities and skills (Lombardi, 2022 ; Miri et al., 2007 ). The focus on thinking skills does not imply that the essential importance of knowledge is abandoned. In fact, knowledge is needed and related to thinking processes, which comes to the fore in, for example, later revisions of Bloom’s taxonomy (Lombardi, 2022 ).

HOT has been put forward as having four components (Schraw et al., 2011 ): (a) reasoning (i.e., induction and deduction), (b) argumentation (i.e., generating and evaluating evidence and arguments), (c) metacognition (i.e., thinking about and regulating one’s thinking), and (d) problem solving and critical thinking (CT). Problem-solving involves several steps carried out consecutively: 1) identifying and representing the problem at hand, 2) selecting and applying a suitable solution strategy, and 3) evaluating the process and solution (Chakravorty et al., 2008 ). CT refers to the reflective thinking that leads to certain outcomes (i.e., decision-making) and actions (Ennis, 1987 ). CT is, in this view, considered a subcomponent of HOT (Schraw et al., 2011 ). Indeed, in its measurement, CT has also addressed HOT processes such as analysis and synthesis (Lombardi, 2022 ).

Yen and Halili ( 2015 ) also characterize HOT as an umbrella term for all manner of reflective thinking, including creative thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and metacognitive processing. Also, in this definition, several components refer to the taxonomy of Schraw and colleagues ( 2011 ): reflection (component d) and metacognition (component c), problem-solving (component d), and decision-making (CT, component d). The only exception is creative thinking, which is not included as a subcomponent by Schraw and colleagues ( 2011 ); however, they acknowledge that this could be part of a broader taxonomy of HOT, together with, for example, moral reasoning.

What Is CT?

The literature on CT traces back to the Greek philosophers who sought to explain the origin and meaning of such thinking. As Van Peppen ( 2020 ) points out, “the word critical derives from the Greek words ‘kritikos’ (i.e., to judge/discern) and ‘kriterion’ (i.e., standards),” and hence “CT implies making judgments based on standards” (p. 11). A second important ancestor of CT was John Dewey, who spoke of “reflective thinking” when referring to CT. From thereon, many traditions and definitions of CT have been formulated. Ennis ( 1987 ), for example, defined CT as the thinking process focused on the decision of what to believe or what to do. He further expanded the idea of Glaser ( 1941 ), who acknowledged the role of dispositions in CT. Ennis ( 1962 ) distinguished two distinct CT components, dispositions and abilities, with the first one being more trait-like tendencies (e.g., dispositions toward inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity to other points of view, cognitive flexibility) and the second referring to actual cognitive activities (e.g., focusing, analyzing arguments, asking questions, evaluating evidence, comparing potential outcomes; Schraw et al., 2011 ).

Scholars of the American Philosophical Association tried to come up with a consensus on the definition of CT, referred to as the Delphi Panel (Facione, 1990b ). The processes associated with CT in that report were interpretation (i.e., understanding and articulating meaning), analysis (i.e., identifying relationships between information, including argument analysis), evaluation (i.e., making judgments and assessments about the credibility of information, including assessing arguments), inference (i.e., identifying the necessary information for decision making, including coming up with hypotheses), explanation (i.e., articulating and presenting one’s position, arguments, and analysis used to determine that position), and self-regulation (i.e., self-analyzing and examining one’s inferences and correcting when necessary; Facione, 1990b ). The latter component (i.e., self-regulation) has a strong metacognitive character (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009 ).

Finally, another conceptualization of CT that resulted in the development of a widely used measurement instrument for CT comes from Halpern. Halpern ( 2014 ) mainly focuses on abilities/cognitive activities and less on dispositions in her definition of CT. Specifically, she states that CT entails “cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome” (p. 8). Halpern’s taxonomy consists of five main elements; verbal reasoning, argument analysis, hypothesis testing, likelihood and uncertainty, and decision-making/problem-solving.

What Is CAT?

CAT refers to the processes we use “when we question or at least do not simply passively accept the accuracy of claims as givens” (Byrnes & Dunbar, 2014 , p. 479). Its distinguishing feature compared to CT is its focus on justification and determining whether appropriate and credible evidence supports a claim or proposed response (Murphy et al., 2014 ). Although some frameworks of HOT and CT include the component of analysis and evaluation, the CAT research literature puts the processes of “weighing the evidence” at the forefront. Alexander ( 2014 ) describes the process of CAT in four consecutive steps. The process starts with a claim or task for which one collects data or evidence. Individuals then evaluate or judge these data or evidence and, as the last step, integrate it with their knowledge and beliefs. Dispositions are not considered in the CAT literature, although individual differences, such as prior knowledge and goals, can act as moderators.

In sum, unequivocal definitions of HOT, CT, and CAT are hard to find, although definitions do share important attributes. As Byrnes and Dunbar ( 2014 ) point out, “operational definitions follow from theoretical definitions” (p. 482). Indeed, the definitions introduced in this overview have led to several operationalizations and measurements of HOT, CT, and CAT. Those operationalizations are also important in the discussion on how HOT, CT, and CAT are framed within student-centered learning and whether P(j)BL might foster such valued forms of thinking.

The Link Between HOT, CT, and CAT and P(j)BL

To establish the link between HOT, CT, and CAT and the learning environments P(j)BL, we carefully examined two lines of research literature: literature on how to effectively teach HOT, CT, and CAT, as well as literature on the learning processes involved in P(j)BL (i.e., a synthesis between cognitive and instructional science). Most of the research directed toward teaching reflective forms of thinking have addressed CT as a form of HOT (e.g., Abrami et al., 2015 ; Miri et al., 2007 ; Schraw et al., 2011 ). For example, Miri and colleagues (2007) defined three teaching strategies that should encourage students to engage collaboratively in CT-aligned processes (e.g., asking appropriate questions and seeking plausible solutions). Those teaching strategies are (a) dealing with real cases in class, (b) encouraging class discussions, and (c) fostering inquiry-oriented experiments.

The link with P(j)BL is evident, as they are centered around dealing with real problems and cases in collaborative class discussions. Certainly, PjBL sometimes requires the execution of experiments. The sharing of knowledge and collaboration has a place in both instructional formats, in PBL in the reporting phase, in PjBL because students collaborate with other students, teachers, and members of society. In their meta-analysis, Abrami and colleagues (2015) reviewed possible instructional strategies that could foster CT. They concluded that two types of interventions helped develop CT processes: discussion and “authentic or situated problems and examples … particularly when applied problem solving … is used” (Abrami et al., 2015 , p. 302). Again, there is a clear link because using authentic problems and class discussions are central components of PBL and PjBL. Also, Torff ( 2011 ) labeled core P(j)BL activities as “high-CT activities” (p. 363): Socratic discussion, debate, problem-solving, problem finding, brainstorming, decision-making, and analysis.

With respect to CAT, Byrnes and Dunbar ( 2014 ) put forward some instructional approaches that should prove facilitative. In their view, “students should pose unanswered questions that require the collection of data or evidence” (p. 488). Subsequently, they need to “engage in appropriate methodologies to gather this evidence.” Finally, students need to “have opportunities to be surprised by unanticipated findings and discuss or debate how the anticipated, unanticipated, and missing evidence should be interpreted” (p. 488). These authors also stress the importance of working in teams, engaging in discussions, identifying sources of uncertainty and problems of interpretation, and presenting findings and conclusions for peer review. Also, regarding CAT, parallels can be drawn with PBL and PjBL in which a problem or question is the starting point, and students engage in several learning activities to develop an understanding and potentially a solution.

The second line of research that is useful to establish the link between HOT, CT, and CAT and P(j)BL, deals withs learning processes. For example, Krajcik et al. ( 2008 ) argued that processes common to project-based approaches involve learners in “scientific practices such as argumentation, explanation, scientific modeling, and engineering design” (p. 3). Furthermore, Krajcik and colleagues mention that students learning in these environments use problem-solving, design, decision-making, argumentation, weighing of different pieces of evidence, explanation, investigation, and modeling. Some scholars mention the development of metacognitive knowledge as an outcome of PjBL (Grant & Branch, 2005 ).

A similar case can be made for PBL. Hung, W. and colleagues ( 2008 ) indicated that students who experience PBL possess better hypothesis-testing abilities due to their more coherent explanations of hypotheses and hypothesis-driven reasoning. Further, the PBL process relies heavily on group discussions of real-life problems, discovering knowledge gaps, gathering information/evidence to answer the learning issues/questions, analyzing the evidence, resolving unclarities, and deciding on the outcome.

The Present Study

The present study aimed to situate HOT, CT, and CAT in PBL and PjBL environments. As we have set out to establish, even though fostering HOT, CT, and CAT may not be an explicit goal of these student-centered approaches; there are theoretical and empirical reasons to expect an association to exist. The research literature on how to effectively teach HOT, CT, and CAT has mentioned instructional formats that use discussion and problem-solving. Secondly, the research literature on the learning processes that take place in student-centered learning environments like P(j)BL mention HOT, CT, and CAT processes such as decision making, argumentation, weighing of different pieces of evidence, explanation, investigation (Abrami et al., 2015 ; Krajcik et al., 2008 ). Therefore, the first research question we posed was: How are HOT, CT, and CAT conceptualized in student-centered learning environments? In addition, parallels exist between processes involved in HOT, CT, and CAT on the one hand and the learning activities/processes in P(j)BL on the other hand. Moreover, effective instructional activities to foster HOT, CT, and CAT (e.g., Abrami et al., 2015 ) are core activities in P(j)BL. Therefore, the second aim of this study was to review the evidence on the effectiveness of student-centered environments in fostering either HOT, CT , or CAT. To that end, we carried out a review study of studies investigating HOT, CT, and CAT in the context of PBL and PjBL.

