develop critical thinking among science students is

• MISSION / VISION
• DIVERSITY STATEMENT
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
• Kide Science
• STEMscopes Science
• Collaborate Science
• STEMscopes Math
• Math Nation
• STEMscopes Coding
• Mastery Coding
• DIVE-in Engineering
• STEMscopes Streaming
• Tuva Data Literacy
• NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STEM EDUCATION
• STEMSCOPES PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
• RESEARCH & EFFICACY STUDIES
• STEM EDUCATION WEBINARS
• LEARNING EQUITY
• DISTANCE LEARNING
• PRODUCT UPDATES
• LMS INTEGRATIONS
• STEMSCOPES BLOG
• FREE RESOURCES
• TESTIMONIALS

Critical Thinking in Science: Fostering Scientific Reasoning Skills in Students

ALI Staff | Published  July 13, 2023

Thinking like a scientist is a central goal of all science curricula.

As students learn facts, methodologies, and methods, what matters most is that all their learning happens through the lens of scientific reasoning what matters most is that it’s all through the lens of scientific reasoning.

That way, when it comes time for them to take on a little science themselves, either in the lab or by theoretically thinking through a solution, they understand how to do it in the right context.

One component of this type of thinking is being critical. Based on facts and evidence, critical thinking in science isn’t exactly the same as critical thinking in other subjects.

Students have to doubt the information they’re given until they can prove it’s right.

They have to truly understand what’s true and what’s hearsay. It’s complex, but with the right tools and plenty of practice, students can get it right.

What is critical thinking?

This particular style of thinking stands out because it requires reflection and analysis. Based on what's logical and rational, thinking critically is all about digging deep and going beyond the surface of a question to establish the quality of the question itself.

It ensures students put their brains to work when confronted with a question rather than taking every piece of information they’re given at face value.

It’s engaged, higher-level thinking that will serve them well in school and throughout their lives.

Why is critical thinking important?

Critical thinking is important when it comes to making good decisions.

It gives us the tools to think through a choice rather than quickly picking an option — and probably guessing wrong. Think of it as the all-important ‘why.’

Why is that true? Why is that right? Why is this the only option?

Finding answers to questions like these requires critical thinking. They require you to really analyze both the question itself and the possible solutions to establish validity.

Will that choice work for me? Does this feel right based on the evidence?

How does critical thinking in science impact students?

Critical thinking is essential in science.

It’s what naturally takes students in the direction of scientific reasoning since evidence is a key component of this style of thought.

It’s not just about whether evidence is available to support a particular answer but how valid that evidence is.

It’s about whether the information the student has fits together to create a strong argument and how to use verifiable facts to get a proper response.

Critical thinking in science helps students:

• Actively evaluate information
• Identify bias
• Separate the logic within arguments
• Analyze evidence

4 Ways to promote critical thinking

Figuring out how to develop critical thinking skills in science means looking at multiple strategies and deciding what will work best at your school and in your class.

Based on your student population, their needs and abilities, not every option will be a home run.

These particular examples are all based on the idea that for students to really learn how to think critically, they have to practice doing it. 

Each focuses on engaging students with science in a way that will motivate them to work independently as they hone their scientific reasoning skills.

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning centers on critical thinking.

Teachers can shape a project around the thinking style to give students practice with evaluating evidence or other critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking also happens during collaboration, evidence-based thought, and reflection.

For example, setting students up for a research project is not only a great way to get them to think critically, but it also helps motivate them to learn.

Allowing them to pick the topic (that isn’t easy to look up online), develop their own research questions, and establish a process to collect data to find an answer lets students personally connect to science while using critical thinking at each stage of the assignment.

They’ll have to evaluate the quality of the research they find and make evidence-based decisions.

Self-Reflection

Adding a question or two to any lab practicum or activity requiring students to pause and reflect on what they did or learned also helps them practice critical thinking.

At this point in an assignment, they’ll pause and assess independently. 

You can ask students to reflect on the conclusions they came up with for a completed activity, which really makes them think about whether there's any bias in their answer.

Addressing Assumptions

One way critical thinking aligns so perfectly with scientific reasoning is that it encourages students to challenge all assumptions. 

Evidence is king in the science classroom, but even when students work with hard facts, there comes the risk of a little assumptive thinking.

Working with students to identify assumptions in existing research or asking them to address an issue where they suspend their own judgment and simply look at established facts polishes their that critical eye.

They’re getting practice without tossing out opinions, unproven hypotheses, and speculation in exchange for real data and real results, just like a scientist has to do.

Lab Activities With Trial-And-Error

Another component of critical thinking (as well as thinking like a scientist) is figuring out what to do when you get something wrong.

Backtracking can mean you have to rethink a process, redesign an experiment, or reevaluate data because the outcomes don’t make sense, but it’s okay.

The ability to get something wrong and recover is not only a valuable life skill, but it’s where most scientific breakthroughs start. Reminding students of this is always a valuable lesson.

Labs that include comparative activities are one way to increase critical thinking skills, especially when introducing new evidence that might cause students to change their conclusions once the lab has begun.

For example, you provide students with two distinct data sets and ask them to compare them.

With only two choices, there are a finite amount of conclusions to draw, but then what happens when you bring in a third data set? Will it void certain conclusions? Will it allow students to make new conclusions, ones even more deeply rooted in evidence?

Thinking like a scientist

When students get the opportunity to think critically, they’re learning to trust the data over their ‘gut,’ to approach problems systematically and make informed decisions using ‘good’ evidence.

When practiced enough, this ability will engage students in science in a whole new way, providing them with opportunities to dig deeper and learn more.

It can help enrich science and motivate students to approach the subject just like a professional would.

Share this post!

Related articles.

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELP Standards!

There is quite a bit of uncertainty out there about the newly established Instructional Materials Review and Approval...

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

Creating an environment that allows students to engage with fun math activities, versus rote memorization, helps...

Overview of Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) and House Bill 1605

In May 2023, Texas approved a transformative bill (House Bill 1605) that significantly impacts educational funding for...

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Which stem subjects are of interest to you.

STEMscopes Tech Specifications      STEMscopes Security Information & Compliance      Privacy Policy      Terms and Conditions

© 2024 Accelerate Learning

Enhancing Scientific Thinking Through the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

• First Online: 22 September 2019

Cite this chapter

• Heidi Hyytinen 3 ,
• Auli Toom 3 &
• Richard J. Shavelson 4  

1503 Accesses

27 Citations

3 Altmetric

Contemporary higher education is committed to enhancing students’ scientific thinking in part by improving their capacity to think critically, a competence that forms a foundation for scientific thinking. We introduce and evaluate the characteristic elements of critical thinking (i.e. cognitive skills, affective dispositions, knowledge), problematising the domain-specific and general aspects of critical thinking and elaborating justifications for teaching critical thinking. Finally, we argue that critical thinking needs to be integrated into curriculum, learning goals, teaching practices and assessment. The chapter emphasises the role of constructive alignment in teaching and use of a variety of teaching methods for teaching students to think critically in order to enhance their capacity for scientific thinking.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education.

Critical Thinking

A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Ayala, C. C., Shavelson, R. J., Araceli Ruiz-Primo, M., Brandon, P. R., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., et al. (2008). From formal embedded assessments to reflective lessons: The development of formative assessment studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 21 (4), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347787 .

Badcock, P. B. T., Pattison, P. E., & Harris, K.-L. (2010). Developing generic skills through university study: A study of arts, science and engineering in Australia. Higher Education, 60 (4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9308-8 .

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133 .

Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181–193). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Banta, T., & Pike, G. (2012). Making the case against—One more time . Occasional Paper #15. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/HerringPaperFINAL.pdf .

Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51 (2), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7 .

Barrie, S. C. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education, 3 (4), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476100 .

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83 (2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415 .

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2009). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: SRHE and Open University Press.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges. A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brooks, R., & Everett, G. (2009). Post-graduation reflections on the value of a degree. British Educational Research Journal, 35 (3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044370 .

Denton, H., & McDonagh, D. (2005). An exercise in symbiosis: Undergraduate designers and a company product development team working together. The Design Journal, 8 (1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069205789338315 .

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dewey, J. (1941). Propositions, warranted assertibility, and truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 38 (7), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/2017978 .

Dunlap, J. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504858 .

Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19911412 .

Ennis, R. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice, 32 (3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594 .

Evens, M., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2013). Critical thinking in college freshmen: The impact of secondary and higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n3p139 .

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423). Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association.

Fischer, F., Chinn, C. A., Engelmann, K., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (2018). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge . New York, NY: Routledge.

Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14 (2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9 .

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A., et al. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002 .

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge (5th ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Healy, A. (Ed.). (2008). Multiliteracies and diversity in education . Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education—Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51 (2), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5 .

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 .

Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory—A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070342 .

Holma, K. (2015). The critical spirit: Emotional and moral dimensions of critical thinking. Studier I Pædagogisk Filosofi, 4 (1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.7146/spf.v4i1.18280 .

Holma, K., & Hyytinen, H. (equal contribution) (2015). The philosophy of personal epistemology. Theory and Research in Education , 13 (3), 334 – 350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606608 .

Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6 (2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109 .

Hyytinen, H. (2015). Looking beyond the obvious: Theoretical, empirical and methodological insights into critical thinking (Doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki, Studies in Educational Sciences 260. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/154312/LOOKINGB.pdf?sequence=1 .

Hyytinen, H., Löfström, E., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2017). Challenges in argumentation and paraphrasing among beginning students in educational science. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61 (4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1147072 .

Hyytinen, H., Nissinen, K., Ursin, J., Toom, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Problematising the equivalence of the test results of performance-based critical thinking tests for undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.11.001 .

Hyytinen, H., & Toom, A. (2019). Developing a performance assessment task in the Finnish higher education context: Conceptual and empirical insights. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 89 (3), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12283 .

Hyytinen, H., Toom, A., & Postareff, L. (2018). Unraveling the complex relationship in critical thinking, approaches to learning and self-efficacy beliefs among first-year educational science students. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.004 .

Jenert, T. (2014). Implementing-oriented study programmes at university: The challenge of academic culture. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung , 9 (2), 1–12. Retrieved from https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/230455 .

Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Pitten Cate, I. M., & Hörstermann, T. (2018). Teachers’ judgments and decision-making: studies concerning the transition from primary to secondary education and their implications for teacher education. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, & C. Kuhn (Eds.), Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education—Cross-national comparisons and perspectives (pp. 73–101). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_5 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19 (3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360020021455 .

Mills-Dick, K., & Hull, J. M. (2011). Collaborative research: Empowering students and connecting to community. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 17 (4), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182140c2f .

Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., Toom, A., & Ilomäki, L. (2017). Assessment of competences in knowledge work and object-bound collaboration during higher education courses. In E. Kyndt, V. Donche, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: Theory and research (pp. 288–305). London: Routledge.

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology . New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Niiniluoto, I. (1980). Johdatus tieteenfilosofiaan . Helsinki: Otava.

Niiniluoto, I. (1984). Tieteellinen päättely ja selittäminen . Helsinki: Otava.

Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oljar, E., & Koukal, D. R. (2019, February 3). How to make students better thinkers. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Make-Students-Better/245576 .

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The thinker’s guide to scientific thinking: Based on critical thinking concepts and principles . Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (3), 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024 .

Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83 (4), 483–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606 .

Ruiz-Primo, M., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (2), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2%3c260:AID-TEA1005%3e3.0.CO;2-F .

Samarapungavan, A. (2018). Construing scientific evidence: The role of disciplinary knowledge in reasoning with and about evidence in scientific practice. In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 56–76). New York, NY: Routledge.

Segalàs, J., Mulder, K. F., & Ferrer-Balas, D. (2012). What do EESD “experts” think sustainability is? Which pedagogy is suitable to learn it? Results from interviews and Cmaps analysis gathered at EESD 2008. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13 (3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211242599 .

