what are common barriers when teaching critical thinking skills

10 Barriers to Critical Thinking & Tips to Overcome Them

Critical thinking is an essential life skill, especially in an age where deceptions like “my truth” and “your truth” run rampant. 

It allows us to think our way through issues and arrive at effective solutions, and it is a skill that deserves the dedication it takes to hone it.

In some cases, there are invisible barriers to critical thinking that must first be broken down before progress can be made. 

Because it is so vitally important for our teens to develop such skills—to think for themselves in a world pressuring them to tow the line—I think it’s worth addressing potential obstacles in their way. 

Here are 10 common barriers to critical thinking that may reveal themselves as you seek to teach this vital skill. 

1. Lack of Practice

Considering what causes a lack of critical thinking , the word “practice” comes to mind. 

The phrase “practice makes progress” rings true when developing critical thinking skills .

Critical thinking may be discussed at length and encouraged theoretically, but is it expressed in the assignments or exercises our teens do on a daily basis?

Sadly, many assignments simply ask for regurgitated facts from a textbook that require little to no real thinking. 

If we want to see our students thrive in the realm of critical thinking, we need to provide them with opportunities to practice and apply what they’ve learned in real-life situations.

2. Perceived Inability to Teach It

The idea that you’re not capable of teaching such a thing may just become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

If you believe you can’t teach critical thinking, you may not even try. If you do try, you may be plagued by self-doubt that shakes your confidence. 

If you’ve ever thought …

“Why is critical thinking so difficult?”

You’re not alone.

It can be hard to plainly identify what critical thinking is and how to teach it. That’s one of the main reasons we created Philosophy Adventure —to provide an intriguing way to teach critical thinking effectively.

Get a Question-Based Critical Thinking Exercise—Free!

Introduce critical thinking gently & easily with thought-provoking exercises.

3. Normalcy Bias

Normalcy bias is a subconscious response that falsely assures things will remain the same as they always were. 

Every type of bias works against critical thinking as it uses emotion to make decisions rather than rational thought rooted in truth.

This bias encourages our minds to ignore danger and new information in favor of maintaining the safety and security of our “regular” lives. 

For example, normalcy bias leads us to believe that freedom will always be free despite growing threats to quench it. 

Frankly, it’s a dangerous barrier to critical thinking with the potential for lasting consequences.

4. Group-Think

The group-think effect is a phenomenon where individuals conform to the beliefs of others in order to avoid appearing different. 

It can lead to mass conformity in which society grows blind to flaws in opinion-based reasoning. 

Why think for yourself when someone else can do it for you? It’s a sobering thought—and a major obstacle to critical thinking—but I fear it’s one that is sweeping the world.

This is an especially tough barrier for teenagers who are often desperate to be accepted and liked by their peers. 

Rather than relying on critical thinking to decipher between right and wrong, they may cave to peer pressure because “everyone else is doing it.”

This barrier is yet another poignant example of why it’s so important to help our children develop critical thinking skills.  

5. Distorted View of Truth

We’re also susceptible to having a distorted view of what is fact and what isn’t. If we’re not careful, our view of truth can be distorted by misleading opinions.

Passionate people with deeply held beliefs are often willing to loudly defend them. 

Such passion and charisma can seduce teens and adults alike who may not fully know what they believe— or why they believe it . 

Of all the psychological obstacles to critical thinking, fear is a weighty one. 

I humbly suggest that it is the fear of failure or the fear of change that is most likely to act as a hindrance to critical thinking. 

Sometimes, when we look at an issue from every angle, we find that the only right reaction is to change. 

Likewise, if we fear failure, we’re likely to not act or try at all. 

And when it comes to trying to discern the truth in order to act upon it, not doing so can be far worse than the perceived failure itself. 

7. Viewing Everything Through the Lens of “Self”

Some people call it “egocentric thinking.” Whatever the name, it is the tendency to think about the world only as it relates to us. 

This self-centered thinking is natural, but there’s great value in training our minds to be able to view issues from another’s point of view. When problem-solving, it’s important to consider other perspectives.

This is particularly true when dealing with people who may be affected by our actions.

8. Past Experiences

Past experiences, relationships, even trauma can change us in a number of ways. 

What happened in the past surrounding any given thing most certainly influences how we think and feel about that thing in the future. 

But it’s important to recognize past experiences for what they are—a single moment (or period) of time.

They should not define our thoughts, nor should they dictate our actions as we seek to answer life’s questions objectively.  

Undoubtedly, it can be difficult to put such things in perspective so, and it calls for self-control, but it’s important to train our teens to try.  

Relying exclusively on the past to make decisions today can lead to negative outcomes as it relies on information that may not be true. 

9. Assumptions

Assumptions dampen our ability to learn. Though often flawed, assumptions quench our desire  to ask questions because we think we already know the answers. 

What a sad state to be stuck in because the truth is …

We don’t know what we don’t know.

How can we learn what we don’t know if we never root out the truth in a given matter?

Similarly, some people assume that because they don’t understand something, then it must be impossible to learn. 

That’s simply not true. We have an innate ability to learn new things, and critical thinking helps us do just that—with integrity.  

10. Time Constraints

There’s so much to learn in school that it can be hard to find the time to invest in critical thinking discussion and activities . 

This skill can often be moved to the side while teens learn about world history and how to write a proper essay—both of which are no doubt important. 

But I would argue that critical thinking gives students the foundation to not only better digest the material learned but to excel in it. 

How to Overcome Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 

We’ve established that critical thinking is an essential part of becoming a discerning adult, unmoved by news biases or passionate, emotional language. 

That being said, how do we break through the barriers that hinder critical thinking and move forward to teach such a significant skill?

You can help your students better develop their critical thinking skills by encouraging thoughtful questions and debate. 

When consuming news from around the world, inspire them to challenge their initial emotional reactions to the information presented. Teach them how to seek impartial data and use that to form an educated opinion. 

Providing real-world examples and connections between topics is a great way to encourage teens to think more deeply about a subject. 

Rather than presenting multiple choice answers or fill-in-the-blanks, ask them to talk through the question out loud based on the information they’ve been given.  

You can also try a fun exercise with these critical thinking questions for kids .

The ability to clearly vocalize beliefs and express thoughts is a priceless skill, and one that we have weaved into every lesson of Philosophy Adventure :

will your children recognize truth?

Critical thinking is a learned skill that requires practice (and breaking down barriers when they arise). 

However, the ability to identify logical fallacies in arguments and recognize deception is well worth investing in. 

Recognizing potential barriers that are obstructing that end goal is a solid first step. 

About The Author

Stacy Farrell

• Career Advice
• Job Search & Interview
• Productivity
• Public Speaking and Presentation
• Social & Interpersonal Skills
• Professional Development
• Remote Work

Eggcellent Work

12 common barriers to critical thinking (and how to overcome them).

As you know, critical thinking is a vital skill necessary for success in life and work. Unfortunately,  barriers to critical thinking  can hinder a person’s ability. This piece will discuss some of the most common  internal and external barriers to critical thinking  and what you should do if one of them hinders your ability to think critically.

Critical Thinking Challenges

You already know that  critical thinking  is the process of analyzing and evaluating a situation or person so that you can make a sound judgment. You normally use the judgment you derive from your critical thinking process to make crucial decisions, and the choices you make affect you in workplaces, relationships, and life’s goals and achievements.

Several  barriers to critical thinking  can cause you to skew your judgment. This could happen even if you have a large amount of data and information to the contrary. The result might be that you make a poor or ineffective decision instead of a choice that could improve your life quality. These are some of the top obstacles that hinder and distort the ability to think critically:

1. Using Emotions Instead of Logic

Failing to remove one’s emotions from a critical thinking analysis is one of the hugest barriers to the process. People make these mistakes mainly in the relationship realm when choosing partners based on how they “make them feel” instead of the information collected.

The correct way to decide about a relationship is to use all facts, data, opinions, and situations to make a final judgment call. More times than not, individuals use their hearts instead of their minds.

Emotions can hinder critical thinking in the employment realm as well. One example is an employee who reacts negatively to a business decision, change, or process without gathering more information. The relationship between that person and the employer could become severed by her  lack of critical thinking  instead of being salvaged by further investigations and rational reactions.

2. Personal Biases

Personal biases can come from past negative experiences, skewed teachings, and peer pressure. They create a huge obstacle in critical thinking because they overshadow open-mindedness and fairness.

One example is failing to hire someone because of a specific race, age, religious preference, or perceived attitude. The hiring person circumvents using critical thinking by accepting his or her biases as truth. Thus, the entire processes of information gathering and objective analysis get lost in the mix.

3. Obstinance

Stubbornness almost always ruins the critical thinking procedure. Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in being right that they fail to look at the big picture. Big-picture thinking is a large part of critical thinking; without it, all judgments and choices are rash and incomplete.

4. Unbelief

It’s difficult for a person to do something he or she doesn’t believe in. It’s also challenging to engage in something that seems complex. Many people don’t think critically because they believe they must be scholarly to do so. The truth is that  anyone  can think critically by practicing the following steps:

• 1. Gather as much data as possible.
• 2. Have an opinion, but be open to changing it.
• 3. Understand that assumptions are not the truth, and opinions are not facts.
• 4. Think about the scenario, person, or problem from different angles.
• 5. Evaluate all the information thoroughly.
• 6. Ask simple, precise, and abundant questions.
• 7. Take time to observe.
• 8. Don’t be afraid to spend time on the problem or issue.
• 9. Ask for input or additional information.
• 10. Make it make sense.

5. Fear of Failure or Change

Fear of change and failure often hinders a person’s critical thinking process because it doesn’t allow thinking outside the box. Sometimes, the most efficient way to resolve a problem is to be open to changing something.

That change might be a different way of doing something, a relationship termination, or a shift of positions at a workplace. Fear can block out all possible scenarios in the critical thinking cycle. The result is often one-dimensional thinking, tunnel vision, or proverbial head-banging.

6. Egocentric Thinking

Egocentric thinking is also one of the main barriers to critical thinking. It occurs when a person examines everything through a “me” lens. Evaluating something properly requires an individual to understand and consider other people’s perspectives, plights, goals, input, etc.

7. Assumptions

Assumptions are one of the negative  factors that affect critical thinking . They are detrimental to the process because they cause distortions and misguided judgments. When using assumptions, an individual could unknowingly insert an invalid prejudgment into a stage of the thought process and sway the final decision.

It’s never wise to assume anything about a person, entity, or situation because it could be 100 percent wrong. The correct way to deal with assumptions is to store them in a separate thought category of possibilities and then use the data and other evidence to validate or nullify them.

XYZ  might  be why ABC happened, but there isn’t enough information or data to conclude it. The same concept is true for the rest of the possibilities, and thus, it’s necessary to research and analyze the facts before accepting them as truths.

8. Group Thinking

Group thinking is another one of the  barriers to critical thinking  that can block sound decisions and muddy judgments. It’s similar to peer pressure, where the person takes on the viewpoint of the people around him or her to avoid seeming “different.”

This barrier is dangerous because it affects how some people think about right and wrong. It’s most prevalent among teens. One example is the “everybody’s doing it (drugs, bullying), so I should too” mindset.

Unfortunately, this barrier can sometimes spill over into the workplace and darken the environment when workers can’t think for themselves. Workers may end up breaking policies, engaging in negative behavior, or harassing the workers who don’t conform.

Group thinking can also skew someone’s opinion of another person before the individual gets a chance to collect facts and evaluate the person for himself. You’ve probably heard of smear campaigns. They work so well against targets because the parties involved don’t use the critical thinking process at all.

9. Impulsivity

Impulsivity is the tendency to do things without thinking, and it’s a bona fide critical thinking killer. It skips right by  every  step in the critical thinking process and goes directly to what feels good in the moment.

Alleviating the habit takes practice and dedication. The first step is to set time aside when impulsive urges come to think about all aspects of the situation. It may take an impulsive person a while to develop a good critical thinking strategy, but it can work with time.

10. Not Knowing What’s Fact and Opinion

Critical thinking requires the thinker to know the difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are statements based on other people’s evaluative processes, and those processes may not be critical or analytical. Facts are an unemotional and unbiased piece of data that one can verify. Statistics and governmental texts are examples.

11. Having a Highly Competitive Nature

A “winning” mindset can overshadow the fair and objective evaluation of a problem, task, or person and undermine critical thinking. People who  think competitively  could lose sight of what’s right and wrong to meet a selfish goal that way.

