critical thinking as a science

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

Critical Thinking in Science: Fostering Scientific Reasoning Skills in Students

ALI Staff | Published July 13, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is critical thinking?

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

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

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

Why is critical thinking important?

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

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

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

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

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

How does critical thinking in science impact students?

Critical thinking is essential in science.

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

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

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

Critical thinking in science helps students:

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

4 Ways to promote critical thinking

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

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

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

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

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning centers on critical thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Reflection

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

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

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

Addressing Assumptions

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

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

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

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

Lab Activities With Trial-And-Error

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinking like a scientist

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

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

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

Share this post!

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELP Standards!

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

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

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

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

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

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Which stem subjects are of interest to you.

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

Thinking critically on critical thinking: why scientists’ skills need to spread

Lecturer in Psychology, University of Tasmania

Disclosure statement

Rachel Grieve does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Tasmania provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

MATHS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION: We’ve asked our authors about the state of maths and science education in Australia and its future direction. Today, Rachel Grieve discusses why we need to spread science-specific skills into the wider curriculum.

When we think of science and maths, stereotypical visions of lab coats, test-tubes, and formulae often spring to mind.

But more important than these stereotypes are the methods that underpin the work scientists do – namely generating and systematically testing hypotheses. A key part of this is critical thinking.

It’s a skill that often feels in short supply these days, but you don’t necessarily need to study science or maths in order gain it. It’s time to take critical thinking out of the realm of maths and science and broaden it into students’ general education.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is a reflective and analytical style of thinking, with its basis in logic, rationality, and synthesis. It means delving deeper and asking questions like: why is that so? Where is the evidence? How good is that evidence? Is this a good argument? Is it biased? Is it verifiable? What are the alternative explanations?

Critical thinking moves us beyond mere description and into the realms of scientific inference and reasoning. This is what enables discoveries to be made and innovations to be fostered.

For many scientists, critical thinking becomes (seemingly) intuitive, but like any skill set, critical thinking needs to be taught and cultivated. Unfortunately, educators are unable to deposit this information directly into their students’ heads. While the theory of critical thinking can be taught, critical thinking itself needs to be experienced first-hand.

So what does this mean for educators trying to incorporate critical thinking within their curricula? We can teach students the theoretical elements of critical thinking. Take for example working through [statistical problems](http://wdeneys.org/data/COGNIT_1695.pdf](http://wdeneys.org/data/COGNIT_1695.pdf) like this one:

In a 1,000-person study, four people said their favourite series was Star Trek and 996 said Days of Our Lives. Jeremy is a randomly chosen participant in this study, is 26, and is doing graduate studies in physics. He stays at home most of the time and likes to play videogames. What is most likely? a. Jeremy’s favourite series is Star Trek b. Jeremy’s favourite series is Days of Our Lives

Some critical thought applied to this problem allows us to know that Jeremy is most likely to prefer Days of Our Lives.

Can you teach it?

It’s well established that statistical training is associated with improved decision-making. But the idea of “teaching” critical thinking is itself an oxymoron: critical thinking can really only be learned through practice. Thus, it is not surprising that student engagement with the critical thinking process itself is what pays the dividends for students.

As such, educators try to connect students with the subject matter outside the lecture theatre or classroom. For example, problem based learning is now widely used in the health sciences, whereby students must figure out the key issues related to a case and direct their own learning to solve that problem. Problem based learning has clear parallels with real life practice for health professionals.

Critical thinking goes beyond what might be on the final exam and life-long learning becomes the key. This is a good thing, as practice helps to improve our ability to think critically over time .

Just for scientists?

For those engaging with science, learning the skills needed to be a critical consumer of information is invaluable. But should these skills remain in the domain of scientists? Clearly not: for those engaging with life, being a critical consumer of information is also invaluable, allowing informed judgement.

Being able to actively consider and evaluate information, identify biases, examine the logic of arguments, and tolerate ambiguity until the evidence is in would allow many people from all backgrounds to make better decisions. While these decisions can be trivial (does that miracle anti-wrinkle cream really do what it claims?), in many cases, reasoning and decision-making can have a substantial impact, with some decisions have life-altering effects. A timely case-in-point is immunisation.

Pushing critical thinking from the realms of science and maths into the broader curriculum may lead to far-reaching outcomes. With increasing access to information on the internet, giving individuals the skills to critically think about that information may have widespread benefit, both personally and socially.

The value of science education might not always be in the facts, but in the thinking.

This is the sixth part of our series Maths and Science Education .

Maths and science education

Microsoft and Citrix Technical Consultant

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

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

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

Affiliations.

1 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 [email protected].
2 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.
3 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
4 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.
PMID: 29326103
PMCID: PMC6007780
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052

Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students' development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in writing is strongly related to inference , while other aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills. Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for critical thinking. In linking features of students' writing to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference ) can actually improve students' scientific reasoning in their writing.

© 2018 J. E. Dowd et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2018 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Working with sources
What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

Identify credible sources
Evaluate and respond to arguments
Assess alternative viewpoints
Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

Is free from research bias
Provides evidence to support its research findings
Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

Missing commas and periods
Incorrect usage of “et al.”
Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
When did they say this? Is the source current?
Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

ChatGPT vs human editor
ChatGPT citations
Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
Using ChatGPT for your studies
What is ChatGPT?
Chicago style
Paraphrasing

Plagiarism

Types of plagiarism
Self-plagiarism
Avoiding plagiarism
Academic integrity
Consequences of plagiarism
Common knowledge

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

Who is the author? Are they an expert?
How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test and follow these guidelines:

The information should be up to date and current.
The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

Know how to find credible sources
Use relevant sources to inform your research
Understand what constitutes plagiarism
Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Partnerships

Critical thinking

Effective lifelong learning

Executive summary

One of the most striking characteristics of the XX and XXI centuries is the “exponential growth” of knowledge generated in any discipline, which is available to most of the world’s citizens.
As it is no longer possible to comprehend all the information available, in relation to disciplines or even subdisciplines, education should promote the acquisition of learning abilities related to modes of thought rather than solely the accumulation or memorization of, in many cases, information that may be only infrequently useful.
One mode of thought, reflective thinking or critical thinking, is a metacognitive process—a set of habituated intellectual resources put purposefully into action—that enables a deeper understanding of new information. It also provides a secure foundation for more effective problem-solving, decision-making, and appropriate argumentation of ideas and opinions.
The global output of teaching critical thinking is adding new competences to everyone’s basic capacities for greater cognitive development and freedom.

“… Nothing better for the mental development of the child and the adolescent than to teach them superior ways of learning that complement, continue, rectify and elevate the spontaneous ways. Originality is a precious heritage that the pedagogue must not only guard, but lead, in the domain of values, to its maximum expression. And with superior ways of learning, culture and originality grow in parallel. To teach superior ways of learning is to add to the native powers, new powers for greater independence of the spirit in all its manifestations. It is teaching to move only upwards…Teaching to observe well, to think well, to feel good, to express oneself well and to act well is what, in sum, every pedagogical doctrine, new or old, revolutionary or conservative, of now and forever, is materialized.” (Clemente Estable, 1947 1 ).

Introduction and historical background

The brain is the organ that allows us to think. This confronts us with a philosophical challenge that has been accompanying human civilization for more than 2,500 years: H ow can the brain help us to understand how the brain enables us to understand? 2

Ancient Greek philosophers have already questioned themselves about the source of knowledge and cognitive functions and hypothesized about the fundamental role of the brain, in opposition to the heart or even the air or fire 3-6 . The Socratic method, involving the introspective scrutiny of thought guided by questioning, paved the long-lasting way to contemporary approaches and conceptions about “good thinking,” also called “reflective thinking,” 7 and more recently, “critical thinking” 8 .

As in any area of knowledge, most of the accumulated content—which is vast and always evolving—is nowadays accessible to everyone who has access to the internet. Thus, it can be argued that educational efforts should concentrate on improving the next generation’s modes of thinking. It is desirable to promote engagement with knowledge rather than transmitting the requirement of accumulating data—usually disposable information—through mastery or memorization 9 .

Critical thinking is a fundamental pillar in every field of learning within disciplines as diverse as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as well as the humanities including literature, history, art, and philosophy 5,9,10 .

No matter the discipline, critical thinking pursues some end or purpose, such as answering a question, deciding, solving a problem, devising a plan, or carrying out a project to face present and future challenges 11 . Hence, it is also applicable to everyday life and is desirable for a plural society with citizenship literacy and scientific competence for participation in diverse situations, including dilemmas of scientific tenor 7,12 .

In spite of the explicit valuing of critical thinking, and iterative efforts to promote its effective incorporation in the curricula at different levels of education of science, humanities, and education itself, difficulties for deeper grasping of critical thinking and challenges for its fruitful integration in educational curricula persist 13,14 . Such difficulty is in part caused by a lack of consensus regarding a definition of critical thinking.

Defining critical thinking

Critical thinking is a mental process 11 like creative thinking, intuition, and emotional reasoning, all of which are important to the psychological life of an individual 10 . It pertains to a family of forms of higher order thinking, including problem-solving, creative thinking, and decision-making 15 . However, there is not a single or direct definition of critical thinking, probably reflecting the emphasis made on different features or aspects by several authors from diverse disciplines as education, philosophy, and neurosciences 7,10,16-18 .

