developing critical thinking among students through group discussion

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

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

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

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

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

15k Accesses

13 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

A guide to critical thinking: implications for dental education

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

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

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

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

Developing Students' Critical Thinking Skills Through Whole-Class Dialogue

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Students take positions all the time. They defend their love of a television show or character with evidence or support that justifies their position. However, students may struggle to think critically about the books they've read and take a position about events from those books. In this lesson, students either listen to the instructor read a book aloud or read the book silently. (The book used in this lesson is My Freedom Trip by Frances Park and Ginger Park.) After reading, students answer an open-ended question about an issue that could have multiple perspectives. Students take positions, then identify reasons to support their positions. They then evaluate the reasons and draw their own conclusions. The lesson may be followed by additional whole-class discussion sessions that place emphasis on dialogue, eventually transferring more and more responsibility to the students for their learning.

From Theory to Practice

• Dialogical-Thinking Reading Lessons (D-TRLs), in which students articulate their thoughts in response to literature through dialogue, go beyond the question-and-answer and recitation methods that usually deal only with literal thinking.
• Students develop critical thinking as they learn to justify their reasons for a certain position on a story-specific issue.
• The basic format of a D-TRL provides practice with identifying and evaluating reasons as well as drawing conclusions. As more responsibility for the elements of the D-TRL is transferred to students, they receive additional practice in formulating hypotheses and identifying central themes and issues
• When students have opportunities to pose questions, they assume more responsibility for determining what needs to be understood and for directing their own learning processes.
• Literature discussions based on student-posed questions address an array of reading, writing, and oral language core curriculum objectives.
• When student questioning reigns in literature discussions, students generate many questions, help one another clarify questions, listen carefully to their peers, engage in critical thinking, and appreciate the opportunity to reflect on their own questions.

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
• 6. Students apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and nonprint texts.
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).

Materials and Technology

• My Freedom Trip by Frances Park and Ginger Park (Boyds Mills Press, 1998)
• Chart paper, board, or overhead

Central Question Chart

Preparation

Student objectives.

Students will

• Develop and demonstrate critical thinking skills as they take positions in response to a question, consider other viewpoints, identify reasons in support of their positions, evaluate supporting reasons for truth and acceptability, and draw final conclusions based on discussion
• Take responsibility for their own learning and for evaluating their own thoughts
• Participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical persons in respectful dialogue with one another

Instruction and Activities

Before reading (15 minutes) Open the lesson with an informal discussion of what students already know about the Korean War. Tell them that they will be reading and discussing a book about one girl's experience during that war. Can they make predictions about the book based on its title and cover and what they already know about the war? Let students know that after reading the book, they're going to be asked a question that will take the whole class to answer-and everyone's answer could be different. What will be important is whether they can provide acceptable reasons to support their answers. Reading phase (about 15 minutes, depending on the length of the text and the reading comprehension method you use) Depending on your students' needs and the availability of book copies, you can read the book to your students using the guided reading approach, have the students partner/group read, or have the students read silently. The important thing to consider when conducting the reading phase is to make sure students understand the text entirely. This will allow them to fully participate in the discussion phase to follow.

• With the guided reading approach, intermittent discussion should take place. The discussion breaks should be informal and focus on sharing an understanding of what is happening in the text.
• If you use another approach, check in with the individuals or groups to ensure understanding by asking questions during or after the reading. Keep the questions focused for now on students' comprehension of the book, making sure everyone understands the basic story well enough to be able to participate in the discussion phase to follow.

Discussion phase (30 to 60 minutes, depending on class size) There are four basic components to this part of the lesson:

• Posing a central question and possible answers
• Identifying reasons to support the possible answers
• Evaluating the truth and acceptability of the supporting reasons
• Drawing final conclusions on the merit of the possible answers

As students become familiar with the critical-thinking process, these components can be modified to give students greater responsibility for their learning. (See Modifications for examples.) Before proceeding with the discussion, make sure to establish a few guidelines with the students. These guidelines can include

• Listening carefully to other students' questions, opinions, and reasons and responding to them in a helpful manner
• Respecting everyone's questions and everyone's responses
• Agreeing or disagreeing, but giving reasons to support your opinion
• Respecting everyone's opportunity to speak and waiting your turn