Search Strategy

For this review, we systematically investigated six online databases: Web of Science (Core Collection) and five EBSCO databases (ERIC, Medline, PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, and Teacher Reference Center). We included Medline in this list because problem-based learning originated in medical education (Spaulding, 1969 , see also Servant-Miklos, 2019 ) and is often researched in the context of medical education (W. Hung et al., 2019 ; Koh et al., 2008 ; Smits et al., 2002 ; Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009 ). For this systematic review, we used the following Boolean string of search terms (Oliver, 2012 ): “project based learning” or “project based instruction” or “project based approach” or “PjBL” OR “problem based learning” or “problem based approach” or “problem based instruction” or “PBL” AND “higher order thinking” or “critical thinking” or “critical analytic* thinking.” Footnote 1 Because of its medical connotations (i.e., it is also an abbreviation for “peripheral blood lymphocytes”; e.g., Caldwell et al., 1998 ), “PBL” was not used for our Web of Science search. The search terms match our research questions in that they include both PBL and PjBL, as well as HOT, CT, and CAT, thus leading us to those studies that included those variables. In addition to using the aforementioned terms, we delimited our search to peer-reviewed records written in English.

Selection Process

Inclusion criteria.

In addition to the search parameters established by our search terms, we used the following inclusion criteria to determine our final sample—studies had to: (a) use a quantitative measure of HOT, CT, or CAT, (b) take place in a PBL or PjBL environment, (c) be an empirical study that took place in a classroom context, (d) investigate K-12 or higher education students, and (e) be published as a peer-reviewed journal article. For example, to be included in our review, studies must have a dedicated measure of HOT, CT, or CAT that gives insight into the authors’ conceptualization of these constructs. The measure used could be a standardized instrument or one that was researcher-designed.

Also, in line with our research aims, we only included studies that focused on PBL or PjBL and met the basic criteria for these student-centered approaches. To judge the quality of this learning environment, the definition or description in the theoretical framework and the implementation of those environments were assessed against the defining characteristics established in the literature (Barrows, 1996 ; Hmelo-Silver, 2004 ; Schmidt et al., 2009 ). For PBL, those criteria included (a) student-centered, active learning, (b) the guiding role of teachers, (c) collaborative learning in small groups, (d) the use of realistic problems as the start of the learning process, and (e) ample time for (self-directed) self-study. Furthermore, PBL had to contain the three process phases (i.e., initial discussion, self-study, and reporting phases). For PjBL, those criteria included (a) the project starts with a driving question or problem, (b) the project is relevant and authentic, (c) collaborative, inquiry learning activities take place, (d) room for student autonomy and the guiding role of teachers, (e) the project is central to the curriculum, and (f) the creation of a tangible product (Authors, 2022 ). We only included studies in a classroom context in K-12 and higher education because we wanted to focus on the effectiveness of these learning environments in formal educational settings. We focused on peer-review articles to better ensure the quality of the study.

Exclusion Criteria

We excluded self-report items (often from course evaluations) such as, “I have improved my ability to judge the value of new information or evidence presented to me” or “I have learned more about how to justify why certain procedures are undertaken in my subject area” (Castle, 2006 ). We also excluded the critical thinking scale from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Duncan & McKeachie, 2005 ). In the MSLQ, critical thinking is viewed as a learning strategy. In light of strong criticism toward the reliance on MSLQ to effectively gauge these forms of reflective thinking (see Dinsmore & Fryer, 2022 , this issue), we have excluded these studies (e.g., Sungur & Tekkaya, 2006 ).

We also excluded studies that did not meet the defining criteria for PBL or PjBL. For example, if a study indicated investigating PBL where the learning process started with a lecture instead of a problem. Furthermore, we excluded studies that did not adequately describe the process the researchers labeled as PBL or PjBL (e.g., Razali et al., 2017 ). We also excluded studies that consisted of a combination of P(j)BL with additional activities (e.g., concept maps with PBL; Si et al., 2019 ) or interventions (e.g., a CT or motivation intervention combined with PBL; Olivares et al., 2013 ).

Moreover, we excluded studies that took place in a laboratory setting, intervention studies at places such as summer camps, tutoring, afterschool programs or studies with employee samples (e.g., health nurses; T.-M. Hung et al., 2015 ), because of our focus on formal education. We further excluded theoretical, conceptual, or “best practices” articles. Finally, for this review, we excluded peer-reviewed conference papers and abstracts (“wrong format”) as they were often hard to retrieve or provided too little information to code the outcome measures and learning environment.

Coding and Final Sample

Figure  1 outlines our entire search process, in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines (Moher et al., 2015 ). As can be seen there, our initial searches in the Web of Science and EBSCO databases provided us with 2,968 results, which we uploaded to the Rayyan platform (Ouzzani et al., 2016 ). After removing duplicates identified by the Rayyan platform, 2,545 papers remained, of which we screened the titles, abstracts, and, if needed, the full texts. We identified an additional 27 duplicates and excluded 2,405 papers because the studies did not meet our inclusion criteria.

Flowchart of the Search and Selection Process

We selected 113 studies for further inspection and coding. The specific codes were in line with our inclusion and exclusion criteria and were designed to streamline the final elimination round (i.e., excluding articles after in-depth reading). Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the codes used.

The search process overall resulted in a final sample of 28 studies. Of these 113 studies, 84 studies were excluded (see Fig.  1 for exclusion reasons). We excluded one paper because it contained duplicate data (Yuan et al., 2008b ) reported in another paper (Yuan et al., 2008a ). We selected the Yuan et al. ( 2008a ) paper instead of the Yuan et al. ( 2008b ) paper because the former also reported the results of the control group (i.e., lecture-based learning). In contrast, the latter only included the data of the PBL group.

Results and Discussion

Descriptives of the final sample.

Before answering our research questions, we describe the characteristics of the 28 included studies (see Table 2 ). Of the included studies, 22 investigated a higher education setting and 6 in K-12. Twelve studies took place within the Health Sciences domain (e.g., nursing education, medical education), 8 within the Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math (STEAM) domain, and 8 in other domains (e.g., financial management or psychology). Studies covered 12 different countries. Most studies were conducted in the USA ( n  = 7), Turkey ( n  = 4), Indonesia ( n  = 4), and China ( n  = 3). Two studies investigated the effects of PjBL; all other studies examined a PBL setting.

Research Question 1: Conceptualization of HOT, CT, and CAT

The first research question of this review was “How are HOT, CT, and CAT conceptualized in student-centered learning environments (i.e., PBL and PjBL)?” To answer this research question, it is important to know that none of the identified studies investigated the effect of P(j)BL on CAT. HOT was only investigated in two studies. One of the included studies investigated the effect of PBL on HOT, and the other study investigated the effect of PjBL on HOT and CT. All other studies investigated the effect of P(j)BL on CT. Hence, to answer this research question, we will mainly focus on the conceptualization of CT and, to a smaller extent, on HOT. In answering this research question, we will discuss how CT and HOT were defined and measured.

Conceptualization of CT

CT conceptualizations in P(j)BL consisted of CT dispositions and CT processes. These processes were referred to as “skills” or “abilities” in the included studies (e.g., W.-C. W. Yu et al., 2015 ). Our review will use the term “processes” instead of “skills.” A CT disposition is “the constant internal motivation to engage problems and make decisions by using CT” (Facione et al., 2000 , p. 65). Facione et al. ( 2000 ) use the word disposition to refer to individuals' characterological attributes. An example of a disposition is being open-minded, analytical, or truth-seeking. In the included studies, dispositions were described as the “will” or “inclination” to evaluate situations critically (e.g., Temel, 2014 ; W.-C. W. Yu et al., 2015 ) and a necessary pre-condition for CT processes (Temel, 2014 ).

Although the correlation between CT dispositions and processes is not extremely high (e.g., Facione et al., 2000 ), both seem to be necessary for “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (e.g., Ennis, 2011 , p. 10). The included studies in this review defined the concept of CT seven times in terms of dispositions and processes, 13 times solely in terms of processes, and four times solely in terms of dispositions. Three studies did not define the concept or spoke in general terms as “a way to find meaning in the world in which we live” (Burris & Garton, 2007 , p. 106). Of the included studies, 7 studies measured CT disposition, 18 studies measured CT processes, and one study measured CT dispositions and processes. One study stated to have measured CT dispositions, but in the results section, only statistics for CT processes were reported (Hassanpour Dekhordi & Heydarnejad, 2008). Regarding measurements, 16 studies were congruent in defining CT and measuring CT. This means that, for example, when authors defined CT in terms of dispositions, they measured dispositions as well. This also means that 11 studies were incongruent in this respect (e.g., mentioning processes but measuring dispositions or mentioning both but measuring one component).