12. Basing Statements on Popularity

This problem is prevalent in today’s world. Many people will accept anything a celebrity, political figure, or popular person says as gospel, but discredit or discount other people’s input. An adept critical thinker knows how to separate  what’s  being said from  who  said it and perform the necessary verification steps.

The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking

Is critical thinking a soft skill or hard skill.

• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
• 5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
• 10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
• 12 Critical Thinking Interview Questions and Scenarios With Sample Answers
• How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace

How To Overcome Barriers in Critical Thinking

If you can identify any of the above-mentioned  barriers , your critical thinking may be flawed. These are some tips for overcoming such barriers:

1. Know your flaws.

The very first step toward improving anything is to know and admit your flaws. If you can do that, you are halfway to using better critical thinking strategies.

2. Park your emotions.

Use logic, not emotion, when you are evaluating something to form a judgment. It’s not the time to think with your heart.

3. Be mindful of others.

Try to put yourself in other people’s shoes to understand their stance. A little empathy goes a long way.

4. Avoid black-and-white thinking.

Understand that there’s always more than one way to solve a problem or achieve a goal. Additionally, consider that not every person is all bad or all good.

5. Dare to be unpopular.

Avoid making decisions to please other people. Instead, evaluate the full lot of information and make the decision you feel is best.

6. Don’t assign unjustified merit.

Don’t assume someone is telling the truth or giving you more accurate information because of his or her name or status. Evaluate  all  people’s input equally.

7. Avoid judging others.

Try to keep biases and prejudices out of your decision-making processes. That will make them fair and just.

8. Be patient with yourself.

Take all the days you need to pick apart a situation or problem and resolve it. Don’t rush to make hasty decisions.

9. Accept different points of view.

Not everyone will agree with you or tell you what you want to hear.

10. Embrace change.

Don’t ever be afraid of changing something or trying something new. Thinking outside the box is an integral part of the critical thinking process.

Now you know the answers to the question,  “What are the challenges of critical thinking?”  Use the information about the  barriers to critical thinking  to improve your critical thinking process and make healthier and more beneficial decisions for everyone.

• Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?
• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking
• 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
• Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
• 11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

17 Tips To Improve Your Ability To Work Independently

No Comments

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

How To List Skills That I Taught Myself On Resume

12 critical thinking interview questions and scenarios with sample answers  .

5 Barriers to Critical Thinking

What holds us back from thinking critically in day-to-day situations.

Posted January 18, 2019 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• What Is Cognition?
• Take our Mental Processing Test
• Find a therapist near me

Quite often, discussions of Critical Thinking (CT) revolve around tips for what you or your students should be doing to enhance CT ability. However, it seems that there’s substantially less discussion of what you shouldn’t be doing—that is, barriers to CT.

About a year ago, I posted "5 Tips for Critical Thinking" to this blog, and after thinking about it in terms of what not to do , along with more modern conceptualizations of CT (see Dwyer, 2017), I’ve compiled a list of five major barriers to CT. Of course, these are not the only barriers to CT; rather, they are five that may have the most impact on how one applies CT.

1. Trusting Your Gut

Trust your gut is a piece of advice often thrown around in the context of being in doubt. The concept of using intuitive judgment is actually the last thing you want to be doing if critical thinking is your goal. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988); and automatic cognitive processing—which generally lacks effort, intention, awareness, or voluntary control—is usually experienced as perceptions or feelings (Kahneman, 2011; Lieberman, 2003).

Given that intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent, largely because reflective judgment has not been consulted. Even when errors appear obvious in hindsight, they can only be prevented through the careful, self-regulated monitoring and control afforded by reflective judgment. Such errors and flawed reasoning include cognitive biases and logical fallacies .

Going with your gut—experienced as perceptions or feelings—generally leads the thinker to favor perspectives consistent with their own personal biases and experiences or those of their group.

2. Lack of Knowledge

CT skills are key components of what CT is, and in order to conduct it, one must know how to use these skills. Not knowing the skills of CT—analysis, evaluation, and inference (i.e., what they are or how to use them)—is, of course, a major barrier to its application. However, consideration of a lack of knowledge does not end with the knowledge of CT skills.

Let’s say you know what analysis, evaluation, and inference are, as well as how to apply them. The question then becomes: Are you knowledgeable in the topic area you have been asked to apply the CT? If not, intellectual honesty and reflective judgment should be engaged to allow you to consider the nature, limits, and certainty of what knowledge you do have, so that you can evaluate what is required of you to gain the knowledge necessary to make a critically thought-out judgment.

However, the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have the requisite knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.

3. Lack of Willingness

In addition to skills, disposition towards thinking is also key to CT. Disposition towards thinking refers to the extent to which an individual is willing or inclined to perform a given thinking skill, and is essential for understanding how we think and how we can make our thinking better, in both academic settings and everyday circumstances (Norris, 1992; Siegel, 1999; Valenzuela, Nieto, & Saiz, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014).

Dispositions can’t be taught, per se, but they do play a large role in determining whether or not CT will be performed. Simply, it doesn’t matter how skilled one is at analysis, evaluation, and inference—if they’re not willing to think critically, CT is not likely to occur.

4. Misunderstanding of Truth

Truth-seeking is one such disposition towards thinking, which refers to a desire for knowledge; to seek and offer both reasons and objections in an effort to inform and to be well-informed; a willingness to challenge popular beliefs and social norms by asking questions (of oneself and others); to be honest and objective about pursuing the truth, even if the findings do not support one’s self-interest or pre-conceived beliefs or opinions; and to change one’s mind about an idea as a result of the desire for truth (Dwyer, 2017).

Though this is something for which many of us strive or even just assume we do, the truth is that we all succumb to unwarranted assumptions from time to time: that is, beliefs presumed to be true without adequate justification. For example, we might make a judgment based on an unsubstantiated stereotype or a commonsense/belief statement that has no empirical evidence to justify it. When using CT, it’s important to distinguish facts from beliefs and, also, to dig a little deeper by evaluating "facts" with respect to how much empirical support they have to validate them as fact (see " The Dirtiest Word in Critical Thinking: 'Proof' and its Burden ").

Furthermore, sometimes the truth doesn’t suit people, and so, they might choose to ignore it or try and manipulate knowledge or understanding to accommodate their bias . For example, some people may engage in wishful thinking , in which they believe something is true because they wish it to be; some might engage in relativistic thinking , in which, for them, the truth is subjective or just a matter of opinion.

5. Closed-mindedness

In one of my previous posts, I lay out " 5 Tips for Critical Thinking "—one of which is to play Devil’s Advocate , which refers to the "consideration of alternatives." There’s always more than one way to do or think about something—why not engage such consideration?

The willingness to play Devil’s Advocate implies a sensibility consistent with open-mindedness (i.e., an inclination to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; to tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas).

At the opposite end of the spectrum, closed-mindedness is a significant barrier to CT. By this stage, you have probably identified the inherent nature of bias in our thinking. The first step of CT is always going to be to evaluate this bias. However, one’s bias may be so strong that it leads them to become closed-minded and renders them unwilling to consider any other perspectives.

Another way in which someone might be closed-minded is through having properly researched and critically thought about a topic and then deciding that this perspective will never change, as if their knowledge will never need to adapt. However, critical thinkers know that knowledge can change and adapt. An example I’ve used in the past is quite relevant here—growing up, I was taught that there were nine planets in our solar system; however, based on further research, our knowledge of planets has been amended to now only consider eight of those as planets.

Being open-minded is a valuable disposition, but so is skepticism (i.e., the inclination to challenge ideas; to withhold judgment before engaging all the evidence or when the evidence and reasons are insufficient; to take a position and be able to change position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient; and to look at findings from various perspectives).

However, one can be both open-minded and skeptical. It is closed-mindedness that is the barrier to CT, so please note that closed-mindedness and skepticism are distinct dispositions.

Dwyer, C.P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J. & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43-52.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Penguin: Great Britain.

Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Reflexive and reflective judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Social Judgments: Implicit and Explicit Processes, 5, 44–67.

Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. New York: Teachers College Press.

Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory, 49, 2, 207–221.

Valenzuela, J., Nieto, A. M., & Saiz, C. (2011). Critical thinking motivational scale: A contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 2, 823–848.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

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

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

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

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

Break through these 5 common critical thinking barriers

Can you think of the last time you made a decision? It was probably about one second ago, even though you may not have realized it.

Our days are filled with choices, from pressing the snooze button on the morning alarm to selecting what to eat for dinner. On average, adults make around 35,000 decisions a day . If you average 16 hours of waking time, that's almost 36 decisions per minute.

Most decisions are entirely unconscious, like whether or not to scratch an itch or having a knee-jerk reaction to the expression on your significant other's face. Others, though, require a more careful and critical examination.

Critical thinking is one of the most valuable skills we can possess in our personal and professional lives. It allows us to analyze information, make sound decisions, and solve problems. However, many people find it difficult to think critically.

This article will discuss what critical thinking is, why it's important, and how you can overcome common critical thinking barriers.

What is critical thinking?

The origin of critical thinking can be traced back thousands of years to the teaching practice of the Greek philosopher Socrates. After discovering that many people couldn't explain the truth of their statements, he encouraged people to ask questions that go deep into their thoughts before accepting them.

Socrates used open-ended questions to stimulate critical thinking and uncover assumptions, a process that bears his name today — Socratic Questioning. It’s grounded in the belief that thoughtful questioning allows the student to examine ideas logically and determine their validity.

Socrates' method of questioning set the stage for thoughtful reflection. Today, the Foundation for Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as "the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking to improve it." Unlike automatic or subconscious thought, thinking critically requires you to actively use intellectual tools to reach conclusions rather than relying on subconscious processes. This strengthens decision-making skills.

Critical thinking consists of two components:

• A set of skills used to process information and beliefs
• The act of consciously applying those skills as a guide for behavior

Each of these components is equally important during the critical thinking process.

What is the critical thinking process?

Critical thinkers evaluate evidence and analyze information before making a judgment. The process requires higher-order thinking skills such as sorting, analyzing, comparing data, and assessing logic and reason.

The critical thinking process consists of five primary elements :

• Identify the claims. Organize arguments into basic statements and conclusions.
• Clarify the arguments. Look for inconsistencies and ambiguities in statements.
• Establish the facts. Verify whether the claims are reasonable, identify missing or omitted information, apply logic, and check for possible contradictions.
• Evaluate the logic. Analyze whether the assumptions align with the conclusions.
• Make the decision. Evaluate the argument using evidence, logic, and supporting data to increase the weight, contradictions, poor reasoning, or lack of evidence to decrease the weight.

Finding accuracy in ideas and challenging assumptions are essential parts of this process. Observing these two steps closely enables critical thinkers to form their own conclusions.

Why is it important to think critically?

Success in both business and life depends on the ability to think critically.

Human nature doesn't permit us to be completely objective. Instead, we each have our own viewpoints, close-mindedness, and social conditioning that influence our objective thinking capability. Everyone experiences distorted thinking and cognitive biases, leading to irrational thought processes. Critical thinking ability is necessary to overcome the limitations of irrational thinking.

Thinking critically is beneficial because it:

• Promotes problem solving and innovation
• Boosts creativity and curiosity
• Encourages deeper self-reflection, self-assertion, and independence
• Improves career opportunities
• Builds objectivity and open-mindedness

Critical thinking isn't about reaching the "right" answer — it's about challenging the information you're given to make your own conclusions. When you can question details and think for yourself, you're less likely to be swayed by false claims, misleading arguments, and emotional manipulation.

5 common critical thinking barriers and how to break through them

The ability to think critically is essential to our personal and professional development. To become excellent critical thinkers, we must embrace a growth mindset — the idea that we can cultivate intelligence through learning and practice. This includes stepping out of our comfort zone to push our thinking patterns and checking in to correct ourselves as needed.

Very few of us can think critically without hitting a couple of roadblocks. These critical thinking barriers can come in many forms, including unwarranted assumptions, personal biases, egocentric thinking, and emotions that inhibit us from thinking clearly. By becoming aware of these common challenges and making a conscious effort to counter them, we can improve our critical thinking skills and learn to make better decisions.

Here are five of the most commonly encountered critical thinking barriers, how to spot them, and what you can do to overcome them.

1. Confirmation bias

What it is: Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to see new information as an affirmation of our existing beliefs and opinions. People with this bias disregard opposing points of view in favor of evidence that supports their position.

Why it occurs: Confirmation bias results from our emotional inclination to see the world from our perspective. Having quick reflexes keeps us safe, so we interpret information from our own perspective because it enables us to react instinctively . Another explanation is that our minds struggle with the parallel processing of two opposing arguments, so we only process the one we already believe because it’s easier.