Central question. At this point, introduce a question that will be of interest to students and in response to which they will each have to take a position. The question should be thought-provoking, the answer to which can be debated. A sample question for this book (as listed on the Central Question Chart ) is, "Why did Mr. Han try to convince the soldier to let Soo go across the river instead of himself?" Once you have a question, you should offer two hypotheses (or positions) as answers to it. Record the two positions on chart paper, the board, or overhead. Sample positions are listed on the Central Question Chart. (Until students have practiced the subsequent processes of identifying and evaluating reasons, it is important to limit the position options for now to two.) Once the two positions are listed, ask each student to decide which position he or she thinks best answers the central question and to be prepared to explain why. Let students know that they can change their positions after the discussion. Identifying reasons . Have students explore each position by identifying supporting reasons for it. Talk to a student who supports the first position, for example. Ask the student why he or she believes it's correct. How about a student who supports the second position? Get the students to begin talking to each other, with you acting as facilitator between them. This may be a good time to abandon a rule of raising hands; instead, let students dialogue freely but respectfully. As they cite reasons, encourage them to use examples from the text, from their own background knowledge of not only the Korean War but any experiences they have had that help them understand the text, and from what they feel makes sense. Record all reasons on the chart underneath their respective positions, even those that make little sense or seem wrong. (In the course of the discussion, students will be evaluating the truth and acceptability of the reasons. If you filter out reasons according to your judgment, it will deny students the opportunity to evaluate their own thinking.) Evaluating reasons. After all the reasons are listed (and perhaps even as they are being listed), students should decide whether they are completely true, completely false, or are true or false depending on certain factors. As the facilitator, put each reason before the group for discussion and let students decide amongst themselves the truth and acceptability of each reason. For each reason, ask students the following kinds of questions (and eventually encourage them to ask each other and themselves): What makes this reason true? Or what makes it false? Are there times that it could be true, but other times when it could be false? What examples can you give from the book to support a reason as acceptable? Does it make sense? Why or why not? Should we accept this as a supporting reason for the position? Throughout this discussion, you may need to question the students or rephrase their ideas to help them formulate their thoughts. However, be sure not to put words in students' mouths. As students discuss the reasons, record their decisions about the reasons in the truth column of the chart. You can use a 'T' for true, 'F' for false, and 'D' for depends. For the 'T' and 'D' reasons, mark what makes them acceptable: 'TXT' for text support, 'BK' for background knowledge support, and 'LOG' for logical support. Students themselves may not know at first that an acceptable reason is based on text, background knowledge, or logic (i.e., what seems to make sense), but they should be able to decide if it's acceptable or not. As you classify the reasons, help them to understand why you are categorizing them as you are-that their discussion is leading you to figure out the kind of support each reason is based upon. Guide them in this thought process until they are able to tell you what justifies the reasons. Drawing conclusions. After all reasons have been evaluated, give students the opportunity to say what their positions are based on the discussion. Has anyone changed his or her mind? For those who are sticking with their original positions, do they feel more strongly about them now? Also, give students the option to say they have not made up their minds (for the ability to withhold judgment is central to critical thinking). Another way to end the lesson could be to have the students write their conclusions and justify their reasons in a journal entry or a more formal writing assignment. Modifications After a few lessons with the same book or subsequent readings, students will have had practice identifying and evaluating reasons for positions you hypothesize. Next, allow them to generate several positions of their own to new central questions. This will help them to develop hypothesizing skills. After practice at hypothesizing, move on to allowing them to generate their own central questions. You will have to determine their readiness for identifying central themes and issues, but also, you can expect by this time for students to help guide each other in this process. Another modification as students become more and more responsible for their own learning may include switching to peer discussion groups, which then report their results in writing or to the class.

My Freedom Trip does not have a great deal of factual information, so creating a K-W-L chart may help lead the class into a research project as an extension of the book. Ask the students what they already know about Korea and the issues that arose around the Korean War. Use the W column in the K-W-L as a springboard for research. As examples, students could research why the soldiers divided the country of Korea or why North Korea was oppressed while South Korea was "the freedom land." Since My Freedom Trip has a theme of bravery and not giving up, ask each student to write a personal narrative about a time when he or she was faced with a tough situation, but stuck it out. Remind students that their stories do not have to be of the same magnitude and that we all face challenges, big and small. You may want to take these pieces through the entire writing process to publication. Invite people who have lived through challenging situations to speak to the class about their ordeals. Send a letter to parents and community members to see if they would like to share their experiences. Students can respond to guest speakers' experiences through discussion afterward or in journal entries.

Student Assessment / Reflections

Observe the following in students:

• Do they participate in the discussion before the book is read, as well as during the reading (whether using the guided reading approach or other method)?
• Do they offer reasons for their positions that can be verified by the text, background knowledge, or logic?
• Do they rightfully evaluate and dismiss reasons that are not acceptable or valid?
• Do they participate fully in the discussion, giving due regard for differing opinions and viewpoints?

