Teaching to Think: Exploring How University Teachers Develop Students’ Critical Thinking
Download PDF Article
Download Graphical Abstract
Teaching to Think: Exploring How University Teachers Develop Students’ Critical Thinking
Abstract
The present study explores university teachers’ understanding and experiences in developing critical thinking among students in higher education. To investigate how educators perceive and encourage critical thinking in the classroom, a qualitative phenomenological research approach was employed. Fourteen higher education teachers, lecturers, and university professors from different cities and disciplines at the tertiary level were selected for this purposive sample. In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to achieve a more nuanced understanding of how they conceptualise and practice challenging the critical thinking concept. Data were transcribed and subject to a thematic analysis aimed at identifying patterns/themes. The results showed that the majority of teachers had a good understanding of the concept of critical thinking and were well aware of its significance in fostering intellectual development, improving problem-solving ability, and encouraging independent learning. Collaborators described using class discussions, question-and-answer sessions, cases, and reflective activities to strengthen students’ analysis and evaluation skills. Despite this will and intention, teachers pointed out contextual-institutional obstacles that do not always consistently foster critical thinking. In general, the research highlights how important teachers are and can be (or, on the other hand, are not) in the development of critical thinking skills through GE and calls for continual provision of support and training by HE institutions to enhance this crucial skill.
Keywords
Critical Thinking, University Teachers, Higher Education, Teaching Strategies, Phenomenological Study
JEL Classification
I20, I21
1. Introduction
Developing critical thinking (CT) among university students is a fundamental goal of higher education, as it enables learners to analyse knowledge deeply, make informed decisions, and apply reasoning in real-life situations. Critical thinking involves more than memorisation; students must engage with information and assess its veracity (Athreya & Mouza, 2016). John Dewey, in his groundbreaking book How We Think (1910), first articulated a definition of CT through the concept of reflective thinking, which has shaped much of our current understanding of it (Hitchcock, 2015). The word “critical” comes from the Greek “Kritikos,” which means the art of judging or discerning ideas. Unlike popular images of criticism, CT is positive in that it encourages rational problem-solving and informed judgment (Lau, 2011; Lipman, 1995; Islam, 2015).
Bloom’s Taxonomy works with the cognitive domain of CT, and underlying this is high-level thinking—analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—that is important for constructive intelligence (Duron, 2006). Through critical thinking, students can consider evidence and recognise that assumptions can be questioned rather than simply accepting ideas (Delecce & Pisano, 2021). To navigate challenging issues and to solve everyday problems, CT enables individuals to think critically, thereby making it a necessary ingredient for academic and workplace success (Enciso, 2017; Moore, 2013).
Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Skills, Illustrating the Hierarchy of Learning Objectives
Source: https://www.simplypsychology.org/blooms-taxonomy.html
Teachers are central in the fostering of CT, including designing lessons and facilitating discussions, allowing students to reflect on, analyse and apply knowledge (Almulla, 2018; Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., Reeves, T. C., & Coster, D. C. 2014). Hands-on activities such as comparing and contrasting information, case studies’ analysis, and introducing authentic problems develop critical thinking skills (Black, 2005; Lai, 2011). However, evidence indicates that teachers have a limited understanding of the systematic promotion of CT, despite recognising its significance (Saleh, 2019). Contextual barriers, including time constraints, inflexible curricula, and varied student abilities, also prevent CT from being consistently applied in the classroom (Yuan & Stepleton, 2020).
In Nigerian higher education, little research has been done on how university teachers view and incorporate CT in their teaching. This lacuna calls for profound investigations into teachers’ conceptions, experiences and approaches to developing students’ critical thinking. It is important to focus on teachers’ perceptions of how to improve pedagogy and develop students as independent, reflective, and critical readers.
To assist with this investigation, the inquiry sought to investigate how university teachers perceive critical thinking and their strategies for enhancing students’ CT. More specifically, it investigated how teachers define critical thinking and the methods they use to facilitate its development. Accordingly, two main questions informed the study: (1) What is teachers’ perception of critical thinking? And how do they see and support the development of essential thinking in their students? While addressing these objectives and questions, the research offers a well-defined approach for exploring teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and practices of critical thinking in the higher education context.