In sum, although CT consists of dispositions and processes, in the conceptualization of CT in P(j)BL research, we saw a majority of studies focusing only on the processes and, to a lesser extent, on (the combination with) dispositions. Also, 11 studies were incongruent in focus (dispositions and/or processes) of their description of CT and the focus of their measurement instrument.

CT Dispositions

In the studies included in this review, many different terms were used to describe CT disposition(s). The nine studies that reported measuring CT dispositions used the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI; Facione, 1990a ). The CCTDI assesses students’ willingness or inclination toward engaging in critical thinking. The CCTDI contains seven dispositions (Facione, 1990a ; Yeh, 2002 ). The scale Truth-Seeking refers to the mindset of being objective, honest, and seeking the truth even when findings do not support one’s opinions/interests. Open-Mindedness refers to tolerance, an open mind toward conflicting views, and sensitivity toward the possibility of one’s own bias. The subscale Analyticity concerns a disposition to anticipate possible consequences, results, and problematic situations. The fourth subscale, Systematicity, measures having an organized, orderly, and focused approach to problem-solving. The trust in one’s reasoning process is measured in the subscale CT Self-Confidence . Inquisitiveness concerns intellectual curiosity, whereas Cognitive Maturity refers to the expectation of making timely, well-considered judgments. A qualitative analysis of the descriptions showed that most of the terms used corresponded with CCTDI subscales (Facione, 1990a ; Yeh, 2002 ; see Appendix Table 5 ). Sometimes other terms were used that could be classified less easily according to the dispositions of the CCTDI but point toward a willingness to engage in critical thinking or the role of self-regulation and metacognition.

CT Processes

There were not only many dispositions mentioned by the studies included in this review, but the number of terms to describe CT processes was even higher. When we look at the three most used instruments, many of these terms appear as specific components of those tests (see Appendix Table 6 ). For example, the most commonly used instruments were the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST; 4 studies) and the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA; 2 studies). One study used the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT), but the theoretical framework related to this test was used in three other studies to measure CT processes. The CCTST, WGCTA, and CCTT are well-known commercial standardized measures of critical thinking.

The CCTST is a companion test of the CCTDI and measures five critical thinking processes: Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, Deductive Reasoning, and Inductive Reasoning (Facione, 1991 ). Analysis refers to accurately identifying problems and processes such as categorization, decoding significance, and clarifying meaning. Evaluation concerns the ability to assess statements’ credibility and arguments’ strength. The Inference subscale measures the ability to draw logical and justifiable conclusions from evidence and reasons. Deductive Reasoning relies on strict rules and logic, such as determining the consequences of a given set of rules, conditions, principles, or procedures (e.g., syllogisms, mathematical induction). Finally, Inductive Reasoning refers to reasoned judgment in uncertain, risky, or ambiguous contexts.

Another well-validated test used in the studies included in this review is the WGCTA (Watson & Glaser, 1980 ). The WGCTA provides problems and situations requiring CT abilities. It measures CT as a composite of attitudes of inquiry (i.e., recognizing the existence of problems and acceptance of a need for evidence), knowledge (i.e., about valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations), and skills in applying these attitudes e and knowledge (Watson & Glaser, 1980 , 1994 , 2009 ).

The scale consists of five subscales: Inferences, Recognition of Assumptions, Deduction, Interpretation, and Evaluation of Arguments. The Inferences subscale measures to what extent participants can determine the truthfulness of inferences drawn from given data. Recognition of Assumptions concerns recognizing implicit presuppositions or assumptions in statements or assertions. The Deduction subscale measures the ability to determine if conclusions necessarily follow from the given information. Interpretation concerns weighing evidence and deciding if the generalizations based on the given data are justifiable. Finally, the subscale Evaluation of Arguments measures the ability to distinguish strong and relevant arguments from weak and irrelevant arguments. The long version of the scale consists of 80 items (parallel Forms A and B; Watson & Glaser, 1980 ), and the short version (From S) contains 40 items (Watson & Glaser, 1994 ). Newer test versions are available (Watson & Glaser, 2009 ), but the included studies relied on the older, abbreviated version (Burris & Garton, 2007 ; Şendağ & Odabaşı, 2009 ).

The CCTT level Z, designed by Ennis, measures deduction, semantics, credibility, induction, definition and assumption identification, and assumption identification (Bataineh & Zghoul, 2006 ; Ennis, 1993 ). The CCTT is a commercial measure of critical thinking and has two versions. The CCTT level X is for students in Grades 4–14, whereas CCTT level Z is for advanced and gifted high school students, college students, graduate students, and other adults. Possibly due to copyright restrictions, many articles gave very brief descriptions of the test subscales. We also found some inconsistencies in the descriptions of the subscales in the literature. We could not retrieve the original manuals of the CCTT from 1985 or the revised version from 2005. Leach and others ( 2020 ) gave a detailed description of the CCTT level X subscales and provided a possible explanation for the inconsistencies found in the literature.

The test measures five latent dimensions: Induction, Deduction, Observation, Credibility, and Assumption (Leach et al., 2020 ). However, these five dimensions are reduced into four parts in the test manual. Two dimensions are taken together (i.e., observation and credibility), and some items of one dimension are counted as an element of another part (Leach et al., 2020 ). Bataineh and Zghoul ( 2006 ) described the subscales of CCTT level Z in more detail. According to them, the CCTT level Z measures six dimensions: Deduction, Semantics, Credibility Induction, Definition and Assumption Identification, and Assumption Identification. The subscale Deduction measures to what extent a person can detect valid reasoning. The subscale, Semantics, measures the ability to assess verbal and linguistic aspects of arguments. Credibility concerns the extent to which a participant can estimate the truthfulness of a statement. The subscale Induction refers to the ability to judge conclusions and the best possible predictions. Definition and Assumption Identification measures the extent to which a person can identify the best definition of a given situation. Finally, assumption identification asks participants to choose the most probable unstated assumption in the text.

In summary, as can be seen from this descriptive analysis (see Appendix Tables 5 and 6 ), many terms are employed to characterize CT dispositions and processes. The conceptualization of CT differs per measurement, as evidenced by the three most commonly used instruments (i.e., CCTDT, CCTST, WGCTA) and the instruments based on Ennis’s conceptualization of CT (e.g., CCTT). We also observed a tendency to create new instruments, often based on or inspired by other measurement instruments that introduce new terms to describe CT.

HOT Processes

In some studies measuring CT, the authors mentioned that CT was a component of HOT (Cortázar et al., 2021 ; Dakabesi & Louise, 2019 ; Sasson et al., 2018 ). Only two studies measured HOT (Sasson et al., 2018 ; Sugeng & Suryani, 2020 ). In both instances, the authors solely defined HOT in reference to the more complex thinking levels in Bloom et al. and’s ( 1956 ; Krathwohl, 2002 ) taxonomy for the cognitive domain: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In the Sasson et al. ( 2018 ) study, comprehension was also included as one of the higher cognitive processes. In contrast, in the Sugeng and Suryani ( 2020 ) study, comprehension was treated as a form of lower-order thinking. Both studies use Bloom’s Taxonomy as a framework for coding student work. Therefore, we mainly saw the same terms to conceptualize HOT and also congruency between characterizing and measuring HOT processes, based on Bloom’s taxonomy.

Research Question 2: Can PBL and PjBL Foster HOT, CT, and CAT?

To answer Research Question 2, we summarized the main findings regarding the effectiveness of PBL and PjBL on CT and HOT (see Tables 3 and 4 ). When possible, we calculated the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d ) in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis statistical software (version 3; Borenstein et al., 2009 ). First, we will discuss the effects on CT and then the two studies that examined HOT.

Effects of P(j)BL on Critical Thinking

Description of studies.

Table 3 reports the main findings of the 27 studies that investigated the effects of P(j)BL on CT. Most studies investigated the effects of PBL, and only two examined the effects of PjBL (Cortázar et al., 2021 ; Sasson et al., 2018 ). Most studies compared P(j)BL with a control group with pre-post measures of CT ( n  = 16). Five studies compared PBL with a control group and only reported posttest scores (see Table 3 ). We used the pre-post data of a single P(j)BL group (without a control group) for five other studies. One study had another design (comparing year groups; Pardamean, 2012 ).

The most commonly reported control group was (traditional) lecture-based learning (e.g., Carriger, 2016 ; Choi et al., 2014 ; Gholami et al., 2016 ; Lyons, 2008 ; Rehmat & Hartley, 2020 ; Tiwari et al., 2006 ; W.-C. W. Yu et al., 2015 ; Yuan et al., 2008a ), traditional or conventional learning (e.g., Dilek Eren & Akinoglu, 2013 ; Fitriani et al., 2020 ; Saputro et al., 2020 ; Sasson et al., 2018 ; Temel, 2014 ), or instructor-led instruction (Şendağ & Odabaşı, 2009 ). In Burris and Garton ( 2007 ), the control group was a supervised study group, of which the authors indicated this corresponded with Missouri’s recommended curriculum for (secondary) agriculture classes. The control group in Siew and Mapeala ( 2016 ) focused on conventional problem-solving.