Provide students with an opportunity to demonstrate their critical thinking skills with the following assessment:

• Have students read a new text or read it aloud to the entire class
• Present students with a central question and two positions
• Have students, on an individual basis, provide support for both positions and evaluate each as they did in the lessons
• Have students give a written response regarding one of the positions
• Evaluate the written response the same way as the journal entry (see below)

Evaluate student journal entries on the following (minimum) criteria:

• Do the students justify their conclusions using reasons supported by the text, background knowledge, or logic?
• Do the students' writing responses reflect your expectations for them?
• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

What Does It Take to Develop Critical Thinking? The Case of Multicultural Students in a Digital Learning Platform

• Conference paper
• First Online: 09 July 2023
• Cite this conference paper

• Ajrina Hysaj   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3367-4648 9 &
• Doaa Hamam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4663-5493 10  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14026))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

562 Accesses

The focus of this study was to explore ways of developing critical thinking in multicultural undergraduate students in the digital learning platform (DLP). Two different classes participated in the study, and they were both taught by the same lecturer. The lecturer utilised topics related to culture and identity to encourage students’ active involvement in online forums and breakout sessions. Students were placed in groups of four and were asked to research their own culture and the culture of another group member. Students researched cultures and discussed their viewpoints during the breakout sessions and discussion forums. The process aimed to stimulate the multicultural students’ desire to explore, research, challenge their worldviews, and most importantly, reflect on their accumulated information about their group members, and describe the academic and social experience. A sample size of 30 multicultural undergraduate students was selected during the spring semester to collect data. The progression of ideas, vocabulary, and negotiation of thoughts was analysed at the start and the end of the semester. The purpose was to analyse the development of critical thinking. Finally, the findings were described and recommendations for future research were presented.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abrams, Z.I.: Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: using internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign Lang. Ann. 35 (2), 141–160 (2002)

Article   Google Scholar  

Akpur, U.: Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Think. Skills Creat. 37 (2020)

Google Scholar  

Aslan, A.: Problem-based learning in live online classes: learning achievement, problem-solving skill, communication skill, and interaction. Comput. Educ. 171 , 104237 (2021)

Baker, W., Fang, F.: ‘So maybe I’m a global citizen’: developing intercultural citizenship in English medium education. Lang. Cult. Curric. 34 (1), 1–17 (2021)

Bai, H.: Facilitating students’ critical thinking in online discussion: an instructor’s experience. J. Interact. Online Learn. 8 (2) (2009)

Benzie, H.J., Harper, R.: Developing student writing in higher education: digital third-party products in distributed learning environments. Teach. High. Educ. 25 (5), 633–647 (2020)

Bloom, B.: Bloom’s taxonomy (1956)

Bowman, R.F.: A new story about teaching and learning. Clearing House 92 (3), 112–117 (2019)

Chaisuwan, C., Kelly, K., Kelman, G.B., Continelli, T.: Relationship between cultural value and critical thinking dispositions and their difference among nursing students in Thailand and United States. Pac. Rim Int. J. Nurs. Res. 25 (2), 199–212 (2021)

Cleary, M., Lees, D., Sayers, J.: Leadership, thought diversity, and the influence of groupthink. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 40 (8), 731–733 (2019)

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., Stewart, I.: An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Think. Skills Create. 12 , 43–52 (2014)

Dwyer, C.P., Walsh, A.: An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 68 (1), 17–35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09659-2

Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N., Pea, R.D.: Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. J. Learn. Sci. 8 (3–4), 391–450 (1999)

Farouqa, G., Hysaj, A.: Active learning in the lenses of faculty: a qualitative study in universities in the United Arab Emirates. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2022. LNCS, vol. 13316, pp. 77–90. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05064-0_6

Genç, G.: The relationship between academic achievement, reading habits and critical thinking dispositions of Turkish tertiary level EFL learners. Educ. Res. Q. 41 (2), 43–73 (2017)

Giannouli, V., Giannoulis, K.: Critical thinking and leadership: can we escape modern Circe’s spells in nursing? Nurs. Leadersh. (1910–622X) 34 (1), 38–44 (2021)

Grice, K.M., Rebellino, R.L.R., Stamper, C.N.: Connecting across borders by reading without walls: using non-prose narratives to multiply multicultural class content. Engl. J. 107 (1), 48–53 (2017)

Halpern, D.F.: Whither psychology. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 (4), 665–668 (2017)

Hall, R.A.: Critical thinking in online discussion boards: transforming an anomaly. Delta Kappa Gamma Bull. 81 (3) (2015)