Shavelson, R. J. (2010a). On the measurement of competency. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training , 2 (1), 41–63. Retrieved from http://ervet.ch/pdf/PDF_V2_Issue1/shavelson.pdf .

Shavelson, R. J. (2010b). Measuring college learning responsibly: Accountability in a new era . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Shavelson, R. J. (2018). Discussion of papers and reflections on “exploring the limits of domain-generality”. In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 112–118). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Mariño, J. (2018). International performance assessment of learning in higher education (iPAL): Research and development. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, & C. Kuhn (Eds.). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education—Cross-national comparisons and perspectives (pp. 193–214). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_10 .

Siegel, H. (1991). The generalizability of critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23 (1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1991.tb00173.x .

Strijbos, J., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2015). Criteria and standards of generic competences at bachelor degree level: A review study. Educational Research Review, 14, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.001 .

Tomperi, T. (2017). Kriittisen ajattelun opettaminen ja filosofia. Pedagogisia perusteita. Niin & Näin , 4 (17), 95–112. Retrieved from https://netn.fi/artikkeli/kriittisen-ajattelun-opettaminen-ja-filosofia-pedagogisia-perusteita .

Toom, A. (2017). Teacher’s professional competencies: A complex divide between teacher’s work, teacher knowledge and teacher education. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 803–819). London: Sage.

Tremblay, K., Lalancette, D., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Assessment of higher education learning outcomes. In Feasibility study report. Design and implementation (Vol. 1) . OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/AHELOFSReportVolume1.pdf .

Trigg, R. (2001). Understanding social science: A philosophical introduction to the social sciences . Oxford: Blackwell publishing.

Utriainen, J., Marttunen, M., Kallio, E., & Tynjälä, P. (2016). University applicants’ critical thinking skills: The case of the Finnish educational sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61, 629–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1173092 .

Vartiainen, H., Liljeström, A., & Enkenberg, J. (2012). Design-oriented pedagogy for technology-enhanced learning to cross over the borders between formal and informal environments. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18 (15), 2097–2119. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-018-15-2097 .

Virtanen, A., & Tynjälä, P. (2018). Factors explaining the learning of generic skills: a study of university students’ experiences. Teaching in Higher Education , https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1515195 .

Zahner, D., & Ciolfi, A. (2018). International comparison of a performance-based assessment in higher education. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, & C. Kuhn (Eds.). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education—Cross-national comparisons and perspectives (pp. 215–244). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_11 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Heidi Hyytinen & Auli Toom

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Richard J. Shavelson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidi Hyytinen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Mari Murtonen

Department of Higher Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Kieran Balloo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hyytinen, H., Toom, A., Shavelson, R.J. (2019). Enhancing Scientific Thinking Through the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. In: Murtonen, M., Balloo, K. (eds) Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_3

Published : 22 September 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-24214-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-24215-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Developing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Abilities Through Augmented Reality–Based Argumentation Activities in Science Classes

Tuba demircioglu.

1 Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education/Elementary Science Education, Cukurova University, 01330 Saricam-Adana, Turkey

Memet Karakus

2 Department of Educational Sciences, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and adapting the classes urgently to distance learning, directing students’ interest in the course content became challenging. The solution to this challenge emerges through creative pedagogies that integrate the instructional methods with new technologies like augmented reality (AR). Although the use of AR in science education is increasing, the integration of AR into science classes is still naive. The lack of the ability to identify misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic process has revealed the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in teaching astronomy content. The participants were 79 seventh grade students from a private school. In this case study, the examination of the verbal arguments of students showed that all groups engaged in the argumentation and produced quality arguments. The critical thinking skills of the students developed until the middle of the intervention, and the frequency of using critical thinking skills varied after the middle of the intervention. The findings highlight the role of AR-based argumentation activities in students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation in science education.

Introduction

With rapidly developing technology, the number of children using mobile handheld devices has increased drastically (Rideout et al., 2010 ; Squire, 2006 ). Technologies and digital enhancements that use the internet have become a part of the daily life of school-age children (Kennedy et al., 2008 ), and education evolves in line with the changing technology. Rapidly changing innovation technologies have changed the characteristics of learners in the fields of knowledge, skills, and expertise that are valuable for society, and circumstances for teachers and students have changed over time (Yuen et al., 2011 ). Almost every school subject incorporates technological devices into the pedagogy to different extents, but science teachers are the most eager to use technological devices in science classes because of the nature of the content they are expected to teach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an important impact on educational systems worldwide. Due to the fast-spreading of that disease, the educators had to adapt their classes urgently to technology and distance learning (Dietrich et al., 2020 ), and schools have had to put more effort into adapting new technologies to teaching. Z generation was born into a time of information technology, but they did not choose distance courses that were not created for them so they are not motivated during the classes (Dietrich et al., 2020 ). Directing students’ interest in the course content is challenging, while their interest has changed by this technological development. The solution to this challenge emerges through creative pedagogies that integrate the instructional methods with new striking technology. Augmented reality has demonstrated high potential as part of many teaching methods.

Literature Review

Augmented reality, education, and science education.

AR applications have important potential for many areas where rapid transfer of information is important. This is especially effective for education. Science education is among the disciplines where rapid information transfer is important. Taylor ( 1987 , p. 1) stated that “the transfer of scientific and technological information to children and to the general public is as important as the search for information.” With the rapid change in science and technology and outdating of knowledge, learning needs rapid changes in transfer of information (Ploman, 1987 ). Technology provides new and innovative methods for science education and could be an effective media in promoting students’ learning (Virata & Castro, 2019 ). AR technology could be a promising teaching tool for science teaching in which AR technology is especially applicable (Arici et al., 2019 ).

Research shows that AR has great potential and benefits for learning and teaching (Yuen et al., 2011 ). The AR applications used in teaching and learning present many objects, practices, and experiments that students cannot obtain from the first-hand experience into many different dimensions because of the impossibilities in the real world, and it is an approach that can be applied to many science contents that are unreachable, unobtrusive, and unable to travel (Cai et al., 2013 ; Huang et al., 2019 ; Pellas et al., 2019 ). For example, physically unreachable phenomena such as solar systems, moon phases, and magnetic fields become accessible for learners through AR (Fleck & Simon, 2013 ; Kerawalla et al., 2006 ; Shelton & Hedley, 2002 ; Sin & Zaman, 2010 ; Yen et al., 2013 ). Through AR, learners can obtain instant access to location-specific information provided by a wide range of sources (Yuen et al., 2011 ). Location-based information, when used in particular contextual learning activities, is essential for assisting students’ outdoor learning. This interaction develops comprehension, understanding, imagination, and retention, which are the learning and cognitive skills of learners (Chiang et al., 2014 ). For example, an AR-based mobile learning system was used in the study conducted by Chiang et al. ( 2014 ) on aquatic animals and plants. The location module can identify the students’ GPS location, direct them to discover the target ecological regions, and provide the appropriate learning tasks or additional resources. When students explore various characteristics of learning objects, the camera and image editing modules can take the image from the real environment and make comment on the image of the observed things.

Research reveals that the use of AR technology as part of teaching a subject has the features of being constructivist, problem solving-based, student-centered, authentic, participative, creative, personalized, meaningful, challenging, collaborative, interactive, entertaining, cognitively rich, contextual, and motivational (Dunleavy et al., 2009 ). Despite its advantages and although the use of AR in science education is increasing, the integration of AR into science classes is still naive, and teachers still do not consider themselves as ready for use of AR in their class (Oleksiuk & Oleksiuk, 2020 ; Romano et al., 2020 ) and choose not to use AR technology (Alalwan et al., 2020 ; Garzón et al., 2019 ), because most of them do not have the abilities and motivation to design AR learning practices (Garzón et al., 2019 ; Romano et al., 2020 ). It is thought that the current study will contribute to the use of AR in science lessons and how science teachers will include AR technology in their lessons.

Argumentation, Critical Thinking, and Augmented Reality

New trends in information technologies have contributed to the development of new skills in which people have to struggle with a range of information and evaluate this information. An important point of these skills is the ability to argue with evidence (Jiménez -Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007 ) in which young people create appropriate results from the information and evidence given to them to criticize the claims of others in the direction of the evidence and to distinguish an idea from evidence-based situations (OECD, 2003 , p. 132).

Learning with technologies could produce information and misinformation simultaneously (Chai et al., 2015 ). Misinformation has spread very quickly in public in COVID-19 pandemic, so the lack of the ability to interpret and evaluate the validity and credibility of them arose again (Saribas & Çetinkaya, 2021 ). This process revealed the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities (Erduran, 2020 ) to make decisions and adequate judgments when they encountered contradicting information (Chai et al., 2015 ).

Thinking about different subjects, evaluating the validity of scientific claims, and interpreting and evaluating evidence are important elements of science courses and play important roles in the construction of scientific knowledge (Driver et al., 2000 ). The use of scientific knowledge in everyday life ensures that critical thinking skills come to the forefront. Ennis ( 2011 , p. 1) defined critical thinking as “Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe”. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Puig ( 2012 ) found this definition very broad, and they proposed a comprehensive definition of critical thinking that combines the components of social emancipation and evidence evaluation. It contains the competence to form autonomous ideas as well as the ability to participate in and reflect on the world around us. Figure  1 summarizes this comprehensive definition.

Argumentation levels by groups

Critical thinking skills that include the ability to evaluate arguments and counterarguments in a variety of contexts are very important, and effective argumentation is the focal point of criticism and the informed decision (Nussbaum, 2008 ). Argumentation is defined as the process of making claims about a scientific subject, supporting them with data, using warrants, and criticizing, refuting, and evaluating an idea (Toulmin, 1990 ). Argumentation as an instructional method is an important research area in science education and has received enduring interest from science educators for more than a decade (Erduran et al., 2015 ). Researchers concluded that learners mostly made only claims in the argumentation process and had difficulty producing well-justified and high-quality arguments (Demircioglu & Ucar, 2014 ; Demircioglu & Ucar, 2015 ; Cavagnetto et al., 2010 ; Erdogan et al., 2017 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ; Novak & Treagust, 2017 ). To improve the quality of arguments, students should be given supportive elements to produce more consistent arguments during argumentation. One of these supportive elements is the visual representations of the phenomena.

Visual representations could make it easier to see the structure of the arguments of learners (Akpınar et al., 2014 ) and improve students’ awareness. For example, the number of words and comments used by students or meaningful links in conversations increases with visually enriched arguments (Erkens & Janssen, 2006 ). Sandoval & Millwood ( 2005 ) stated that students should be able to evaluate different kinds of evidence such as digital data and graphic photography to defend their claims. Appropriate data can directly support a claim and allow an argument to be accepted or rejected by students (Lin & Mintzes, 2010 ). Enriched visual representations provide students with detailed and meaningful information about the subject (Clark et al., 2007 ). Students collect evidence for argumentation by observing enriched representations (Clark et al., 2007 ), and these representations help to construct higher-quality arguments (Buckingham Shum et al., 1997 ; Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2003 ). Visualization techniques enable students to observe how objects behave and interact and provide an easy-to-understand presentation of scientific facts that are difficult to understand with textual or oral explanations (Cadmus, 1990 ). In short, technological opportunities to create visually enriched representations increase students’ access to rich data to support their arguments.

Among the many technological opportunities to promote argumentation, AR seems to be the most promising application for instructing school subjects. AR applications are concerned with the combination of computer-generated data (virtual reality) and the real world, where computer graphics are projected onto real-time video images (Dias, 2009 ). In addition, augmented reality provides users with the ability to see a real-world environment enriched with 3D images and to interact in real time by combining virtual objects with the real environment in 3D and showing the spatial relations (Kerawalla et al., 2006 ). AR applications are thus important tools for students’ arguments with the help of detailed and meaningful information and enriched representations. Research studies using AR technology revealed that all students in the study engaged in argumentation and produced arguments (Jan, 2009 ; Squire & Jan, 2007 ).