2. Literature Review
Critical thinking is an essential learning outcome in higher education. Critical thinking has emerged as a crucial higher education learning outcome for both external audiences concerned with accountability issues and colleges and universities themselves. The voluntary accountability system, one of the most recent national measures to address accountability pressures, requires campuses to administer one of three standardised tests to monitor and report students’ learning gains in critical thinking and written communication. In a poll of businesses, the Association of American Institutions and Universities found that 73% of companies wanted colleges to place greater emphasis on critical thinking and analytical reasoning. In a recent study of colleges and universities, 74% of respondents agreed that critical thinking was a core learning aim for the campus’s general education curriculum (Stassen, 2011).
Developing critical thinking skills in university is about learning how to think rather than what to think. It involves a process of deliberation, debate, and persuasion that shapes values and attitudes. Through the practice of critical thinking, students can move beyond mere disagreement and constructively evaluate alternative perspectives, building upon their doubts (Shriner, 2006). Higher education institutions are increasingly cognisant of the need to assess fundamental abilities so that graduating students can think and read critically, investigate and utilise information, analyse quantitative data, and write effectively and fluently. Accreditation criteria and the labour market emphasise mastery of the fundamental abilities of critical thinking, information literacy, critical reading, mathematical reasoning, and writing. The university education programme is one of the most important training programmes in a person’s life. Objective thinking is the introduction to abstract thinking and the teenage thinking that comes with entering the workforce and acquiring substantial responsibilities in life. It should be noted that students training in critical thinking skills at university are always looking for and assessing reasons in real life, as well as rejecting misleading prejudices (Kong, 2014).
Lai (2011) discussed that colleges and universities are essential for helping students develop their critical thinking abilities. Higher education institutions can create curricula that prioritise critical thinking skills and provide students with opportunities to apply them across a variety of situations. It may entail including case studies, simulations, and problem-based teaching approaches in interdisciplinary subjects. Universities could adopt strategies that encourage critical thinking, like active learning, peer reviewing, and collaborative learning. They can also provide feedback to students who are not very proficient at thinking critically.
Giuffré and Ratto (2014) further explain that higher education can help develop a professor’s critical thinking and pedagogical skills. It may involve offering mentoring workshops, granting access to information and resources, and promoting a culture of inquiry. Additionally, higher education can create more opportunities for students to engage in research that requires thoughtful analysis, including the design and conduct of trials, interpretation of findings, and reporting of results. Higher education can also promote a more interdisciplinary approach that exposes learners to different worldviews and ways of thinking, enabling them to grasp broad and emerging issues and cultivate the communication and rhetorical skills necessary. In general, higher education may do a lot to foster critical thinking abilities in students, preparing them for work or life, and to develop a more competent and conscious larger society.
3. Methodology
To address the research questions, a qualitative research design was employed to examine teachers’ experiences with critical thinking. A phenomenological approach was chosen because its philosophy emphasises the exploration and interpretation of people’s life worlds in relation to the meanings and experiences individuals attach to them. This approach was appropriate for capturing university teachers’ nuanced understandings and day-to-day practices related to the development of students’ critical thinking.
3.1. Research design and participants
Fourteen university instructors were intentionally selected from multiple universities across various cities and departments at the tertiary level. A non-probabilistic purposive sampling technique was employed to include participants with pertinent expertise and experience in the subject matter. The diversity in both academic disciplines and institutional contexts allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the varying perspectives on how critical thinking is understood and taught within Nigerian higher education.
3.2. Data collection procedures
Prior to data collection, the interview questions were reviewed for validity in consultation with a research mentor, and mock interviews were conducted to refine the phrasing and sequencing of the questions. The researcher personally conducted all in-depth semi-structured interviews, which explored participants’ perceptions of critical thinking, the strategies they employed to cultivate it in their classrooms, and the contextual factors that either facilitated or hindered these efforts. Confidentiality was assured, and participants were encouraged to share their views openly and honestly.
3.3. Data analysis
The analysis followed (Braun & Clarke, 2014) six-phase approach. After transcribing the interviews, the researcher read the transcripts multiple times to become familiar with the data. Initial codes were generated inductively, focusing on meaningful units related to teachers’ conceptions, strategies, and challenges. These codes were compared across transcripts, and similar codes were grouped into provisional categories. The categories were then reviewed and refined into broader themes that reflected recurring ideas across participants. The themes were further defined and supported with representative quotations. Throughout this iterative process, the researcher maintained analytical memos to document emerging interpretations and decisions.