Some of the distinguishing features of critical thinking and critical thinkers are ( 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20 ; see Figure 1):

Figure 1. Diagram of the principal features of critical thinking, including some of the necessary cognitive functions and intellectual resources. The arrows indicate the main mechanisms of modulation: top-down, involving the effect of upper on lower level intellectual resources (for example, the effect of metacognition on motivation that in turn affects perception), and bottom-up (such as the influence of self-analysis and habituation on self-regulation and metacognition).

Critical thinkers pursue some end or purpose such as answering a question, making a decision, solving a problem, devising a plan, or carrying out a project to cope with present or future challenges.
Accordingly, critical thinking is purposively put into action and driven by .
As a result of this top-down influence, critical thinking is an attitude which does not occur spontaneously.
Critical thinking also involves the knowledge, acquisition, and improvement of a spectrum of intellectual resources such as: – methods of logical inquiry; – information literacy to gather significant information about the problem and the context for embracing comprehensive background knowledge; – operational knowledge of processing skills for generation of concepts and beliefs: analysis, evaluation, inference, reflective judgment.
To accomplish these intellectual resources, critical thinkers need to put into action the most basic cognitive functions such as perception, motor coordination and action, sensory-motor coordination, language perception and production, memory, and decision-making.
Critical thinkers apply these procedures and methods in a systematic and reasonable way.
As a result, critical thinking is not an immediate cognitive event but a process .
The main outcome of critical thinking is a reflective, ordered, causal flow of ideas .
Critical thinkers self-analyze and self-assess the mode of thinking.
Consequently, critical thinking is a metacognitive process .
Self-evaluation launches a bottom-up process for modulation and improvement of critical thinking, enabling greater adaptability to different situations.
Thus, critical thinking also requires training and habituation .
As a global outcome, critical thinking, as a metacognitive process, also refines self-regulation (i.e., the ability to understand and control our learning environments) 20 .

In sum, critical thinking is a purposeful, intellectually demanding, disciplined, plastic, and trainable mode of thinking in which motivation, self-analysis, and self-regulation play key roles. Several of these aspects were stressed by Santiago Ramón y Cajal (see Figure 2A). Cajal—founder of modern neuroscience and Nobel Prize of Medicine in 1906—hypothesized about the role of brain plasticity, metanalysis habituation, and self-regulation for the acquisition of knowledge about objects or problems: “When one thinks about the curious property that man possesses of changing and refining his mental activity in relation to a profoundly meditated object or problem, one cannot but suspect that the brain, thanks to its plasticity, evolves anatomically and dynamically, adapting progressively to the subject. This adequate and specific organization acquired by the nerve cells eventually produces what I would call professional talent or adaptation, and has its own will, that is, the energetic resolution to adapt our understanding to the nature of the matter.” 20

Figure 2. Left: Portrait of Santiago Ramón y Cajal. Oil painted by the Spanish Postimpressionist painter Joaquín Sorolla in 1906, the year Cajal received the Nobel Prize in Medicine 21 . Right: Microphotography of an original preparation of Cajal showing a pyramidal neuron of the human brain cortex. Staining: Golgi staining. Original handwritten label: Pyramid. Boy 22 .

Neural basis of critical thinking

Figure 3. Mapping of cognitive functions. The diagram superposed on the lateral view of the human brain indicates the location of distributed neural assemblies activated in relation to cognitive functions. Note that the indicated cognitive functions are involved in the same or successive phases of critical thinking. (Modified from ref. 26 ).

The cognitive functions and intellectual resources involved in critical thinking are emergent properties of the human brain’s structure and function which depend on the activity of its building blocks, the neurons (see Figure 2B). Neurons are specialized cells which are almost equal in number to nonneuronal cells in human brains. Of the total amount of 86 billon neurons, 19% form the cerebral cortex and 78% the cerebellum 23 . Neurons are interconnected and intercommunicate through specialized junctions called synapses, of which there are about 0,15 quadrillion in the cerebral cortex 24 and more than 3 trillion in the cerebellar cortex (considering the total number of Purkinje cells and the total amount of synapses/Purkinje cell 25 ). These stellar numbers help us imagine the density of the entangled brain web. This web is not fully active at any time. Instead, distributed groups of neurons or “distributed neural assemblies” are more active at certain topographies when particular cognitive functions are taking place 26 . Considering the spectrum of cognitive functions involved in the process of critical thinking, it will increase activation in much of the brain cortex (see Figure 3).

Teaching critical thinking

“It is not enough to know how we learn, we must know how to teach.” (Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010 27 ).

Teachers have the invaluable potential power of fostering knowledge in the next generations of students and citizens. However, this power is expressed when teachers, instead of teaching what they know—and hence limiting students’ knowledge to their own—teach students to think critically and so open up the possibility that students’ knowledge will expand beyond the borders of the teachers’ own knowledge 28 . Thus, it is important to be aware that—similar to electrical circuits and Ohm’s law—the wealth and depth of students’ knowledge that is achieved or expressed depends not only on the energy or effort that students put in the task but also their own (internal) resistance as well as teachers’ (external) resistance. This metaphor exemplifies that the expected outcomes of education may be better achieved if teachers are familiar with the foundations of critical thinking, better appreciate its worth, and themselves become proficient at thinking critically, particularly in relation to their professional activity.

Now more than ever it is possible for teachers to build a framework to improve the teaching and learning of critical thinking in the classroom 29 thanks to a wealth of information and guidelines resulting from contributions of diverse disciplines since the renewed interest in critical thinking and its promotion in education pioneered by Dewey 7 at the dawn of the 20th century. According to Boisvert (1999 28 ), up to the 1980s, education focused on the abilities of critical thinking as goals to achieve.

Since then, a growing movement of critical thinking has been characterized by iterative attempts to define critical thinking, as well as by instructing teachers about this process and how to teach it. In parallel, several tools for assessment have been created 11, 30, 31, 32, 33 .

Nevertheless, the long-lasting aim has not been achieved. In trying to envisage more fruitful strategies, it is worth noting the difficulty of transmitting critical thinking as just a skill that can be trained without considering the context. On the contrary, the domain of knowledge and the development of critical thinking should be considered in parallel as related intellectual resources—as pointed out by Willimham 33 . It is worth pointing out that, parallel to the critical thinking movement, there has been an increasing simultaneous interest in the neural bases of critical thinking, leading to the emergence 5,34 of “educational neuroscience” 35 and “brain, mind and education” 36 . These interdisciplinary fields have been elucidating the fundamental mechanisms involved in critical thinking as well as the role of factors that impact on this ability. This, along with the tight collaboration between scientists and teachers, is forging a new (Machado) path or bridge over the “gulf” between these fields 35 .

References/Suggested Readings & Notes

Estable, C. 1947. Pedagogía de presión normativa y pedagogía de la personalidad y de la vocación. An. Ateneo Urug., 2ª ed., 1, 155-156. http://www.periodicas.edu.uy/Anales_Ateneo_Uruguay/pdfs/Anales_Ateneo_Uruguay_2a_epoca_n2.pdf
Shepherd, G, M. 1994. Neurobiology, 3rd edn , Oxford University Press.
Cope, E. M. 1875. Plato’s Phaedo, Literally translated , Cambridge University Press.
Adams, L. L. D. 1849. Hippocrates Translated from the Greek with a preliminary discourse and annotations. The Sydenham Society.
Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C. & Martins, I. P. Critical thinking: conceptual clarification and its importance in science education. Science Education International 22,43–54 (2011).
Panegyres, K. P. & Panegyres, P. K. The ancient Greek discovery of the nervous system: Alcmaeon, Praxagoras and Herophilus. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 29, 21–24 (2016).
Dewey, J. How we think. The Problem of Training Thought 14 (1910). doi:10.1037/10903-000
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
Edmonds, Michael, et al. History & Critical Thinking: A Handbook for Using Historical Documents to Improve Students’ Thinking Skills in the Secondary Grades. Wisconsin Historical Society, 2005. http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/pdfs/lessons/EDU-History-and-Critical-Thinking-Handbook.pdf
Mulnix, J. W. Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44, 464–479 (2012).
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R. & Daniels, L. B. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31, 285–302 (1999).
Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J. & Stewart, I. An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity 12, 43–52 (2014).
Paul, R. The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for Community Colleges 130, 27–39 (2005).
Lloyd, M. & Bahr, N. Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning 4, 1–16 (2010).
Rudd, R. D. Defining critical thinking. Techniques. 46 (2007).
Siegel, H. (1988) . Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education . Philosophy of education research library. Routledge Inc.
Siegel, H. in International Encyclopedia of Education 141–145 (Elsevier Ltd, 2010). doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00582-0
Bailin, S. Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education (2002) 11: 361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621
Facione, P. A. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. California Academic Press 1–19 (1990). doi:10.1080/00324728.2012.723893
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
Ramon y Cajal, S. Recuerdos de mi vida . Juan Fernández Santarén, Barcelona. Editorial Crítica ( 1899); Of Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida, Public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32562506).
From: http://www.montelouro.es/Cajal.html.
Herculano-Houzel, S. The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 3, (2009).
Pakkenberg, B. et al. Aging and the human neocortex. Experimental Gerontology 38, 95–99 (2003).
Nairn JG, Bedi KS, Mayhew TM, Campbell LF. On the number of Purkinje cells in the human cerebellum: unbiased estimates obtained by using the “fractionator”. J Comp Neurol. 290(4), 527-32 (1989).
Pulvermüller, F., Garagnani, M. & Wennekers, T. Thinking in circuits: toward neurobiological explanation in cognitive neuroscience. Biological Cybernetics 108, 573–593 (2014).
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. The New Science of Teaching and Learning: Using the Best of Mind, Brain, and Education Science in the Classroom. Teachers College Press (2010).
Chavan, A. A. & Khandagale V. S. Development of critical thinking skill programme for the student teachers of diploma in teacher education colleges. Issues Ideas Educ. http://dspace.chitkara.edu.in/xmlui/handle/1/159.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. Guide for educators to critical thinking competency standards: standards, principles, performance indicators, and outcomes with a critical thinking master rubric. Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2007).
Paul, R. W. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2000). Retrieved from http://assets00.grou.ps/0F2E3C/wysiwyg_files/FilesModule/criticalthinkingandwriting/20090921185639-uxlhmlnvedpammxrz/CritThink1.pdf
Paul, R. W., Elder, L. & Bartell, T. California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. (1997). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1001.1087&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Vieira, R. M. Formação continuada de professores do 1.º e 2.º ciclos do Ensino Básico para uma educação em Ciências com orientação CTS/PC. Tese de doutoramento (não publicada), Universidade de Aveiro. (2003). Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/374/37419205.pdf
Willingham, D. T. Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach? American Educator 31, 8-19. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Crit_Thinking.pdf
Zadina, J. N. The emerging role of educational neuroscience in education reform. Psicología Educativa 21,71–77 (2015).
Goswami, U. Neurociencia y Educación: ¿podemos ir de la investigación básica a su aplicación? Un posible marco de referencia desde la investigación en dislexia. Psicologia Educativa 21, 97–105 (2015).
Schwartz, M. Mind, brain and education: a decade of evolution. Mind, Brain, and Education 9, 64–71 (2015).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Microb Biotechnol
v.16(10); 2023 Oct
PMC10527184