Many studies focusing on using AR in science education have been published in recent decades. Research studies related to AR in science education have focused on the use of game-based AR in science education (Atwood-Blaine & Huffman, 2017 ; Bressler & Bodzin, 2013 ; Dunleavy et al., 2009 ; López-Faican & Jaen, 2020 ; Squire, 2006 ), academic achievement (Hsiao et al., 2016 ; Faridi et al., 2020 ; Hwang et al., 2016 ; Lu et al., 2020 ; Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020 ;, Yildirim & Seckin-Kapucu, 2020 ), understanding science content and its conceptual understanding (Cai et al., 2021 ; Chang et al., 2013 ; Chen & Liu, 2020 ; Ibáñez et al., 2014 ), attitude (Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020 0; Hwang et al., 2016 ), self-efficacy (Cai et al., 2021 ), motivation (Bressler & Bodzin, 2013 ; Chen & Liu, 2020 ; Kirikkaya & Başgül, 2019 ; Lu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ), and critical thinking skills (Faridi et al., 2020 ; Syawaludin et al., 2019 ). The general trend in these research studies based on the content of “learning/academic achievement,” “understanding science content and its conceptual understanding,” “motivation,” “attitude,” and methodologically quantitative studies was mostly used in articles in science education. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative data to be obtained from studies investigating the use of augmented reality technology in education and focusing on cognitive issues, interaction, and collaborative activities are needed (Arici et al., 2019 ; Cheng & Tsai, 2013 ).

Instructional strategies using AR technology ensure interactions between students and additionally between students and teachers (Hanid et al., 2020 ). Both the technological features of AR and learning strategies should be regarded by the teachers, the curriculum, and AR technology developers to acquire the complete advantage of AR in student learning (Garzón & Acevedo, 2019 ; Garzón et al., 2020 ). Researchers investigated the learning outcomes with AR-integrated learning strategies such as collaborative learning (Baran et al., 2020 ; Chen & Liu, 2020 ; Ke & Carafano, 2016 ), socioscientific reasoning (Chang et al., 2020 ), student-centered hands-on learning activities (Chen & Liu, 2020 ), inquiry-based learning (Radu & Schneider, 2019 ), concept-map learning system (Chen et al., 2019 ), problem-based learning (Fidan & Tuncel, 2019 ), and argumentation (Jan, 2009 ; Squire & Jan, 2007 ) in science learning.

The only two existing studies using both AR and argumentation (Jan, 2009 ; Squire & Jan, 2007 ) focus on environmental education and use location-based augmented reality games through mobile devices to engage students in scientific argumentation. Studies combining AR and argumentation in astronomy education have not been found in the literature. In the current study, AR was integrated with argumentation in teaching astronomy content.

Studies have revealed that many topics in astronomy are very difficult to learn and that students have incorrect and naive concepts (Yu & Sahami, 2007 ). Many topics include three-dimensional (3D) spatial relationships between astronomical objects (Aktamış & Arıcı, 2013 ; Yu & Sahami, 2007 ). However, most of the traditional teaching materials used in astronomy education are two-dimensional (Aktamış & Arıcı, 2013 ). Teaching astronomy through photographs and 2D animations is not sufficient to understand the difficult and complex concepts of astronomy (Chen et al., 2007 ). Static visualization tools such as texts, photographs, and 3D models do not change over time and do not have continuous movement, while dynamic visualization tools such as videos or animations show continuous movement and change over time (Schnotz & Lowe, 2008 ). However, animation is the presentation of images on a computer screen (Rieber & Kini, 1991 ), not in the real world, and the users do not have a chance to manipulate the images (Setozaki et al., 2017 ). As a solution to this shortcoming, using 3D technology in science classes, especially AR technology for abstract concepts, has become a necessity (Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020 ). By facilitating interaction with real and virtual environment and supporting object manipulation, AR is possible to enhance educational benefits (Billinghurst, 2002 ). The students are not passive participants while using AR technology. For example, the animated 3D sun and Earth models are moved on a handheld platform that adjusts its orientation in accordance with the student’s point of view in Shelton’s study ( 2002 ). They found that the ability of students to manage “how” and “when” they are allowed to manipulate virtual 3D objects has a direct impact on learning complex spatial phenomena. Experimental results show that compared with traditional video teaching, AR multimedia video teaching method significantly improves students’ learning (Chen et al., 2022 ).

This study, which integrates argumentation with new striking technology “AR” in astronomy education, clarifies the relationship between them and examines variables such as critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities that are essential in the era we live, making this research important.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to identify the change in critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in teaching astronomy content. The following research questions guided this study:

• RQ1: How do the critical thinking skills of students who participated in both augmented reality and argumentation activities on astronomy change during the study?
• RQ2: How do the argumentation abilities of students who participated in both augmented reality and argumentation activities on astronomy change during the study?

In this case study, we investigated the change of critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities of middle school students. Before the main intervention, a pilot study was conducted to observe the effectiveness of the prepared lesson plans in practice and to identify the problems in the implementation process. The pilot study was recorded with a camera. The camera recordings were watched by the researcher, and the difficulties in the implementation process were identified. In the main intervention, preventions were taken to overcome these difficulties. Table ​ Table1 1 illustrates that the problems encountered during the pilot study and the preventions taken to eliminate these problems.

The solutions to the problems in the pilot study

During the main intervention, qualitative data were collected through observations and audio recordings to determine the change in the critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities of students who participated in both augmented reality and argumentation activities on astronomy.

Context and Participants

The participants consisted of 79 7th middle school students aged between 12 and 13 from a private school in Southern Turkey. The participants were determined as students in a private school where tablet computers are available for each student and the school willing to participate in the study. Twenty-six students, including 17 females and 9 males, participated in the study. The students’ parents signed the consent forms (whether participating or refusing participation in the study). The researcher informed them about the purpose of the study, instructional process, and ethical principles that directed the study. The teachers and school principals were informed that the preliminary and detailed conclusions of the study will be shared with them. The first researcher conducted the lessons in all groups because when the study was conducted, the use of augmented reality technology in education was very new. Also, the science teachers had inadequate knowledge and experience about augmented reality applications. Before the study, the researcher attended the classes with the teacher and made observations to help students become accustomed to the presence of the researcher in the classroom. This prolonged engagement increased the reliability of the implementation of instructions and data collection (Guba & Lincoln, 1989 ).

Instructional Activities

The 3-week, 19-h intervention process, which was based on the prepared lesson plan, was conducted. The students participated in the learning process that included both augmented reality and argumentation activities about astronomy.

Augmented Reality Activities

Free applications such as Star Chart, Sky View Free, Aurasma, Junaio, Augment, and i Solar System were used with students’ tablet computers in augmented reality instructions. Tablet computers were provided by the school administration from their stock. Videos, simulations, and 3D visuals generated by applications were used as “overlays.” In addition, pictures, photographs, colored areas in the worksheets, and students’ textbooks were used as “trigger images.” Students had the opportunity to interact with and manipulate these videos, simulations, and 3D visuals while using the applications. With applications such as Sky View Free and Star Chart, students were provided with the resources to make sky observations.

A detailed description of the activities used in augmented reality is given in Appendix Table ​ Table8 8 .

The activities performed with augmented reality technology

Argumentation Activities

Before the instruction, the students were divided into six groups by the teacher, paying attention to heterogeneity in terms of gender and academic achievement. After small group discussions, the students participated in whole-class discussions. Competing theories cartoons, tables of statements, constructing an argument, and argument-driven inquiry (ADI) frameworks were used to support argumentation in the learning process. Argument-driven inquiry consists of eight steps including the following: identification of the task, the generation and analysis of data, the production of a tentative argument, an argumentation session, an investigation report, a double-blind peer review, revision of the report, and explicit and reflective discussion (Sampson & Gleim, 2009 ; Sampson et al., 2011 ).

A detailed description of the activities used in argumentation is given in Appendix Table ​ Table9 9 .

Activities performed with argumentation

Data Collection

The data were collected through unstructured and participant observations (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994 ; Patton, 2002 ). The instructional intervention was recorded with a video camera, and the students’ argumentation processes were also recorded with a voice recorder.

Since all students spoke at the same time during group discussions, the observation records were insufficient to understand the student talks. To determine what each student in the group said during the argumentation process, a voice recorder was placed in the middle of the group table, and a voice recording was taken throughout the lesson. A total of 2653.99 min of voice recordings were taken in the six groups.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the data was conducted with inductive and deductive approaches. Before coding, the data were arranged. The critical thinking data were organized by day. The argumentation skills were organized by day and also on the basis of the groups. After generating codes during the inductive analysis of the development of critical thinking skills, a deductive approach was adopted (Patton, 2002 ). The critical thinking skills dimensions discussed by Ennis ( 2011 ) and Ennis ( 1991 ) were used to determine the relationship between codes. Ennis ( 2011 ) prepared an outline to distinguish critical thinking dispositions and skills by synthesizing of many years of studies. These critical skills that contain abilities that ideal critical thinkers have were used to generate codes from students’ talks. This skills and abilities were given in Appendix Table ​ Table10. 10 . Then “clarification skills, decision making-supporting skills, inference skills, advanced clarification skills, and other/strategy and techniques skills” discussed by Ennis ( 1991 ) and Ennis ( 2011 ) were used to determine the categories. The change in the argumentation abilities of the students was analyzed descriptively based on the Toulmin argument model (Toulmin, 1990 ) using the data obtained from the students’ voice recordings. The argument structures of each group during verbal argumentation were determined by dividing them into components according to the Toulmin model (Toulmin, 1990 ). The first three items (data, claim, and warrant) in the Toulmin model form the basis of an argument, and the other three items (rebuttal, backing, and qualifier) are subsidiary elements of the argument (Toulmin, 1990 ).

The critical thinking skills and abilities (Ennis, 2011 , pp. 2–4)

Some quotations regarding the analysis of the arguments according to the items are given in Appendix Table ​ Table11 11 .

Quotations regarding the analysis of the arguments according to the items

Arguments from the whole group were put into stages based on the argumentation-level model developed by Erduran et al. ( 2004 ) to examine the changes in each lesson and to make comparisons between the small groups of students. By considering the argument model developed by Toulmin, Erduran et al. ( 2004 ) created a five-level framework for the assessment of the quality of argumentation supposing that the quality of the arguments including rebuttals was high. The framework is given in Table ​ Table2 2 .

The framework for the assessment of the quality of argumentation (Erduran et al., 2004 ; pp. 928)

Validity and Reliability

To confirm the accuracy and validity of the analysis, method triangulation, triangulation of data sources, and analyst triangulation were used (Patton, 2002 ).

For analyst triangulation, the qualitative findings were also analyzed independently by a researcher studying in the field of critical thinking and argumentation, and then these evaluations made by the researchers were compared.

Video and audio recordings of intervention and documents from the activities were used for the triangulation of data sources. In addition, the data were described in detail without interpretation. Additionally, within the reliability and validity efforts, direct quotations were given in the findings. In this sense, for students, codes such as S1, S2, and S3 were used, and the source of data, group number, and relevant date of the conversation were included at the end of the quotations.

In addition, experts studying in the field of critical thinking and argumentation were asked to verify all data and findings. After the process of reflection and discussion with experts, the codes, subcategories, and categories were revised.

For reliability, some of the data randomly selected from the written transcripts of the students’ audio recordings were also coded by a second encoder, and the interrater agreement between the two coders, determined by Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1960 ), was κ = 0.86, which is considered high reliability.

Development of Critical Thinking Ability

The development of critical thinking skills was given separately for the trend drastically changed on the day when the first skills were used by the students. All six dimensions of critical thinking skills were included in students’ dialogs or when there was a decrease in the number of categories of critical thinking skills.