How to overcome it: Confirmation bias may be the hardest bias to defeat . It’s difficult to not hold preconceived notions, but you can train your mind to think differently. Make an effort to be open-minded and look at situations from an alternative perspective. When we're aware of our own confirmation biases and diligently watch out for them, we can avoid favoring specific facts when evaluating arguments.

2. Self-serving bias

What it is : The self-serving bias concerns how we place attribution for results. An individual with this bias externalizes blame for any undesirable results, yet takes credit for success.

Why it occurs: Researchers have found that people with a self-serving bias make attributions based on their need to maintain a high level of self-esteem . Our minds fear losing confidence if we take responsibility for failure or negative outcomes.

How to overcome it: You can counteract self-serving bias by maintaining a growth mindset. To have a growth mindset, you must be able to admit your errors, examine personal biases, and learn to take criticism. To overcome a self-serving bias, practice self-compassion. Accepting your imperfections and being kind to yourself when you fall short of your goals can help you maintain confidence.

3. Normalcy bias

What it is: The normalcy bias arises from our instinctual need for safety. Using this bias, we tend to overlook new information and common sense so that nothing changes and we can continue to live our lives as usual.

Why it occurs: The normalcy bias is a protection mechanism, a form of denial. Usually active when facing a traumatic event, this bias shuts down the mind to protect us from things that are too painful or confusing to comprehend.

How to overcome it: Although it is the brain's attempt to protect us, the normalcy bias can be harmful — and even dangerous — if it keeps us from facing reality. The best way to overcome it is to face facts and truth head-on, no matter how difficult it may be.

4. Availability heuristic

What it is: The availability heuristic occurs when we rely on the first piece of information that comes to mind without weighing other possibilities, even when it may not be the best option. We assume that information that is more readily accessible is more likely to be true.

Why it occurs: This heuristic stems from the brain’s use of shortcuts to be efficient. It can be used in a wide variety of real-life situations to facilitate fast and accurate estimation.

How to overcome it: Some real-world scenarios (like probability estimations) can benefit from the availability bias, so it's neither possible nor advisable to eliminate it entirely. In the event of uncertainty, however, we must be aware of all relevant data when making judgments, not just that which comes readily to mind.

5. Sunk cost fallacy

What it is: The sunk cost fallacy arises from the instinctual need for commitment. We fall victim to this illusion when we continue doing something even if it's irrational, simply because we’ve already invested resources that we can’t get back.

Why it occurs: The sunk cost fallacy occurs when we’re affected by feelings of loss, guilt, or regret. These innate feelings are hard to overcome — research has found that even rats and mice struggle with sunk costs when pursuing a reward. Because of this tendency, when we feel like we've already put considerable effort into organizing our information and pursuing a result, we tell ourselves that we can’t waste it by changing course.

How to overcome it: Instead of dwelling on past commitments, pay attention to the present and future. Thinking with logical reasoning, in terms of concrete actions instead of feelings, is vital.

Be ABLE to think critically despite barriers

Thinking critically is an essential skill for self-learners . Making sound decisions starts with recognizing our critical thinking barriers. Practicing self-compassion and self-awareness are excellent ways to identify biases in your thinking. From there, you can begin working toward overcoming those obstacles. When you have no critical thinking barriers in your way, you can develop and strengthen the skills that will help you succeed.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect 🙏

Connect with me on Twitter 👉   https://twitter.com/iamborisv

And follow Able's journey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able

And subscribe to our newsletter to read more valuable articles before it gets published on our blog.

Now we're building a Discord community of like-minded people, and we would be honoured and delighted to see you there.

Straight from the ABLE team: how we work and what we build. Thoughts, learnings, notes, experiences and what really matters.

Read more posts by this author

follow me :

Time management matrix: How to make the most of this useful tool

The ultimate guide to the outline note-taking method.

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings.

1. Introduction

2. barriers to critical thinking, 2.1. inadequate skills and dispositions, 2.2. epistemological (mis)understanding, 2.3. intuitive judgment, 2.4. bias and emotion, 3. discussion, 3.1. interpretations, 3.2. further implications and future research, 4. conclusions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson. 2015. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 85: 275–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Evgueni Borokhovski, Anne Wade, Michael A. Surkes, Rana Tamim, and Dai Zhang. 2008. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 78: 1102–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Afshar, Hassan Soodmand, and Masoud Rahimi. 2014. The relationship among critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking abilities of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 136: 75–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahern, Aoife, Caroline Dominguez, Ciaran McNally, John J. O’Sullivan, and Daniela Pedrosa. 2019. A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education. Studies in Higher Education 44: 816–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akbari-Lakeh, M., A. Naderi, and A. Arbabisarjou. 2018. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence skills and relationship with students’ academic achievement. Prensa Médica Argentina 104: 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aliakbari, Mohammad, and Akram Sadeghdaghighi. 2013. Teachers’ perception of the barriers to critical thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 70: 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anticevic, Alan, Grega Repovs, Philip R. Corlett, and Deanna M. Barch. 2011. Negative and nonemotional interference with visual working memory in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry 70: 1159–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baril, Charles P., Billie M. Cunningham, David R. Fordham, Robert L. Gardner, and Susan K. Wolcott. 1998. Critical thinking in the public accounting profession: Aptitudes and attitudes. Journal of Accounting Education 16: 381–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bar-On, Reuven. 2006. The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema 18: 13–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister, Roy. 2003. The psychology of irrationality: Why people make foolish, self-defeating choices. The Psychology of Economic Decisions 1: 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezanilla, María José, Donna Fernández-Nogueira, Manuel Poblete, and Hector Galindo-Domínguez. 2019. Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33: 100584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brabeck, Mary Margaret. 1981. The relationship between critical thinking skills and development of reflective judgment among adolescent and adult women. Paper presented at the 89th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 24–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler, Heather A., Christopher P. Dwyer, Michael J. Hogan, Amanda Franco, Silvia F. Rivas, Carlos Saiz, and Leandro S. Almeida. 2012. The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment and real-world outcomes: Cross-national applications. Thinking Skills and Creativity 7: 112–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byerly, T. Ryan. 2019. Teaching for intellectual virtue in logic and critical thinking classes: Why and how. Teaching Philosophy 42: 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cabantous, Laure, Jean-Pascal Gond, and Michael Johnson-Cramer. 2010. Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations. Organization Studies 31: 1531–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cáceres, Martín, Miguel Nussbaum, and Jorge Ortiz. 2020. Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity 37: 100674. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cader, Raffik, Steve Campbell, and Don Watson. 2005. Cognitive continuum theory in nursing decision-making. Journal of Advanced Nursing 49: 397–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casey, Helen. 2018. Transformative Learning: An Exploration of the BA in Community and Family Studies Graduates’ Experiences. Doctoral dissertation, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuah, Lisa YM, Florin Dolcos, Annette K. Chen, Hui Zheng, Sarayu Parimal, and Michael WL Chee. 2010. Sleep deprivation and interference by emotional distracters. SLEEP 33: 1305–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clark, Andy. 2001. Mindware: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science . New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy in Schools. 2018. Fake News and Critical Literacy: Final Report . London: National Literacy Trust. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook, John, and Stephan Lewandowsky. 2011. The Debunking Handbook . St. Lucia: University of Queensland. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornell, Paul, Monica Riordan, Mary Townsend-Gervis, and Robin Mobley. 2011. Barriers to critical thinking: Workflow interruptions and task switching among nurses. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration 41: 407–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Croskerry, Pat, Geeta Singhal, and Sílvia Mamede. 2013. Cognitive debiasing 2: Impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality and Safety 22: ii65–ii72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2008. How can we teach for meaningful learning? In Powerful Learning . Edited by L. Darling-Hammond. New York: Wiley, pp. 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson, Theo L. 2008. Metacognition and learning in adulthood. In Prepared in Response to Tasking from ODNI/CHCO/IC Leadership Development Office . Northampton: Developmental Testing Service, LLC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denkova, Ekaterina, Gloria Wong, Sanda Dolcos, Keen Sung, Lihong Wang, Nicholas Coupland, and Florin Dolcos. 2010. The impact of anxiety-inducing distraction on cognitive performance: A combined brain imaging and personality investigation. PLoS ONE 5: e14150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dhami, Mandeep K., and Mary E. Thomson. 2012. On the relevance of cognitive continuum theory and quasirationality for understanding management judgment and decision making. European Management Journal 30: 316–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolcos, Florin, Alexandru D. Iordan, and Sanda Dolcos. 2011. Neural correlates of emotion–cognition interactions: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 23: 669–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dolcos, Florin, and Gregory McCarthy. 2006. Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional distraction. Journal of Neuroscience 26: 2072–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dolcos, Florin, Ekaterina Denkova, and Sanda Dolcos. 2012. Neural correlates of emotional memories: A review of evidence from brain imaging studies. Psychologia 55: 80–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dumitru, Daniela. 2012. Critical thinking and integrated programs. The problem of transferability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 33: 143–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dunwoody, Philip T., Eric Haarbauer, Robert P. Mahan, Christopher Marino, and Chu-Chun Tang. 2000. Cognitive adaptation and its consequences: A test of cognitive continuum theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13: 35–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P. 2011. The Evaluation of Argument Mapping as a Learning Tool. Doctoral thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P. 2017. Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P. 2020. Teaching critical thinking. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Higher Education 4: 1510–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P., and Anne Walsh. 2019. A case study of the effects of critical thinking instruction through adult distance learning on critical thinking performance: Implications for critical thinking development. Educational Technology and Research 68: 17–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P., and John D. Eigenauer. 2017. To Teach or not to Teach Critical Thinking: A Reply to Huber and Kuncel. Thinking Skills and Creativity 26: 92–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, and Ian Stewart. 2012. An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning 7: 219–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, and Ian Stewart. 2014. An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity 12: 43–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, and Ian Stewart. 2015. The evaluation of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction as a method of enhancing reflective judgment performance. Thinking Skills & Creativity 16: 11–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer, Christopher. P., Michael J. Hogan, Owen M. Harney, and Caroline Kavanagh. 2016. Facilitating a Student-Educator Conceptual Model of Dispositions towards Critical Thinking through Interactive Management. Educational Technology & Research 65: 47–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eigenauer, John D. 2017. Don’t reinvent the critical thinking wheel: What scholarly literature says about critical thinking instruction. NISOD Innovation Abstracts 39: 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder, Linda. 1997. Critical thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Journal of Developmental Education 21: 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ennis, Robert H. 1987. A taxonomoy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice . Edited by J. B. Baron and R. J. Sternberg. New York: W.H. Freeman, pp. 9–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, Robert H. 1996. Critical Thinking . Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis, Robert H. 1998. Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy 21: 15–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ennis, Robert. H. 2018. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi 37: 165–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Facione, Noreen C., and Peter A. Facione. 2001. Analyzing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15: 267–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter A. 1990. The Delphi Report: Committee on Pre-College Philosophy . Millbrae: California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter A., and Noreen C. Facione. 1992. CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory . Millbrae: California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, Stephen W. Blohm, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo. 2002. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST . San Jose: California Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feyerherm, Ann E., and Cheryl L. Rice. 2002. Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good, the bad and the ugly. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 10: 343–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flavell, John H. 1976. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence , 231–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabennesch, Howard. 2006. Critical thinking… what is it good for? (In fact, what is it?). Skeptical Inquirer 30: 36–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadzella, Bernadette M. 1996. Teaching and Learning Critical Thinking Skills .
• Gambrill, Eileen. 2006. Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice 16: 338–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh, Afsaneh, and Fatemeh Moafian. 2011. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence: Investigating the relationship among EFL learners and the contribution of age and gender. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics 14: 23–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilovich, Thomas, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, eds. 2002. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, Edward. M. 1941. An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking . New York: Teachers College of Columbia University, Bureau of Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Intelligence . New York: Bantam. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern, Diane F. 2014. Thought & Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking , 5th ed. London: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamm, Robert M. 1988. Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: Expertise and the cognitive continuum. In Professional Judgment: A Reader in Clinical Decision Making . Edited by J. Dowie and A. S. Elstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 78–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond, Kenneth R. 1981. Principles of Organization in Intuitive and Analytical Cognition . Report No. 231. Boulder: Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond, Kenneth R. 1996. Upon reflection. Thinking and Reasoning 2: 239–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammond, Kenneth R. 2000. Judgments Under Stress . New York: Oxford University Press on Demand. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Michele Goltz, Barry Stein, and Kevin Harris. 2016. Moving beyond assessment to improving students’ critical thinking skills: A model for implementing change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 16: 44–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hitchcock, David. 2004. The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Informal Logic 24: 183–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huffman, Karen, Mark W. Vernoy, and Barbara F. William. 1991. Studying Psychology in Action: A Study Guide to Accompany Psychology in Action . Hoboken: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iordan, Alexandru D., Sanda Dolcos, and Florin Dolcos. 2013. Neural signatures of the response to emotional distraction: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Johnson, Marcia K., Carol L. Raye, Karen J. Mitchell, Erich J. Greene, William A. Cunningham, and Charles A. Sanislow. 2005. Using fMRI to investigate a component process of reflection: Prefrontal correlates of refreshing a just-activated representation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 5: 339–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jukes, I., and T. McCain. 2002. Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context of Children’s Learning . Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow . Great Britain: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in 240 intuitive judgment. In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment . Edited by T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, eds. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaya, Hülya, Emine Şenyuva, and Gönül Bodur. 2017. Developing critical thinking disposition and emotional intelligence of nursing students: A longitudinal research. Nurse Education Today 48: 72–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, Kathleen P. 2009. The Handbook of the Evolving Research of Transformative Learning Based on the Learning Activities Survey. In Adult Education Special Topics: Theory, Research, and Practice in Lifelong Learning . Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• King, Patricia M., and Karen S. Kitchener. 2004. Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39: 5–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, Patricia M., Phillip K. Wood, and Robert A. Mines. 1990. Critical thinking among college and graduate students. The Review of Higher Education 13: 167–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, Patricia. M., and Karen Kitchener. 1994. Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults . San Francisco: Jossey Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1121–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ku, Kelly Y. L. 2009. Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity 4: 70–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ku, Kelly Y. L., and Irene T. Ho. 2010a. Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences 48: 54–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ku, Kelly Y. L., and Irene T. Ho. 2010b. Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning 5: 251–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuhn, Deanna. 1999. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher 28: 16–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuhn, Deanna. 2000. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 178–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leventhal, Howard. 1984. A perceptual-motor theory of emotion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 17: 117–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd, Margaret, and Nan Bahr. 2010. Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4: 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loftus, Elizabeth. F. 2017. Eavesdropping on memory. Annual Review of Psychology 68: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, Lihong, and Haifeng Luo. 2021. Chinese pre-service teachers’ cognitions about cultivating critical thinking in teaching English as a foreign language. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 41: 543–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, Lihong, and Ning Liu. 2022. Teacher belief about integrating critical thinking in English teaching in China. Journal of Education for Teaching 49: 137–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahmood, Khalid. 2016. Do people overestimate their information literacy skills? A systematic review of empirical evidence on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Communications in Information Literacy 10: 199–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangena, Agnes, and Mary M. Chabeli. 2005. Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today 25: 291–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• McGuinness, Carol. 2013. Teaching thinking: Learning how to think. Presented at the Psychological Society of Ireland and British Psychological Association’sPublic Lecture Series, Galway, Ireland, March 6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow, Jack. 1978. Perspective Transformation. Adult Education 28: 100–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mezirow, Jack. 1990. How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning. In Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood . Edited by J. Mezirow. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Most, Steven B., Marvin M. Chun, David M. Widders, and David H. Zald. 2005. Attentional rubbernecking: Cognitive control and personality in emotioninduced blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 12: 654–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, Lian, Linda S. Behar-Horenstein, and Cyndi W. Garvan. 2013. Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 9: 114–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Norris, Stephen P. 1994. The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores. In Critical Thinking: Current Research, Theory, and Practice . Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 315–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyhan, Brendan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary L. Freed. 2014. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics 133: E835–E842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ortiz, Claudia Maria Alvarez. 2007. Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? Master’s thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul, Richard W. 1993. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World . Santa Barbara: Foundation for Critical Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. 2008. Critical . Thinking. Dillon Beach: The Foundation for Critical Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins, David N., Eileen Jay, and Shari Tishman. 1993. Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill Palmer Quarterly 39: 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins, David, and Ron Ritchhart. 2004. When is good thinking? In Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition . London: Routledge, pp. 365–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper, Karl R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery . London: Routledge. First published 1934. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper, Karl R. 1999. All Life Is Problem Solving . London: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn, Sarah, Michael Hogan, Christopher Dwyer, Patrick Finn, and Emer Fogarty. 2020. Development and Validation of the Student-Educator Negotiated Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (SENCTDS). Thinking Skills and Creativity 38: 100710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rear, David. 2019. One size fits all? The limitations of standardised assessment in critical thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44: 664–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed, Jennifer H., and Jeffrey D. Kromrey. 2001. Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal 35: 201–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimiene, Vaiva. 2002. Assessing and developing students’ critical thinking. Psychology Learning & Teaching 2: 17–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe, Matthew P., B. Marcus Gillespie, Kevin R. Harris, Steven D. Koether, Li-Jen Y. Shannon, and Lori A. Rose. 2015. Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education 14: ar30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Saleh, Salamah Embark. 2019. Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: Conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4: 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salovey, Peter, and John D. Mayer. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9: 185–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schutte, Nicola S., John M. Malouff, Lena E. Hall, Donald J. Haggerty, Joan T. Cooper, Charles J. Golden, and Liane Dornheim. 1998. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 25: 167–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shackman, Alexander J., Issidoros Sarinopoulos, Jeffrey S. Maxwell, Diego A. Pizzagalli, Aureliu Lavric, and Richard J. Davidson. 2006. Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion 6: 40–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siegel, Harvey. 1999. What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory 49: 207–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Models of Man . New York: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. 1977. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology 28: 1–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Slovic, Paul, Melissa Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald G. MacGregor. 2002. Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of SocioEconomics 31: 329–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solon, Tom. 2007. Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in Introductory Psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology 34: 95–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich, Keith E. 2018. Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning 24: 423–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich, Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich. 2010. A framework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence. In Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development . Edited by D. D. Preiss and R. J. Sternberg. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Publishing Company, pp. 195–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 645–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stanovich, Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak. 2016. The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking . Cambridge: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stedman, Nicole LP, and Anthony C. Andenoro. 2007. Identification of relationships between emotional intelligence skill and critical thinking disposition in undergraduate leadership students. Journal of Leadership Education 6: 190–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strack, Fritz, Leonard L. Martin, and Norbert Schwarz. 1988. Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology 18: 429–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swami, Viren, and Adrian Furnham. 2014. Political paranoia and conspiracy theories. In Power, Politics, and Paranoia: Why People Are Suspicious of Their Leaders . Edited by J. W. van Prooijen and P. A. M. van Lange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweller, John. 2010. Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In Cognitive Load Theory . Edited by J. L. Plass, R. Moreno and R. Brünken. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavris, Carol, and Elliot Aronson. 2007. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) . Orlando: Harcourt. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teichert, Tobias, Vincent P. Ferrera, and Jack Grinband. 2014. Humans optimize decision-making by delaying decision onset. PLoS ONE 9: e89638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Valenzuela, Jorge, Ana Nieto, and Carlos Saiz. 2011. Critical Thinking Motivational Scale: A 253 contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 9: 823–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Varian, Hal, and Peter Lyman. 2003. How Much Information? Berkeley: School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vohs, Kathleen D., Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Jean M. Twenge, Noelle M. Nelson, and Dianne M. Tice. 2014. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Personality Processes and Individual Differences 94: 883–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, Xiaonan, Shuge Yuan, Wenjing Yang, Qunlin Chen, Dongtao Wei, Yuling Hou, Lijie Zhang, Jiang Qiu, and Dong Yang. 2018. Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between regional gray matter volume in the bilateral temporal pole and critical thinking disposition. Brain Imaging and Behavior 12: 488–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Dwyer, C.P. An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings. J. Intell. 2023 , 11 , 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105