Science, method and critical thinking

Antoine danchin.

1 School of Biomedical Sciences, Li KaShing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong University, Pokfulam Hong Kong, China

Science is founded on a method based on critical thinking. A prerequisite for this is not only a sufficient command of language but also the comprehension of the basic concepts underlying our understanding of reality. This constraint implies an awareness of the fact that the truth of the World is not directly accessible to us, but can only be glimpsed through the construction of models designed to anticipate its behaviour. Because the relationship between models and reality rests on the interpretation of founding postulates and instantiations of their predictions (and is therefore deeply rooted in language and culture), there can be no demarcation between science and non‐science. However, critical thinking is essential to ensure that the link between models and reality is gradually made more adequate to reality, based on what has already been established, thus guaranteeing that science progresses on this basis and excluding any form of relativism.

Science understands that we only can reach the truth of the World via creation of models. The method, based on critical thinking, is embedded in the scientific method, named here the Critical Generative Method.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is MBT2-16-1888-g003.jpg

Before illustrating the key requirements for critical thinking, one point must be made clear from the outset: thinking involves using language, and the depth of thought is directly related to the ‘active’ vocabulary (Magyar, 1942 ) used by the thinker. A recent study of young students in France showed that a significant percentage of the population had a very limited vocabulary. This unfortunate situation is shared by many countries (Fournier & Rakocevic, 2023 ). This omnipresent fact, which precludes any attempt to improve critical thinking in the general population, is very visible in a great many texts published on social networks. This is the more concerning because science uses a vocabulary that lies well beyond that available to most people. For example, a word such as ‘metabolism’ is generally not understood. As a consequence, it is essential to agree on a minimal vocabulary before teaching paths to critical thinking. This may look trivial, but this is an essential prerequisite. Typically, words such as analysis and synthesis must be understood (and the idea of what a ‘concept’ is not widely shared). It must also be remembered that the way the scientific vocabulary kept creating neologisms in the most creative times of science was based on using the Ancient Greek language, and for a good reason: a considerable advantage of that unsaid rule is that this makes scientific objects and concepts prominent for scientists from all over the world, while precluding implicit domination by any country over the others when science is at stake (Iliopoulos et al., 2019 ). Unfortunately, and this demonstrates how the domination of an ignorant subset of the research community gains ground, this rule is now seldom followed. This also highlights the lack of extensive scientific background of the majority of researchers: the creation of new words now follows the rule of the self‐assertive. Interestingly, the very observation that a neologism in a scientific paper does not follow the traditional rule provides us with a critical way to identify either ignorance of the scientific background of the work or the presence in the text of hidden agendas that have nothing to do with science.

In practice, the initiation of the process of critical thinking ought to begin with a step similar to the ‘due diligence’ required by investors when they study whether they will invest, or not, in a start‐up company. The first expected action should be ‘verify’, ‘verify’, ‘verify’… any statement which is used as a basis for the reasoning that follows. This asks not only for understanding what is said or written (hence the importance of language), but also for checking the origins of the statement, not only by investigating who is involved but also by checking that the historical context is well known.

Of course, nobody has complete knowledge of everything, not even anything in fact, which means that at some point people have to accept that they will base their reasoning on some kind of ‘belief’. This inevitable imperative forces future scientists asking a question about reality to resort to a set of assertions called ‘postulates’ in conventional science, that is, beliefs temporarily accepted without further discussion but understood as such. The way in which postulates are formulated is therefore key to their subsequent role in science. Similarly, the fact that they are temporary is essential to understanding their role. A fundamental feature of critical thinking is to be able to identify these postulates and then remember that they are provisional in nature. When needed this enables anyone to return to the origins of reasoning and then decide whether it is reasonable to retain the postulates or modify or even abandon them.

Here is an example illustrated with the famous greenhouse effect that allows our planet not to be a snowball (Arrhenius, 1896 ). Note that understanding this phenomenon requires a fair amount of basic physics, as well as a trait that is often forgotten: common sense. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (this is based on well‐established physics, which, nevertheless must be accepted as a postulate by the majority, as they would not be able to demonstrate that). However, a straightforward question arises, which is almost never asked in its proper details. There are many gases in the atmosphere, and the obvious preliminary question should be to ask what they all are, and each of their relative contribution to greenhouse effect. This is partially understood by a fraction of the general public as asking for the contribution of methane, and sometimes N 2 O and ozone. However, this is far from enough, because the gas which contributes the most to the greenhouse effect on our planet is … water vapour (about 60% of the total effect: https://www.acs.org/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its‐water‐vapor‐not‐the‐co2.html )! This fact is seldom highlighted. Yet it is extremely important because water is such a strange molecule. Around 300 K water can evolve rapidly to form a liquid, a gas, or a solid (ice). The transitions between these different states (with only the gas having a greenhouse effect, while water droplets in clouds have generally a cooling effect) make that water is unable to directly control the Earth's temperature. Worse, in fact, these phase transitions will amplify the fluctuations around a given temperature, generally in a feedforward way. We know very well the situation in deserts, where the night temperature is very low, with a very high temperature during the day. In fact, this explains why ‘global warming’ (i.e. shifting upwards the average temperature of the planet) is also parallel with an amplification of weather extremes. It is quite remarkable that the role of water, which is well established, does not belong to popular knowledge. Standard ‘due diligence’ would have made this knowledge widely shared.

Another straightforward example of the need to have a clear knowledge of the thought of our predecessors is illustrated in the following. When we see expressions such as ‘paradigm change’, ‘change of paradigm’, ‘paradigm shift’ or ‘shift of paradigm’ (12,424 articles listed in PubMed as of June 26, 2023), we should be aware that the subject of interest of these articles has nothing to do with a paradigm shift, simply because such a change in paradigm is extremely rare, being distributed over centuries, at best (Kuhn, 1962 ). Worse, the use of the word implies that the authors of the works have most probably never read Thomas Kuhn's work, and are merely using a fashionable hearsay. As a consequence, critical thinking should lead authentic scientists to put aside all these works before further developing their investigation (Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is MBT2-16-1888-g002.jpg

Number of articles identified in the PubMed database with the keywords ‘paradigm change’ or ‘change of paradigm’ or ‘paradigm shift’ or ‘shift of paradigm’. A very low number of articles, generally reporting information consistent with the Kuhnian view of scientific revolutions is published before 1993. Between 1993 and 2000 a looser view of the term paradigm begins to be used in a metaphoric way. Since then the word has become fashionable while losing entirely its original meaning, while carrying over lack of epistemological knowledge. This example of common behaviour illustrates the decadence of contemporary science.

This being understood, we can now explore the general way science proceeds. This has been previously discussed at a conference meant to explain the scientific method to an audience of Chinese philosophers, anthropologists and scientists and held at Sun Yat Sen (Zhong Shan) University in Canton (Guangzhou) in 1991. This discussion is expanded in The Delphic Boat (Danchin, 2002 ). For a variety of reasons, it would be useful to anticipate the future of our world. This raises an unlimited number of questions and the aim of the scientific method is to try and answer those. The way in which questions emerge is a subject in itself. This is not addressed here, but this should also be the subject of critical thinking (Yanai & Lercher, 2019 ).

The basis for scientific investigation accepts that, while the truth of the world exists in itself (‘relativism’ is foreign to scientific knowledge, as science keeps building up its progresses on previous knowledge, even when changing its paradigms), we can only access it through the mediation of a representation. This has been extensively debated at the time, 2500 years ago, when science and philosophy designed the common endeavour meant to generate knowledge (Frank, 1952 ). It was then apparent that we cannot escape this omnipresent limitation of human rationality, as Xenophanes of Colophon explicitly stated at the time [discussed in Popper, 1968 ]. This limitation comes from an inevitable constraint: contrary to what many keep saying, data do not speak . Reality must be interpreted within the frame of a particular representation that critical thinking aims at making visible. A sentence that we all forget to reject, such as ‘results show…’ is meaningless: results are interpreted as meaning this or that.