Hamam, D., Hysaj, A.: Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): higher education teachers’ perspectives on the use of TPACK in online academic writing classes. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S. (eds.) HCII 2021. CCIS, vol. 1421, pp. 51–58. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78645-8_7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hoffmann, M.H.G.: Stimulating reflection and self-correcting reasoning through argument mapping: three approaches. Int. Rev. Philos. 37 (1), 185–199 (2018)

Hysaj, A., Hamam, D.: Understanding the development of critical thinking through classroom debates and online discussion forums: a case of higher education in the UAE. J. Asia TEFL 18 (1), 373–379 (2021)

Hysaj, A., Hamam, D.: Academic writing skills in the online platform-a success, a failure or something in between? A study on perceptions of higher education students and teachers in the UAE. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), pp. 668–673. IEEE (2020)

Hysaj, A., Suleymanova, S.: The analysis of developing the application of critical thinking in oral and written discussions: the case of Emirati students in the United Arab Emirates. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), pp. 819–824. IEEE (2020)

Hysaj, A., Hamam, D., Baroudi, S.: Efficacy of group work in the online platform: an exploration of multicultural undergraduates’ attitudes in online academic writing classes. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) HCII 2021. LNCS, vol. 12775, pp. 246–256. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77685-5_20

Jaenudin, R., Chotimah, U., Farida, F., Syarifuddin, S.: Student development zone: higher order thinking skills (hots) in critical thinking orientation. Int. J. Multicult. Multireligious Underst. 7 (9), 11–19 (2020)

Kabwete, C.M., Kambanda, S., Kagwesage, A.M., Murenzi, J.: Fighting intellectual marginalisation through critical thinking: a glimpse at mature women’s tertiary education in Rwanda. Res. Post-Compulsory Educ. 25 (1), 68–90 (2020)

Kalelioğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y.: The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking and critical thinking dispositions in online discussion. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17 (1), 248–258 (2014)

Kennedy, R.: In-class debates: fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 19 (2) (2007)

Kmieciak, R.: Critical reflection and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of individual unlearning. Pers. Rev. 50 (2), 439–459 (2021)

Kyung-Ae, O.: Developing critical thinking skills through a mandatory English course in Korean higher education. English Teach. 72 (4), 53–80 (2017)

Lau, J.Y.: An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)

Lewis, C.L., Wanzy, D.M., Lynch, C.M., Dearmon, V.A.: GROWTH: a strategy for nursing student retention. J. Nurs. Educ. 58 (3), 173–177 (2019)

Matthee, M., Turpin, M.: Teaching critical thinking, problem solving, and design thinking: preparing IS students for the future. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 30 (4), 242–252 (2019)

Maqableh, M., Alia, M.: Evaluation online learning of undergraduate students under lockdown amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: the online learning experience and students’ satisfaction. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 128 (2021)

Neolaka, F., Corebima, A.D.: Comparison between correlation of creative thinking skills and learning results, and correlation of creative thinking skills and retention in the implementation of predict observe explain (POE) learning model in senior high schools in Malang, Indonesia. Educ. Process Int. J. 7 (4), 237–245 (2018)

Nippold, M.A., LaFavre, S., Shinham, K.: How adolescents interpret the moral messages of fables: examining the development of critical thinking. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 63 (4), 1212–1226 (2020)

Norman, M., Chang, P., Prieto, L.: Stimulating critical thinking in U.S business students through the inclusion of international students. J. Bus. Divers. 17 (1), 122–130 (2017)

Novakovich, J.: Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 32 (1), 16–30 (2016)

Núñez, Q.Á.: Systemic pedagogy and interculturalism: keys to creating and inclusive classroom. RevistaLusofona de Educacao 37 (37), 165–179 (2017)

Olson, C.B., et al.: The pathway to academic success: scaling up a text-based analytical writing intervention for Latinos and English learners in secondary school. J. Educ. Psychol. 112 (4), 701–717 (2020)

Org, A.: The process of essay writing in a literature course: the student’s views and the tutor’s feedback. Estonian J. Educ. /EestiHaridusteadusteAjakiri 7 (2), 124–127 (2019)

Pagani, C.: Empathy, complex thinking and their interconnections. Interface/Probing Bound. 92 , 41–60 (2017)

Pereg, M., Meiran, N.: Power of instructions for task implementation: superiority of explicitly instructed over inferred rules. Psychol. Res. 85 (3), 1047–1065 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01293-5

Read, D., Barnes, S.M., Hughes, O., Ivanova, I., Sessions, A., Wilson, P.J.: Supporting student collaboration in online breakout rooms through interactive group activities. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 17 (1) (2022)