The codes, subcategories, and categories of critical thinking skills that occurred on the first day (dated 11.05) are given in Table ​ Table3 3 .

The codes, subcategories, and categories of critical thinking skills that occurred on the first day

Clarification skills, inference skills, other/strategy and technical skills, advanced clarification skills, and decision-making/supporting skills occurred on the first day. The students mostly used decision-making/supporting skills ( f  = 55). Under the decision-making/supporting skills category, students mostly explained observation data ( f  = 37). S7, S1, and S20 stated the data they presented about their observations with the Star Chart and Sky View applications as follows:

S7: Venus is such a yellowish reddish colour.

S1: What was the colour? Red and big. The moon’s color is white.

S20: Not white here.

S20: It’s not white here. (Audio Recordings (AuR), Group 2 / 11.05).

Additionally, S19 mentioned the observation data with the words “I searched Saturn. It is bright. It does not vibrate. It is yellow and it’s large.” (AuR, Group 2 / 11.05).

Decision-making/supporting skills were followed by inference ( f  = 17), clarification ( f  = 13), advanced clarification ( f  = 5), and skills and other/strategy technical skills ( f  = 1).

In Table ​ Table4, 4 , the categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the fifth day (dated 18.05) are presented.

The categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the fifth day

It was observed for the first time on the fifth day that all six dimensions of critical thinking skills were included in students’ dialogs. These are, according to the frequency of use, inference ( f  = 152), decision-making/support ( f  = 116), clarification ( f  = 43), advanced clarification ( f  = 8), other/strategy and technique ( f  = 3), and suppositional thinking and integrational ( f  = 2) skills.

On this date, judging the credibility of the source from decision-making/supporting skills ( f  = 1) was the skill used for the first time.

Unlike other days, for the first time, a student tried to prove his thoughts with an analogy in advanced clarification skills. An exemplary dialogue to this finding is as follows:

S19: Even the Moon remains constant, we will see different faces of the moon because the Earth revolves around its axis.

S6: I also say that it turns at the same speed. So, for example, when this house turns like this while we return in the same way, we always see the same face. (AuR, 18.05, Group 2).

Here, S6 tried to explain to his friend that they always see the same face of the moon by comparing how they see the same face of the house.

In Table ​ Table5, 5 , the categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the sixth day (dated 21.05) are included.

The categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the sixth day

There is a decrease in the number of categories of critical thinking skills. It was determined that the students used mostly inference skills in three categories ( f  = 38). Additionally, students used decision-making/support ( f  = 34) and clarification ( f  = 9) skills. In inference skills, it is seen that students often make claims ( f  = 33) and rarely infer from the available data ( f  = 4).

Among the decision-making/support skills, students mostly used the skill to give reasons ( f  = 28). S24 accepted herself as Uranus during the activity, and she gave reason to make Saturn as an enemy like that: “No, Saturn would be my enemy too. Its ring is more distinctive, it can be seen from the Earth, its ring is more beautiful than me.” (AuR, 21.05, Group 3/).

The categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the ninth day (dated 28.05) are presented in Table ​ Table6 6 .

The categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the ninth day

In the course of the day dated 28.05, six categories of critical thinking skills were observed: clarification, inference, other/strategy and technique, advanced clarification, decision-making/support, suppositional thinking and integration skills. Furthermore, the subcategories under these categories are also very diverse.

There are 10 subcategories under clarification skills ( f  = 57), which are the most commonly used skills. The frequency of using these skills is as follows: asking his friend about his opinion ( f  = 15), asking questions to clarify the situation ( f  = 12), explaining his statement ( f  = 10), summarizing the solutions of other groups ( f  = 7), asking for a detailed explanation ( f  = 4), summarizing the idea ( f  = 3), explaining the solution proposal ( f  = 2), asking for a reason ( f  = 2), focusing on the question ( f  = 1), and asking what the tools used in experiment do ( f  = 1) skills. Explaining the solution proposal, asking what the tools used in the experiment do, and focusing on the question are the first skills used by the students.

When the qualitative findings regarding the critical thinking skills of the students were examined as a whole, it was determined that there was an improvement in the students’ critical thinking skills dimensions in the lessons held in the first 5 days (between 11.05 and 18.05). There was a decrease in the number of critical thinking skills dimensions in the middle of the intervention (21.05). However, after this date, there was an increase again in the number of critical thinking skills dimensions; and on the last day of the intervention, all the critical thinking skills dimensions were used by the students. In addition, it was determined that the skills found under these dimensions showed great variety at this date. Only in the middle (18.05) and on the last day (28.05) of the intervention did students use the skills in the six dimensions of critical thinking.

It was determined that students used mostly decision-making/support, inference, and clarification skills. According to the days, it was determined that the students mostly used inference skills (12.05, 15.05, 18.05, and 21.05) among these skills.

The Argumentation Abilities of the Students

Argument structures in students’ verbal argumentation activities.

Instead of the argument structures of all groups, only an example of one group is presented because of including both basic and subsidiary items in the Toulmin argument model. In Table ​ Table7, 7 , the argument structures in the verbal argumentation activities of the fourth group of students are presented due to the use of the “rebuttal” item.

The argument structures in the verbal argumentation activities of the fourth group of students

When the argument structures in the verbal argumentation process of the six groups were examined, it was found that all groups engaged in the argumentation and produced arguments. In the activities, students mostly made claims. This was followed by data and warrant items. In the “the phases of the moon” activity, it was determined that only the second and fourth groups used rebuttal and the other groups did not.

The number of rebuttals used by the groups is lower in “the planets-table of statements” activity than in other activities. The rebuttals used are also weak. The use of rebuttals differs in the “who is right?” and “urgent solution to space pollution” activities. The number of rebuttal students used in these activities is higher than that in the other activities. The quality rebuttals are also higher.

When the structure of the warrants is examined, there are more unscientific warrants in the “urgent solution to space pollution” and “who is right” activities, while the correct scientific and partially correct scientific warrants were more frequently used in the “the phases of the moon” and “the planets table of statements” activities.

When the models related to the argument structures are examined in general, it was found that there is a decrease in the type of items used and the number of uses in the “the phases of the moon” and “the planets-table of statements” activities rather than the “urgent solution to space pollution” and “who is right” activities.

When the results were analyzed in terms of groups, it was determined that the argument structures of the second and fourth groups showed more variety than those of the other groups.

The Change of Argumentation Levels

The argumentation levels achieved by six groups created in the “who is right,” “ the planets-table of statements,” “phases of the moon,” and “urgent solution to space pollution” activities are shown in Fig.  2 .

A characterization of the components of critical thinking (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012 , p. 6)

In the first verbal argumentation activity, “who is right?,” the arguments achieved by the five of the six groups were at level 5. Additionally, the arguments achieved by one group, which was group 6, were at level 4.

In the second verbal argumentation activity “table of statements,” a decrease was determined at the levels of the argumentation of the other groups except group 1 and group 3. In the “the phases of the moon” activity, there was a decrease at the level of argumentation achieved by the other groups except for group 2 and group 4. In the last argumentation activity, “urgent solution to space pollution,” it was found that the arguments of all groups were at level 5.

Conclusions and Discussion

The critical thinking skills of the students developed until the middle of the intervention, and the frequency of using critical thinking skills varied after the middle of the intervention. When the activities in the lessons were examined, on the days when critical thinking skills were frequently used, activities including argumentation methods were performed. Based on this situation, it could be revealed that the frequency of using critical thinking skills by students varies according to the use of the argumentation method.

Argumentation is defined as the process of making claims about a scientific subject, supporting them with data, providing reasons for proof, and criticizing, rebutting, and evaluating an idea (Toulmin, 1990 ). According to the definition of argumentation, these processes are also in the subdimensions of critical thinking skills. The ability to provide reasons for critical thinking skills in decision-making/supporting skills is the equivalent of providing reasons for proof in the argumentation process using warrants in the Toulmin argument model. Different types of claims under inference skills are related to making claims in the argumentation process, and rejecting a judgment is related to rebutting an idea in the argumentation process. In this context, the argumentation method is thought to contribute to the development of critical thinking skills within AR.

Another qualitative finding reached in the study is that the skills most used in the subdimensions differ according to the days. This can be explained by the different types of activities performed in each lesson. For example, on the day when the ability to explain observation data was used the most, students observed the sky, constellations, and galaxies with the Star Chart or Sky View applications or observed the planets with the i-Solar System application, and they presented the data they obtained during these observations.

Regarding the verbal argumentation structure of the groups, the findings imply that all groups engaged in argumentation and produced arguments. This finding presented evidence with qualitative data to further verify Squire & Jan’s ( 2007 ) research conducted with primary, middle, and high school students to investigate the potential of a location-based AR game in environmental science concluding that all groups engaged in argumentation. Similarly, Jan ( 2009 ) investigated the experience of three middle school students and their argumentative discourse on environmental education using a location-based AR game, and it was found that all students participated in argumentation and produced arguments.

Another finding in the current study was that students mostly made claims in the activities. This situation can be interpreted as students being strong in expressing their opinions. Similar findings are found in the literature (Author, 20xxa; Cavagnetto et al., 2010 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ; Novak & Treagust, 2017 ). In addition, it was concluded that the students failed to use warrants and data, they could not support their claims with the data, and they did not use “rebuttal” in these studies. However, in this study in which both augmented reality applications and argumentation methods were used, students mostly made contradictory claims and used data and warrants in their arguments. This situation can be interpreted as students being strong in defending their opinions. Additionally, although it was stated in many of the studies that students’ argumentation levels were generally at level 1 or level 2 (Erdogan et al., 2017 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ; Venville & Dawson, 2010 ; Zohar & Nemet, 2002 ), it was found that most of the students’ arguments were at level 4 and level 5 in the current study. Arguments are considered to be high quality in line with the existence of rebuttals, and discussions involving rebuttals are characterized as having a high level of argumentation (Aufschnaiter et al., 2008 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ). Students used rebuttals in their arguments, and their arguments were at high levels, which indicates that students could produce quality arguments. The reason for these findings to differ from those of other studies may be due to the augmented reality technology used in the current study. Enriched representations make it easier to see the structure of arguments (Akpınar et al., 2014 ), helping students to improve their awareness, increase the number of words they use and comments they make (Erkens & Janssen, 2006 ), and provide important information about the subject (Clark et al., 2007 ). By observing enriched representations, students collect evidence for argumentation (Clark & Sampson, 2008 ) and explore different points of view to support their claim (Oestermeier & Hesse, 2000 ). AR technology, which includes enriched representations, may have increased the accessibility of rich data to support students’ arguments; and using these data has helped them to support their arguments and enabled them to discover different perspectives. For example, S4 explained that the statement in the table is incorrect because she observed Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune having rings around them in the application “I-solar system” as Uranus. She used the data obtained in the AR application to support her claim.

When the models related to the argument structures are examined in general, it was concluded that the type of items, the number of items, and the rebuttals used in scientific activities were less than those in the activities involving socioscientific issues. The rebuttals used were also weak. There are also findings in the literature that producing arguments on scientific issues is more difficult than producing arguments on socioscientific issues (Osborne et al., 2004 ).

When the structure of the warrants in the students’ arguments was examined, it was seen that there are more nonscientific warrants in socioscientific activities, and the scientific and partially scientific warrants are more in the activities that contain scientific subjects. This shows that students were unable to combine what they have learned in science with socioscientific issues. Albe ( 2008 ) and Kolsto ( 2001 ) stated that scientific knowledge is very low in students’ arguments on socioscientific issues. Similarly, the results of the studies conducted in the related literature support this view (Demircioglu & Ucar, 2014 ; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006 ; Wu & Tsai, 2007 ).