Accepting this limitation is a difficult attribute of scientific judgement. Yet the quality of thought progresses as the understanding of this constraint becomes more effective: to answer our questions we have to build models of the world, and be satisfied with this perspective. It is through our knowledge of the world's models that we are able to explore and act upon it. We can even become the creators of new behaviours of reality, including new artefacts such as a laser beam, a physics‐based device that is unlikely to exist in the universe except in places where agents with an ability similar to ours would exist. Indeed, to create models is to introduce a distance, a mediation through some kind of symbolic coding (via the construction of a model), between ourselves and the world. It is worth pointing out that this feature highlights how science builds its strength from its very radical weakness, which is to know that it is incapable, in principle, of attaining truth. Furthermore and fortunately, we do not have to begin with a tabula rasa . Science keeps progressing. The ideas and the models we have received from our fathers form the basis of our first representation of the world. The critical question we all face, then, is: how well these models match up with reality? how do they fare in answering our questions?

Many, over time, think they achieve ultimate understanding of reality (or force others to think so) and abide by the knowledge reached at the time, precluding any progress. A few persist in asking questions about what remains enigmatic in the way things behave. Until fairly recently (and this can still be seen in the fashion for ‘organic’ things, or the idea, similar to that of the animating ‘phlogiston’ of the Middle Ages, that things spontaneously organize themselves in certain elusive circumstances usually represented by fancy mathematical models), things were thought to combine four elements: fire, air, water, and earth, in a variety of proportions and combinations. In China, wood, a fifth element that had some link to life was added to the list. Later on, the world was assumed to result from the combination of 10 categories (Danchin, 2009 ). It took time to develop a physic of reality involving space, time, mass, and energy. What this means is still far from fully understood. How, in our times when the successes of the applications of science are so prominent, is it still possible to question the generally accepted knowledge, to progress in the construction of a new representation of reality?

This is where critical thinking comes in. The first step must be to try and simplify the problem, to abstract from the blurred set of inherited ideas a few foundational concepts that will not immediately be called into question, at least as a preliminary stage of investigation. We begin by isolating a phenomenon whose apparent clarity contrasts with its environment. A key point in the process is to be aware of the fact that the links between correlation and causation are not trivial (Altman & Krzywinski, 2015 ). The confusion between both properties results probably in the major anti‐science behaviour that prevents the development of knowledge. In our time, a better understanding of what causality is is essential to understand the present development of Artificial Intelligence (Schölkopf et al., 2021 ) as this is directly linked to the process of rational decision (Simon, 1996 ).

Subsequently, a set of undisputed rules, phenomenological criteria and postulates is associated with the phenomenon. It constitutes temporarily the founding dogma of the theory, made up of the phenomenon of interest, the postulates, the model and the conditions and results of its application to reality. This epistemological attitude can legitimately be described as ‘dogmatic’ and it remains unchanged for a long time in the progression of scientific knowledge. This is well illustrated by the fact that the word ‘dogma’, a religious word par excellence, is often misused when referring to a scientific theory. Many still refer, for example, to the expression ‘the central dogma of molecular biology’ to describe the rules for rewriting the genetic program from DNA to RNA and then proteins (Crick, 1970 ). Of course, critical thinking understands that this is no dogma, and variations on the theme are omnipresent, as seen for instance in the role of the enzyme reverse transcriptase which allows RNA to be rewritten into a DNA sequence.

Yet, whereas isolating postulates is an important step, it does not permit one to give explanations or predictions. To go further, one must therefore initiate a constructive process. The essential step there will be the constitution of a model (or in weaker instances, a simulation) of the phenomenon (Figure 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is MBT2-16-1888-g001.jpg

The Critical Generative Method. Science is based on the premises that while we can look for the truth of reality, this is in principle impossible. The only way out is to build up models of reality (‘realistic models’) and find ways to compare their outcome to the behaviour of reality [see an explicit example for genome sequences in Hénaut et al., 1996 ]. The ultimate model is mathematical model, but this is rarely possible to achieve. Other models are based on simulations, that is, models that mimic the behaviour of reality without trying to propose an explanation of that behaviour. A primitive attempt of this endeavour is illustrated when people use figurines that they manipulate hoping that this will anticipate the behaviour of their environment (e.g. ‘voodoo’). This is also frequent in borderline science (Friedman & Brown, 2018 ).

To this aim, the postulates will be interpreted in the form of entities (concrete or abstract) or of relationships between entities, which will be further manipulated by an independent set of processes. The perfect stage, generally considered as the ultimate one, associates the manipulation of abstract entities, interpreting postulates into axioms and definitions, manipulable according to the rules of logic. In the construction of a model, one assists therefore first to a process of abstraction , which allows one to go from the postulates to the axioms. Quite often, however, one will not be able to axiomatize the postulates. It will only be possible to represent them using analogies involving the founding elements of another phenomenon, better known and considered as analogous. One could also change the scales of a phenomenon (this is the case when one uses mock‐ups as models). In these families of approaches, the model is considered as a simulation. For example, it will be possible to simulate an electromagnetic phenomenon using a hydrodynamic phenomenon [for a general example in physics (Vives & Ricou, 1985 )]. In recent times the simulation is generally performed numerically, using (super)computers [e.g. the mesoscopic scale typical for cells (Huber & McCammon, 2019 )]. While all these approaches have important implications in terms of diagnostic, for example, they are generally purely phenomenological and descriptive. This is understood by critical thinking, despite the general tendency to mistake the mimic for what it represents. Recent artificial intelligence approaches that use ‘neuronal networks’ are not, at least for the time being, models of the brain.

However useful and effective, the simulation of a phenomenon is clearly an admission of failure. A simulation represents behaviour that conforms to reality, but does not explain it. Yet science aims to do more than simply represent a phenomenon; it aims to anticipate what will happen in the near and distant future. To get closer to the truth, we need to understand and explain, that is, reduce the representation to simpler elementary principles (and as few as possible) in order to escape the omnipresent anecdotes that parasitize our vision of the future. In the case of the study of genomes, for example, this will lead us to question their origin and evolution. It will also require us to understand the formal nature of the control processes (of which feedback, e.g. is one) that they encode. As soon as possible, therefore, we would like to translate the postulates that enabled the model's construction into well‐formed statements that will constitute the axioms and definitions of an explanatory model. At a later stage, the axioms and definitions will be linked together to create a demonstration leading to a theorem or, more often than not, a simple conjecture.

When based on mathematics, the model is made up of its axioms and definitions, and the demonstrations and theorems it conveys. It is an entirely autonomous entity, which can only be justified by its own rules. To be valid, it must necessarily be true according to the rules of mathematical logic. So here we have an essential truth criterion, but one that can say nothing about the truth of the phenomenon. A key feature of critical thinking is the understanding that the truth of the model is not the truth of the phenomenon. The amalgam of these two truths, common in magical thinking, often results in the model (identified as a portion of the world) being given a sacred value, and changes the role of the scientist to that of a priest.

Having started from the phenomenon of interest to build the model, we now need to return from the model to the real world. A process symmetrical to that which provided the basis for the model, an instantiation of the conclusions summarized in the theorem, is now required. This can take the form of predictions, observations or experiments, for which at least two types can be broadly identified. These predictions are either existential (the object, process, or relations predicted by the instantiation of the theorem must be discovered), or phenomenological, and therefore subject to verification and deniability. An experimental set‐up will have to be constructed to explore what has been predicted by the instantiations of the model theorems and to support or falsify the predictions. In the case of hypotheses based on genes, for example, this will lead to synthetic biology constructs experiments (Danchin & Huang, 2023 ), where genes are replaced by counterparts, even made of atoms that differ from the canonical ones.

The reaction of reality, either to simple (passive) observation or to the observation of phenomena triggered by the experiments, will validate the model and measure the degree of adequacy between the model and the reality. This follows a constructive path when the model's shortcomings are identified, and when are discovered the predicted new objects that must now be included in further models of reality. This process imposes the falsification of certain instantiated conclusions that have been falsified as a major driving force for the progression of the model in line with reality. This part of the thought process is essential to escape infinite regression in a series of confirmation experiments, one after the other, ad infinitum. Identifying this type of situation, based on the understanding that the behaviour of the model is not reality but an interpretation of reality, is essential to promote critical thinking.

It must also be stressed that, of course, the weight of the proof of the model's adequacy to reality belongs to the authors of the model. It would be both contrary to the simplest rules of logic (the proof of non‐existence is only possible for finite sets), and also totally inefficient, as well as sterile, to produce an unfalsifiable model. This is indeed a critical way to identify the many pretenders who plague science. They are easy to recognize since they identify themselves precisely by the fact that they ask the others: ‘repeat my experiments again and show me that they are wrong!’. Unfortunately, this old conjuring trick is still well spread, especially in a world dominated by mass media looking for scoops, not for truth.