Some studies included additional experimental groups (Carriger, 2016 ; Cortázar et al., 2021 ; da Costa Carbogim et al., 2018 ; Fitriani et al., 2020 ; Siew & Mapeala, 2016 ; W.-C. W. Yu et al., 2015 ). In these experimental groups, PBL was combined with another intervention (Cortázar et al., 2021 ; da Costa Carbogim et al., 2018 ; Fitriani et al., 2020 ; Siew & Mapeala, 2016 ; W.-C. W. Yu et al., 2015 ) or combined with lectures (Carriger, 2016 ). For example, these interventions might include a critical thinking intervention (da Costa Carbogim et al., 2018 ) or a socially shared regulation intervention (Cortázar et al., 2021 ). To describe the main findings and calculate effect sizes, we only report the data for the “regular” PBL and the control groups (if reported) of these studies. Overall, results showed positive effects of P(j)BL on critical thinking. When we only look at the statistical tests the authors performed, 19 studies reported positive effects on CT, indicating that students’ CT disposition or skills scores increased from pretest to posttest or obtained higher scores than the control group. Seven studies reported non-significant findings, and only one study reported a negative effect.

Meta-Analysis

In the meta-analysis section of this review, we only included studies with a pre-post and/or independent groups design. Independent groups designs and pre-post designs both give insight into the question of whether PBL and PjBL affect students’ CT. Independent group designs check if the instructional method is more effective than “traditional” education, whereas pre-post designs check for differences before and after the implementation.

We were able to calculate effect sizes for 23 studies. For the studies with independent groups pre-post designs, we used the pretest and posttest means and standard deviations ( SD s) and sample size per group to compute effect sizes. Posttest SD was used to standardize the effect size. Because most studies did not report the correlation between the pretest and posttest scores, we assumed a conservative correlation of 0.70 if the correlation was not reported. Studies suggest strong test–retest correlations for standardized critical thinking measures (Gholami et al., 2016 ; Macpherson & Owen, 2010 ). For example, Macpherson and Owen ( 2010 ) reported a strong positive correlation ( r  = 0.71) between two test moments among medical students for WGCTA. We used both groups’ means, SD s, and sample sizes to calculate the effect sizes for the studies with independent groups posttest-only designs. We used the mean difference, t , and sample size for the single group pre-post studies to calculate the effect size (da Costa Carbogim et al., 2018 ; Iwaoka et al., 2010 ) or the pretest and posttest means and SDs, sample size, and pre-post correlation. Again, we assumed a correlation of 0.70 if it was not reported.

When we included all 23 studies in one analysis (random-effects model), this resulted in a medium effect size of 0.644 ( SE  = 0.10, 95% CI [0.45, 0.83]). These results suggest that P(j)BL could positively affect students’ CT dispositions and processes. However, the effect was heterogenous, Q (22) = 237.46, p  < 0.001, I 2  = 90.74, T 2  = 0.17 ( SE  = 0.11), which implies that the variability in effect sizes has sources other than sampling error. Because only one of the studies investigated PjBL, we repeated the analysis for only the PBL studies, resulting in an effect size of 0.635 ( SE  = 0.10, 95% CI [0.44, 0.83]), indicating the results remained similar. In our analysis, we included three types of research designs. Overall, the studies that compared P(j)BL with a control group reported larger effect sizes (independent groups: n  = 4, d  = 0707, SE  = 0.22; independent groups pre-posttest: n  = 14, d  = 0.831, SE  = 0.13). than studies with a single-group pre-post design ( n  = 5, d  = 0.213, SE  = 0.18).

As Table 3 reveals, there were some studies with extreme effect sizes (e.g., Saputro et al., 2020 ). We, therefore, conducted leave-one-out analyses. The leave-one-out analyses revealed that effect sizes were between 0.533–0.686 with an SE of approximately 0.10. Confidence intervals were between 95% CI [0.37, 0.70] to 95% CI [0.48, 0.89]. Overall, the conclusion about the positive effect of P(j)BL on critical thinking would not change if we left out the study by Saputro et al. ( 2020 ).

We further examined publication bias by inspecting the funnel plot and Egger’s reception intercept (Egger et al., 1997 ). We applied Duval and Tweedie’s ( 2000 ) trim-and-fill technique and conducted a classic fail-safe N analysis. Figure  2 presents the funnel plot of all included studies and plots the individual study effect size against the standard error of the effect size estimates. The funnel plot indicated publication bias. Egger’s linear regression test for asymmetry further supported this observation, t (21) = 2.78, p  = 0.006. Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill technique (7 studies trimmed at the left side) resulted in an adjusted effect size from a medium effect of 0.644 to a small effect of 0.298 (95% CI [0.09, 0.51]). The fail-safe N suggested that 1,376 missing studies are needed for the result of this meta-analysis to be nonsignificant ( p  > 0.05). Overall, the results suggested that P(j)BL can have a small-to-medium positive effect on students’ CT processes and dispositions.

Funnel Plot. Note. Funnel plot with observed and imputed studies. The white dots represent the observed study samples included in the meta-analysis; the black dots represent the seven studies trimmed at the left side using Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill technique

As mentioned, the effect was heterogeneous. Due to the limited number of studies, we could not investigate moderating factors that can explain the heterogeneity statistically. The variation in effect sizes can likely be partly caused by variation in how PBL was implemented, as this often differs per institute even when the defining characteristics have been met (Maudsley, 1999 ; Norman & Schmidt, 2000 ). However, to deal with this issue, we only included studies that met the defining criteria of PBL and PjBL. We further excluded studies that contained additional activities (e.g., concept mapping) that could affect the results.

Also, differences in the exact operationalization of CT could affect the results. To explore this, we calculated the effect size separately for studies reporting outcomes on CT processes ( n  = 17) and dispositions ( n  = 7). Analyses suggested a higher effect size for the studies reporting results for CT processes ( d  = 0.720, SE  = 0.14, 95% CI [0.46, 0.99]) than studies reporting on the effects of CT disposition ( d  = 0.411, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [0.16, 0.66]). However, these results must be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies and the extreme effect sizes in the CT processes group.

Other variables that could potentially explain heterogeneity are sample level (e.g., K-12 or higher education) and the duration of the intervention or exposure to PBL. For example, a meta-analysis of the effects of student-centered learning on students’ motivation showed that the effect of student-centered learning on motivation was lower for K-12 samples and curriculum implementation compared to studies conducted in a higher education setting and course implementations (Authors, 2022 ). Possibly, similar factors could affect the effect of P(j)BL on CT, but more research is needed to investigate this in more detail.

Additional Findings

In the meta-analysis section of this review, we only included studies with a pre-post and/or independent groups design. Two studies deviated from this design. Tiwari et al. ( 2006 ) did not only compare the effects of PBL vs. lecture-based learning immediately after the PBL course but also included two follow-ups one and two years later. As seen in Table 3 , the PBL group showed significant gain scores in CT immediately after the course, and the gain score remained positive at the first follow-up. However, the gain score became non-significant at the second follow-up (two years later). When we look at some subscale scores, results revealed significant gains in favor of PBL for truth-seeking, analyticity, and CT self-confidence. The gain score for analyticity remained positive at the first follow-up, whereas the truth-seeking gain score remained significant at the first and second follow-ups (two years later). The results of this study suggest that PBL can have long-term effects on CT dispositions.

Pardamean (2010) did not have a control group but examined CT processes in first through third-year students. Their study revealed no differences between the three-year groups on overall CT. There was one statistically significant difference on the subscale Inductive Reasoning, on which the second-year students obtained the highest score and the third-year students the lowest score. This study does not support that CT increases across year groups in a PBL curriculum. However, we have no information on the baseline CT of each group.

Not all studies reported the results of the test subscales, even when the original scale consisted of subscales. Seven of the nine studies using the CCTDI reported subscale results. Of these studies, three studies reported positive results for Open-Mindedness, Inquisitiveness, Truth-Seeking, or Systematicity, and two for the Analyticity subscale or the CT Self-Confidence subscale. Of the five studies that examined Cognitive Maturity, only one reported a positive effect of P(j)BL (see Table 3 ). Five studies reported the subscale scores on the CCTST. Of these studies, two found positive effects of P(j)BL on Analysis or Evaluation, and one study on Inference. No students reported positive effects on the Deduction subscale. For Induction, one study found a positive effect, and another reported a negative effect. Overall, mixed results were found on the subscale level (see Table 3 ).

Effects of P(j)BL on Higher-Order Thinking

Only two studies investigated the effects of P(j)BL on HOT (see Table 4 ). One in a PBL setting (Sugeng & Suryani, 2020 ) and the other in a PjBL setting (Sasson et al., 2018 ). We could not calculate effect sizes based on the data provided in the papers. Sugeng and Suryani ( 2020 ) compared a PBL group with a lecture-based group on HOT and lower-order thinking. The PBL group scored significantly higher on HOT, whereas the lecture-based group scored higher on lower-order thinking. Sasson et al. ( 2018 ) reported a positive effect for a 2-year PjBL program. HOT increased for the PjBL group but not for the control group from Measurement 1 (beginning of 9th grade) to Measurement 3 (end of 10th grade).