The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically following the framework outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). In accordance with their guidelines, the analysis involved several stages: familiarisation with the data, initial coding, theme identification, theme review and refinement, and, ultimately, defining and naming the themes. Through this iterative process, patterns within the data were uncovered and interpreted as clear responses to how teachers conceptualise and promote critical thinking. To enhance credibility and dependability, several strategies were employed. First, researcher reflexivity was maintained through analytical memos that documented assumptions and potential biases. Second, peer debriefing was conducted with a research mentor who reviewed selected transcripts, codes, and themes to ensure coherence between the data and its interpretation. Third, an audit trail detailing coding decisions, theme development, and subsequent revisions was maintained. Together, these procedures strengthened the rigor and transparency of the qualitative analysis.
4. Results
The thematic analysis revealed five key themes that highlight how university teachers understand, value, and strive to foster critical thinking in their students, as well as the contextual challenges they face. These themes are: (1) the concept of critical thinking, (2) the importance of critical thinking, (3) strategies for developing critical thinking, (4) challenges in promoting critical thinking, and (5) teachers’ experiences and adaptations. In the subsequent sections, each theme is discussed, supported by illustrative quotations that reflect how teachers articulated their views and practices.
4.1. Concept of Critical Thinking
The study’s results revealed that people perceive critical thinking as a cognitive process that combines reasoning, analysing, and evaluating to make logical judgments. They considered elements such as mental discipline, a clear and impartial thought process, and rational decision-making in the spring (Lipman, 1995; Islam, 2015). The concurrent views of the majority indicated that critical thinking reflects higher-order/convergent thinking skills or the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy—analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. They felt it was an approach to understanding, challenging, and evaluating ideas to figure out what made sense and why. For example, one participant defined critical thinking as “the intellectually disciplined process of conceptualising, applying, analysing, and synthesising and/or evaluating information from reasoning, experience, or reflection.” Others have noted its pragmatic aspect as a tool for scrutinizing every step of an idea or process (“beginning with ideas and ending in the proof”) for efficacy and precision. Collectively, these perspectives reveal that participants associated critical thinking not only with higher-order cognitive processes but also with intellectual discipline and a reflective approach to knowledge claims, which served as the foundation for their approach to classroom teaching.
4.2. Importance of Critical Thinking
All groups agreed that critical thinking was indispensable at both the academic and professional levels. They emphasised that the inclusion of critical thinking in classroom teaching prepares students to be active learners, independent thinkers, and mature professionals with the capacity to address life’s problems. A number of participants expressed that memorisation was detrimental to their intellectual development, whereas scrutiny fostered creativity and decision-making. One participant argued that by stimulating open-ended discussions and solving real-life problems, we could improve young people’s analytical skills, fostering a more reflective society. One other student emphasised that independent thinking plays an important role in the reinforcement of individual, social, and national identity by enshrining a culture of reasonable argumentation rather than acrimony and mutual respect in classrooms. These perceptions underscore that, for the participants, critical thinking was not a supplementary skill but a core educational objective, intrinsically connected to students’ academic achievement, personal development, and broader societal advancement.
4.3. Strategies for Developing Critical Thinking
The most common teaching practices among participants included the question-answer and class discussion techniques. Teachers noted that asking thoughtful questions generates student interest, promotes analysis, and pushes students out of their comfort zones. A few lecturers described assigning topics they wanted students to research, reflect on, and then discuss with the class. This method, they observed, allows students to digest information and arrive at their own conclusions as they consider multiple viewpoints. Others stressed that the ability to analyse and question goes beyond decision-making; it also enhances communication skills and personal empowerment. One participant noted, “It is important to have critical question-asking and information gathering skills if you want to be a critical thinker. Overall, these strategies suggest that teachers were actively striving to shift away from rote learning towards more dialogic and inquiry-based teaching, although the degree of implementation varied across different courses and institutional contexts.
4.4. Participants’ Experiences in Teaching Critical Thinking
Contributors provided a range of activities that supported critical thinking in their classes. A few also adopted discussion-based learning, debates, and real-life case studies to bridge the theory-practice gap. They believed the teachers played a significant role in establishing a culture that valued inquiry and reflection. Some members suggested that the teaching profession tends to prioritise curricular mastery over higher-order learning, thereby constraining students’ critical engagement. A lecturer in education added to these by opining that teachers should allow students to express themselves creatively rather than memorise textbook material. Others, especially those in business and history, applied role-playing, comparison, and case studies to connect academic topics to reality. They concluded that if students are provided opportunities to question, reason through explanations, and think for themselves during instruction, they will develop critical thinking skills progressively. At the same time, participants’ accounts highlighted a tension between their aspiration to promote inquiry-based learning and the constraints imposed by rigid curricula, heavy teaching loads, and students’ expectations of memorisation-based learning. These tensions were especially pronounced in large, exam-focused courses, where content coverage was prioritised over exploratory discussion. As summarised in Table 1, five overarching themes emerged from the analysis, illustrating teachers’ understanding, strategies, and challenges in fostering students’ critical thinking.