Roohr, K., Olivera-Aguilar, M., Ling, G., Rikoon, S.: A multi-level modeling approach to investigating students’ critical thinking at higher education institutions. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44 (6), 946–960 (2019)

Scannapieco, F.A.: Formal debate: an active learning strategy. J. Dent. Educ. 61 , 955–961 (1997)

Simonneaux, L.: Analysis of classroom debating strategies in the field of biotechnology. J. Biol. Educ. 37 (1), 9–12 (2002)

Vero, E., Puka, E.: The effectiveness of critical thinking in higher education. Online J. Model. New Europe 26 , 217–233 (2018)

Wallis, A.K., Westerveld, M.F., Waters, A.M., Snow, P.C.: Investigating adolescent discourse in critical thinking: monologic responses to stories containing a moral dilemma. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 52w , 630–643 (2021)

Young, A.S.: Effects of integrative simulation practice on nursing knowledge, critical thinking, problem-solving ability, and immersion in problem-based learning among nursing students. Korean J. Women Health Nurs. 26 (1), 61–71 (2020)

Yu, Z.: The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 18 (1), 1–17 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Zare, P., Othman, M.: Students’ perceptions toward using classroom debate to develop critical thinking and oral communication ability. Asian Soc. Sci. 11 (9), 158 (2015)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UOWD College, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Ajrina Hysaj

Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doaa Hamam .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

Adela Coman

University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

Simona Vasilache

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Hysaj, A., Hamam, D. (2023). What Does It Take to Develop Critical Thinking? The Case of Multicultural Students in a Digital Learning Platform. In: Coman, A., Vasilache, S. (eds) Social Computing and Social Media. HCII 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14026. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_4

Published : 09 July 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-35926-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-35927-9

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

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

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

Developing Students’ Critical Thinking through Online Discussions: A Literature Review

2019, Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology

Related Papers

International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)

mohammed Afify

Asynchronous Online Discussions (AOD) are considered as one of the most ma-jor tools in learning management systems which are used in universities. The ex-ploitation of AODs forums offer students the possibility to teach and learn any-time and anywhere. They also provide students with the time needed to process learning, share ideas and points of view on e-course topics. The group size in the AODs is a substantial variable that affects the interaction and the participation of students. The purpose of our research lays in understanding the influence of the group size participating in the AODs on the development of critical thinking skills in information technology for students of the Faculty of Education, and im-proving students’ performance in online discussion forums. In this research, 103 university students from the bachelor&#39;s degree have participated in the study. The participating students are studying the Computer Application in Education Course, and the Education Technolo...

Laura Schindler

Berlin Fang

Jens Breivik

The development of critical thinking is a rationale for higher education and an important aspect of online educational discussions. A key component in most accounts of critical thinking is to evaluate the tenability of claims. The community of inquiry framework is among the most influential frameworks for research on online educational discussions. In this framework, cognitive presence accounts for critical thinking as progress through the following phases of inquiry: triggering event, exploration, integration, and solution This article discusses the cognitive presence construct as a tool for measuring critical thinking. The article traces the philosophical inspirations of the community of inquiry framework and discusses the construct validity of the cognitive presence construct. Empirical findings enabled by the framework are briefly reviewed and discussed. The author argues that since the cognitive presence construct only to a limited degree addresses the discussants’ evaluation of a claim’s tenability, the construct possesses weaknesses for assessing critical thinking in discussions. In making this claim, the article contributes to methodological and theoretical discussions about research on critical thinking in online educational discussions.

EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka) : Culture, Language, and Teaching of English

Prilla Lukis Wediyantoro

leishman-associates.com.au

Dr Nazanin Ghodrati

The Journal of Educators Online

Bridget Arend

Mary Lahman , Leonard Williams

RELATED PAPERS

Kirk Dotson

Zaki Al-Mostafa

Military Caring Sciences

hasan ghodsi

Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare

Ishaku Chimbekujwo

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology

todd kanzara

Anairis Herrera suárez

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi

yaşar koyun

Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports

Adebo Babatunde

Journal of Economic Education and Entrepreneurship Studies

Preethi Udagama

Kwanissa: Revista de Estudos Africanos e Afro-Brasileiros

muriel guitel

Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Muhamad Irsyad

Prospettiva Persona

Flavio Felice

CyTA - Journal of Food

Schizophrenia Bulletin

Gregory Oxenkrug

The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries

Adane Mihret

Current Biology

Barbara E Wueringer

Ashton de Silva

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Ewa Mijowska

Bernarda Barbini

Revista Linhas

Elemar Favreto

Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology

Jesús Beltrán García

Psykhe (Santiago)

Alicia Barreiro

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

Aaron Wolfson

Dr. Dattatraya Pansare

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