Dwyer CP. An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings. Journal of Intelligence . 2023; 11(6):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105

Dwyer, Christopher P. 2023. "An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings" Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 6: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Accounting & Finance
• Communication
• Critical Thinking
• Marketing & Strategy
• Starting a Business
• Team Management
• Corporate Philosophy
• Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
• Kokorozashi
• Sustainable Business
• AI Ventures
• Machine Learning
• Alumni Voices
• Yoshito Hori Blog
• Unlimited Insights
• Career Skills

How to Identify and Remove Barriers to Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking: Structured Reasoning

Even a few simple techniques for logical decision making and persuasion can vastly improve your skills as a leader. Explore how critical thinking can help you evaluate complex business problems, reduce bias, and devise effective solutions.

Critical Thinking: Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is a central business skill, and yet it's the one many people struggle with most. This course will show you how to apply critical thinking techniques to common business examples, avoid misunderstandings, and get at the root of any problem.

Contrary to popular belief, being intelligent or logical does not automatically make you a critical thinker.

People with high IQs are still prone to biases, complacency, overconfidence, and stereotyping that affect the quality of their thoughts and performance at work. But people who scored high in critical thinking —a reflection of sound analytical, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities—report having fewer negative experiences in and out of the office.

Top 5 Barriers to Critical Thinking

To learn how to think critically, you’ll need to identify and understand what prevents people from doing so in the first place. Catching yourself (and others) engaging in these critical thinking no-no’s can help prevent costly mistakes and improve your quality of life.

Here are five of the most common barriers to critical thinking.

Egocentric Thinking

Egoism, or viewing everything in relation to yourself, is a natural human tendency and a common barrier to critical thinking. It often leads to an inability to question one’s own beliefs, sympathize with others, or consider different perspectives.

Egocentricity is an inherent character flaw. Understand that, and you’ll gain the open-minded point of view required to assess situations outside your own lens of understanding.

Groupthink and Social Conditioning

Everyone wants to feel like they belong. It’s a basic survival instinct and psychological mechanism that ensures the survival of our species. Historically, humans banded together to survive in the wild against predators and each other. That desire to “fit in” persists today as groupthink, or the tendency to agree with the majority and suppress independent thoughts and actions.

Groupthink is a serious threat to diversity in that it supports social conditioning, or the idea that we should all adhere to a particular society or culture’s most “acceptable” behavior.

Overcoming groupthink and cultural conditioning requires the courage to break free from the crowd. It’s the only way to question popular thought, culturally embedded values, and belief systems in a detached and objective manner.

Next Article

5 of the Best Books on Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving

Drone Mentality and Cognitive Fatigue

Turning on “autopilot” and going through the motions can lead to a lack of spatial awareness. This is known as drone mentality, and it’s not only detrimental to you, but those around you, as well.

Studies show that monotony and boredom are bad for mental health . Cognitive fatigue caused by long-term mental activity without appropriate stimulation, like an unchanging daily routine full of repetitive tasks, negatively impairs cognitive functioning and critical thinking .

Although you may be tempted to flip on autopilot when things get monotonous, as a critical thinker you need to challenge yourself to make new connections and find fresh ideas. Adopt different schools of thought. Keep both your learning and teaching methods exciting and innovative, and that will foster an environment of critical thinking.

The Logic Tree: The Ultimate Critical Thinking Framework

Personal Biases and Preferences

Everyone internalizes certain beliefs, opinions, and attitudes that manifest as personal biases. You may feel that you’re open minded, but these subconscious judgements are more common than most people realize. They can distort your thinking patterns and sway your decision making in the following ways:

• Confirmation bias: favoring information that reinforces your existing viewpoints and beliefs
• Anchoring bias: being overly influenced by the first piece of information you come across
• False consensus effect: believing that most people share your perspective
• Normalcy bias: assuming that things will stay the same despite significant changes to the status quo

The critical thinking process requires being aware of personal biases that affect your ability to rationally analyze a situation and make sound decisions.

Allostatic Overload

Research shows that persistent stress causes a phenomenon known as allostatic overload . It’s serious business, affecting your attention span, memory, mood, and even physical health.

When under pressure, your brain is forced to channel energy into the section responsible for processing necessary information at the expense of taking a rest. That’s why people experience memory lapses in fight-or-flight situations. Prolonged stress also reduces activity in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that handles executive tasks.

Avoiding cognitive impairments under pressure begins by remaining as calm and objective as possible. If you’re feeling overwhelmed, take a deep breath and slow your thoughts. Assume the role of a third-party observer. Analyze and evaluate what can be controlled instead of what can’t.

Train Your Mind Using the 9 Intellectual Standards

The bad news is that barriers to critical thinking can really sneak up on you and be difficult to overcome. But the good news is that anyone can learn to think critically with practice.