When certain predictions of the model are not verified, critical thinking forces us to study its relationship with reality, and we must proceed in reverse, following the path that led to these inadequate predictions (Figure 2 ). In this reverse process, we go backwards until we reach the postulates on which the model was built, at which point we modify, refine and, if necessary, change them. The explanatory power of the model will increase each time we can reduce the number of postulates on which it is built. This is another way of developing critical thinking skills: the more factors there are underlying an explanation, the less reliable the model. As an example in molecular biology, the selective model used by Monod and coworkers to account for allostery (Monod et al., 1965 ) used far fewer adjustable parameters than Koshland's induced‐fit model (Koshland, 1959 ).

In real‐life situations, this reverse path is long and difficult to build. The model's resistance to change is quickly organized, if only because, lacking critical thinking, its creators cannot help thinking that, in fact, the model manifests, rather than represents, the truth of the world. It is only natural, then, to think that the lack of predictive power is primarily due not to the model's inadequacy, but to the inappropriate way in which its broad conclusions have been instantiated. This corresponds, in effect, to a stage where formal terms have been interpreted in terms of real behaviour, which involves a great deal of fine‐tuning. Because it is inherently difficult to identify the inadequacy of the model or its links with the phenomenon of interest, it is often the case that a model persists, sometimes for a very long time, despite numerous signs of imperfection.

During this critical process, the very nature of the model is questioned, and its construction, the meaning it represents, is clarified and refined under the constraint of contradictions. The very terms of the instantiations of predictions, or of the abstraction of founding postulates, are made finer and finer. This is why this dogmatic stage plays such an essential role: a model that was too inadequate would have been quickly discarded, and would not have been able to generate and advance knowledge, whereas a succession of improvements leads to an ever finer understanding, and hence better representation of the phenomenon of interest. Then comes a time when the very axioms on which the model is based are called into question, and when the most recent abstractions made from the initial postulates lead to them being called into question. This is of course very rare and difficult, and is the source of those genuine scientific revolutions, those paradigm shifts (to use Thomas Kuhn's word), from which new models are born, develop and die, based on assumptions that differ profoundly from those of their predecessors. This manifests an ultimate, but extremely rare, success of critical thinking.

A final comment. Karl Popper in his Logik der Forschung ( The Logic of Scientific Discovery ) tried to show that there was a demarcation separating science from non‐science (Keuth and Popper, 1934 ). This resulted from the implementation of a refutation process that he named falsification that was sufficient to tell the observer that a model was failing. However, as displayed in Figure 2 , refutation does not work directly on the model of interest, but on the interpretation of its predictions . This means that while science is associated with a method, its implementation in practice is variable, and its borders fuzzy. In fact, trying to match models with reality allows us to progress by producing better adequacy with reality (Putnam, 1991 ). Nevertheless, because the separation between models and reality rests on interpretations (processes rooted in culture and language), establishing an explicit demarcation is impossible. This intrinsic difficulty, which is associated with a property that we could name ‘context associated with a research programme’ (Lakatos, 1976 , 1978 ), shows that the demarcation between science and non‐science is dominated by a particular currency of reality, which we have to consider under the name information , using the word with all its common (and accordingly fuzzy) connotations, and which operates in addition to the standard categories, mass, energy, space and time.

The first attempts to solve contradictions between model predictions and observed phenomena do not immediately discard the model, as Popper would have it. The common practice is for the authors of a model to re‐interpret the instantiation process that has coupled the theorem to reality. Typically: ‘exceptions make the rule’, or ‘this is not exactly what we meant, we need to focus more on this or that feature’, etc. This polishing step is essential, it allows the frontiers of the model and its associated phenomena to be defined as accurately as possible. It marks the moment when technically arid efforts such as defining a proper nomenclature, a database data schema, etc., have a central role. In contrast to the hopes of Popper, who sought for a principle telling us whether a particular creation of knowledge can be named Science, using refutation as principle, there is no ultimate demarcation between science and non‐science. Then comes a time when, despite all efforts to reconcile predictions and phenomena, the inadequacy between the model and reality becomes insoluble. Assuming no mistake in the demonstration (within the model), this contradiction implies that we need to reconsider the axioms and definitions upon which the model has been constructed. This is the time when critical thinking becomes imperative.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Antoine Danchin: Conceptualization (lead); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (lead).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

This work belongs to efforts pertaining to epistemological thinking and does not imply any conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The general outline of the Critical Generative Method presented at Zhong Shan University in Guangzhou, China in 1991, and discussed over the years in the Stanislas Noria seminar ( https://www.normalesup.org/~adanchin/causeries/causeries‐en.html ) has previously been published in Danchin ( 2009 ) and in a variety of texts. Because scientific knowledge results from accumulation of knowledge painstakingly created by the generations that preceded us, the present text purposely makes reference to work which is seldom cited at a moment when scientists become amnesiac and tend to reinvent the wheel.

Danchin, A. (2023) Science, method and critical thinking . Microbial Biotechnology , 16 , 1888–1894. Available from: 10.1111/1751-7915.14315 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2015) Association, correlation and causation . Nature Methods , 12 , 899–900. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Arrhenius, S. (1896) XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground . The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 41 , 237–276. [ Google Scholar ]
Crick, F. (1970) Central dogma of molecular biology . Nature , 227 , 561–563. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Danchin, A. (2002) The Delphic boat: what genomes tell us . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Danchin, A. (2009) Information of the chassis and information of the program in synthetic cells . Systems and Synthetic Biology , 3 , 125–134. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Danchin, A. & Huang, J.D. (2023) synbio 2.0, a new era for synthetic life: neglected essential functions for resilience . Environmental Microbiology , 25 , 64–78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fournier, Y. & Rakocevic, R. (2023) Objectifs éducation et formation 2030 de l'UE: où en est la France en 2023? Note d'Information , 23 , 20. [ Google Scholar ]
Frank, P. (1952) The origin of the separation between science and philosophy . Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , 80 , 115–139. [ Google Scholar ]
Friedman, H.L. & Brown, N.J.L. (2018) Implications of debunking the “critical positivity ratio” for humanistic psychology: introduction to special issue . Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 58 , 239–261. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hénaut, A. , Rouxel, T. , Gleizes, A. , Moszer, I. & Danchin, A. (1996) Uneven distribution of GATC motifs in the Escherichia coli chromosome, its plasmids and its phages . Journal of Molecular Biology , 257 , 574–585. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Huber, G.A. & McCammon, J.A. (2019) Brownian dynamics simulations of biological molecules . Trends in Chemistry , 1 , 727–738. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Iliopoulos, I. , Ananiadou, S. , Danchin, A. , Ioannidis, J.P. , Katsikis, P.D. , Ouzounis, C.A. et al. (2019) Hypothesis, analysis and synthesis, it's all Greek to me . eLife , 8 , e43514. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Koshland, D.E. (1959) Enzyme flexibility and enzyme action . Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology , 54 , 245–258. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions , 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Lakatos, I. (1976) Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Lakatos, I. (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Magyar, F. (1942) The compilation of an active vocabulary . The German Quarterly , 15 , 214–217. [ Google Scholar ]
Monod, J. , Wyman, J. & Changeux, J.P. (1965) On the nature of allosteric transitions: a plausible model . Journal of Molecular Biology , 12 , 88–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Popper, K.R. (1934) Logik der Forschung, 4., bearbeitete Auflage . Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Translation prepared by the author (1959): The logic of scientific discovery . London: Hutchinson & Co. [ Google Scholar ]
Popper, K.R. (1968) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge . London; New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
Putnam, H. (1991) Representation and reality . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Schölkopf, B. , Locatello, F. , Bauer, S. , Ke, N.R. , Kalchbrenner, N. , Goyal, A. et al. (2021) Towards causal representation learning . arXiv , 2021 , 11107. [ Google Scholar ]
Simon, H.A. (1996) The sciences of the artificial , 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Vives, C. & Ricou, R. (1985) Experimental study of continuous electromagnetic casting of aluminum alloys . Metallurgical Transactions B , 16 , 377–384. [ Google Scholar ]
Yanai, I. & Lercher, M. (2019) What is the question? Genome Biology , 20 , 1314–1315. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

3. Critical Thinking in Science: How to Foster Scientific Reasoning Skills

Critical thinking in science is important largely because a lot of students have developed expectations about science that can prove to be counter-productive.

After various experiences — both in school and out — students often perceive science to be primarily about learning “authoritative” content knowledge: this is how the solar system works; that is how diffusion works; this is the right answer and that is not.

This perception allows little room for critical thinking in science, in spite of the fact that argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

Argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

In this article, we outline two of the best approaches to be most effective in fostering scientific reasoning. Both try to put students in a scientist’s frame of mind more than is typical in science education:

First, we look at small-group inquiry , where students formulate questions and investigate them in small groups. This approach is geared more toward younger students but has applications at higher levels too.
We also look science labs . Too often, science labs too often involve students simply following recipes or replicating standard results. Here, we offer tips to turn labs into spaces for independent inquiry and scientific reasoning.

I. Critical Thinking in Science and Scientific Inquiry

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support. A series of experiments , for instance, established that preschoolers can make statistically valid inferences about unknown variables. Through observation they are also capable of distinguishing actions that cause certain outcomes from actions that don’t. These innate capacities, however, have to be developed for students to grow up into rigorous scientific critical thinkers.

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support.

Although there are many techniques to get young children involved in scientific inquiry — encouraging them to ask and answer “why” questions, for instance — teachers can provide structured scientific inquiry experiences that are deeper than students can experience on their own.