Conclusions and Implications

This systematic review focused on two questions: “How are HOT, CT, and CAT conceptualized in student-centered learning environments?” and “Can PBL and PjBL foster HOT, CT, and CAT?” We presented and discussed findings related to those questions in the preceding section. Here we offer a more global examination of the trends that emerged from our analysis of two popular forms of student-centered approaches to instruction, PBL and PjBL, and share lingering issues that should be explored in future research. However, we first address certain limitations of this systematic review that warrant consideration.

Limitations

As stated, several limitations emerged in this systematic review that have a bearing on the conclusions we proffer. For one, when we set out to conduct this research, our intention was to understand how higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking were conceptualized in PBL and PjBL. However, we found it impossible to analyze the role of CAT because CAT was not part of any investigation in the context of P(j)BL. Further, the attention given to HOT was quite limited, with only two studies investigating it. It should also be mentioned that we found an unequal distribution in the studies included in this review regarding the thinking measures and the learning environments. For example, CAT appeared not embedded in the P(j)BL literature and HOT to a significantly smaller degree than CT.

Similarly, most studies in this review reported findings of a PBL environment, with a PjBL environment only investigated in two studies. Consequently, the conclusions we draw from our analysis rest primarily on empirical research on studies applying PBL and not PjBL approaches.

As mentioned, the CT measures used in this work often consisted of several subscales. For example, the WGCTA consists of the subscales inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. The presence of multiple indicators was a limitation because the effects can differ for these subcomponents, making global interpretation of effectiveness more difficult. However, we did not use those components as search terms in the literature search, and most studies did not report these subscales or define them. Future studies could use finer-grained search terms, including the thinking measures’ subscales or processes.

While the present study demonstrated positive effects of P(j)BL on HOT and CT, it remains unknown what exactly led to these positive effects, given that multiple links between P(j)BL and HOT and CT could be identified. Also, associations of HOT, CT, and CAT with performance were not investigated in the present study. More controlled experimental studies could shed light on these issues and help overcome the design issues associated with effect studies.

Finally, future research could relate HOT, CT, and CAT in P(j)BL environments to other learning processes, such as self-regulated learning (SRL) and self-directed learning (SDL). Components such as metacognition also play a prominent role in SRL and SDL processes. Future research could shed light on the relationships between thinking and regulating processes in the context of P(j)BL.

Research Question 1: CAT Is Not Embedded and HOT Not Frequently Studied in the P(j)BL Literature

Concerning conceptualizations (RQ1), we must first acknowledge the skewed distribution of studies over the three types of thinking (i.e., HOT, CT, and CAT). To start with, CAT was not part of any investigation in the context of P(j)BL, HOT only in two studies, with the vast majority focusing on CT. When looking at the definition of CAT and its distinguishing feature compared to CT, it has been put forward as the focus on determining how appropriate and credible evidence is (Byrnes & Dunbar, 2014 ). Remarkably, this component is undoubtedly present in P(j)BL. After all, in PBL, when students work on the problem (that they encounter based on prior knowledge) or, more specifically, the learning questions/issues for further self-directed study formulated during PBL group discussion, they will look for and study different literature resources (e.g., Loyens et al., 2012 ). During this knowledge acquisition process in finding answers to the learning questions, they need to check whether different literature resources are in accordance with each other or whether dissimilarities can be detected. In case of dissimilarities, it is up to the student to decide and, later on, during the reporting phase, to discuss how to deal with these dissimilarities with the group. How come different sources provide different answers to the learning questions/issues, and what does that say about the credibility of the sources themselves? Also, in PjBL, students undergo the same process when dealing with conflicting information while working on their projects. It is important to note that these conflicting pieces of information are resolved through group discussion in P(j)BL. However, initially, they might cause some uncertainty regarding the learning process. Indeed, several scholars acknowledge learning uncertainty as a potential consequence of the open set-up of student-centered learning environments (Dahlgren & Dahlgren, 2002 ; Kivela & Kivela, 2005 ; Llyod-Jones & Hak, 2004 ). Nevertheless, the four steps described by Alexander ( 2014 ) are present in P(j)BL, which probably implies that the concept of CAT is not yet well known and embedded in the P(j)BL literature and that in the context of the P(j)BL literature, CAT would be a more accurate term compared to CT.

Similarly, only two studies examined HOT, which could be explained by the fact that HOT is an umbrella term consisting of CT (Schraw et al., 2011 ). That means that when researchers investigate HOT, they are also investigating CT. In light of conceptual clarity, however, it would be recommended to examine concepts at the most detailed level.

More Focus on CT Processes Than CT Dispositions

Another finding was that in the P(j)BL literature, more focus lies on processes, referred to as skills or abilities, compared to dispositions of CT or combinations of CT processes and dispositions. This is not surprising as P(j)BL has been more focused on and related to several interpersonal and self-directed learning skills (Loyens et al., 2008 , 2012 ; Schmidt, 2000 ). What is more problematic is the incongruence between the definitions (CT dispositions and/or processes) and measurement instruments. From an educational point of view, processes seem to be the most natural to be fostered in education, although research has also demonstrated that learning environments can foster CT dispositions (Mathews & Lowe, 2011 ). Applied to P(j)BL environments, dispositions such as “inquisitiveness,” “open-mindedness,” “analyticity,” and “self-regulatory judgment” are certainly helpful. However, more empirical research is necessary to see whether and how P(j)BL environments can foster CT dispositions. The exact meaning of dispositions, which are frequently measured in this literature, is unclear. The measures, subscales, or items labeled as dispositions range from rather stable personality traits such as open-mindedness to more malleable individual differences factors such as prior knowledge. Some components included under dispositions also carry a strong cognitive character, such as analyticity.

Lack of Conceptual Clarity Troubles Measurements and Findings

Regarding the conceptualizations of HOT, CT, and CAT, we definitely ended up in muddy waters. The largest percentage of excluded articles was due to flawed conceptualizations (also for P(j)BL, which we will explain below). These flawed conceptualizations produce a domino effect because conceptualizations (i.e., theoretical definitions) are determinative for measurements (Byrnes & Dunar, 2014 ). In addition, conceptualizations were, so we observed, often at best operationalizations in which authors named specific (sub)processes without mentioning any theoretical grounding. The measurement tool used was often determinative for the inclusion of specific processes. However, we often observed a mismatch in that processes were mentioned that were not part of the measurement instrument, or we observed incongruence between definitions (e.g., processes) and measurement instruments (e.g., measuring dispositions).

Of course, attempts have been made to reach a consensus regarding conceptualizations. For example, the Delphi Report (Faccione, 1990b ) and the special issue on CAT (e.g., Alexander, 2014 ; Byrnes & Dunar, 2014 ) tried to create conceptual clarity on respectively CT and CAT. Consensus should, however, not be a goal in itself. HOT, CT, and CAT are such broad concepts that consensus is far from easy. It is, however, more important to reflect on what the learning objectives of the learning environment (P(j)BL or other) are and determine whether fostering HOT, CT, and CAT is one of them, and then create an educational practice that is in line with these objectives (i.e., constructive alignment; Biggs, 1996 ). Depending on the learning objectives of a learning environment (i.e., the construction of flexible knowledge bases, the development of inquiry skills, or a tool for “learning how to learn”; Schmidt et al., 2009 ), one could emphasize specific (sub)CT processes and use different measurement instruments.

A consequence of these flawed conceptualizations is flawed measurements. Measurements were often problematic in terms of their psychometric properties. Another issue in this respect is that many CT measurements are commercial and not readily available.

Next to issues with the conceptualizations of HOT, CT, and CAT, also serious problems were seen in the conceptualization of P(j)BL. Descriptions were absent, unclear, too broad and general (e.g., “active learning”), or indicative of a learning environment other than P(j)BL. This is not a new finding. In fact, PBL, for example, was identified as troublesome in terms of its definitions a long time ago (e.g., Lloyd-Jones et al., 1998 ). However, it is at least troublesome that this is still the case and, therefore, we excluded many studies. On the other hand, we also notice that more recent studies pay more attention to this issue (e.g., Lombardi et al., 2022 ).

Design Issues in Effect Studies of P(j)BL on HOT, CT, and CAT

While investigating the second research question of this study on the effects of P(j)BL on HOT, CT, and CAT, we made several observations. First, there is still a lack of controlled studies in this domain. The great majority of studies did not use a control group (note: those included in the meta-analysis did), making it impossible to determine the effects of interventions. Like the unclear conceptualizations of P(j)BL, this is not new and has been indicated as an issue before (Loyens et al., 2012 ).

Another observation was that in many studies, it was seen as an assumption/given that P(j)BL fosters CT, usually without any explanation. As explained in the introduction, fostering HOT, CT, or CAT skills is not mentioned as one of the goals of P(j)BL, despite the links that can be made. A priori stating that P(j)BL fosters CT is hence premature.

Finally, we noticed that in several studies, PBL was combined with other interventions (e.g., concept mapping). In those cases, the PBL group served as a control group and the PBL plus extra group as the experimental condition, making it impossible to establish the effects of PBL on HOT, CT, and CAT. Most studies used a pre-posttest design.