When the argument structures in the activities are analyzed by groups, the argument structures of the two groups vary more than the other groups, and the argumentation levels of these groups are at level 4 and level 5. This might be because some students have different prior knowledge about subjects. Different studies have also indicated that content knowledge plays an important role in the quality of students’ arguments (Acar, 2008 ; Aufschnaiter et al., 2008 ; Clark & Sampson, 2008 ; Cross et al., 2008 ; Sampson & Clark, 2011 ). In many studies, it has been emphasized that the most important thing affecting the choice and process of knowledge is previous information (Stark et al., 2009 ). To better understand how previous information affects argumentation quality in astronomy education, investigating the relationship between middle school students’ content knowledge and argumentation quality could be a direction of future research.

Limitations and Future Research

There are some limitations in this study. First, this study was implemented in a private school. Therefore, the results are true for these students. Future research is necessary to be performed with the students in public schools. Second, the researcher conducted the lessons because the science teacher had no ability to design AR learning practices. Teachers and students creating their own AR experiences is an important way to bring the learning outcomes of AR available to a wider audience (Romano et al., 2020 ). Further research can be conducted in which the science teacher of the class is the instructor. Another limitation of the study is that the instruction with AR-based argumentation was time-consuming, and the time allocated for the “Solar System and Beyond” unit in the curriculum was not sufficient for the implementation, because students tried to understand to use AR applications, and they needed time to reflect on the activities despite prior training on AR before the instructional process. This situation may cause cognitive overload (Alalwan et al., 2020 ). The adoption and implementation of educational technologies are more difficult and time-consuming than other methods (Parker & Heywood, 1998 ). A longer period is needed to prepare student-centered and technology-supported activities.

Tables ​ Tables8, 8 , ​ ,9, 9 , ​ ,10 10 and ​ and11 11

This study is a part of Tuba Demircioğlu’s dissertation supported by the Cukurova University Scientific Research Projects (grant number: SDK20153929).

The manuscript is part of first author’s PhD dissertation. The study was reviewed and approved by the PhD committee in the Cukurova University Faculty of Education, as well as by the committee of Ministry of National Education. The parents of students were provided with written informed consent.

Declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

Tuba Demircioglu, Email: moc.liamg@ulgoicrimedabut .

Memet Karakus, Email: moc.liamg@skkmem .

Sedat Ucar, Email: moc.liamg@racutades .

• Acar, O. (2008).  Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class . (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1228972473&disposition=inline
• Akpınar Y, Ardaç D, Er-Amuce N. Development and validation of an argumentation based multimedia science learning environment: Preliminary findings. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 116 :3848–3853. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.853. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aktamış H, Arıcı VA. The effects of using virtual reality software in teaching astronomy subjects on academic achievement and retention. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 2013; 9 (2):58–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alalwan N, Cheng L, Al-Samarraie H, Yousef R, Alzahrani AI, Sarsam SM. Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: A developing country perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2020; 66 :100876. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100876. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albe V. When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education. 2008; 38 (1):67–90. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arici F, Yildirim P, Caliklar Ş, Yilmaz RM. Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education. 2019; 142 :103647. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atwood-Blaine D, Huffman D. Mobile gaming and student interactions in a science center: The future of gaming in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017; 15 (1):45–65. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9801-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baran B, Yecan E, Kaptan B, Paşayiğit O. Using augmented reality to teach fifth grade students about electrical circuits. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25 (2):1371–1385. doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-10001-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billinghurst M. Augmented reality in education. New Horizons for Learning. 2002; 12 (5):1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bressler DM, Bodzin AM. A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013; 29 (6):505–517. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buckingham Shum SJ, MacLean A, Bellotti VM, Hammond NV. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction. 1997; 12 (3):267–300. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1203_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cadmus RR., Jr A video technique to facilitate the visualization of physical phenomena. American Journal of Physics. 1990; 58 (4):397–399. doi: 10.1119/1.16483. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai S, Chiang FK, Wang X. Using the augmented reality 3D technique for a convex imaging experiment in a physics course. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2013; 29 (4):856–865. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chai CS, Deng F, Tsai PS, Koh JHL, Tsai CC. Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2015; 16 (3):389–398. doi: 10.1007/s12564-015-9379-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai S, Liu C, Wang T, Liu E, Liang JC. Effects of learning physics using augmented reality on students’ self-efficacy and conceptions of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021; 52 (1):235–251. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavagnetto A, Hand BM, Norton-Meier L. The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education. 2010; 32 (4):427–449. doi: 10.1080/09500690802627277. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang HY, Wu HK, Hsu YS. Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013; 44 (3):95–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01379.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang HY, Liang JC, Tsai CC. Students’ context-specific epistemic justifications, prior knowledge, engagement, and socioscientific reasoning in a mobile augmented reality learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2020; 29 (3):399–408. doi: 10.1007/s10956-020-09825-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen SY, Liu SY. Using augmented reality to experiment with elements in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 111 (2020):106418. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106418. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CH, Yang JC, Shen S, Jeng MC. A desktop virtual reality earth motion system in astronomy education. Educational Technology & Society. 2007; 10 (3):289–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CH, Huang CY, Chou YY. Effects of augmented reality-based multidimensional concept maps on students’ learning achievement, motivation and acceptance. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2019; 18 (2):257–268. doi: 10.1007/s10209-017-0595-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CC, Chen HR, Wang TY. Creative situated augmented reality learning for astronomy curricula. Educational Technology & Society. 2022; 25 (2):148–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng KH, Tsai CC. Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2013; 22 (4):449–462. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9405-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiang THC, Yang SJH, Hwang GJ. An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2014; 17 (4):352–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark DB, Sampson V. Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2008; 45 (3):293–321. doi: 10.1002/tea.20216. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark DB, Stegmann K, Weinberger A, Menekse M, Erkens G. Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In: Erduran S, Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, editors. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer; 2007. pp. 217–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960; 20 (1):37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross D, Taasoobshirazi G, Hendricks S, Hickey DT. Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education. 2008; 30 (6):837–861. doi: 10.1080/09500690701411567. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demircioglu T, Ucar S. Investigation of written arguments about Akkuyu nuclear power plant. Elementary Education Online. 2014; 13 (4):1373–1386. [ Google Scholar ]
• Demircioglu T, Ucar S. Investigation the effect of argument-driven inquiry in laboratory instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2015; 15 (1):267–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias A. Technology enhanced learning and augmented reality: An application on multimedia interactive books. International Business & Economics Review. 2009; 1 (1):69–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dietrich N, Kentheswaran K, Ahmadi A, Teychené J, Bessière Y, Alfenore S, Laborie S, Hébrard G. Attempts, successes, and failures of distance learning in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education. 2020; 97 (9):2448–2457. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00717. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education. 2000; 84 :287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2009; 18 (1):7–22. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis RH. Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In: Costa A, editor. Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1991. pp. 68–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Illinois College of Education. https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf
• Erdogan I, Ciftci A, Topcu MS. Examination of the questions used in science lessons and argumentation levels of students. Journal of Baltic Science Education. 2017; 16 (6):980–993. doi: 10.33225/jbse/17.16.980. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erduran S. Science education in the era of a pandemic: How can history, philosophy and sociology of science contribute to education for understanding and solving the Covid-19 crisis? Science & Education. 2020; 29 :233–235. doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00122-w. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erduran S, Simon S, Osborne J. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education. 2004; 88 (6):915–933. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erduran S, Özdem Y, Park JY. Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education. 2015; 2 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2006). Automatic coding of communication in collaboration protocols. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS) , (pp. 1063–1064). International Society of the Learning Sciences. 10.5555/1150034
• Faridi H, Tuli N, Mantri A, Singh G, Gargrish S. A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in Physics. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. 2020; 29 :258–273. doi: 10.1002/cae.22342. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fidan M, Tuncel M. Integrating augmented reality into problem based learning: The effects on learning achievement and attitude in physics education. Computers & Education. 2019; 142 :103635. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103635. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleck, S., & Simon, G. (2013, November). An augmented reality environment for astronomy learning in elementary grades: An exploratory study. In  Proceedings of the 25th Conference on l ’ Interaction Homme-Machine  (pp. 14–22). ACM.
• Garzón J, Acevedo J. Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review. 2019; 27 :244–260. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Reality , 1–13
• Garzón, J., Baldiris, S., Gutiérrez, J., & Pavón, J. (2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis.  Educational Research Review , 100334.
• Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Sage Publications.
• Hanid MFA, Said MNHM, Yahaya N. Learning strategies using augmented reality technology in education: Meta-analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8 (5A):51–56. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.081908. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiao HS, Chang CS, Lin CY, Wang YZ. Weather observers: A manipulative augmented reality system for weather simulations at home, in the classroom, and at a museum. Interactive Learning Environments. 2016; 24 (1):205–223. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.834829. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang KT, Ball C, Francis J, Ratan R, Boumis J, Fordham J. Augmented versus virtual reality in education: An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2019; 22 (2):105–110. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang GJ, Wu PH, Chen CC, Tu NT. Effects of an augmented reality-based educational game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning Environments. 2016; 24 (8):1895–1906. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1057747. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibáñez MB, Di Serio Á, Villarán D, Kloos CD. Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education. 2014; 71 :1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jan, M. (2009). Designing an augmented reality game-based curriculum for argumentation . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• Jermann P, Dillenbourg P. Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In: Andriessen J, Baker M, Suthers D, editors. Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Springer; 2003. pp. 205–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez –Aleixandre MP, Erduran S. Argumentation in science education: An overview. In: Erduran S, Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, editors. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer; 2007. pp. 3–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In  Second international handbook of science education  (pp. 1001–1015). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Ke F, Carafano P. Collaborative science learning in an immersive flight simulation. Computers & Education. 2016; 103 :114–123. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy G, Dalgarno B, Bennett S, Judd T, Gray K, Chang R. Immigrants and natives: Investigating differences between staff and students’ use of technology. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings Ascilite Melbourne. 2008; 2008 :484–492. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerawalla L, Luckin R, Seljeflot S, Woolard A. “Making it real”: Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality. 2006; 10 (3–4):163–174. doi: 10.1007/s10055-006-0036-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirikkaya EB, Başgül MŞ. The effect of the use of augmented reality applications on the academic success and motivation of 7th grade students. Journal of Baltic Science Education. 2019; 18 (3):362. doi: 10.33225/jbse/19.18.362. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolsto SD. ‘To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education. 2001; 23 (9):877–901. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin SS, Mintzes JJ. Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2010; 8 (6):993–1017. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9215-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López-Faican L, Jaen J. Emofindar: Evaluation of a mobile multiplayer augmented reality game for primary school children. Computers & Education. 2020; 149 (2020):103814. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103814. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu SJ, Liu YC, Chen PJ, Hsieh MR. Evaluation of AR embedded physical puzzle game on students’ learning achievement and motivation on elementary natural science. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020; 28 (4):451–463. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1541908. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. The Falmer Press.
• Novak AM, Treagust DF. Adjusting claims as new evidence emerges: Do students incorporate new evidence into their scientific explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2017; 55 (4):526–549. doi: 10.1002/tea.21429. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nussbaum EM. Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2008; 33 (3):345–359. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2003. OECD Publishing; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oestermeier U, Hesse FW. Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition. 2000; 75 (1):65–104. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00060-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oleksiuk, V.P., Oleksiuk, O.R. (2020). Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching school computer science. In Burov, O.Yu., Kiv, A.E. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Augmented Reality in Education (AREdu 2020) (pp. 91–107).
• Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S. Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004; 41 (10):994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker J, Heywood D. The earth and beyond: Developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education. 1998; 20 :503–520. doi: 10.1080/0950069980200501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3. Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pellas N, Fotaris P, Kazanidis I, Wells D. Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school education: A systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality. 2019; 23 (4):329–346. doi: 10.1007/s10055-018-0347-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ploman, E. W. (1987), Global learning: A challenge. In C. A., Taylor (Ed.) Science education and information transfer (pp. 75–80). Oxford: Pergamon (for ICSU Press).
• Radu, I., & Schneider, B. (2019). What can we learn from augmented reality (AR)? Benefits and drawbacks of AR for inquiry-based learning of physics. In  Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems  (pp. 1–12).
• Rideout VJ, Foehr UG, Roberts DF. Generation M [superscript 2]: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rieber LP, Kini AS. Theoretical foundations of instructional applications of computer-generated animated visuals. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction. 1991; 18 :83e88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romano, M., Díaz, P., & Aedo, I. (2020). Empowering teachers to create augmented reality experiences: The effects on the educational experience.  Interactive Learning Environments , 1–18.
• Sadler TD, Donnelly LA. Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education. 2006; 28 (12):1463–1488. doi: 10.1080/09500690600708717. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahin D, Yilmaz RM. The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education. Computers & Education. 2020; 144 (2020):103710. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103710. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson V, Clark DB. A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education. 2011; 41 (1):63–97. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson V, Gleim L. Argument-driven ınquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher. 2009; 71 (8):465–472. doi: 10.2307/20565359. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson V, Grooms J, Walker JP. Argument-driven ınquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education. 2011; 95 (2):217–257. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandoval WA, Millwood KA. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction. 2005; 23 (1):23–55. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saribas D, Çetinkaya E. Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about COVID-19 in an online course. Science & Education. 2021; 30 (2):235–266. doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00181-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnotz W, Lowe RK. A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In: Lowe RK, Schnotz W, editors. Learning with animation: Research implications for design. Cambridge University Press; 2008. pp. 304–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Setozaki N, Suzuki K, Iwasaki T, Morita Y. Development and evaluation of the usefulness of collaborative learning on the tangible AR learning equipment for astronomy education. Educational Technology Research. 2017; 40 (1):71–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shelton, B. E. & Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching earth-sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. In Augmented Reality Toolkit, The First IEEE International Workshop (8).
• Sin AK, Zaman HB. Live solar system (LSS): Evaluation of an augmented reality book-based educational tool. In Proceedings of 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology. 2010; 1 :1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Squire K. From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher. 2006; 35 (8):19–29. doi: 10.3102/0013189X035008019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Squire KD, Jan M. Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2007; 16 (1):5–29. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark R, Puhl T, Krause UM. Improving scientific argumentation skills by a problem-based learning environment: Effects of an elaboration tool and relevance of student characteristics. Evaluation & Research in Education. 2009; 22 (1):51–68. doi: 10.1080/09500790903082362. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Syawaludin A, Gunarhadi R, P. Development of augmented reality-based interactive multimedia to improve critical thinking skills in science learning. International Journal of Instruction. 2019; 12 (4):331–344. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12421a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor, C. A. (1987). Science education and information transfer (pp.1–15). Oxford: Pergamon (for ICSU Press)
• Toulmin, S. E. (1990). The uses of argument (10th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Venville GJ, Dawson VM. The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010; 47 (8):952–977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Virata, R. O., & Castro, J. D. L. (2019). Augmented reality in science classroom: Perceived effects in education, visualization and information processing. In  Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning  (pp. 85–92).
• Von Aufschnaiter C, Erduran S, Osborne J, Simon S. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2008; 45 (1):101–131. doi: 10.1002/tea.20213. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu YT, Tsai CC. High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education. 2007; 29 (9):1163–1187. doi: 10.1080/09500690601083375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yen JC, Tsai CH, Wu M. Augmented reality in the higher education: Students’ science concept learning and academic achievement in astronomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 103 :165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yildirim I, Seckin-Kapucu M. The effect of augmented reality applications in science education on academic achievement and retention of 6th grade students. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health. 2020; 7 (1):56–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu, K. C., & Sahami, K. (2007). Visuospatial astronomy education in immersive digital planetariums.  Communicating Astronomy with the Public , 242–245.
• Yuen S, Yaoyuneyong G, Johnson E. Augmented reality: An overview and five directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 2011; 4 (1):119–140. doi: 10.18785/jetde.0401.10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J, Sung Y-T, Hou H-T, Chang K-E. The development and evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical observation instruction. Computers & Education. 2014; 73 :178–188. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zohar A, Nemet F. Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2002; 39 (1):35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Distance Learning