Goals for Teaching Critical Thinking Through Scientific Inquiry

When it comes to teaching critical thinking via science, the learning goals may vary, but students should learn that:

Failure to agree is okay, as long as you have reasons for why you disagree about something.
The logic of scientific inquiry is iterative. Scientists always have to consider how they might improve your methods next time. This includes addressing sources of uncertainty.
Claims to knowledge usually require multiple lines of evidence and a “match” or “fit” between our explanations and the evidence we have.
Collaboration, argument, and discussion are central features of scientific reasoning.
Visualization, analysis, and presentation are central features of scientific reasoning.
Overarching concepts in scientific practice — such as uncertainty, measurement, and meaningful experimental contrasts — manifest themselves somewhat differently in different scientific domains.

How to Teaching Critical Thinking in Science Via Inquiry

Sometimes we think of science education as being either a “direct” approach, where we tell students about a concept, or an “inquiry-based” approach, where students explore a concept themselves.

But, especially, at the earliest grades, integrating both approaches can inform students of their options (i.e., generate and extend their ideas), while also letting students make decisions about what to do.

Like a lot of projects targeting critical thinking, limited classroom time is a challenge. Although the latest content standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards , emphasize teaching scientific practices, many standardized tests still emphasize assessing scientific content knowledge.

The concept of uncertainty comes up in every scientific domain.

Creating a lesson that targets the right content is also an important aspect of developing authentic scientific experiences. It’s now more widely acknowledged that effective science instruction involves the interaction between domain-specific knowledge and domain-general knowledge, and that linking an inquiry experience to appropriate target content is vital.

For instance, the concept of uncertainty comes up in every scientific domain. But the sources of uncertainty coming from any given measurement vary tremendously by discipline. It requires content knowledge to know how to wisely apply the concept of uncertainty.

Tips and Challenges for teaching critical thinking in science

Teachers need to grapple with student misconceptions. Student intuition about how the world works — the way living things grow and behave, the way that objects fall and interact — often conflicts with scientific explanations. As part of the inquiry experience, teachers can help students to articulate these intuitions and revise them through argument and evidence.

Group composition is another challenge. Teachers will want to avoid situations where one member of the group will simply “take charge” of the decision-making, while other member(s) disengage. In some cases, grouping students by current ability level can make the group work more productive.

Another approach is to establish group norms that help prevent unproductive group interactions. A third tactic is to have each group member learn an essential piece of the puzzle prior to the group work, so that each member is bringing something valuable to the table (which other group members don’t yet know).

It’s critical to ask students about how certain they are in their observations and explanations and what they could do better next time. When disagreements arise about what to do next or how to interpret evidence, the instructor should model good scientific practice by, for instance, getting students to think about what kind of evidence would help resolve the disagreement or whether there’s a compromise that might satisfy both groups.

The subjects of the inquiry experience and the tools at students’ disposal will depend upon the class and the grade level. Older students may be asked to create mathematical models, more sophisticated visualizations, and give fuller presentations of their results.

Lesson Plan Outline

This lesson plan takes a small-group inquiry approach to critical thinking in science. It asks students to collaboratively explore a scientific question, or perhaps a series of related questions, within a scientific domain.

Suppose students are exploring insect behavior. Groups may decide what questions to ask about insect behavior; how to observe, define, and record insect behavior; how to design an experiment that generates evidence related to their research questions; and how to interpret and present their results.

An in-depth inquiry experience usually takes place over the course of several classroom sessions, and includes classroom-wide instruction, small-group work, and potentially some individual work as well.

Students, especially younger students, will typically need some background knowledge that can inform more independent decision-making. So providing classroom-wide instruction and discussion before individual group work is a good idea.

For instance, Kathleen Metz had students observe insect behavior, explore the anatomy of insects, draw habitat maps, and collaboratively formulate (and categorize) research questions before students began to work more independently.

The subjects of a science inquiry experience can vary tremendously: local weather patterns, plant growth, pollution, bridge-building. The point is to engage students in multiple aspects of scientific practice: observing, formulating research questions, making predictions, gathering data, analyzing and interpreting data, refining and iterating the process.

As student groups take responsibility for their own investigation, teachers act as facilitators. They can circulate around the room, providing advice and guidance to individual groups. If classroom-wide misconceptions arise, they can pause group work to address those misconceptions directly and re-orient the class toward a more productive way of thinking.

Throughout the process, teachers can also ask questions like:

What are your assumptions about what’s going on? How can you check your assumptions?
Suppose that your results show X, what would you conclude?
If you had to do the process over again, what would you change? Why?

II. Rethinking Science Labs

Beyond changing how students approach scientific inquiry, we also need to rethink science labs. After all, science lab activities are ubiquitous in science classrooms and they are a great opportunity to teach critical thinking skills.

Often, however, science labs are merely recipes that students follow to verify standard values (such as the force of acceleration due to gravity) or relationships between variables (such as the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration) known to the students beforehand.

This approach does not usually involve critical thinking: students are not making many decisions during the process, and they do not reflect on what they’ve done except to see whether their experimental data matches the expected values.

With some small tweaks, however, science labs can involve more critical thinking. Science lab activities that give students not only the opportunity to design, analyze, and interpret the experiment, but re -design, re -analyze, and re -interpret the experiment provides ample opportunity for grappling with evidence and evidence-model relationships, particularly if students don’t know what answer they should be expecting beforehand.

Such activities improve scientific reasoning skills, such as:

Evaluating quantitative data
Plausible scientific explanations for observed patterns

And also broader critical thinking skills, like:

Comparing models to data, and comparing models to each other
Thinking about what kind of evidence supports one model or another
Being open to changing your beliefs based on evidence

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice. Actual practice involves decision-making under uncertainty, trial-and-error, tweaking experimental methods over time, testing instruments, and resolving conflicts among different kinds of evidence. Traditional in-school science labs rarely involve these things.

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice.

When teachers use science labs as opportunities to engage students in the kinds of dilemmas that scientists actually face during research, students make more decisions and exhibit more sophisticated reasoning.

In the lesson plan below, students are asked to evaluate two models of drag forces on a falling object. One model assumes that drag increases linearly with the velocity of the falling object. Another model assumes that drag increases quadratically (e.g., with the square of the velocity). Students use a motion detector and computer software to create a plot of the position of a disposable paper coffee filter as it falls to the ground. Among other variables, students can vary the number of coffee filters they drop at once, the height at which they drop them, how they drop them, and how they clean their data. This is an approach to scaffolding critical thinking: a way to get students to ask the right kinds of questions and think in the way that scientists tend to think.

Design an experiment to test which model best characterizes the motion of the coffee filters.

Things to think about in your design:

What are the relevant variables to control and which ones do you need to explore?
What are some logistical issues associated with the data collection that may cause unnecessary variability (either random or systematic) or mistakes?
How can you control or measure these?
What ways can you graph your data and which ones will help you figure out which model better describes your data?

Discuss your design with other groups and modify as you see fit.

Initial data collection

Conduct a quick trial-run of your experiment so that you can evaluate your methods.

Do your graphs provide evidence of which model is the best?
What ways can you improve your methods, data, or graphs to make your case more convincing?
Do you need to change how you’re collecting data?
Do you need to take data at different regions?
Do you just need more data?
Do you need to reduce your uncertainty?

After this initial evaluation of your data and methods, conduct the desired improvements, changes, or additions and re-evaluate at the end.

In your lab notes, make sure to keep track of your progress and process as you go. As always, your final product is less important than how you get there.

How to Make Science Labs Run Smoothly

Managing student expectations . As with many other lesson plans that incorporate critical thinking, students are not used to having so much freedom. As with the example lesson plan above, it’s important to scaffold student decision-making by pointing out what decisions have to be made, especially as students are transitioning to this approach.

Supporting student reasoning . Another challenge is to provide guidance to student groups without telling them how to do something. Too much “telling” diminishes student decision-making, but not enough support may leave students simply not knowing what to do.

There are several key strategies teachers can try out here:

Point out an issue with their data collection process without specifying exactly how to solve it.
Ask a lab group how they would improve their approach.
Ask two groups with conflicting results to compare their results, methods, and analyses.

Download our Teachers’ Guide

(please click here)

Sources and Resources

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy . Handbook of child psychology , Vol. 4. Wiley. A review of research on scientific thinking and experiments on teaching scientific thinking in the classroom.

Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualizations of uncertainty in investigations of their own design . Cognition and Instruction 22(2). An example of a scientific inquiry experience for elementary school students.

The Next Generation Science Standards . The latest U.S. science content standards.

Concepts of Evidence A collection of important concepts related to evidence that cut across scientific disciplines.

Scienceblind A book about children’s science misconceptions and how to correct them.

Holmes, N. G., Keep, B., & Wieman, C. E. (2020). Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 16 (1), 010109. A research study on minimally altering traditional lab approaches to incorporate more critical thinking. The drag example was taken from this piece.

ISLE , led by E. Etkina. A platform that helps teachers incorporate more critical thinking in physics labs.

Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112 (36), 11199-11204. An approach to improving critical thinking and reflection in science labs. Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science . Journal of College Science Teaching , 41 (4), 74-81. A large-scale research study on transforming chemistry labs to be more inquiry-based.

Privacy Overview

8 Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking

The development of beliefs based on critical reasoning and quality data is much closer to a science-based approach to critical thinking.

What Are The Best Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking?

contributed by Lee Carroll , PhD and Terry Heick

Scientific argumentation and critical thought are difficult to argue against.