Unlike raw intelligence, which is largely determined by genetics , critical thinking can be mastered using nine teachable standards of thought:

• Clarity: Is the information or task at hand easy to understand and free from obscurities?
• Precision: Is it specific and detailed?
• Accuracy: Is it correct, free from errors and distortions?
• Relevance: Is it directly related to the matter at hand?
• Depth: Does it consider all other variables, contexts, and situations?
• Breadth: Is it comprehensive, and does it encompass other perspectives?
• Logical: Does it contradict itself?
• Significance: Is it important in the first place?
• Fairness: Is it free from bias, deception, and self-interest?

When evaluating any task, situation, or piece of information, consider these intellectual standards to hone your critical thinking skills in a structured, practiced way. Keep it up, and eventually critical thinking will become second nature.

Related Articles

The foreign entrepreneur’s guide to securing a japan investor visa.

The Trap of Tiara Syndrome: How to Advocate for Yourself

360 Marketing: Where Traditional and Digital Meet

Get monthly Insights

Sign up for our newsletter! Privacy Policy

GLOBIS Insights

• Submission Guidelines
• Our Contributors

Accountability

• Privacy Policy

GLOBIS Group

• GLOBIS Corporation
• GLOBIS University
• GLOBIS Capital Partners
• GLOBIS Asia Pacific
• GLOBIS Asia Campus
• GLOBIS China
• GLOBIS Europe
• GLOBIS Thailand
• G1 Institute
• Ibaraki Robots Sports Entertainment
• KIBOW Foundation

© GLOBIS All Rights Reserved

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Overcoming Barriers To Teaching Critical Thinking

pixel-online.net

Related Papers

Roland Case

practice” (1991, p. 354). Research in the U.S. supports these observations. For example, Su’s (1990) study, based on interviews with 112 educators, found that although teachers stated that they valued critical thinking they did not implement it in their classrooms. Similarly, in her study of a three-year project to foster critical thinking in social studies, McKee (1988) found that teachers spent only four percent of class time on reasoning activities.

English Language Teaching

samaneh eslamdoost

Developing critical thinking since the educational revolution gave rise to flourishing movements toward embedding critical thinking (CT henceforth) stimulating classroom activities in educational settings. Nevertheless the process faced with complications such as teachability potentiality, lack of practical frameworks concerning actualization of CT tasks, and transferability obstacles, as well as lack of a homogeneous model of conceptualization of CT among educators. The present study made an effort to represent a comprehensive model of CT for educators drawn on the contemporary literaturein order to indicate a uniform delineation of the construct and to offer a comprehensive model of CT for the intention of making boosting learners' capability of CT possible.

Joanne Reid

A quasi-experimental study of a pedagogical treatment in critical thinking was undertaken in a college of business. The quantitative results demonstrated significant improvements in 6 of 7 measures of critical thinking using a validated assessment instrument. This treatment was taught in the college of business for four years. A qualitative/quantitative survey was taken of the graduates of the college who had taken this treatment. Quantitative results were validated by the qualitative responses of the graduates. Graduates were confirmed to use the critical thinking knowledge, skills and strategies they had learned in their personal, academic, and professional lives. Graduates were also shown to be highly satisfied with the effects of the treatment in their personal, academic, and professional lives.

John P. Portelli

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CREATIVE RESEARCH THOUGHTS - IJCRT

priyamvada saarsar

Critical thinking skills as the mental processes required in processing information, solving problems, making a decision, and thinking critically. The teachers need to incorporate classroom activities that will promote the critical thinking skills of students" explained by Drew (2022). This objective can be achieved by using innovative teaching strategies in the classroom. These strategies advocate the use of step by step approach to developing critical thinking skills by introducing real word problems and clear instructions. The article is based on the reviews on the development of critical thinking. This article provides an insight into the previous researchers regarding the development of critical thinking skills. An attempt has also been made to explain the innovative and effective teaching strategies to foster critical thinking.

Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of Engineering and Implementation on Vocational Education (ACEIVE 2018), 3rd November 2018, North Sumatra, Indonesia

lala ananda

Dr. Julius Otundo

Critical thinking in the classroom is a common term used by educators. Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating information gathered from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning or communication as a guide to belief and action (``Scriven, 1996”). The challenge, of course is to create learning environments that promote critical thinking both in the classroom and beyond. Teaching practicing critical thinking provides adults with the opportunity to embrace and take charge of their learning. Typically, students who implement critical thinking skills approach the courseware in a more thoughtful and effective manner, ask more challenging questions and participate in the learning process more intensely. To promote the critical thinking among the students various types of teaching strategies can be used by the teacher in the classroom.

Stacy E Walker

Linda Murawski

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER)

Belgin Özaydınlı , Yıldız Ulusoy

Craig Gibson

CEPS Journal , Milan Stančić , Lidija Radulovic

ELT Journal

Paul Stapleton

marzieh kalbali

Barno Djumanova

Peter A Facione

Andrés Mejía

Jackie Alan Giuliano Ph.D.

Larry Grabau

International Journal of Education and Pedagogy (IJEAP)

Dr Khairul Hamimah Binti Mohammad Jodi Staff

DR KUNTAL BARUA

Dr. Punam Bansal

James Underwood

Review of Educational Research

Pakistan journal of social research

Sadruddin Qutoshi

patrice chataigner

Hour Vannak

Andrews Daklo Kwame

Peter Ellerton

Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research

Manuel Poblete

Jonathan Heard

Shanaz Cassum , Shehla khan

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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
• v.7(2); 2020 Mar

Critical thinking skills of nursing students: Observations of classroom instructional activities

Christian makafui boso.

1 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town South Africa

2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health and Allied Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast Ghana

Anita S. van der Merwe

Janet gross.

3 Peace Corps Liberia, Mother Patern College of Health Sciences, Stella Maris Polytechnic, Monrovia Liberia

Critical thinking (CT) is vital for nursing practice. Nursing schools should provide learning experiences that enable nursing students to acquire CT skills. Yet, these authors are not aware of any study that has directly observed instructional activities related to CT skills acquisition in the classroom environment. The aim of this study was to explore instructional activities in the classroom environment in relation to acquisition of CT skills of students.

Qualitative non‐participant observation.

Using a purposive sampling, 10 classroom teaching sessions were observed and mediating factors of CT skills acquisition of students noted. Data were analysed thematically. Data were collected from October–December 2017. 

Three key themes of instructional activities relating to acquisition of CT skills of students emerged, namely educators’ behaviour, students’ characteristics and university‐wide factors/administrative support. Class sizes ranged from 34–162 students with an average of 95.

1. INTRODUCTION

The ever‐changing and complex healthcare environment requires that nurses acquire critical thinking (CT) skills to meet the complex challenges of the environment (Von Colln‐Appling & Giuliano, 2017 ). Nurses should be able to select and use data for effective clinical judgements to promote good health outcomes (Nelson, 2017 ; Von Colln‐Appling & Giuliano, 2017 ). Consequently, nursing schools must offer learning experiences that assist students to think critically about complex issues instead of just merely becoming receptacles for information (Toofany, 2008 ; Von Colln‐Appling & Giuliano, 2017 ). It is the duty of nurse educators to help students to acquire CT skills (Nelson, 2017 ; Von Colln‐Appling & Giuliano, 2017 ).

Attempts have been made to conceptualize CT to guide the facilitation of CT skills of students. Worth noting are Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart ( 2014 ) and Duron, Limbach, and Waugh’s ( 2006 ) frameworks, which could be relevant in the classroom setting. Focusing on learning outcomes, Dwyer et al. ( 2014 ) posited that long‐term memory and comprehension are foundational processes for CT application. The framework incorporates both reflective judgement and self‐regulatory functions of metacognition as a requirement for CT. Self‐regulation refers to an individual's ability, willingness and the perceived need to think critically when solving specific problems. Therefore, factors that influence the interrelationship between short‐term and long‐term memory (the bedrock of CT), comprehension, reflective judgement and self‐regulation functions of metacognition will influence CT skills of the students. On the other, Duron et al.’s model focused on practical instructional activities needed to guide students in acquiring CT skills. The five‐step framework requires that educators: (a) determine learning objectives; (b) teach through questioning; (c) practice before assessing; (d) review, refine and improve; and (e) provide feedback and assessment of learning.

Nursing literature is replete with studies demonstrating that adopting appropriate teaching methods/strategies, such as active learning, improves the CT scores of students. Examples of such approaches include problem‐based learning (Jones, 2008 ; Jun, Lee, Park, Chang, & Kim, 2013 ), concept mapping (Wheeler & Collins, 2003 ) and simulation (Sullivan‐Mann, Perron, & Fellner, 2009 ). Furthermore, based on a systematic review, Chan ( 2013 ) suggested three strategies to facilitate CT skills of nursing students, which include appropriate questioning strategy, reflective writing on learning experiences and discussion of case study.

The classroom environment provides a vital opportunity for educators to create the necessary milieu to encourage students to develop their CT skills. It is therefore required that negative factors to the development of CT are minimized or removed and those factors that enhance the development of CT skills are accentuated. However, these factors that influence CT have received less attention in nursing education (Raymond, Profetto‐McGrath, Myrick, & Strean, 2018 ). Furthermore, no direct observations have been made to identify specific factors influencing CT in the classroom setting.

Studies such as those of Mangena and Chabeli ( 2005 ) and Shell ( 2001 ) assessed factors that inhibit CT acquisition of nursing students. Mangena and Chabeli's study focused on educators and students’ perspectives. They found that educators’ lack of knowledge of CT teaching methods and evaluation, negative attitudes of educators, student selection and educational background, socialization, culture and language inhibited the development of CT skills of students. Shell also found negative student factors, demand to cover content and time constraints both on class time and on educators’ development that hindered CT skills development of students.

Raymond and Profetto‐McGrath ( 2005 ) also identified internal and external factors of educators that had an impact on their CT. These factors included physical and mental well‐being, the view of leadership on CT and collegial relationships that existed in the educators’ environment. Similarly, Raymond et al. ( 2018 ) identified personal (elements/conditions originating from the educator), interpersonal (elements originating from the student–educator relationship) and broader environmental factors (conditions evident in the larger physical setting or political milieu) that influenced educators’ CT and influenced their abilities to role model CT skills.

The above authors focused on factors influencing CT from different perspectives. Shell ( 2001 ) and Mangena and Chabeli ( 2005 ) focused on barriers to student development of CT. Also, Shell examined educators’ perspectives. Mangena and Chabeli examined both educators’ and students’ views. Raymond and Profetto‐McGrath ( 2005 ) and Raymond et al. ( 2018 ) specifically focused on nurse educators' CT skills. None of the above studies directly observed classroom teaching though similar factors were identified.

2. BACKGROUND

The “greatest healthcare resource is the healthcare personnel, of which nurses are a primary component” (Talley, 2006 , p. 50). However, limited resources in nursing schools especially in developing countries where this study was undertaken (Talley, 2006 ) impede the experiences required for the students to develop CT skills. For example, studies have identified lack of qualified educators (Bell, Rominski, Bam, Donkor, & Lori, 2013 ; Salifu, Gross, Salifu, & Ninnoni, 2018 ) as well as infrastructural and logistical constraints (Talley, 2006 ), large class sizes and absenteeism (Wilmot, Kumfo, Danso‐Mensah, & Antwi‐Danso, 2013 ) as some of the challenges affecting nursing education. These challenges have led to the dominance of inappropriate teaching approaches (Boso & Gross, 2015 ; Wilmot et al., 2013 ).

Similarly, studies regarding CT have reported the negative influence of sociocultural norms such as the seniority tradition (Chan, 2013 ; Jenkins, 2011 ; Kawashima, 2003 ; Mangena & Chabeli, 2005 ). In such cultures, students are not encouraged to speak out openly (Chan, 2013 ). For example, an individual is not expected to disagree nor question an authority figure in public. In the context of this study, the seniority tradition could have been manifested in the classroom where the faculty is regarded as an authority whose ideas may be seen as sacrosanct by students. These authors argue that it is necessary to identify the factors through direct observation that might hinder or enhance the facilitation of CT of students in the classroom setting. Notwithstanding, the authors of this paper had not found any publication in the nursing literature where direct observation for CT teaching methods/strategies had been carried out in the classroom setting. Therefore, this study explored factors that might influence students’ ability to memorize and comprehend content towards CT skills acquisition. Also, educators’ instructional activities that either enhanced or inhibited students’ CT facilitation in the classroom context were explored.