| Main Theme | Subthemes | Illustrative Quotes |
| Understanding of Critical Thinking | – Reasoning and analysis
– Evaluation and reflection – Intellectual discipline |
“Critical thinking is the ability to analyse ideas deeply and make rational judgments.” |
| Importance of Critical Thinking | – Promotes independent learning
– Enhances problem -solving and creativity -Builds social and professional competence |
“Critical thinking helps students become independent and confident decision-makers.” |
| Strategies for Developing Critical Thinking | – Question–answer sessions
– Class discussions and debates – Case studies and reflective tasks |
“I often use open discussions and case studies to connect theory with practice.” |
| Challenges in Promoting Critical Thinking | – Rigid curriculum and time constraints
– Students’ reliance on rote learning – Limited institutional support |
“We know the value of critical thinking, but our teaching schedule leaves little room for it.” |
| Teachers’ Experiences and Adaptations | – Encouraging open dialogue
– Linking theory with real-life examples – Promoting student -centred learning |
“I motivate students to think independently and justify their opinions.” |
Table 1. Significant Themes and Subthemes Identified from Teachers’ Interviews
4.5. Contextual and disciplinary influences on critical thinking
Participants also emphasised that the opportunities and challenges in promoting critical thinking were influenced by the specific institutional and disciplinary contexts in which they worked. For instance, teachers from large public universities noted that overcrowded classrooms and rigid, exam-focused curricula made it difficult to allocate time for open-ended discussions or project-based activities. In contrast, those teaching smaller seminar-style courses reported greater flexibility to incorporate debates, case studies, and student-led presentations. Disciplinary differences were also evident: instructors in the Humanities and Social Sciences were more likely to integrate critical discussions into reading and writing assignments, whereas colleagues in more technically oriented programmes faced pressures to “cover the syllabus” and focus on procedural knowledge in preparation for professional exams. These contextual differences suggest that institutional reforms and support structures for fostering critical thinking should be tailored to the specific realities of different programmes and regions, rather than relying on a uniform approach.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework illustrating the five themes identified in the study and their interrelationships within the broader institutional and disciplinary context
5. Discussion
The results of this research support previous studies that emphasise the multidimensionality of critical thinking development. These findings were comparable to those of Özsoy-Güneş et al. (2015); the current investigation indicates that how teachers work —specifically their assessment approaches —are instrumental in supporting or suppressing students’ critical thinking. Tests that go beyond simple recall and require analysis, evaluation, or even application of information/ideas/tools inspire students to think critically and learn at higher levels.
The findings of this study also reinforce established theoretical conceptualisations of critical thinking. Consistent with (Ennis, 2018; Facione & Gittens, 2015), teachers in this study viewed critical thinking as involving both cognitive processes—such as interpretation, evaluation, and inference—and dispositional qualities, including open-mindedness and intellectual discipline. The emphasis teachers placed on reflective and purposeful engagement aligns with (Mozaffari et al., 2021) framework, which identifies critical thinking as a cultivated habit of mind that must be intentionally embedded within instructional practice. These parallels highlight that teachers’ natural descriptions of critical thinking strongly resonate with dominant frameworks within the literature.
Weintrop et al. (2015) also underscored the significance of student motivation for developing critical thinking. The present study aligns with this knowledge, as it shows that self-motivated students who are interested in learning itself tend to criticise academic material. Additionally, Yu et al. (2015) posited that teaching approaches, curricula, assessments, the learning environment, and the socio-cultural context together shape students’ critical thinking. These findings are consistent with such an approach, suggesting that, when combined with effective instructional practices, a supportive, inquiry-based classroom experience can foster the development of higher-order analytical and evaluative abilities.
Furthermore, Abrami et al. (2015) noted that the nature of critical thinking extends beyond academics and also affects students’ social and personal dimensions. The ability to consider alternatives and challenge assumptions contributes to intellectual growth and social awareness. In such a case, it would have been relevant to compare the study of Tsingos-Lucas et al. (2016), which also highlighted that critical thinking promotes empathy and social understanding. When students learn to see both sides of an argument and question their own biases, they develop not only stronger interpersonal relationships but also better collaborative and communication skills.