Research Question 2: Positive effects of P(j)BL on HOT and CT

Overall, results showed positive effects of P(j)BL on CT and HOT (note that no studies on CAT were found to be included in this review), with scores increasing from pre- to posttest or P(j)BL obtaining higher scores than the control group. These findings imply that P(j)BL does carry elements that can foster CT and HOT. As mentioned above, the positive effects could be interpreted by both cognitive and instructional science literature. Literature on how to effectively teach HOT, CT, and CAT has identified several techniques that help foster these skills. Not surprisingly, these techniques, such as dealing with real cases/problems in class, encouraging (Socratic) class discussions/debate, fostering inquiry-oriented experiments, problem-solving, problem finding, brainstorming, decision making, and analysis (Abrami et al., 2015 ; Miri et al., 2007 ; Torff, 2011 ) are all linked to P(j)BL. Similarly, literature on the learning processes involved in P(j)BL also mentions processes linked to thinking skills. For example, students working on their projects in PjBL use problem-solving, design, decision-making, argumentation, using and weighing different pieces of knowledge, explanation, investigation, and modeling (Krajcik et al., 2008 ). Similarly, students working on problems in PBL have group discussions about authentic problems, engage in evidence-seeking behavior, analyze the evidence, resolve unclarities, and decide on the outcome.

While the majority of findings revealed positive effects regarding the effectiveness of P(j)BL in fostering CT and HOT, several studies also reported negative or no effects. Given the wide variety of P(j)BL formats, it might be due to implementation issues, but it can also be ascribed to design issues, as mentioned above. Further research needs to shed light on the null and negative findings.

As a final note, it should be mentioned that effects were found for CT, but the studies usually do not make claims about the finer-grained subprocesses. For example, four components of HOT have been identified (Schraw et al., 2011 ), while outcome measures are usually calculated at the “general” and not the subcomponent level. Nevertheless, the HOT component of metacognition is quite different from the HOT component of reasoning or problem-solving, which demonstrates the importance of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996 ). Constructive alignment implies clearly defining the learning objectives of the learning environment (P(j)BL or other). When fostering HOT, CT, and CAT is one of the learning objectives, an educational practice should be developed that aligns with these objectives. To make claims about whether learning environments are effective in fostering HOT, CT, or CAT processes, one must first discover whether these processes are or can be part of the learning objectives of these learning environments.

Implications

Several implications for theory and practice follow out of this review study. The first implication is that there is much room for improvement in terms of conceptual clarity. CAT is not investigated and HOT only sporadically in the context of P(j)BL. Nevertheless, when looking at the respective definitions of these thinking processes, the “analytical” part of CAT is certainly present in P(j)BL environments when weighing the evidence during the analysis of specific problems or projects (Alexander, 2014 ). In addition, since CT is considered a component of HOT, we propose investigations at the most detailed level. For practitioners looking for ways to foster HOT, CT, and CAT, it is important to know and hence take into account that definitions (and hence subsequently, measurements) are ambiguous. Given that the results seem positive in terms of the capability of P(j)BL to foster HOT and CT, it is important to guard that the child is not thrown away with the bathwater. Exposure to problems and collaboration with fellow students seem beneficial for fostering thinking skills.

Secondly, the lack of studies investigating CAT in P(j)BL means that this form of thinking is not yet embedded in the P(j)BL research literature. Given the characteristics of the P(j)BL process, CAT processes should be an object of investigation in these learning environments to further advance the theoretical understanding of CAT in P(j)BL.

In sum, the present review study led to several conclusions regarding conceptualizations of HOT, CT, and CAT in the P(j)BL literature. First, CAT is not embedded, and HOT is not frequently studied in the P(j)BL literature. Second, more focus lies on CT skills compared to CT dispositions in the research literature. Next, a lack of clear conceptualizations of HOT, CT, and CAT complicates the measurements and findings. This lack of conceptual clarity carries into instruments and tools of assessment that are limited in number (and sometimes availability) and of questionable validity. The lack of conceptual clarity also extends to P(j)BL environments, where essential components of PBL and PjBL were not always articulated or addressed in studies claiming to implement these approaches. Design issues in effect studies add to these complications. Further, the reference to HOT or CT skills conflicts with the literature on what differentiates skills from more intentional and purposefully implemented processes (i.e., cognitive and metacognitive strategies). Finally, mainly positive effects were found of P(j)BL on HOT and CT.

Data Availability

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

Note that in the search terms for the student-centered learning environments, we did not use a hyphen, that is, “problem based learning” instead of “problem-based learning”.

References preceded by an * were included in the review

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85 (2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically and analytically about critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26 , 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9283-1

Authors. (2022). [Blinded for review].

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New Directions in Teaching and Learning: Issue 68. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804

Bataineh, R. F., & Zghoul, L. H. (2006). Jordanian TEFL graduate students’ use of critical thinking skills (as measured by the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9 (1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668629

Bezanilla, M. J., Galindo-Domínguez, H., & Poblete, M. (2021). Importance of teaching critical thinking in higher education and existing difficulties according to teacher’s views. REMIE-Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 20–48. https://doi.org/10.4471/remie.2021.6159

Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32 , 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay Co.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis . Wiley.

Book   Google Scholar  

*Burris, S., & Garton, B. L. (2007). Effect of instructional strategy on critical thinking and content knowledge: Using problem-based learning in the secondary classroom. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(1), 106–116. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ840072.pdf

Butler, H. A., & Halpern, D. F. (2020). Critical thinking impacts our everyday lives. In R. J. Sternberg & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 152–172). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684354.008

Byrnes, J. P., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). The nature and development of critical analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26 , 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Caldwell, D. J., Caldwell, D. Y., Mcelroy, A. P., Manning, J. G., & Hargis, B. M. (1998). BASP-induced suppression of mitogenesis in chicken, rat and human PBL. Developmental & Comparative Immunology, 22 (5–6), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-305X(98)00037-8

*Carriger, M. S. (2016). What is the best way to develop new managers? Problem-based learning vs. lecture-based instruction. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.02.003

Castle, A. (2006). Assessment of the critical thinking skills of student radiographers. Radiography, 12 (2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2005.03.004

Chakravorty, S. S., Hales, D. N., & Herbert, J. I. (2008). How problem-solving really works. International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, 1 (1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJDATS.2008.020022

Chen, C., & Yang, Y. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26 , 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001

Chiu, C.-F. (2020). Facilitating K-12 teachers in creating apps by visual programming and project-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Technology in Learning, 15(1), 103–118. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217066/

*Choi, E., Lindquist, R., & Song, Y. (2014). Effects of problem-based learning vs. traditional lecture on Korean nursing students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-directed learning. Nurse Education Today, 34(1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.012

*Cortázar, C., Nussbaum, M., Harcah, J., Alvares, J., López, F., Goñi, J., & Cabezas, V. (2021). Promoting critical thinking in an online, project-based course. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, Article 106705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106705

*da Costa Carbogim, F., Barbosa, A. C. S., de Oliviera, L. B., De Sá Diaz, F. B. B., Toledo, L. V., Alves, K. R., de Castro Friedrich, D. B., Luiz, F. S., & de Araújo Püschel, V. A. (2018). Educational intervention to improve critical thinking for undergraduate nursing students: A randomized clinical trial. Nurse Education in Practice, 33 , 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2018.10.001

Dahlgren, M. A., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Portraits of PBL: Students’ experiences of the characteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineering and psychology. Instructional Science, 30 , 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014819418051

*Dakabesi, D., & Luoise, I. S. Y. (2019). The effectiveness of problem-based learning model to increase the students’ critical thinking skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 13(4), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v13i4.12940

David, J. L. (2008). Project-based learning. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 65 (5), 80–82.

Google Scholar  

*Dilek Eren, C., & Akinoglu, O. (2013). Effect of problem-based learning (PBL) on critical thinking disposition in science education. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 14 (3A), 1353–1361.

*Ding, X.-W. (2016). The effect of WeChat-assisted problem-based learning on the critical thinking disposition of EFL learners. International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning, 11 (12), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i12.5927

Dinsmore, D. L., & Fryer, L. (2022). The dynamic interface between cognitive and metacognitive processing and higher-order, critical, or critical-analytic thinking [Manuscript Submitted for Publication] . University of North Florida.

Dolmans, D., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21 (5), 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6

Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40 (2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6

Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95 (449), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669529

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315 (7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 179–186. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476699

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 , 81–111.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Ennis, R. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective part I. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26 (1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613

Facione, P. A. (1990a). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. California State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423

Facione, P. A. (1991). Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in research, evaluation, and assessment. California Academic Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED337498

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254

Facione, P. A. (1990b). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . The Delphi Report. California Academic Press.

*Fitriani, A., Zubaidah, S., Susilo, H., & Al Muhdhar, M. H. I. (2020). PBLPOE: A learning model to enhance students’ critical thinking skills and scientific attitudes. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1327a

*Gholami, M., Moghadam, P. K., Mohammadipoor, F., Tarahi, M. J., Sak, M., Toulabi, T., & Pour, A. H. H. (2016). Comparing the effects of problem-based learning and the traditional lecture method on critical thinking skills and metacognitive awareness in nursing students in a critical care nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 45 , 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.06.007

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75 (1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. Teachers College Record, 43 (5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146814204300507

Grant, M. M., & Branch, R. M. (2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing abilities through the artifacts of learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782450

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.