3. THE AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to explore instructional activities towards the development of CT skills of students in a classroom environment. This study was part of a larger research project aimed at developing a CT‐based curriculum framework of students.

4. RESEARCH DESIGN

Qualitative non‐participant observation design was used. This design was to allow for the observation of first‐hand (Patton, 2015 ) and unusual aspects (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ) real‐time classroom practices whilst being present. Also, qualitative observation has been noted as a primary means of understanding the experiences of users (Reddacliff, 2017 ).

5.1. Setting

The study was conducted in classroom settings of an undergraduate nursing programme in a public university in Ghana. As a school in a developing country, there are constraints such as logistical inadequacies and lack of adequate qualified faculty, which could inhibit meaningful learning experience towards CT skills development of students existed. The classes are scheduled based on the demands of the various departments of the university. The university runs several programmes, and each programme is allocated with venues as demanded.

5.2. Sampling

Through a purposive method ten (10) teaching sessions from class levels 200 to 400 were observed from October to December 2017. Educators who had lectures within the period were approached face‐to‐face. Ten out of 16 educators agreed to participate. They provided informed consent. The 10 sessions provided rich data to be able to deduce current practices of instruction as occurring in the classroom environment. The main selection criterion was a full teaching session (1–3 hr) of B.Sc. nursing undergraduate programme taught by an educator in the selected nursing school.

5.3. Data collection and instrumentation

Data were collected between October and December 2017. The observations were from five level 200, three level 300 and two level 400 classes; six medical–surgical, one maternal health, one biomedical and two nursing fundamental/theoretical courses were taught. Two individuals—first author and an assistant, consistent with Winter and Munn‐Giddings’ ( 2001 ) recommendation for observation, observed the teaching sessions. A six‐item semi‐structured observation guide/protocol using Billing and Halstead's ( 2005 ) six steps of designing learning experiences for developing CT skills was employed for data collection. Billing and Halstead's six steps of designing experiences for developing CT skills were consistent with identifying factors that enhance or inhibit memory, comprehension, reflective judgement and instruction identical to Dwyer et al. ( 2014 ) and Duron et al.’s ( 2006 ) frameworks. The protocol was pre‐tested in a classroom at an analogous nursing school. Though the sixth step of Billing and Halstead's ( 2005 ) six steps of designing learning experiences for developing CT skills proposes both summative and formative assessments, in the context of this observation, only formative assessment methods used by the educators could be observed.

Billing and Halstead's six steps of designing experiences for developing CT skills are as follows. Step 1 involved determining the learning outcome for the specific class. These learning objectives should be explicitly clear to students and fit for purpose. Step 2 involved creating an anticipatory set. The educator's strategies that generate students’ interest in content, encourage their participation and create collegial environment for students were observed. Step 3 consisted of selecting teaching and learning strategies. Observation focused on identifying active learning methods of teaching against passive teaching methods. Also, whether the educator or students dominated the class was explored. Whether the nurse educator combined different teaching methods/strategies were explored. Step 4 considered implementation issues. Class size, involvement of students, classroom arrangement, use of teaching aids and materials and instructional media were observed. Step 5 involved the observation of how the learning experience was closed. This included how the educator summarized the lesson and related lessons to next class period. Step 6 involved how students’ learning experiences were evaluated. The educator's strategies for the assessment and evaluation of student learning experience during class period were observed.

The observers positioned themselves at the back of the classrooms throughout each period of teaching. Participants did not appear distracted or uncomfortable during the periods of observation. Thoughts and feeling of the observers relative to observed situations were captured as field notes. In order not to distract and cause discomfort to participants, the observers took minimal notes and expanded them immediately after the observations. Transcripts from the observations were compared and agreed on by the two observers. Differences were resolved through discussion. Also, the educators whose teaching sessions were observed were asked to provide feedback and revision made based on educators' comment(s). This was to minimize observers’ bias.

5.4. Data analysis

Bryman's ( 2010 ) four stages of qualitative analysis as described by Gibbs ( 2010 ) were used to analyse the data. The first author and an assistant described each observation. Later, the first author read the transcript at least four times to enable a meaningful content analysis. Data were coded, and themes and sub‐themes were derived. Subsequently, the second and third authors who are the supervisors of this research project cross‐checked the themes and sub‐themes with the observational transcripts for validation.

5.5. Ethical consideration

This study was approved as one part of a doctoral project by the Health Research Ethics Committee of Stellenbosch University (Ref. no S17/05/106) and the university where the study was done. Permission was also sought from the dean of the selected school. The first author visited the students at their various classrooms to explain the nature and purpose of the study to them. Likewise, the nurse educators were provided with information on the purpose and nature of the study. They were provided individually with informed consent forms for signing before data were collected. They were assured of their rights to opt out at any stage of the study. Confidentiality and anonymity were also assured. Individual participants were not identified with the data (during data collection, analysis and reporting).

Three overall themes were deduced from the classroom observation data, namely educators’ behaviour, students’ behaviour and university‐wide factors/administrative support. These themes related to the Dwyer et al. ( 2014 ) and Duron et al.’s ( 2006 ) frameworks of CT development. To reiterate, these factors could either enhance or inhibit memory (foundation of CT development), comprehension, reflective judgement and self‐regulatory functions of metacognition as a requirement for CT.

6.1. Theme I: Educators’ classroom behaviour

Educators’ behaviour includes actions and inactions of the educators that might either enhance or inhibit students’ positive learning experiences towards the acquisition of CT skills. Four sub‐themes under this theme were identified namely beginning and ending on time; creating a conducive and participatory environment; and teaching methods and styles and managing the class.

6.1.1. Subtheme A: Beginning and ending on time

Only one (observation 6) started on time. The lecturer was in the class before scheduled time waiting for students. However, nine of the classes started late. The lateness ranged from 10 min (observations 2 and 7) to 44 min (observation 3). In one case (observation 5), the lecturer was on time but students were not available because they were moving immediately from another lecture. In other words, the ending time from the other lecture overlapped with the starting time of the new lecture. In another case (observation 8), the lecturer was engaged in an analogous official duty and therefore reported late.

6.1.2. Subtheme B: Creating a conducive and participatory environment

Some attitudes demonstrated by the educators appeared to have encouraged collegiality. For example, one lecturer's statement, "no answer is wrong, it could only be a right answer to a different question" (observation 2) caused students to participate in the teaching/learning process, which is consistent with CT teaching strategies. Also, some lecturers demonstrated a good sense of humour that was appreciated by students. For example, in observation 3, the lecturer asked a question and after the question, jokingly said, "my question to those in spectacles", which generated laughter from the students. The same lecturer appeared receptive to students’ views—allowed students to disagree with his views and even thanked students for asking questions. These strategies also demonstrated modelling of open‐mindedness (an attribute of CT) on part of the educators.

Active participation in the teaching and learning process is required to facilitate CT skills of students. However, some actions taken by some lecturers appeared to have resulted in students not fully participating in the learning process. For example, students appeared tense or nervous after the lecturer made the statements that "they [students] must respect and not make offensive statements; some of you are still adolescents. You must respect, I have always told you" (observation 8). This statement was in reaction to a comment from a student that the lecturer found to be offensive.

6.1.3. Subtheme C: Teaching methods and styles

The most frequent teaching method used was student presentation. In one case (observation 6), students were given case studies from which they were requested to draw a plan of care. However, students themselves used lectures whilst presenting. General discussions followed students' presentations led by the lecturer. The presentation encouraged students to share their views freely. However, during student presentations, several students appeared disinterested and were passive in the process. Some presenters just read from the power point slides verbatim. In cases where lecturers taught, they often used the lecture method interspersed with periods of questions and answers (observations 2, 3, 4 and 8).

In one lecture (observation 3), the lecturer related lessons to real life situations (stories from the clinical settings) that appeared to have sustained the interest of the students. The lecturer also frequently moved up and down the aisles during the class session. These actions appeared to have caused students to be more attentive (which enhances memory) throughout the session.

6.1.4. Subtheme D: Managing the class

Management of the class appeared to be challenging to some lecturers. For example, in observation 10, the lecturer did not act even when students were engaged in distractive behaviours. Most students generally appeared interested in the lesson. However, several students appeared indifferent with what was happening, and some conversed throughout the session (observation 10).

6.2. Theme II Students' characteristics

Students’ characteristics refer to actions and inactions of the students during observations that might either enhance or inhibit students’ positive learning experiences towards the acquisition of CT skills. Two sub‐themes under this theme were identified, namely distractive student behaviour and punctuality.

6.2.1. Subtheme A: Distractive student behaviour

Attention/perception processing is needed to enhance short‐term memory, which leads to long‐term memory (Dwyer et al., 2014 ). In all classes observed, several students were engaged in distractive behaviours that might hinder memory, namely fidgeting with phones, beeping/ringing phones, petty chatting and whispering—especially those sitting at the back roll of the class. However, what appeared to be the source of most distractive behaviour—the mobile phone—was useful in helping students in some of the presentations. Students sitting in front appeared more attentive. Movement of lecturers up and down the aisles appeared to limit distractive behaviours.

6.2.2. Subtheme B: Punctuality

Students arrived to lectures late. For example, during observation 2, approximately 70 students were late, with some more than 1 hr late. Also, another class session began with 62 students and ended with 117 (about 55 students late). In another instance, at a pre‐scheduled time, only 29 students were present. One student came after about 1 hr 21 min (observation 5), whilst some students left before the classes concluded.

6.3. Theme III: University‐wide factors/administrative support

University‐wide factors/administrative support relate to administrative factors in the university or school that might either enhance or inhibit students’ positive learning experiences towards the acquisition of CT skills. Three sub‐themes under this theme were identified: class size; scheduling of classes; and classroom layout and equipment.

6.3.1. Subtheme A: Class size

Class sizes observed for the 10 sessions ranged from 34–162 with an average of 95 students. Most classes (7) were above 90 students.

6.3.2. Subtheme B: Scheduling of classes

Some students who were to have a lecture immediately after the session were packed at the entrance to the lecture hall whilst engaging in conversation apparently causing distraction (observation 4). Also, some lectures started immediately after a lecture had ended with no time to move from one lecture hall to another.

6.3.3. Subtheme C: Classroom layout and equipment

Classrooms’ arrangements/layouts are rectangular with desks and chair bolted down. Most ceiling mounted projectors in classrooms were dysfunctional forcing lecturers to use movable projectors which were placed too close to screens. This made power point font sizes small. Some screens were torn and dirty making projected content unclear (observation 3). Also, some public address systems were dysfunctional, and therefore, some students could not hear the lecturers. For example, during a lecture (observation 4) on three different occasions, students drew the attention of the lecturer to the fact that they could not hear him. At a point, rain stopped the lecture because students could not hear the lecturer.

7. DISCUSSION

Based on the observation of classroom environment in relation to instructional activities, several factors need to be considered to provide students with the desired learning experiences to the development of their CT skills. Educators’ positive behaviour which served as factors towards the enhancement of CT skills of students identified in this study is worth noting. These factors including educators’ good sense of humour and open‐mindedness appeared to inspire students to engage in the teaching–learning process were encouraging. The learning and learning process were also made entertaining. This finding is consistent with Ulloth's ( 2002 ) study which found humour to be useful in holding students’ attention, relieving anxiety, establishing rapport and making learning fun. Froneman, Du Plessis, and Koen's ( 2016 ) study on student–educator relationship identified similar characteristics needed for meaningful learning experiences of students. Similarly, other studies (Mangena & Chabeli, 2005 ; Raymond & Profetto‐McGrath, 2005 ; Raymond et al., 2018 ) buttress the need for nurse educators to create a conducive environment for students to develop CT skills.

Another finding worth highlighting in this study was negative educators’ factors such as being unfriendly in correcting students, using inappropriate teaching methods and poor class management skills. Similar factors were identified among educators in South Africa (Mangena & Chabeli, 2005 ) and Canada (Raymond & Profetto‐McGrath, 2005 ; Raymond et al., 2018 ). Mangena and Chabeli ( 2005 ) found that educators’ lack of knowledge, inappropriate teaching and assessment methods and educators’ negative attitude as barriers to the facilitation of CT skills of students.

A further noteworthy finding is the inappropriate implementation of CT teaching methods by educators. Notably, the incongruous implementation of students’ presentation and discussion methods need to be highlighted. This finding is similar to Boso and Gross' ( 2015 ) study among nurse educators in Ghana and inappropriate teaching and assessment methods identified in Mangena and Chabeli’s ( 2005 ) study.