In addition, the socio-constructivist perspective further explains the findings of this study. According to (Vygotsky, 1978) and (Lipman, 2003), critical thinking develops through dialogic interaction and participation in structured classroom conversations. Many teachers in this study emphasised strategies such as debate, questioning, group activities, and exposure to multiple viewpoints—approaches that directly mirror the sociocultural model of learning. These findings suggest that teachers intuitively adopt practices that are theoretically supported for fostering critical thinking through interaction, reflection, and guided inquiry.
The connection between critical thinking and academic achievement is also empirically supported. According to Suwana (2017), Perceptively, students with strong critical thinking skills may achieve higher academic success because they can analyse information, discern issues, and make rational decisions. Similarly, Changwong et al (2018) noted only the relevance of self-awareness to critical thinking. If people are introspective and consider the limitations or strengths of their views, then they can better assess evidence on its merits—regardless of their social media bubble.
Taken together, the results of this study suggest that a combination of instructional strategies, student motivation and self-awareness, and peripheral context of learning may impact critical thinking. Teachers play a crucial role in fostering these skills through teaching and assessment practices that encourage questioning, reflection, and problem-solving. The establishment of rich, inquiry-centred environments is important not only for developing students’ cognitive skills but also for their social, emotional, and ethical development. Thus, the development of critical thinking in higher education must be comprehensive, integrating it with sound pedagogical methods and substantial learning outcomes, which together can help us prepare students who are not only destined to thrive academically but also to become responsible citizens.
5.1. Implications for curriculum design and teacher development
Participants highlighted that opportunities and challenges for promoting critical thinking were shaped by their specific institutional and disciplinary contexts. Teachers at large public universities mentioned that overcrowded classrooms and rigid, exam-focused curricula limited time for open discussions or project-based work. In contrast, those teaching smaller seminar-style courses had more flexibility for debates and student-led presentations. Disciplinary differences also emerged, with humanities and social sciences instructors more easily integrating critical discussions into reading and writing tasks, while those in technical fields faced pressures to focus on syllabus coverage and procedural knowledge for professional exams. These variations suggest that reforms and support for critical thinking should be adapted to the unique needs of different programmes and regions. To overcome the institutional and structural barriers highlighted by teachers, universities and departments can adopt several practical measures. Institutions could revise curriculum policies to create more room for inquiry-based learning—for example, spreading case studies, debates, and project work across courses rather than confining them to a single module. Adjusting class sizes, or dividing large classes into smaller discussion groups led by teaching assistants, can also provide better conditions for critical thinking. Departments may further support teachers by offering workload adjustments and recognising innovative teaching in promotion processes. Regular professional development on facilitating dialogue, designing higher-order assessments, and giving feedback on reasoning can also strengthen teachers’ capacity. Together, these strategies can narrow the gap between institutional expectations and classroom realities, making it easier to foster critical thinking across varied learning contexts.
6. Conclusions
Critical thinking appears as a graduation concept that combines and consolidates students’ academic and personal tallies. By enabling systematic analysis of complex ideas, mastering Ansel’s Key raises understanding and performance, as well as the level of thinking—analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and inference. These habits of mind have practical payoffs: better problem formation, more effective solution construction, fact-based decision-making, and the ability to advocate positions with clarity and conviction. More importantly, critical thinking also encourages creativity by urging students to challenge existing beliefs and views.
Outside the university, these capabilities are closely tied to workforce expectations, including balancing conflicting information, defending recommendations, and working across differences. So embedding critical thinking across the curriculum provides long-term benefits: better problem-solving, sound judgment, effective communication skills, inquisitive mindsets, and job preparation. In the end, critical thinking leads students to succeed in education and become thoughtful, responsible professionals and citizens. Therefore, higher education institutions must move beyond rhetorical commitments to critical thinking and integrate it meaningfully into curricula, assessment systems, and staff development programmes. By supporting teachers with targeted training, manageable workloads, and recognition of pedagogical innovation, institutions can create an environment where critical thinking is not just advocated in policy, but also actively experienced by students in their daily classroom interactions.
About the Authors
Sohaib Ullah
Center for Studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China, Southwest University, Chongqing, China
Azmat Ullah
Department of Education, University of Chitral, Pakistan
Marwa Zaib
Department of Education, University of Chitral, Pakistan
7. References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 85(2), pp. 275-314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063.