Using technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills.

by Jessica Mansbach

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a higher-order cognitive skill that is indispensable to students, readying them to respond to a variety of complex problems that are sure to arise in their personal and professional lives. The  cognitive skills at the foundation of critical thinking are  analysis, interpretation, evaluation, explanation, inference, and self-regulation.  

When students think critically, they actively engage in these processes:

• Communication
• Problem-solving

To create environments that engage students in these processes, instructors need to ask questions, encourage the expression of diverse opinions, and involve students in a variety of hands-on activities that force them to be involved in their learning.

Types of Critical Thinking Skills

Instructors should select activities based on the level of thinking they want students to do and the learning objectives for the course or assignment. The chart below describes questions to ask in order to show that students can demonstrate different levels of critical thinking.

*Adapted from Brown University’s Harriet W Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Using Online Tools to Teach Critical Thinking Skills

Online instructors can use technology tools to create activities that help students develop both lower-level and higher-level critical thinking skills.

• Example: Use Google Doc, a collaboration feature in Canvas, and tell students to keep a journal in which they reflect on what they are learning, describe the progress they are making in the class, and cite course materials that have been most relevant to their progress. Students can share the Google Doc with you, and instructors can comment on their work.
• Example: Use the peer review assignment feature in Canvas and manually or automatically form peer review groups. These groups can be anonymous or display students’ names. Tell students to give feedback to two of their peers on the first draft of a research paper. Use the rubric feature in Canvas to create a rubric for students to use. Show students the rubric along with the assignment instructions so that students know what they will be evaluated on and how to evaluate their peers.
• Example: Use the discussions feature in Canvas and tell students to have a debate about a video they watched. Pose the debate questions in the discussion forum, and give students instructions to take a side of the debate and cite course readings to support their arguments.  
• Example: Us e goreact , a tool for creating and commenting on online presentations, and tell students to design a presentation that summarizes and raises questions about a reading. Tell students to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s argument. Students can post the links to their goreact presentations in a discussion forum or an assignment using the insert link feature in Canvas.
• Example:  Use goreact, a narrated Powerpoint, or a Google Doc and instruct students to tell a story that informs readers and listeners about how the course content they are learning is useful in their professional lives. In the story, tell students to offer specific examples of readings and class activities that they are finding most relevant to their professional work. Links to the goreact presentation and Google doc can be submitted via a discussion forum or an assignment in Canvas. The Powerpoint file can be submitted via a discussion or submitted in an assignment.

Pulling it All Together

Critical thinking is an invaluable skill that students need to be successful in their professional and personal lives. Instructors can be thoughtful and purposeful about creating learning objectives that promote lower and higher-level critical thinking skills, and about using technology to implement activities that support these learning objectives. Below are some additional resources about critical thinking.

Additional Resources

Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site.  Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice ,  9 (1), 4.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review.  Pearson’s Research Reports ,  6 , 40-41.

Landers, H (n.d.). Using Peer Teaching In The Classroom. Retrieved electronically from https://tilt.colostate.edu/TipsAndGuides/Tip/180

Lynch, C. L., & Wolcott, S. K. (2001). Helping your students develop critical thinking skills (IDEA Paper# 37. In  Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to Promote Critical Thinking. Insight: A collection of faculty scholarship , 1 , 41-50.

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

Insight Assessment: Measuring Thinking Worldwide

http://www.insightassessment.com/

Michigan State University’s Office of Faculty  & Organizational Development, Critical Thinking: http://fod.msu.edu/oir/critical-thinking

The Critical Thinking Community

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Related Posts

Scripts, Images, Action!: Creating Quality Videos for MUS 370

Maximizing Your Synchronous Sessions – Part 1: Technology

Nebula: February 2016 Online Learning Webinar

Web 2.0 Digital Tools Selection Criteria

9 responses to “ Using Technology To Develop Students’ Critical Thinking Skills ”

This is a great site for my students to learn how to develop critical thinking skills, especially in the STEM fields.

Great tools to help all learners at all levels… not everyone learns at the same rate.

Thanks for sharing the article. Is there any way to find tools which help in developing critical thinking skills to students?

Technology needs to be advance to develop the below factors:

Understand the links between ideas. Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas. Recognize, build and appraise arguments.

Excellent share! Can I know few tools which help in developing critical thinking skills to students? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks!

• Pingback: EDTC 6431 – Module 4 – Designing Lessons That Use Critical Thinking | Mr.Reed Teaches Math
• Pingback: Homepage
• Pingback: Magacus | Pearltrees

Brilliant post. Will be sharing this on our Twitter (@refthinking). I would love to chat to you about our tool, the Thinking Kit. It has been specifically designed to help students develop critical thinking skills whilst they also learn about the topics they ‘need’ to.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

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

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

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

The new question-of-the-week is:

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

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

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

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

Current Events

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

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

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

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

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

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

An Issue of Equity

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

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

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

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

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

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

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

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

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

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

Designing experiences for critical thinking

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

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

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

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

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

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

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

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

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONING

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

TALK TIME / CONTROL

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

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

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

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

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

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

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

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

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

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

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

BLOG | PODCAST NETWORK | ADMIN. MASTERMIND | SWAG & MERCH | ONLINE TRAINING

• Meet the Team
• Join the Team
• Our Philosophy
• Teach Better Mindset
• Custom Professional Development
• Livestream Shows & Videos
• Administrator Mastermind
• Academy Online Courses
• EDUcreator Club+
• Podcast Network
• Speakers Network
• Free Downloads
• Ambassador Program
• Free Facebook Group
• Professional Development
• Request Training
• Speakers Network Home
• Keynote Speakers

Strategies to Increase Critical Thinking Skills in students

Teach Better Team October 2, 2019 Blog , Engage Better , Lesson Plan Better , Personalize Student Learning Better

In This Post:

• The importance of helping students increase critical thinking skills.
• Ways to promote the essential skills needed to analyze and evaluate.
• Strategies to incorporate critical thinking into your instruction.

We ask our teachers to be “future-ready” or say that we are teaching “for jobs that don’t exist yet.” These are powerful statements. At the same time, they give teachers the impression that we have to drastically change what we are doing .

So how do we plan education for an unknown job market or unknown needs?

My answer: We can’t predict the jobs, but whatever they are, students will need to think critically to do them. So, our job is to teach our students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

Helping Students Become Critical Thinkers

My answer is rooted in the call to empower our students to be critical thinkers. I believe that to be critical thinkers, educators need to provide students with the strategies they need. And we need to ask more than just surface-level questions.

Questions to students must motivate them to dig up background knowledge. They should inspire them to make connections to real-world scenarios. These make the learning more memorable and meaningful.

Critical thinking is a general term. I believe this term means that students effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate content or skills. In this process, they (the students) will discover and present convincing reasons in support of their answers or thinking.

You can look up critical thinking and get many definitions like this one from Wikipedia: “ Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. ”

Essential Skills for Critical Thinking

In my current role as director of curriculum and instruction, I work to promote the use of 21st-century tools and, more importantly, thinking skills. Some essential skills that are the basis for critical thinking are:

• Communication and Information skills
• Thinking and Problem-Solving skills
• Interpersonal and Self- Directional skills
• Collaboration skills

These four bullets are skills students are going to need in any field and in all levels of education. Hence my answer to the question. We need to teach our students to think critically and for themselves.

One of the goals of education is to prepare students to learn through discovery . Providing opportunities to practice being critical thinkers will assist students in analyzing others’ thinking and examining the logic of others.

Understanding others is an essential skill in collaboration and in everyday life. Critical thinking will allow students to do more than just memorize knowledge.