*Hassanpour Dehkordi, A., & Heydarnejad, M. S. (2008). The effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of Iranian nursing students’ critical thinking. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 24(5), 740–743. http://pjms.com.pk/issues/octdec108/article/article19.html

Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in secondary education – theory, practice and rubber sling slots. Higher Education, 51 , 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 , 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 485–506). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869.ch38

Hung, T.-M., Tang, L.-C., & Ko, C.-J. (2015). How mental health nurses improve their critical thinking through problem-based learning. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 31 (3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/NND.0000000000000167

Hung, W., Dolmans, D. H., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2019). A review to identify key perspectives in PBL meta-analyses and reviews: Trends, gaps and future research directions. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24 , 943–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09945-x

*Iwaoka, W. T., Li, Y., & Rhee, W. Y. (2010). Measuring gains in critical thinking in food science and human nutrition courses: The Cornell Critical Thinking Test, problem-based learning activities, and student journal entries. Journal of Food Science Education, 9 (3), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2010.00100.x

Kivela, J., & Kivela, R. J. (2005). Student perceptions of an embedded problem-based learning instructional approach in a hospitality undergraduate programme. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24 , 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.09.007

Koh, G. C. H., Khoo, H. E., Wong, M. L., & Koh, D. (2008). The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: A systematic review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178 (1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070565

Krajcik, J. (2015). Project-based science. Science Teacher, 82(1), 25–27. http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id= https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst15_082_01_25

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92 (1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20240

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41 (4), 212–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Gold standard PBL: Essential project design elements. https://www.pblworks.org/blog/gold-standard-pbl-essential-project-design-elements

Leach, S. M., Immekus, J. C., French, B. F., & Hand, B. (2020). The factorial validity of the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests: A multi-analytical approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37 , 100676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100676

Lloyd-Jones, G., & Hak, T. (2004). Self-directed learning and student pragmatism. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9 , 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000012228.72071.1e

Lloyd-Jones, G., Margetson, D., & Bligh, J. G. (1998). Problem-based learning: A coat of many colours. Medical Education, 32 , 492–494. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00248.x

Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team, & Physics Team. (2021). The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1) 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974

Lombardi, D. (2022). On the horizon: The promis and power of higher-order, critical, and critical-analytical thinking. [Manuscript Submitted for Publication]. University of Maryland.

Lombardi, D., Matewos, M. M., Jaffe, J., Zohery, V., Mohan, S., Bock, K., & Jamani, S. (2022). Discourse and agency during scaffolded middle school science instruction . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2068317

Loyens, S. M. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2012). Problem-based learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. G. Bus, S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3. Application to learning and teaching (pp. 403–425). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-016

Loyens, S. M. M., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2017). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 405–431). Routledge.

Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20 , 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7

*Lyons, E. M. (2008). Examining the effects of problem-based learning and NCLEX-RN scores on the critical thinking skills of associate degree nursing students in a Southeastern community college. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5 (1), 21. https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-923X.1524

Macpherson, K., & Owen, C. (2010). Assessment of critical thinking ability in medical students. Assessment of Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802475471

Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14 (1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9082-2

Maudsley, G. (1999). Do we all mean the same thing by “problem-based learning”? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules. Academic Medicine, 74 (2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199902000-00016

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Supporting Grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.

Miri, B., David, B. C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37 , 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

*Muehlenkamp, J. J., Weiss, N., & Hansen, M. (2015). Problem-based learning for introductory psychology: Preliminary supporting evidence. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1 (2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000027

Murphy, P. K., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology Review, 26 , 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9281-3

Nagarajan, S., & Overton, T. (2019). Promoting systems thinking using project- and problem-based learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 96 (12), 2901–2909. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00358

Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education, 34 (9), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00749.x

Olivares, S., Saiz, C., & Rivas, S. F. (2013). Encouragement for thinking critically. Electronic Journal of Research in Education, 11 (2), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12168

Oliver, P., (2012). Succeeding with your literature review: A handbook for students. McGraw Hill.

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan: A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5 , 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

*Ozturk, C., Muslu, G. K., & Dicle, A. (2008). A comparison of problem-based and traditional education on nursing students’ critical thinking disposition. Nurse Education Today, 28 (5), 627–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2007.10.001

*Pardamean, B. (2012). Measuring change in critical thinking skills of dental students educated in a PBL curriculum. Journal of Dental Education, 76 (4), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2012.76.4.tb05276.x

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.) (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st Century. National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13398

Razali, S. N., Noor, H. A. M., Ahmad, M. H., & Shahbodin, F. (2017). Enhanced student soft skills through integrated online project based collaborative learning. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4 (3), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.03.010

*Rehmat, A. P., & Hartley, K. (2020). Building engineering awareness: Problem-based learning approach for STEM integration. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28636

Saad, A., & Zainudin, S. (2022). A review of project-based learning (PBL) and computational thinking (CT) in teaching and learning. Learning and Motivation, 78 , 101802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101802

*Santiprastikul, S., Sithivong, K., & Polnueangma, O. (2013). The first year nursing students’ achievement and critical thinking in local wisdom course using problem based learning process. Wireless Personal Communications, 69 , 1077–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-013-1067-2

*Saputro, A. D., Atun, S., Wilujeng, I., Ariyanto, A., & Arifin, S. (2020). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy and critical thinking using problem-based learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.765

*Sasson, I., Yehuda, I., & Malkinson, N. (2018). Fostering the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29 , 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.001

Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Assumptions underlying self-directed learning may be false. Medical Education, 34 (4), 243–245. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.0656a.x

Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational Psychologist, 42 (2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263350

Schmidt, H. G., Van der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44 (4), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213592

Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., Lehman, S., & Hoffman, B. (2011). An overview of thinking skills. In G. Schraw & D. H. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 19–45). Information Age Publishing.

Schraw, G., & Robinson, D. H. (2011). Conceptualizing and assessing higher order thinking skills. In G. Schraw & D. H. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 1–15). Information Age Publishing.

*Şendağ, S., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 53 (1), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Servant-Miklos, V. F. C. (2019). Fifty years on: A retrospective on the world’s first problem-based learning programme at McMaster University Medical School. Health Professions Education, 5 (1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.04.002

Si, J., Kong, H., & Lee, S. (2019). Developing clinical reasoning skills through argumentation with the concept map method in medical problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1776

*Siew, N. M., & Mapeala, R. (2016). The effects of problem-based learning with thinking maps on fifth graders’ science critical thinking. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(5), 602–616. https://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/?q=node/527

Smits, P. B. A., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & de Buisonjé, C. D. (2002). Problem based learning in continuing medical education: A review of controlled evaluation studies. British Medical Journal, 324 , 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7330.153

Spaulding, W. B. (1969). The undergraduate medical curriculum (1969 model): McMaster University. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 100 , 659–664.

Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3 , 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046

*Sugeng, B., & Suryani, A. W. (2020). Enhancing the learning performance of passive learners in a financial management class using problem-based learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.1.5

Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (5), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.5.307-320

Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enacting project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (7), 722–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20102

*Temel, S. (2014). The effects of problem-based learning on pre-service teachers’ critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability. South African Journal of Education, 34(1), Article 769. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC148686

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning . http://www.bie.org/files/researchreviewPBL.pdf .

*Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education, 40 (6), 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Torff, B. (2011). Critical thinking in the classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in instruction and assessment. In G. Schraw & D. H. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 361–394). Information Age Publishing.

Van Peppen, L. M. (2020). Fostering critical thinking: Generative processing strategies to avoid bias in reasoning [Doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam]. RePub. hdl.handle.net/1765/130461

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B manual. The Psychological Corporation.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2009). Watson–Glaser TM II Critical Thinking Appraisal: Technical manual and user’s guide. Pearson.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1994). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal . The Psychological Corporation.

Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2019). The problem-based learning process: An overview of different models. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, and N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 273–295). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119173243.ch12

Yeh, M.-L. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39 (2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(01)00019-0

Yen, T. S., & Halili, S. H. (2015). Effective teaching of higher-order thinking (HOT) in education. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 3(2), 41–47. https://tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v03i02/v03i02-04.pdf

Yetkiner, Z. E., Anderoglu, H., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Research summary: Project-based learning in middle grades mathematics . http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/ProjectBasedLearninginMath/tabid/1570/Default.aspx .