However, as qualities and mindsets, they are often the hardest to teach to students. Einstein himself said, “Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.”

But how? What can science and critical thinking do for students? And further, what can teachers learn from these approaches and take to their classrooms?

Outside of science, people are quick to label those who question currently accepted theories as contrarians, trolls, and quacks. This is, in part, because people are sometimes not aware of how science moves forward.

Interestingly, professional teaching journals point out that a common myth students bring to school is that science is already all discovered and carved in stone–a fixed collection of knowledge–rather than the simple approach to thinking and knowledge it actually represents.

Below are 8 science-based strategies for critical thinking.

1. Challenge all assumptions

And that means all assumptions.

As a teacher, I’ve done my best to nurture the students’ explorative questions by modeling the objective scientific mindset. Regardless of our goals in the teaching and learning process, I never want to squelch the curiosity of students . One way I accomplish this is by almost always refraining from giving them my personal opinion when they’ve asked, encouraging them instead to tackle the research in order to develop their own ideas.

Students are not used to this approach and might rather be told what to think. But wouldn’t that be a disservice to their development, knowing we need analytical minds to create progress? And knowing how fast technology converts science fiction into fact? Concepts that were pure imagination when I grew up, like time travel, have now been simulated with photons in Australia. Could this happen if we never challenged our assumptions?

Question everything. In that regards, questions are more important than answers.

2. Suspending judgment

If a student shows curiosity in a subject, it may challenge our own comfort zone. Along these lines, Malcolm Forbes—balloonist, yachtsman, and publisher of Forbes magazine—famously declared, “Education’s purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one.”

Although it’s human nature to fill a void with assumptions, it would halt the progress of science and thus is something to guard against. Admittedly, it requires bravery to suspend judgment and fearlessly acquire unbiased data. But who knows, that data may cause us to look at things in a new light.

3. Revising conclusions based on new evidence

In adopting student-centered learning, the Next Generation Science Standards feature scientific argumentation . Can we agree that change based on new evidence may be useful in creating a healthier world?

Resisting confirmation bias, scientists are required to revise conclusions–and thus beliefs–in the presence of new data.

4. Emphasizing data over beliefs

In science, ‘beliefs’ matter less than facts, data, and what can be supported and proven. The development of beliefs based on critical reasoning and quality data is much closer to a science-based approach to critical thinking.

While scientists certainly do ‘argue’ amongst themselves, helping students frame that disagreement as being between data rather than people is a very simple way to teach critical thinking through science. Seeing people and beliefs and data as separate is not only rational, but central to this process.

5. The neverending testing of ideas

At worst, new tests are designed to again test those new conclusions. Theories are wonderful starting points for a process that never stops!

6. The perspective that mistakes are data

Viewing mistakes as data and data as leading to new conclusions and progress is part and parcel to the scientific process.

Just so, one of the fallouts of teaching critical thinking skills is that students may bring home misunderstandings. But exploring controversy in science is the very method that scientists use to propel the field forward.

Otherwise, we would still be riding horses and using typewriters. Did you know that it was once considered controversial to put erasers on pencils? People thought it would encourage students to make mistakes.

7. The earnest consideration of possibilities and ideas without (always) accepting them

However valuable it has proven to explore controversy in science, some students may not be able to wrap their heads around (one of) Aristotle’s famous quote about education: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Without teachers and parents together supporting students through this, children may lose the context of why they should challenge their own assumptions via evidence and analytical reasoning inside and outside of the classroom.

8. Looking for what others have missed

Looking over old studies and data–whether to draw new conclusions or design new theories and tests for those theories–is how a lot of ‘science’ happens. Even thinking of a new way to consider or frame an old problem–to consider what others may have missed–is a wonderful critical thinking approach to learning.

TeachThought is an organization dedicated to innovation in education through the growth of outstanding teachers.

Critical Thinking and Science Education

Published: July 2002
Volume 11 , pages 361–375, ( 2002 )

Cite this article

Sharon Bailin 1

6270 Accesses

199 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

It is widely held that developing critical thinking is one of thegoals of science education. Although there is much valuable work in the area, the field lacksa coherent and defensible conception of critical thinking. As a result, many efforts to foster criticalthinking in science rest on misconceptions about the nature of critical thinking. This paper examines some of themisconceptions, in particular the characterization of critical thinking in terms of processes orskills and the separation of critical thinking and knowledge. It offers a more philosophically sound and justifiableconception of critical thinking, and demonstrates how this conception could be used to ground scienceeducation practice.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Primary and Secondary Science Education

Critical Thinking

Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education

Anderson, C.: 1999, 'Preface: Research on Scientific Reasoning', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (7), 751-752.

Google Scholar

Anderson, J.R.: 1980, Cognitive Psychology and Its Development , W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Bailin, S.: 1990, 'Creativity, Discovery and Science Education: Kuhn and Feyerabend Revisited', Interchange 21 (3), 34-44.

Bailin, S.: 1998, 'Skills, Generalizability, and Critical Thinking', in Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain: Conference Papers 1998 , pp. 259-267.

Bailin, S.: 1999, 'The Problem with Percy: Epistemology, Understanding and Critical Thinking', Informal Logic 19 (2&3), 161-170.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J., & Daniels, L.: 1999a, 'Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking', Journal of Curriculum Studies 31 (3), 269-283.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J., & Daniels, L.: 1999b, 'Conceptualizing Critical Thinking', Journal of Curriculum Studies 31 (3), 285-302.

Black, M.: 1952, Critical Thinking , Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Case, R.: 1980, 'Intellectual Development and Instruction: A Neo-Piagetian View', in A.E. Lawson (ed.), The Psychology of Teaching for Thinking and Creativity , AETS Yearbook, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, OH.

Crow, L.W. (ed.): 1989a, Enhancing Critical Thinking in the Science s, NSTA, Washington, DC.

Crow, L.W.: 1989b, 'The Nature of Critical Thinking', Journal of College Science Teaching 19 (2), 114-116.

Dewey, J.: 1916, 'Method in Science', Science Education 1 (1), 3-9.

Dreyfus, A. & Jungwirth, E.: 1980, 'Students' Perceptions of the Logical Structure of Curricular as Compared with Everyday Contexts — Study of Critical Thinking Skills', Science Education 64 (3), 309-321.

Ennis, R.: 1982, 'A Conception of Critical Thinking', Harvard Educational Review 32 , 82-111.

Ennis, R.: 1985, Goals for a Critical Thinking/Reasoning Curriculum , Illinois Critical Thinking Project, Champaign, IL.

Ennis, R.: 1989, 'Critical Thinking and Subject-Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research', Educational Researcher 18 , 4-10.

Facione, P.A.: 1990, 'Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction: Research Findings and Recommendations (The Delphi Report)'. Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association. ERIC ED 315 423.

Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M.C.: 'Learning Scientific Reasoning Skills in Microcomputer Laboratories', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27 (2), 173-191.

Garnett, J.P. & Tobin, K.G.: 1984, 'Reasoning Patterns of Preservice Elementary and Middle School Science Teachers', Science and Education 68 (5), 621-631.

Giere, R.N.: 1979, Understanding Scientific Reasoning , Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Glaser, E.M.: 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, New York.

Halpern, D.F.: 1992, 'A Cognitive Approach to Improving Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics', in D.F. Halpern (ed.), Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics , Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1-14.

Jungwirth, E.: 1987, 'Avoidance of Logical Fallacies: A Neglected Aspect of Science Education and Science-Teacher Education', Research in Science and Technological Education 5 (1), 43-58.

Kleinsmith, L.: 1989, 'Critical Thinking about the Biology of Cancer', in L.W. Crow (ed.), Enhancing Critical Thinking in the Sciences , NSTA, Washington, DC, pp. 49-58.

Lawson, A.E.: 1982, 'The Nature of Advanced Reasoning and Science Instruction', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 19 (9), 743-759.

Lawson, A.E.: 1985, 'A Review of Research on Formal Reasoning and Science Teaching', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 22 (7), 569-617.

Lipman, M.: 1991, Thinking in Education , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science , Routledge, New York.

McDiarmid, T., Manzo, R., & Muselle, T.: 1996, Critical Challenges for Primary Students , The Critical Thinking Cooperative, Vancouver.

McPeck, J.: 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , St. Martin's, New York.

McPeck, J.: 1990, 'Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity; A Reply to Ennis', Educational Researcher 19 , 10-12.

Mestre, J.P., Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Hardiman, P.T., & Tougher, J.S.: 1992, 'Enhancing Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Physics', in D.F. Halpern (ed.), Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics , Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 77-94.

National Academy of Sciences: 1996, National Science Education Standards , National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Norman, O.: 1997, 'Investigating the Nature of Formal Reasoning', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (10), 1067-1081.

Novak, J.A. & Detloff, J.M.: 1989, 'Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Community College Students', Journal of College Science Teaching , 22-25 Sept./Oct.

Pallant, E.: 1997, 'Assessment and Evaluation of Environmental Problems: Teaching Students to Think for Themselves', Journal of College Science Teachers 26 (3), 167-171.

Perkins, D.N. & Salomon, G.: 1989, 'Are Cognitive Skills Content-Bound? Educational Researcher 18 (1), 16-25.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.: 1958, Growth of Logical Thinking , Basic Books, New York.

Resnick, L.: 1987, Education and Learning to Think , National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Schwab, J.J.: 1987, 'The Teaching of Science as Inquiry', in J.J. Schwab & P.F. Brandein (eds.), The Teaching of Science , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-103.