Students’ lateness to lectures (lack of punctuality) identified in this study is worth highlighting. This finding indicates loss of valuable time which may be needed to engage with the content which may hinder the development of students’ CT skills. Also, students’ lateness to lectures appears to correspond with educators’ own late start to lectures. This appears to agree with Jack, Hamshire and Chambers' ( 2017 ) findings which highlight the influence of educator's behaviour on students. This is similar to Cruess, Cruess, and Steinert ( 2008 ) and Billings and Halstead's ( 2005 ) assertions about role modelling.

Another important finding of this study was students’ distractive behaviour. Some students engaging in distractive behaviours are not unexpected, but the degree and extent of these distractive behaviours were unanticipated. Shell ( 2001 ) identified students’ behaviour as the highest barrier to the development of CT skills of students. Also, this finding may be indicative of nurse educators’ apparent lack of appropriate classroom management skills required for meaningful learning experience of students. For example, as seen in this study, educator's movements up and down the aisles aided in the minimization of distractive behaviours of students.

The use of mobile phone during class time as an example of distractive behaviours is worth highlighting. These students may have been engaged on social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter during class sessions underscoring the penetration of social media into every facet of the students’ lives. The risk of the use of technology or social media has been noted (Ferguson, 2013 ). Inappropriate use of social media by students found in this study may highlight the absence of social media guidelines for students and educators. Peck ( 2014 ) suggests a purposeful use of social media to improve learning. Schools of higher learning have used social media to improve connectedness, increase access to academic libraries, create virtual classrooms and create student learning experiences to achieve desired academic outcomes (Peck, 2014 ). Evidence supports increased knowledge and flexibility of learning when technology is introduced into the classroom such as blended‐learning (Strickland, Gray, & Hill, 2012 ) and flipped‐classroom (Missildine, Fountain, Summers, & Gosselin, 2013 ) approaches. A purposeful use of social media should reflect the availability of social media guidelines/policy, which will likely minimize the risk or abuse of social media use.

Large class sizes were observed in this study. Pressure to increase student intake appears to overwhelm the school's capacity in terms of space and the number of qualified nurse educators at post (Bell et al., 2013 ; Hornsby, Osman, & Matos‐Ala, 2013 ). This is similar to Raymond and Profetto‐McGrath, ( 2005 ) and Raymond et al.’s ( 2018 ) studies that highlight environmental factors that influence facilitation of CT in a school. The large class sizes appear to influence teaching methods/strategies (Hornsby et al., 2013 ) that could be adopted by educators as identified in Gibbs, Lucas, and Spouse's ( 1997 ) study.

Another finding of this study was scheduling of classes. Classes were sometimes beginning immediately after another for the same students. This was partly accounting for late arrival of students to the next class. The late arrival of students to class may reduce their contact hours and may influence the introduction of the appropriate learning methods/strategies. Given that found time as a factor in CT development of students, reduced contact hours could inhibit the facilitation of CT of the students.

Issues relating to classroom features were observed in this study. These findings primarily relate to logistical and design issues. Logistical issues included dysfunctional ceiling mounted projectors, torn/dirty screens and inadequate public address systems. These logistical constraints may impede meaningful learning experience and consequently hinder the development of CT skills acquisition of students. This finding is consistent with other reports on challenges in the Ghanaian nursing educational system (Bell et al., 2013 ; Talley, 2006 ; Wilmot et al.,  2013 ). The traditional rectangular classroom physical layouts with desks and chairs bolted down is inconsistent with CT skills tenets which require that physical features of classrooms involve small or large circle arrangements to allow for students to make eye contact with each other and the educator to facilitate open dialogue (Billings & Halstead, 2005 ).

8. LIMITATIONS

Given that this was a direct non‐participatory observational study, some observations might have been missed by the researchers (Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Patton, 2015 ), especially when an attempt to minimize interruption of the teaching process, the observers of this observational study positioned themselves at the back of the classroom throughout each session. Also, there could have been observer bias. As noted by Creswell and Poth, there could have been impression management and potential deception on the part of the participants, especially the educators which might have influenced the data obtained. Several observations (10) were purposefully conducted to minimize this potential Hawthorne effect. In addition, some accounts might have been misinterpreted. However, this was minimized to some extent by reviewing the accounts with participants involved in the study.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Based on this study, further studies are recommended. The exploration of the experiences of nursing students and educators of instructional practices towards the development of CT skills in Ghana is highly recommended. Both quantitative and qualitative studies on how social media or technology in general could be used to facilitate meaningful learning are recommended.

This study also has implications for nurse educators and nursing school authorities who need to create a conducive environment for students for CT skills of students. Nurse educators should examine their own instructional methods/strategies with the view to adopting appropriate CT methods. In this regard, educators should aim at making learning fun and enjoyable. Educators should see themselves as role models to students regarding the demonstration of CT skills. School authorities should institute continuous faculty development programmes to help educators update their teaching skills regarding CT skills of students. School managers should provide the needed logistics needed for meaningful learning and commensurate to learning space, available faculty and other resources.

10. CONCLUSIONS

This study sought to observe instructional practices that influence the acquisition of CT skills of students in a classroom environment. The findings suggest that the educators’ teaching strategies have influence on learning atmosphere for CT skills facilitation of students. Also, several inhibiting and enhancing factors relating to students, university‐wide/administrative support were identified. It is therefore important that inhibiting factors are minimized or removed and enhancing factors are maintained or accentuated to help students engage in meaningful and purposeful learning experience with the view of developing their CT skills. Particularly, the role of the educators must be stressed to ensure that a conducive and participatory environment is created for student learning.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We do not have any conflict of interest to report.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

CMB, ASVDM and JG: Conceptualization and designing of the study. CMB: Data collection, analysing and drafting of the manuscript. ASVDM and JG: Study supervision and made critical revisions on the paper. All the authors made substantial contributions to the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to acknowledge Victor Angbah for assisting in data collection. We also express our gratitude to the study participants.

Boso CM, van der Merwe AS, Gross J. Critical thinking skills of nursing students: Observations of classroom instructional activities . Nursing Open . 2020; 7 :581–588. 10.1002/nop2.426 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bell, S. A. , Rominski, S. , Bam, V. , Donkor, E. , & Lori, J. (2013). Analysis of nursing education in Ghana: Priorities for scaling‐up the nursing workforce . Nursing and Health Sciences , 15 ( 2 ), 244–249. 10.1111/nhs.12026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billings, D. M. , & Halstead, J. A. (2005). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty , 2nd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boso, C. M. , & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nurse educators’ perceptions of critical thinking in developing countries: Ghana as a case study . Advances in Medical Education and Practice , 6 , 555–560. 10.2147/AMEP.S88942 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan, Z. C. Y. (2013). A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education . Nurse Education Today , 33 ( 3 ), 236–240. 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. , & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. , & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruess, S. R. , Cruess, R. L. , & Steinert, Y. (2008). Teaching rounds: Role modelling - Making the most of a powerful teaching strategy . Bmj , 336 ( 7646 ), 718–721. 10.1136/bmj.39503.757847.BE [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duron, R. , Limbach, B. , & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline . Interrnational Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 17 ( 2 ), 160–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer, C. P. , Hogan, M. J. , & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century . Thinking Skills and Creativity , 12 , 43–52. 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson, C. (2013). It’s time for the nursing profession to leverage social media . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 69 , 745–747. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1725032933?accountxml:id=10382%255Cnhttp://link.library.curtin.edu.au/openurl??url_ver=Z39.88-2004%26rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal%26genre=article%26sxml:id=ProQ:ProQ:healthcompleteshell%26atitle=Adapting+a+Social+Media+Strateg . 10.1111/jan.12036 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Froneman, K. D. , Plessis, E. , & Koen, M. P. (2016). Effective educator‐student relationships in nursing education to strengthen nursing students’ resilience . Curationis , 39 ( 1 ), 1–9. 10.4102/curationis.v39i1.1595 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs, G. , Lucas, L. , & Spouse, J. (1997). The effects of class size and form of assessment on nursing students’ performance, approaches to study and course perceptions . Nurse Education Today , 17 ( 4 ), 311–318. 10.1016/S0260-6917(97)80062-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs, R. G. (2010). Coding part 1: Alan Bryman’s 4 stages of qualitative analysis [Web Video] . p. 20613008. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7VuQxPfpk%26feature=list_other%26playnext=1%26list=SP14E49EDF20613008 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hornsby, D. J. , Osman, R. , & Matos‐Ala, J. D. . (2013). Large‐class pedagogy: Interdisciplinary perspectives for quality higher education (1st ed.). Stellenbosch, South Africa: SUN MeDIA MeTRO; Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en%26lr=%26xml:id=KpT3AwAAQBAJ%26pgis=1%255Cnhttp://www.africansunmedia.co.za/Portals/0/files/extracts/LargeClassPedagogyextract.pdf%255Cnhttp://www.sajs.co.za/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/Boughey_BookReview.pdf%255Cnwww.africansun [ Google Scholar ]
• Jack, K. , Hamshire, C. , & Chambers, A. (2017). The influence of role models in undergraduate nurse education . Journal of Clinical Nursing , 26 ( 23–24 ), 4707–4715. 10.1111/jocn.13822 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins, S. D. (2011). Cross-cultural perspectives on critical thinking . Journal of Nursing Education , 50 ( 5 ), 268–274. 10.3928/01484834-20110228-02. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, M. (2008). An evaluation of problem-based learning in an Associate Degree Program . Nursing Education Perspectives , 29 ( 5 ), 278–284. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jun, W. H. , Lee, E. J. , Park, H. J. , Chang, A. K. , & Kim, M. J. (2013). Use of the 5E Learning Cycle Model combined with problem-based learning for a fundamentals of nursing course . Journal of Nursing Education , 52 ( 12 ), 681–689. 10.3928/01484834-20131121-03. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kawashima, A. (2003). Critical thinking integration into nursing education and practice in Japan: Views on its reception from foreign-trained Japanese nursing educators . Contemporary Nurse , 15 ( 3 ), 199–209. 10.5172/conu.15.3.199 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangena, A. , & Chabeli, M. M. (2005). Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education . Nurse Education Today , 25 ( 4 ), 291–298. 10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Missildine, K. , Fountain, R. , Summers, L. , & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction . Journal of Nursing Education , 52 ( 10 ), 597–599. 10.3928/01484834-20130919-03 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson, A. E. (2017). Methods faculty use to facilitate nursing students’ critical thinking . Teaching and Learning in Nursing , 12 ( 1 ), 62–66. 10.1016/j.teln.2016.09.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peck, J. L. (2014). Social media in nursing education: Responsible integration for meaningful use . Journal of Nursing Education , 53 ( 3 ), 164–169. 10.3928/01484834-20140219-03 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raymond, C. L. , & Profetto‐McGrath, J. (2005). Nurse educators’ critical thinking: Reflection and measurement . Nurse Education in Practice , 5 , 209–217. 10.1016/j.nepr.2004.10.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raymond, C. , Profetto‐McGrath, J. , Myrick, F. , & Strean, W. B. (2018). Balancing the seen and unseen: Nurse educator as role model for critical thinking . Nurse Education in Practice , 31 ( January ), 41–47. 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.04.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reddacliff, A. (2017). If Margaret Mead was a librarian: Observation and visitor experience at libraries in Rrussia and the Baltic states . Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association , 66 ( 1 ), 17–27. 10.1080/00049670.2017.1283739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salifu, D. A. , Gross, J. , Salifu, M. A. , & Ninnoni, J. P. K. (2018). Experiences and perceptions of the theory‐practice gap in nursing in a resource‐constrained setting: A qualitative description study . Nursing Open , 6 , 72–83. 10.1002/nop2.188 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shell, R. (2001). Perceived barriers to teaching for critical thinking by nursing faculty . Nursing and Health Care Perspectives , 22 ( 6 ), 286–291. Retrieved from http://www.nln.org/nlnjournal/ [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strickland, K. , Gray, C. , & Hill, G. (2012). The use of podcasts to enhance research‐teaching linkages in undergraduate nursing students . Nurse Education in Practice , 12 ( 4 ), 210–214. 10.1016/j.nepr.2012.01.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan-Mann, J. , Perron, C. A. , & Fellner, A. N. (2009). The effects of simulation on nursing students’ critical thinking scores: A quantitative study . Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews , 9 ( 2 ), 111–116. 10.1053/j.nainr.2009.03.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Talley, B. (2006). Nurses and nursing education in Ghana: Creating collaborative opportunities . International Nursing Review , 53 ( 1 ), 47–51. 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2006.00431.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toofany, S. (2008). Critical thinking among nurses: Concept mapping can help both newly registered staff and nursing students develop the critical thinking skills they lack . Nursing Management (Harrow) , 14 , 28–31. 10.7748/nm2008.02.14.9.28.c6344 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulloth, J. K. (2002). The benefits of humor in nursing education . The Journal of Nursing Education , 41 ( 11 ), 476–481. 10.3928/0148-4834-20021101-06 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Colln‐Appling, C. , & Giuliano, D. (2017). A concept analysis of critical thinking: A guide for nurse educators . Nurse Education Today , 49 , 106–109. 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wheeler, L. A. , & Collins, S. K. R. (2003). The influence of concept Mapping on critical thinking in baccalaureate nursing students . Journal of Professional Nursing , 19 ( 6 ), 339–346. 10.1016/S8755-7223(03)00134-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilmot, E. M. , Kumfo, J. , Danso-Mensah, D. , & Antwi-Danso, S. (2013). An Investigation into the factors that contribute to nurse/midwife trainees’ poor performance in the final licencing examination in Ghana . Nursing and Midwifery Council: Accra. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winter, R. , & Munn-Giddings, C. (2001). A handbook for PAR in health and social care . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]

Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

• First Online: 04 September 2024

Cite this chapter

• K. Venkat Reddy 3 &
• G. Suvarna Lakshmi 4  

This chapter contains summaries of six articles that are machine generated. The summaries discuss the multitude ways in which the field of critical thinking has been understood and defined. Mostly the summaries included in the chapter project the view that critical thinking is all about certain cognitive abilities belonging to the higher order of thinking. The first summary explains the definition of critical thinking using a meta-level approach; it uses this approach because the problem of defining critical thinking is a meta-problem. The authors argue that the definitions proposed earlier were either subject-specific or skill-specific resulting in definitions that are neither universally applicable nor acceptable. The authors therefore have attempted to propose an approach that has three proper criteria that the definition should satisfy. They are: (1) rely on criteria, (2) self-correcting, and (3) sensitive to context. The summary of the second article on the skills required for the twenty-first-century education is based on the lists of skills proposed by various bodies that are broadly categorized as productive, critical, and creative thinking along with digital skills. The author proposes that the curriculum should incorporate skills that are required as per the current pace of change and the need of the hour.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education . St. Martin’s Press.

Google Scholar  

Ennis, R. (1987). A conception of critical thinking—With some curriculum suggestions. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy Summer , 1–5.

Ennis, R. (1989). Critical thinking and subject-specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18 , 4–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world . Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46 (September), 38–43.

Burkhardt, G., Monsour, M., Valdez, G., Gunn, C., Dawson, M., Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003). EnGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age . NCREL. http://www.pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf

ISTE [International Society for Technology in Education]. (2007). National educational technology standards for students. (2nd rev. ed.). : ISTE. www.iste.org.

Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42 (3), 237–249.

Higgins, S., & Baumfield, V. (1998). A defence of teaching general thinking skills. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 32 (3), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00103

Colwill, I., & Gallagher, C. (2007). Developing a curriculum for the twenty-first century: The experiences of England and Northern Ireland. Prospects, 37 (4), 411–425.

Benjamin, H. R. W. (1939). Saber-tooth curriculum, including other lectures in the history of Paleolithic education . McGraw-Hill.

Bahar, M., & Tongac, E. (2009). The effect of teaching approaches on the pattern of pupils’ cognitive structure: Some evidence from the field. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18 (1), 21–45.

McPeck, J. E. (1990). Teaching critical thinking . Chapman and Hall.

Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, 42 (8), 40–45.

Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument . Palgrave Macmillan.

Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment . Council of Chief State School Officers.

UNESCO IBE. (2013b). Statement on learning in the post-2015 education and development agenda . UNESCO IBE.

UNESCO IBE [International Bureau of Education]. (2013a). Key curricular and learning issues in the post-2015 education and development agenda. Document prepared for the UNESCO IBE international experts’ meeting, 23–25 September, Geneva. UNESCO IBE.

U. S. Office of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy . U. S. Government Printing Office.

Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking . Prentice-Hall.

Bailin, S., & Battersby, M. (2010). Reason in the balance: An inquiry approach to critical thinking . McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22 (1), 61–79.

Pease, M., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Science Education, 95 , 57–86.

Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48 , 1157–1186.

Ennis, R. (1984). Problems in testing informal logic, critical thinking, reasoning ability. Inf Logic, 6 , 3–9.

Ennis, R. (2003). Critical thinking assessment. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current theories, research, and practice . Hampton.

Ennis, R. (2008). Nationwide testing of critical thinking for higher education: Vigilance required. Teaching Philosophy, 31 (1), 1–26.

Ennis, R. (2009). Investigating and assessing multiple-choice critical thinking tests. In J. Sobocan & L. Groarke (Eds.), Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher order thinking be tested? Althouse.

Ennis, R., & Norris, S. (1990). Critical thinking assessment: Status, issues, needs. In S. Legg & J. Algina (Eds.), Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes . Ablex.

Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment . Edgepress.

Norris, S., & Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking . Midwest Publications.

Groarke, L. (2009). What’s wrong with the California critical thinking skills test? CT testing and accountability. In J. Sobocan & L. Groarke (Eds.), Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher order thinking be tested? Althouse Press.

Possin, K. (2008). A field guide to critical thinking assessment. Teaching Philosophy, 31 (3), 201–228.

Possin K (2013a) A serious flaw in the collegiate learning assessment [CLA] test. Inf Log 33(3):390–405. Also posted in Italian at http://unibec.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/un-grave-difetto-del-test-colligiate-learning-assessment-cla/

Possin, K. (2013b). Some problems with the Halpern critical thinking assessment [HCTA] test. Inquiry, 28 (3), 4–12.

Possin, K. (2013c). A fatal flaw in the collegiate learning assessment test. Assessment Update, 25 (1), 8–11.

Possin, K. (2014). Critique of the Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal test: The more you know, the lower your score. Inf Log, 34 (4), 393–416.

Sobocan, J., & Groarke, L. (Eds.). (2009). Critical thinking education and assessment: Can higher order thinking be tested? Althouse.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research, vol 2: A third decade of research . Jossey Bass.

Solon, T. (2007). Critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34 (2), 95–109.

Johnson, R. H., & Hamby, B. (2015). A meta-level approach to the problem of defining ‘critical thinking’. Argumentation, 29 , 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9356-4

Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21 st -century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum? Prospects, 44 , 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9323-0

Battersby, M., & Bailin, S. (2011). Critical inquiry: Considering the context. Argumentation, 25 , 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9205-z

Yu, K.-C., Lin, K.-Y., & Fan, S.-C. (2014). An exploratory study on the application of conceptual knowledge and critical thinking to technological issues. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25 , 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9289-5

Acedo, C., & Hughes, C. (2014). Principles for learning and competences in the 21st-century curriculum. Prospects, 44 , 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9330-1

Ennis, R. H. (2016). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37 , 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Training and Development, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

K. Venkat Reddy

Department of English Language Teaching, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

G. Suvarna Lakshmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of English Language Teaching, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Reddy, K.V., Lakshmi, G.S. (2024). Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills. In: Reddy, K.V., Lakshmi, G.S. (eds) Critical Thinking for Professional and Language Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37951-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37951-2_1

Published : 04 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-37950-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-37951-2

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Exploring perceptions and barriers in developing critical thinking and clinical reasoning of nursing students: A qualitative study

Affiliations.

• 1 Ward 5A-General Medicine, Nursing Department, National University Hospital/National University Health System, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119074, Singapore. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore 117597, Singapore. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 32992269
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104600

Aim: The aims of this study were to explore year two nursing students' perceptions toward critical thinking and clinical reasoning and to identify the barriers faced by the students in developing critical thinking and clinical reasoning.

Background: Critical thinking and clinical reasoning are core competencies emphasized in nursing practices. Nursing students are required to develop and practice these skills throughout their nursing programs to graduate as competent nurses. However, recent studies still report a lack of critical thinking and clinical reasoning in nursing students and fresh graduates. Hence, it is important to recognize the perceptions of nursing students and the barriers that they face in developing critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills.

Methods: An exploratory descriptive qualitative study design was adopted. Twenty nursing students were recruited from a university in Singapore. Individual face-to-face interviews, using semi-structured questions and an interview guide, were conducted in the academic year 2018/2019. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.

Results: Seven themes were emerged, namely: 1) essentials for nursing practices, 2) linking theory to practice, 3) individual thought process, 4) stimulating strategies, 5) classroom environment, 6) clinical environment, and 7) students' attributes. Nursing students perceived critical thinking and clinical reasoning as essential for nursing practices and described these skills as linking theory to practice. Strategies such as simulation, case studies, real clinical experiences, and guidance from clinical instructors/preceptors were found to stimulate critical thinking and clinical reasoning for the students. Barriers to developing critical thinking included classroom environments, such teaching methods and student-to-tutor ratios, ward environments/cultures, and students' attributes/attitudes toward learning.

Conclusion: The findings provided areas for improvement in the current nursing education and practices to better support nursing students in developing critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills.

Keywords: Clinical problem-solving; Clinical reasoning; Critical thinking; Nursing education; Nursing students; Perceptions; Qualitative study.

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol. MacKinnon K, Marcellus L, Rivers J, Gordon C, Ryan M, Butcher D. MacKinnon K, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447004
• Discovering confidence in clinical reasoning and critical thinking development in baccalaureate nursing students. Haffer AG, Raingruber BJ. Haffer AG, et al. J Nurs Educ. 1998 Feb;37(2):61-70. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19980201-05. J Nurs Educ. 1998. PMID: 9489680
• Challenges nurse educators experience with development of student nurses' clinical reasoning skills. van Wyngaarden A, Leech R, Coetzee I. van Wyngaarden A, et al. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019 Oct;40:102623. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2019.102623. Epub 2019 Sep 12. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019. PMID: 31542489
• Current practices for assessing clinical judgment in nursing students and new graduates: A scoping review. Bussard ME, Jessee MA, El-Banna MM, Cantrell MA, Alrimawi I, Marchi NM, Gonzalez LI, Rischer K, Coy ML, Poledna M, Lavoie P. Bussard ME, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2024 Mar;134:106078. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.106078. Epub 2023 Dec 21. Nurse Educ Today. 2024. PMID: 38184981 Review.
• Bachelor nursing students´ and their educators´ experiences of teaching strategies targeting critical thinking: A scoping review. Westerdahl F, Carlson E, Wennick A, Borglin G. Westerdahl F, et al. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022 Aug;63:103409. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103409. Epub 2022 Jul 12. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022. PMID: 35868062 Review.
• Barriers and Facilitators Experienced by Undergraduate Nursing Faculty Teaching Clinical Judgment: A Qualitative Study. Kerns C, Wedgeworth M. Kerns C, et al. SAGE Open Nurs. 2024 Aug 18;10:23779608241274728. doi: 10.1177/23779608241274728. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. SAGE Open Nurs. 2024. PMID: 39161937 Free PMC article.
• Applying narrative medicine to prepare empathetic healthcare providers in undergraduate pharmacy education in Singapore: a mixed methods study. Han Z, Barton KC, Ho LC, Yap KZ, Tan DS, Lee SS, Neo CXR, Tan AHL, Boey BMY, Soon CJY, Gallagher PJ. Han Z, et al. BMC Med Educ. 2024 Mar 15;24(1):292. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05254-z. BMC Med Educ. 2024. PMID: 38491363 Free PMC article.
• Effects of simulation with problem-based learning (S-PBL) on nursing students' clinical reasoning ability: based on Tanner's clinical judgment model. Son HK. Son HK. BMC Med Educ. 2023 Aug 24;23(1):601. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04567-9. BMC Med Educ. 2023. PMID: 37620797 Free PMC article.
• A mixed methods study using case studies prepared by nursing students as a clinical practice evaluation tool. Palmar-Santos AM, Oter-Quintana C, Olmos R, Pedraz-Marcos A, Robledo-Martin J. Palmar-Santos AM, et al. Nurs Open. 2023 Sep;10(9):6592-6601. doi: 10.1002/nop2.1919. Epub 2023 Jun 20. Nurs Open. 2023. PMID: 37340631 Free PMC article.
• How to choose a preceptor: aspects to consider based on a grounded theory study. Amaral G, Figueiredo AS. Amaral G, et al. BMC Nurs. 2023 Mar 31;22(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12912-023-01240-w. BMC Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37004086 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.