*Yu, W.-C. W., Lin, C. C., Ho, M.-H., & Wang, J. (2015). Technology facilitated by PBL pedagogy and its impact on nursing students’ academic achievement and critical thinking dispositions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 97–107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1057343

*Yu, D., Zhang, Y., Xu, Y., Wu, J., & Wang, C. (2013). Improvement in critical thinking dispositions of undergraduate nursing students through problem-based learning: A crossover-experimental study. Journal of Nursing Education, 52 (10), 574–581. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130924-02

*Yuan, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Klunklin, A., & Williams, B. A. (2008b). Promoting critical thinking skills through problem-based learning. Chiang Mai University Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 2(2), 85–99. https://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/CMUS/10613690.pdf

Yuan, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Klunklin, A., & Williams, B. A. (2008a). Improvement of nursing students’ critical thinking skills through problem-based learning in the People’s Republic of China: A quasi-experimental study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 10 , 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2007.00373.x

Zabit, M. N. M. (2010). Problem-based learning on students critical thinking skills in teaching business education in Malaysia: A literature review. American Journal of Business Education, 3 (6), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i6.436

Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 299–315). Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University College Roosevelt, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Sofie M. M. Loyens

Department of Human Development & Quantitative Methodology, College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Julianne E. van Meerten

HU University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Lydia Schaap

Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Lisette Wijnia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofie M. M. Loyens .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Quantitative Analyses of CT Terms.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Loyens, S.M.M., van Meerten, J.E., Schaap, L. et al. Situating Higher-Order, Critical, and Critical-Analytic Thinking in Problem- and Project-Based Learning Environments: A Systematic Review. Educ Psychol Rev 35 , 39 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09757-x

Download citation

Accepted : 23 February 2023

Published : 21 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09757-x

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

• Problem-based learning
• Project-based learning
• Higher-order thinking
• Critical thinking
• Critical-analytic thinking
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Diane F. Halpern, Ph.D.

Dean of social science at the minvera schools at keck graduate insitute, emerita mcelwee family professor of psychology at claremont mckenna college, emerita, thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking.

Link to Purchase on Amazon.com Publisher Information Companion Site

This best-selling textbook, written by award-winning educator and past president of the APA, Diane Halpern, applies theory and research from the learning sciences to teach students the thinking skills they need to succeed in today's world. This new edition retains features from earlier editions that have helped its readers become better thinkers. A rigorous academic grounding based in cognitive psychology is presented in a clear writing style with a humorous tone and supported by numerous practical examples and anecdotes.

Thought & Knowledge, Fifth Edition has been revised to help students meet the challenges of a global neighborhood and make meaningful conclusions form the overwhelming quantity of information now available at the click of a mouse. The skills learned with this text will help students learn more efficiently, research more productively, and present logical, informed arguments.

Reviews for

Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (5th Ed.)

Review from PsycCRITIQUES:

"Being able to come up with creative solutions to problems is recognized as a fundamental 21st century skill—sometimes discussed under the rubric of creativity, innovation, problem solving, critical thinking, reasoning, argumentation, or decision making (National Research Council, 2012). Today’s business learners and educators agree that helping students learn to be effective problem solvers is a primary goal of education, as reflected in current curriculum reform efforts such as the Common Core Standards in the United States (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking by Diane F. Halpern offers a timely and compelling overview of what psychology has to contribute to this 21st century goal of improving students’ ability to think.

The search for ways to improve how people think has a long history in psychology (Mayer, 1992), but recent advances in the research base have enabled psychologists to propose evidence-based strategies for applying cognitive science to education (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013; Halpern, Graesser & Hakel, 2007; Mayer, 2011; Pashler et al., 2008). Halpern’s book builds on these recent advances in applied cognitive psychology while also linking key concepts to their historical roots.

Halpern’s book, now in fifth edition, is even more contemporary today than it was 30 years ago when the first edition appeared at a time when books were handwritten or typed on typewriters and the tools of scholarship did not rely on the Internet. Halpern notes in the preface that “despite all the changes in technology in the last 30 years…the need to think critically has not changed” and “one might argue that it is even more important now that everyone has easy access to more information than they can possibly use and much of that information is biased” (p. xv). Like a polished stone, the fifth edition refines the essential elements that made the previous editions successful, while incorporating much up-to-date material published within the past decade.

The book provides a comprehensive introduction to how thinking works and how to improve how we think—including chapters on critical thinking, memory, language, reasoning, analyzing arguments, hypothesis testing, understanding probabilities, decision making, problem solving, and creativity. The book broadly surveys the key concepts and research findings in the upper half of cognitive psychology dealing with higher cognitive processes, while maintaining a consistent focus on applying cognitive psychology.

I particularly enjoyed the chapter on “Analyzing Arguments,” which provides a step-by-step guide to creating and evaluating arguments. In the chapter we learn how to diagram the structure of an argument, including premises, conclusions, assumptions, qualifiers, and counterarguments. Halpern teaches us to search for missing components that can affect the soundness of an argument, and alerts us to 21 common fallacies. Yet, the chapter also reminds us of the need for psychological research to help test some of the chapter’s suggestions and implications.

Halpern writes in a friendly and personal style that communicates directly with you as the reader, and she keeps you engaged by providing concrete and practical examples. For example, in the reasoning chapter she helps you analyze the logic behind bumper stickers such as, “Off-road users are not abusers” or “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

As a past President of the American Psychological Association and an award winning researcher and teacher, Diane Halpern certainly has the credentials to write Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. She is not only a master researcher and scholar who has contributed to the field of applied cognitive psychology, she is a master teacher who knows how to take scientific material and make it understandable, personally relevant, and enjoyable. It is a treat to read a book on thinking by an undisputed leader in the field, who has been thinking about thinking and refining this book for three decades.

As with any psychology book, choices had to be made about the level of detail in describing research studies. In the interests of providing broad coverage and bottom-line conclusions, the book generally does not offer much detail about the specific methods and results of individual research studies or systematic literature reviews, instead offering general summaries such as, “the jury is still out on the effectiveness of problem-based learning” (p. 454) or “recent reviews found that drawing concept maps is a more effective method for facilitating recall than creating lists or outlines” (p. 156). If you are interested in applying your thinking skills to critiquing the methodological or theoretical soundness of specific research studies or research literatures, this book may not provide sufficient depth.

In short, it is clear that Diane Halpern has made a significant contribution to the field of applied cognitive psychology with the fifth edition of Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Overall, you will find an enjoyable, comprehensive, and current introduction to the field of human thinking, with topics ranging from how to analyze the soundness of an argument to how to think with probabilities, and from how to come up with a creative solution to how to avoid pitfalls in decision making. If you are interested in what psychology has to say about how thinking works and how to improve your thinking, then Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking belongs on your bookshelf." — Richard E. Mayer, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara

“Lots of terrific psychology, introduced clearly and attractively. Undergraduate students will enjoy reading this. I learned a lot.” — Michael Bishop, Professor of Philosophy and Director of Undergraduate Studies, Florida State University

“The level of sophistication about the psychology of reasoning, decision making, risk, etc. is much higher than standard critical thinking texts - as one would expect given the author's credentials.” — Frank Fair, Professor of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, and Managing Editor of Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines

“I continue to be impressed by the breadth of depth of the scholarship presented herein, especially the rich examples and everyday experiences of the author that illustrate her points about critical thinking.” — Dana S. Dunn, Professor of Psychology, Moravian College, and former President of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology

“Diane Halpern has a nice, friendly style and a gift for vivid examples. What her text does really well is marshal the 'factual' material in a way I haven't seen before, and in a way that will engage readers.” — Ken Manktelow, Professor of Psychology, University of Wolverhampton

“. . . remarkably inclusive in its coverage of both modern research findings and the repertoire of approaches to the teaching of reasoning, problem solving, creativity, and decision making. . .The intellectually curious student will find paths of exploration opened by this book, instead of being constrained to someone’s nearly packaged, spuriously confident definitions of good thinking process.” --- Contemporary Psychology

"Diane Halpern's thinking about thinking emerges as a one-of-a-kind multifaceted gem, sparkling in its substance, style, and sensibility. It is just what the doctor ordered for anyone seeking to develop skills in quantitative reasoning, evidence-based argumentation, or simply 'good' thinking. And, despite the formidable challenges presented by such topics, the book triumphs in the 'fireside companion' domain--a sheer delight to read!" —Joel R. Levin, University of Wisconsin

“…Accurate and thorough update about information on critical thinking. …Gives students practical suggestions on how to read and review chapters in textbooks.” It is a recommended text! --- Professions Education Research Quarterly Review.

Chapter 1. Introduction to Psychology

Chapter 1. Critical Thinking Questions

• Why do you think psychology courses like this one are often requirements of so many different programs of study?
• Why do you think many people might be skeptical about psychology being a science?
• Given the incredible diversity among the various areas of psychology that were described in this chapter, how do they all fit together?
• Why is an undergraduate education in psychology so helpful in a number of different lines of work?
• Other than a potentially greater salary, what would be the reasons an individual would continue on to get a graduate degree in psychology?

Introduction to Psychology (A critical approach) Copyright © 2021 by Jill Grose-Fifer; Rose M. Spielman; Kathryn Dumper; William Jenkins; Arlene Lacombe; Marilyn Lovett; and Marion Perlmutter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Critical Thinking Questions

Why do you think psychology courses like this one are often requirements of so many different programs of study?

Why do you think many people might be skeptical about psychology being a science?

How did the object of study in psychology change over the history of the field since the 19th century?

In part, what aspect of psychology was the behaviorist approach to psychology a reaction to?

Given the incredible diversity among the various areas of psychology that were described in this section, how do they all fit together?

What are the potential ethical concerns associated with Milgram’s research on obedience?

Why is an undergraduate education in psychology so helpful in a number of different lines of work?

Other than a potentially greater salary, what would be the reasons an individual would continue on to get a graduate degree in psychology?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-critical-thinking-questions

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Critical thinking definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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