Almulla, M. A. (2018). The effectiveness of using critical thinking on developing students’ speaking skill in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6), pp. 46-54.
Athreya, B. H., & Mouza, C. (2016). Thinking skills for the digital generation: The development of thinking and learning in the age of information. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 12364-6.
Baldwin, R. (2015). Critical thinking and decision-making. Leading and managing health services: An Australasian perspective, pp. 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316161777.022.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? In (Vol. 9, pp. 26152): Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.26152.
Changwong, K., Sukkamart, A., & Sisan, B. (2018). Critical thinking skill development: Analysis of a new learning management model for Thai high schools. Journal of International studies, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.14254/2071- 8330.2018/11-2/3.
Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 17(2), pp. 160-166.
Enciso, O. L. U., Enciso, D. S. U., & Daza, M. D. P. V. (2017). Critical thinking and its importance in education: Some reflections. Rastros Rostros, 19(34), pp. 78-88. https://doi.org/10.16925/ra.v19i34.2144.
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), pp. 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4.
Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Mapping decisions and arguments. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 30(2), pp. 17-53. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20153029.
Giuffré, L., & Ratto, S. E. (2014). A new paradigm in higher education: University social responsibility (USR). Journal of Education & Human Development, 3(1), pp. 231-238. https://jehdnet.com/vol- 3-no-1-march-2014-abstract-15-jehd/.
Hitchcock, D. (2017). Critical thinking as an educational ideal. In On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and on critical thinking (pp. 477-497). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275462988_Critical_thinking_as_an_educational_id eal.
Kayapinar, U., & Alkhalidi, A.A. (2021). Reflective thinking in higher education: examining practices of higher education faculty. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2023.2211525.
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, pp. 160-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s research reports, 6(1), pp. 40-41.
Lipman, M. (1995). Good thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 15(2), pp. 37-41. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews199515224.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272.
Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), pp. 506-522.
Mozaffari, Z., Abdollahi, M. H., Farzad, V., & Ghayedi, Y. (2021). The effectiveness of critical thinking training based on the Paul-Elder model on students’ critical thinking skills. Trainingal Psychology, 18(44), pp. 20-29.
Özsoy-Güneş, Z., Güneş, Z., Duruk, Ü., & Dönmez, G. (2015). Critical thinking and problem-solving: A study of Turkish high school students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(4), pp. 919- 934.
Saleh, S. E. (2019). Critical thinking as a 21st-century skill: Conceptions, implementation, and challenges in the classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2577871.
Shriner, B. (2006). Assessing and developing critical-thinking skills in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 33(1), pp. 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/CNQ.0b013e3181c8e064.
Stassen, M. L. (2011). Critical thinking: Assessment and development. Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), pp. 221-230.
Suwana, F. (2017). Critical thinking and academic success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), pp. 67-79.
Tsingos-Lucas, C., Bosnic-Anticevich, S., Schneider, C. R., & Smith, L. (2016). The effect of thinking skills training on pharmacy students’ critical thinking and reflective practice. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(3), Article 41. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80465.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). 4-Vygotsky. https://doi.org/10.22111/jeps.2021.6536.
Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., Reeves, T. C., & Coster, D. C. (2014). Professional development to enhance teachers’ practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons learned from a design-based research study. Computers & Education, 79, pp. 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.006.
Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Bringing blocks to life: High school students’ embodied engagement with blocks-based computational thinking. Computer Science Education, 25(1), pp. 55-77.
Whitehouse, J. (2005). Critical thinking in the humanities. Educational Practice and Theory, 27(1), pp. 83- 93. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/27.1.06.
Yu, H., Liu, X., & Wang, T. (2015). Exploring critical thinking and its application in education. Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), pp. 324-337.
Yuan, R., & Stapleton, P. (2020). Student teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching. ELT Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz044.
Acknowledgments
The authors contributed to this research as follows:
Sohaib Ullah: Conceptualization, data collection, and drafting of the manuscript.
Azmat Ullah: Supervision, critical review, and revisions.
Marwa Zaib: Methodological guidance, editing, and final approval of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethics Statement
All participants were informed about the study’s aims, and their voluntary participation was secured through informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured throughout the data collection and analysis process. The study complied with general ethical guidelines for educational research and ensured that participation posed no risk or harm to individuals or Institutions.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Gallery