Ask Questions

So how do we do this? One recommendation is for educators to work in-depth questioning strategies into a lesson launch.

Ask thoughtful questions to allow for answers with sound reasoning. Then, word conversations and communication to shape students’ thinking. Quick answers often result in very few words and no eye contact, which are skills we don’t want to promote.

When you are asking students questions and they provide a solution, try some of these to promote further thinking:

• Could you elaborate further on that point?
• Will you express that point in another way?
• Can you give me an illustration?
• Would you give me an example?
• Will you you provide more details?
• Could you be more specific?
• Do we need to consider another point of view?
• Is there another way to look at this question?

Utilizing critical thinking skills could be seen as a change in the paradigm of teaching and learning. Engagement in education will enhance the collaboration among teachers and students. It will also provide a way for students to succeed even if the school system had to start over.

[scroll down to keep reading]

Promoting critical thinking into all aspects of instruction.

Engagement, application, and collaboration are skills that withstand the test of time. I also promote the integration of critical thinking into every aspect of instruction.

In my experience, I’ve found a few ways to make this happen.

Begin lessons/units with a probing question: It shouldn’t be a question you can answer with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ These questions should inspire discovery learning and problem-solving.

Encourage Creativity: I have seen teachers prepare projects before they give it to their students many times. For example, designing snowmen or other “creative” projects. By doing the design work or by cutting all the circles out beforehand, it removes creativity options.

It may help the classroom run more smoothly if every child’s material is already cut out, but then every student’s project looks the same. Students don’t have to think on their own or problem solve.

Not having everything “glue ready” in advance is a good thing. Instead, give students all the supplies needed to create a snowman, and let them do it on their own.

Giving independence will allow students to become critical thinkers because they will have to create their own product with the supplies you give them. This might be an elementary example, but it’s one we can relate to any grade level or project.

Try not to jump to help too fast – let the students work through a productive struggle .

Build in opportunities for students to find connections in learning.  Encouraging students to make connections to a real-life situation and identify patterns is a great way to practice their critical thinking skills. The use of real-world scenarios will increase rigor, relevance, and critical thinking.

A few other techniques to encourage critical thinking are:

• Use analogies
• Promote interaction among students
• Ask open-ended questions
• Allow reflection time
• Use real-life problems
• Allow for thinking practice

Critical thinking prepares students to think for themselves for the rest of their lives. I also believe critical thinkers are less likely to go along with the crowd because they think for themselves.

About Matthew X. Joseph, Ed.D.

Dr. Matthew X. Joseph has been a school and district leader in many capacities in public education over his 25 years in the field. Experiences such as the Director of Digital Learning and Innovation in Milford Public Schools (MA), elementary school principal in Natick, MA and Attleboro, MA, classroom teacher, and district professional development specialist have provided Matt incredible insights on how to best support teaching and learning. This experience has led to nationally publishing articles and opportunities to speak at multiple state and national events. He is the author of Power of Us: Creating Collaborative Schools and co-author of Modern Mentoring , Reimagining Teacher Mentorship (Due out, fall 2019). His master’s degree is in special education and his Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from Boston College.

Visit Matthew’s Blog

Educationise

11 Activities That Promote Critical Thinking In The Class

Ignite your child’s curiosity with our exclusive “Learning Adventures Activity Workbook for Kids” a perfect blend of education and adventure!

Critical thinking activities encourage individuals to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to develop informed opinions and make reasoned decisions. Engaging in such exercises cultivates intellectual agility, fostering a deeper understanding of complex issues and honing problem-solving skills for navigating an increasingly intricate world.

Through critical thinking, individuals empower themselves to challenge assumptions, uncover biases, and constructively contribute to discourse, thereby enriching both personal growth and societal progress.

Critical thinking serves as the cornerstone of effective problem-solving, enabling individuals to dissect challenges, explore diverse perspectives, and devise innovative solutions grounded in logic and evidence. For engaging problem solving activities, read our article problem solving activities that enhance student’s interest.

52 Critical Thinking Flashcards for Problem Solving

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a 21st-century skill that enables a person to think rationally and logically in order to reach a plausible conclusion. A critical thinker assesses facts and figures and data objectively and determines what to believe and what not to believe. Critical thinking skills empower a person to decipher complex problems and make impartial and better decisions based on effective information.

More Articles from Educationise

• 10 Innovative Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom
• How to Foster Critical Thinking Skills in Students? Creative Strategies and Real-World Examples
• 9 Must-Have AI Tools for Teachers to Create Interactive Learning Materials
• The Future of Education: 8 Predictions for the Next Decade
• The Latest in EdTech: 5 Innovative Tools and Technologies for the Classroom
• 8 Free Math Problem Solving Websites and Applications

Importance of Acquiring Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills cultivate habits of mind such as strategic thinking, skepticism, discerning fallacy from the facts, asking good questions and probing deep into the issues to find the truth. Acquiring critical thinking skills was never as valuable as it is today because of the prevalence of the modern knowledge economy.

Today, information and technology are the driving forces behind the global economy. To keep pace with ever-changing technology and new inventions, one has to be flexible enough to embrace changes swiftly.

Today critical thinking skills are one of the most sought-after skills by the companies. In fact, critical thinking skills are paramount not only for active learning and academic achievement but also for the professional career of the students.

The lack of critical thinking skills catalyzes memorization of the topics without a deeper insight, egocentrism, closed-mindedness, reduced student interest in the classroom and not being able to make timely and better decisions.

Incorporating critical thinking lessons into the curriculum equips students with the tools they need to navigate the complexities of the modern world, fostering a mindset that is adaptable, inquisitive, and capable of discerning truth from misinformation.

Benefits of Critical Thinking for Students

Certain strategies are more eloquent than others in teaching students how to think critically. Encouraging critical thinking in the classroom is indispensable for the learning and growth of the students. In this way, we can raise a generation of innovators and thinkers rather than followers. Some of the benefits offered by thinking critically in the classroom are given below:

• It allows a student to decipher problems and think through the situations in a disciplined and systematic manner
• Through a critical thinking ability, a student can comprehend the logical correlation between distinct ideas
• The student is able to rethink and re-justify his beliefs and ideas based on facts and figures
• Critical thinking skills make the students curious about things around them
• A student who is a critical thinker is creative and always strives to come up with out of the box solutions to intricate problems

Read our article: How to Foster Critical Thinking Skills in Students? Creative Strategies and Real-World Examples

• Critical thinking skills assist in the enhanced student learning experience in the classroom and prepares the students for lifelong learning and success
• The critical thinking process is the foundation of new discoveries and inventions in the world of science and technology
• The ability to think critically allows the students to think intellectually and enhances their presentation skills, hence they can convey their ideas and thoughts in a logical and convincing manner
• Critical thinking skills make students a terrific communicator because they have logical reasons behind their ideas

Critical Thinking Lessons and Activities

11 Activities that Promote Critical Thinking in the Class

We have compiled a list of 11 critical thinking activities for students that will facilitate you to promote critical thinking abilities in the students. By incorporating these activities, educators can introduce real-world examples of critical thinking in the classroom, empowering students to apply these skills in everyday situations.

We have also covered problem solving activities that enhance student’s interest in our another article. Click here to read it.

1. Worst Case Scenario

Divide students into teams and introduce each team with a hypothetical challenging scenario. Allocate minimum resources and time to each team and ask them to reach a viable conclusion using those resources.

The scenarios can include situations like stranded on an island or stuck in a forest. Students will come up with creative solutions to come out from the imaginary problematic situation they are encountering. Besides encouraging students to think critically, this activity will enhance teamwork, communication and problem-solving skills of the students.

This critical thinking activity not only pushes students to devise innovative solutions in challenging scenarios but also strengthens their teamwork, communication, and problem-solving abilities, making it an engaging and educational experience.

Read our article: 10 Innovative Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom

2. If You Build It

It is a very flexible game that allows students to think creatively. To start this activity, divide students into groups. Give each group a limited amount of resources such as pipe cleaners, blocks, and marshmallows etc.

Every group is supposed to use these resources and construct a certain item such as building, tower or a bridge in a limited time. You can use a variety of materials in the classroom to challenge the students. This activity is helpful in promoting teamwork and creative skills among the students.

Incorporating critical thinking games like this into your classroom not only promotes teamwork and creativity but also challenges students to think outside the box as they work together to build their structures.

It is also one of the classics which can be used in the classroom to encourage critical thinking. Print pictures of objects, animals or concepts and start by telling a unique story about the printed picture. The next student is supposed to continue the story and pass the picture to the other student and so on.

This engaging exercise is one of the most effective critical thinking activities for kids, as it encourages them to use their creativity and problem-solving skills while working together to construct innovative structures with limited resources.

4. Keeping it Real

In this activity, you can ask students to identify a real-world problem in their schools, community or city. After the problem is recognized, students should work in teams to come up with the best possible outcome of that problem.

5. Save the Egg

Make groups of three or four in the class. Ask them to drop an egg from a certain height and think of creative ideas to save the egg from breaking. Students can come up with diverse ideas to conserve the egg like a soft-landing material or any other device. Remember that this activity can get chaotic, so select the area in the school that can be cleaned easily afterward and where there are no chances of damaging the school property.

6. Start a Debate

In this activity, the teacher can act as a facilitator and spark an interesting conversation in the class on any given topic. Give a small introductory speech on an open-ended topic. The topic can be related to current affairs, technological development or a new discovery in the field of science. Encourage students to participate in the debate by expressing their views and ideas on the topic. Conclude the debate with a viable solution or fresh ideas generated during the activity through brainstorming.

7. Create and Invent

This project-based learning activity is best for teaching in the engineering class. Divide students into groups. Present a problem to the students and ask them to build a model or simulate a product using computer animations or graphics that will solve the problem. After students are done with building models, each group is supposed to explain their proposed product to the rest of the class. The primary objective of this activity is to promote creative thinking and problem-solving skills among the students.

8. Select from Alternatives

This activity can be used in computer science, engineering or any of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) classes. Introduce a variety of alternatives such as different formulas for solving the same problem, different computer codes, product designs or distinct explanations of the same topic.

Form groups in the class and ask them to select the best alternative. Each group will then explain its chosen alternative to the rest of the class with reasonable justification of its preference. During the process, the rest of the class can participate by asking questions from the group. This activity is very helpful in nurturing logical thinking and analytical skills among the students.

9. Reading and Critiquing

Present an article from a journal related to any topic that you are teaching. Ask the students to read the article critically and evaluate strengths and weaknesses in the article. Students can write about what they think about the article, any misleading statement or biases of the author and critique it by using their own judgments.

In this way, students can challenge the fallacies and rationality of judgments in the article. Hence, they can use their own thinking to come up with novel ideas pertaining to the topic.

10. Think Pair Share

In this activity, students will come up with their own questions. Make pairs or groups in the class and ask the students to discuss the questions together. The activity will be useful if the teacher gives students a topic on which the question should be based.

For example, if the teacher is teaching biology, the questions of the students can be based on reverse osmosis, human heart, respiratory system and so on. This activity drives student engagement and supports higher-order thinking skills among students.

11. Big Paper – Silent Conversation

Silence is a great way to slow down thinking and promote deep reflection on any subject. Present a driving question to the students and divide them into groups. The students will discuss the question with their teammates and brainstorm their ideas on a big paper.

After reflection and discussion, students can write their findings in silence. This is a great learning activity for students who are introverts and love to ruminate silently rather than thinking aloud.

Incorporating critical thinking activities for high school students, like silent reflection and group brainstorming, encourages deep thought and collaboration, making it an effective strategy for engaging both introverted and extroverted learners.

Finally, for students with critical thinking, you can go to GS-JJ.co m to customize exclusive rewards, which not only enlivens the classroom, but also promotes the development and training of students for critical thinking.

Share this:

Discover more from educationise.

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Type your email…

4 thoughts on “ 11 Activities That Promote Critical Thinking In The Class ”

• Pingback: What is Growth Mindset? 50+ Motivational Quotes on Growth Mindset - Educationise
• Pingback: 6 Steps To Implement Project-Based Learning In The Classroom - Educationise
• Pingback: Engaging Problem-Solving Activities That Spark Student Interest - Educationise

Thanks for the great article! Especially with the post-pandemic learning gap, these critical thinking skills are essential! It’s also important to teach them a growth mindset. If you are interested in that, please check out The Teachers’ Blog!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Teaching Methods
• Inquiry-based Learning

Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills through inquiry-based learning model

• October 2019
• Journal of Physics Conference Series 1317:012193
• 1317:012193

• Universitas Negeri Padang

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Natalia OHORODNYK
• Abd. Syakur

• Fajar Sandi Prawoco
• Fatmawati Sabur

• Nunung Agus Firmansyah

• Imam Arifin
• Munawir Yusuf

• Mochamad Kamil Budiarto
• Milanda Viona Delfiza
• Sa’diatul Fuadiyah
• Heffi Alberida

• Agus Efendi
• Taufiq Subhanul Qodr
• Arrum Meirisa

• Masniladevi Masniladevi
• Winda Ismi Hidayanti

• Ernie Novriyanti

• Desi Nurul H.
• La Ode Amaluddin
• Surdin Surdin

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Back Issues
• Letters Policy

Volume 57 | ISSUE 2: September 6, 2024

Projects selected for db-serc course transformation awards.

The Discipline-Based Science Education Research Center (dB-SERC) has awarded 12 Course Transformation Awards to faculty in natural sciences.

Since 2014, dB-SERC has supported natural sciences faculty members in developing projects to transform the way classes are taught by adopting evidence-based teaching practice to improve student learning outcomes.

Award recipients receive funds for equipment, student support or summer salary for faculty. Two mentor-mentee awards also were given out to support classroom innovation projects conducted by students and faculty working together.

Course Transformation Awards

Young Ahn, Department of Biological Sciences: Designing a high-structure course combining frequent low-stakes assessments with inclusive teaching for a large-enrollment introductory biology class

This proposal aims to test the “heads and hearts” hypothesis which suggests that both students’ cognitive (heads) and affective (hearts) learning experiences must be purposefully constructed in classroom environments. This project will investigate whether a course structure that combines frequent low-stakes assessments (heads) and inclusive teaching (hearts) can improve student performance and reduce achievement gaps in a large-enrollment introductory biology course thereby promoting retention in STEM.

Anusha Balangoda, Department of Geology and Environmental Science : Use of a Collaborative Online Reading Platform for Pre-class Reading Assignments in a Large Enrollment First-Year Undergraduate Class

The proposed work seeks funding to implement pre-class reading assignments through a social annotation platform allowing active reading on assigned course materials outside the class. A free social platform, Perusall, provides an interactive experience for students to engage with peers asynchronously and facilitates a space to teach and learn from peers. This collaborative social platform allows students to work on assignments outside the classroom to promote productive discussions and produce high-quality peer interactions.

Seth Childers, Department of Chemistry: Development of Interdisciplinary Courses for a New Chemical Biology Major

In the Department of Chemistry, the PI is proposing a chemical biology major, including two new lecture courses and one laboratory course, proposed to launch in Fall 2025 or 2026. This timeline allows them to craft a curriculum while deploying evidence-based learning practices to enhance job readiness. Based on student surveys, the program aims to accommodate approximately 48 majors annually and engage non-majors as a desirable scientific elective campus wide.

Russell Clark and Aidan Payton, Department of Physics & Astronomy: Gender Equity in Introductory Physics Lab Group Roles

This is a continuation of a dB-SERC award from 2020 (Development of Teacher Guides and Rubrics for Introductory Physics Labs). The original plan for that award was to develop better rubrics and other materials to help the TA graders provide more valuable feedback to the students. However, the University was forced into quarantine midway through the first semester of the project, and so the character of it changed.  They know from a previous study that student groups tend to have gender bias in which men tend to work with the experimental apparatus and women are relegated to secretarial roles (recording data, writing the report, etc.). They attempted to mitigate this by asking the students to cycle through the roles week to week so that each student would get to participate in each role multiple times.

Erika Fanselow, Department of Neuroscience: Incorporating digital and physical 3D brain models into interactive online and in-class activities to enhance student engagement and mastery in neuroanatomy courses

The goal of this course transformation is to develop interactive, online and in-class exercises that incorporate digital and printed 3D models of nervous system structures. These 3D model-based exercises and in-class activities are intended to enhance students’ visualization and conceptualization of neuroanatomical structures. The rationale for this course transformation proposal is based on the fact that neuroanatomy students are commonly overwhelmed by the complexity of the nervous system, resulting in a condition Jozefowicz (1994) referred to as “neurophobia,” which he concluded actually keeps students from choosing fields such as neurology.

Sean Garrett-Roe, Department of Chemistry: Activity redesign and mindset intervention based on growth-oriented testing in Chem-0110 General Chemistry I

“Grading for Growth” is a movement to encourage students to embrace deeper intellectual engagement with their studies by revolutionizing the way that their learning is assessed. Student-focused active learning pedagogies, such as Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), are well-established; student-focused assessments, on the other hand, are a new frontier. The PIs have formulated, implemented and assessed a student-focused assessment system that they call “Growth-Oriented Testing.” As successful as the system has been, the assessment results have illuminated ways in which their in-class materials have not optimally supported students, and the student opinion surveys suggest ways in which they have not optimally framed the learning process. As a result, students may not get the full benefits of the learning environment. A long-range goal of their teaching is to help students embrace a life of growth and learning; they want the students to learn both Chemistry and the metacognitive and metaemotional skills they need to succeed beyond the Chemistry classroom.

Sean Gess, Department of Biological Sciences: Supporting richer class-wide discussion and promoting the use of scientific argumentation in Foundations of Biology laboratory courses

This project focuses on class-wide discussion in a guided, authentic research lab. In this course students engage in science education by performing authentic research science to address active research questions being investigated within the department. The course is designed to mimic the research process, including discussions of data to try and understand it better. These discussion-based activities often struggle to support the learning objectives due to low participation from students or students not really listening and engaging with others during the discussions. To improve these discussions, they have previously introduced an explicit framing to attempt to help students understand the norms around this activity, normalize it as a professional practice, and encourage engagement and participation. This approach to science learning has shown gains in critical thinking skills and supports epistemic learning of STEM content.

Burhan Gharaibeh, Natasha Baker and Bridget Deasy, Department of Biological Sciences: Enhancing student engagement in anatomy and physiology courses through regenerative medicine primary science literature

Students of anatomy and physiology in different majors often report difficulty in these courses due to the need for memorizing lists of structures and comprehending complex physiological processes. They have preliminary data demonstrating that adding discussions of current, clinically relevant therapies and biotechnology articles related to regenerative medicine studies were effective in enhancing the biology student’s engagement during anatomy lectures. More importantly, the addition of these discussions to the curriculum appeared to improve exam grades.

Melanie Good and Eric Swanson, Department of Physics & Astronomy: The Use of Comprehensive PACE (Pseudoscience and Conspiracy-theory Education) in Physics and Society

Phys0087: Physics and Society was a course developed by Eric Swanson to help students examine the conceptual foundations of modern science with the goal of understanding how science affects our daily lives and our impact on the environment. At the intersection of science and society lies the issue of popular belief in the claims of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. These beliefs are fairly common and often can be difficult to dislodge with education in science alone. However, past work has shown that explicit instruction on topics related to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory beliefs may be effective in reducing endorsement of these beliefs. The PIs have seen this among their own students, based on pilot data and data from a previous dB-SERC Course Transformation Award. The success of their earlier work has captured the attention not only of our university media, but also the Lilienfeld Alliance, a group of higher education professionals across the nation that is committed to promoting critical thinking skills in the face of the claims of pseudoscience, who invited them to join their cause. With the momentum they have built, they are inspired to more comprehensively overhaul Phys0087: Physics and Society to expand upon their original transformation. Their new proposed course transformation would extend the pseudoscience module into a comprehensive PACE (Pseudoscience and Conspiracy-theory Education) curriculum in Phys0087–Physics and Society during the 2024-2025 school year.

Edison Hauptman and Jeffrey Wheeler, Department of Mathematics: Contract Grading in Calculus 2

In summer 2024, Edison Hauptman’s section of Analytic Geometry & Calculus 2 (Math 0230) was taught with a different set of assignments and grading structure. The grading structure for the class resembled a contract between the instructor and their students: the instructor provided many different assignments, and for a student to earn a desired grade, they had to score enough points on various assignments of their choice to reach that grade’s point threshold. This course structure can have many variations and is called a “grading contract.” Compared to the current (default) course structure for Calculus courses at the University of Pittsburgh, a grading contract is a more equitable way to evaluate a diverse set of students, allows the instructor to be more accommodating to students without sacrificing the course’s rigor, and encourages more student buy-in. This project develops and evaluates a set of assignments offered to students in  Hauptman’s Summer 2024 12-week section of Math 0230 and focuses on mathematical skills emphasized in each assignment.

Zuzana Swigonova, Department of Biological Sciences: Combining computer visualizations with 3D printed models to engage students in active study of molecular structure and function

All biological processes in a living system depend on proper functioning of molecules. Understanding the principles of molecular structure, the three-dimensional spatial arrangements of atoms and functional groups that allow for intra- and intermolecular interactions, is crucial for grasping the fundamentals of structure-function relationships. Despite the many benefits of physical 3D models, printing intricate biological molecules has several limitations, such as low level of atomic detail in complex structures, depiction of a single static molecular representation, and labor-intensive post-printing processing. Computer visualization allows for the development of abundant resources that complement physical models with no added material cost. They propose to develop teaching resources using computer visualization to supplement the physical 3D models.

Margaret Vines, Department of Chemistry: Learning to learn chemistry

The purpose of this project is to help students learn. Most students come to college with the desire to learn. They want to be successful and learn the material presented to them in their classes. Unfortunately, many of them engage in activities that do not help with their learning. The PI’s goal is to help students begin to learn how to learn. They will do this as part of their regular lecture and recitation in general Chemistry. They will educate them about learning techniques and explain why they will aid in their learning. They will then demonstrate these techniques in class, and the students will be given opportunities to use these techniques inside and outside the lecture and recitation. Finally, they will encourage their students to develop those techniques for use in their other classes.

Mentor/Mentee Award

Mentor: Anusha Balangoda / Mentee: Beth Ann Eberle. Department of Geology and Environmental Science: Use of Cooperative Learning Approach in Recitations to Untangle Pressing Environmental Issues in Introductory Environmental Science Class

Cooperative learning is a student-centered active learning strategy in which a small group of students is responsible for their own success and that of their team by holding themselves accountable for the process and outcomes of the activities. In this project, they propose to use a cooperative learning strategy in the GEOL 0840 Introductory Environmental Science course, which is a large enrollment three-credit class, and both lectures and recitations are required.

Mentor: Ben Rottman / Mentee: Rebecca McGregor. Department of Psychology; Learning Research and Development Center: Using a Consulting Model and Project-Based Learning to Teach Psychology Research Methods

In the field of psychology, research methods form the foundation of students’ knowledge during the remainder of their undergraduate degree and beyond. Students in PSY 0036: Research Methods Lecture at the University of Pittsburgh have three course objectives: learn how to read, interpret and discuss research design and conclusions, learn how to critique research, and learn how to design valid research. There are currently few opportunities for students to apply this knowledge to real-world experiences, as this is an introductory course in which students have not yet developed the skills to analyze and interpret their own data. Thus, this course design through the dB-SERC would provide a semester-long collaborative assignment in which students would develop a project proposal to investigate a real-world research problem for a fictional client.