Siegel, H.: 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , Routledge, New York.

Smith, F.: 1990, To Think , Teachers College Press, New York.

Statkiewicz, W.R. & Allen, R.D.: 1983, 'Practice Exercises to Develop Critical Thinking Skills', Journal of College Science Teaching 12 (4), 262-266.

Sternberg, R.: 1987, 'Teaching Critical Thinking', Phi Delta Kappa 456-459.

Zohar, A. & Tamir, P.: 1993, 'Incorporating Critical Thinking into a Regular High School Biology Curriculum', School Science and Mathematics 93 (3), 136-140.

Zoller, U.: 1999, 'Scaling Up of Higher-Order Cognitive Skills-Oriented College Chemistry Teaching', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (5), 583-596.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C, Canada

Sharon Bailin

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bailin, S. Critical Thinking and Science Education. Science & Education 11 , 361–375 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621

Download citation

Issue Date : July 2002

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621

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

Science Education
Valuable Work
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Back to Campus Sale! Save 25% off with code BTC View Offers

New customer? Sign Up
Redeem Your Code
Compare Products

Critical Thinking, Science, and Pseudoscience

Why we can't trust our brains.

Online Access Duration

Online Access*

Print Book Included

Downloadable Chapter PDFs

Instant Access

Ebook Purchase

Ebook Rental- 180 Day Access

Print Purchase

Upon Delivery**

*Online access provided on connect.springerpub.com select READ SAMPLE CHAPTER & BROWSE EBOOK to preview your experience

**Print books comes with an online access code inside the front cover that can be redeemed upon receipt

Caleb W. Lack, PhD

Jacques Rousseau, MA

This unique text for undergraduate courses teaches students to apply critical thinking skills across all academic disciplines by examining popularpseudoscientific claims through a multidisciplinary lens. Rather than merely focusing on critical thinking, the text incorporates the perspectives ofpsychology, biology, physics, medicine, and other disciplines to reinforce different categories of rational explanation. Accessible and engaging, itdescribes what critical thinking is, why it is important, and how to learn and apply skills that promote it. The text also examines why critical thinkingcan be difficult to engage in and explores the psychological and social reasons why people are drawn to and find credence in extraordinary claims.

From alien abductions and psychic phenomena to strange creatures and unsupported alternative medical treatments, the text uses examples from a wide rangeof pseudoscientific fields and brings evidence from diverse disciplines to critically examine erroneous claims. Particularly timely is the text‚Äôsexamination of how, using the narrative of today‚Äôs ‚Äúculture wars,‚Äù religion and culture impact science. The authors focus on how the human brain, rife withnatural biases, does not process information in a rational fashion, and the social factors that prevent individuals from gaining an unbiased, criticalperspective on information. Authored by a psychologist and a philosopher who have extensive experience teaching and writing on critical thinking andskeptical inquiry, this work will help students to strengthen their skills in reasoning and debate, become intelligent consumers of research, and makewell-informed choices as citizens.

KEY FEATURES:

Addresses the foundations of critical thinking and how to apply it through the popular activity of examining pseudoscience
Explains why humans are vulnerable to pseudoscientific claims and how critical thinking can overcome fallacies and biases
Reinforces critical thinking through multidisciplinary analyses of pseudoscience
Enlightens using an engaging, entertaining approach
Features teaching resources including an Instructor‚Äôs Guide and PowerPoint slides

Foreword: Brains, Hearts, Guts, and Genitals by Eugenie C. Scott, PhD

Acknowledgments

1: Why Do We Need Critical Thinking?

2: What Is Science?

3: What Is Pseudoscience?

4: What Is Critical Thinking?

5: Why Can’t We Trust Our Brains?

6: Why Can’t We Trust Our World?

7: Aliens, Abductions, and UFOs

8: Psychic Powers and Talking to the Dead

9: Unknown Animals and Cryptozoology

10: Evaluating Health Claims in Alternative Medicine

11: Alternative Medicine for Physical Health

12: Pseudoscience in Mental Health

13: The Relationship Between Science and Religion

14: Conclusions and Recommendations

Afterword: Science and Humility by Scott Lilienfeld, PhD

Caleb W. Lack, PhD , is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Oklahoma.

Jacques A. Rousseau, MA , is currently a lecturer in the School of Management Studies at the University of Cape Town (UCT).

Springer Publishing Connect: Your new educator hub!

As of July, 2020 all educator resources have migrated to Springer Publishing CONNECT . Here, you will find a seamless experience that includes your books and their included resources all in one place, with one log in!

What actions do you need to take?

If you previously received access to educator resources on this website, you may have already received an email granting you Springer Publishing CONNECT access to our title you have adopted
If not, we're here to help! Email customer service at [email protected] and we'll set up your access on Springer Publishing CONNECT. Be sure to include the book title, edition number, ISBN, and "Instructor Resources‚" in the subject line. (Please allow 2-3 business days for this to be completed)
If this is a new request, click "Request Exam Copy" above and follow the instructions for access.

Critical Thinking, Science, and Pseudoscience image

Release Date: March 8, 2016
Paperback / softback
Trim Size: 7in x 10in
ISBN: 9780826194190
eBook ISBN: 9780826194268

Critical thinking definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to think critically and creatively

This course will teach you to refine your critical thinking skills so that you are in a better position to evaluate information. You will learn how to think more logically, more rationally, more scientifically – and more creatively.

Supercharge your thinking

Many of us may assume that good thinking is simply a matter of education. The greater your knowledge, the more astute you will be. In reality, even the “smartest” people with advanced qualifications are prone to reasoning errors. And on the flip side, even the least “gifted” of us are capable of creative solutions that can improve our lives and work prospects.

Along the way you will pick up skills to help you analyse an argument. You will learn how to spot flaws and fallacies in someone else’s thinking - and how to avoid biases that can muddle your own. You will feel more confident in your ability to recognise red herrings, false dichotomies and ad hominem attacks, putting you in a position to make better decisions.

And by learning how to think in analogies, to use divergent and convergent thinking, and to avoid what is known as the creative cliff illusion, the better decisions you make should be more creative too.

Watch this video to find out more about this course from our expert speakers

What will you learn.

The importance of being thoughtful

How to unlock your hidden potential

How to think logically

How to think rationally

How to make better decisions

How to think scientifically

How to think creatively

The art of creativity

Who is this course suitable for?

This beginner's course is for anyone who is eager to learn how to think critically and creatively and is suitable for learners at all levels.

You may be studying at university and want the skills to improve your critical thinking skills to get the most out of the information presented in your course syllabus. Perhaps you’re a business leader or manager looking for tools to help you sharpen your decision-making. Or maybe you’re looking to improve your creative thinking skills to boost your career prospects.

After completing the course, you will be issued with a digital certificate. This can be used as evidence to show during job and university applications, or appraisals.

Who will you learn with?

Denise D. Cummins

Cognitive scientist

Dr. Denise D. Cummins is cognitive scientist, author, and elected Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science. She has held faculty and research positions at Yale University, the University of California, the University of Illinois, and the Center for Adaptive Behavior at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin.

In her Psychology Today blog, Scientific American, NPR, and PBS NewHour articles, she writes about what she and other cognitive scientists are discovering about the way people think, solve problems, and make decisions. Dr. Cummins also blogs about equestrian sports as The Thinking Equestrian.

Gerard J. Puccio

Organizational psychologist

Gerard J. Puccio is Department Chair and Professor at the International Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State; a unique academic department that offers the world's only Master of Science degree in creativity. Gerard has written more than 50 articles, chapters and books.

His most recent book titled The Innovative Team, co-authored with Chris Grivas, is a fable about a team that was able to apply proven creative-thinking tools to turn around a dysfunctional and unproductive situation. In 2011 he and his colleagues published the second edition of their book Creative Leadership: Skills that Drive Change.

In recognition of his outstanding work as a scholar, Dr. Puccio received the State University of New York Chancellor's Recognition Award for Research Excellence, as well as the President's Medal for Scholarship and Creativity.

David Robson

Science writer and course host

David Robson is a science writer and author specialising in neuroscience and psychology. A graduate of Cambridge University, he has worked as an editor at New Scientist and a senior journalist at the BBC. His writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Psychologist, and many other publications.

His first book, The Intelligence Trap: Revolutionise Your Thinking and Make Wiser Decisions was published in 2019. His second book, The Expectation Effect: How Your Mindset Can Transform Your Life, will be published in Jan 2022.

Thinking more creatively and more critically can get you further in all walks of life ...

Course curriculum, free preview, introduction.

Welcome and course objectives

How to navigate this course

Test your critical thinking skills

Your hidden potential

Objective and agenda

What school didn’t teach you

The dual process theory

Why creativity can be taught – and why it matters

Test your understanding

Can you analyse an argument?

The common logical fallacies

Carl Sagan’s fire-breathing dragon

Logical thinking

The art of logic

What logical traps do you fall into?

More to explore

Beware cognitive miserliness

Seven biases to avoid

The perils of motivated reasoning

The “consider the opposite” technique

Why should we think scientifically?

The illusion of explanatory depth

Correlation or causation?

How to assess risk and uncertainty

Scientific thinking

Why should we think creatively?

Thinking in analogies

Divergent and convergent thinking

The creative cliff illusion

Creative thinking

The big quiz

Speaker profiles

Retest your critical thinking skills

Course feedback

Course glossary

Learning with New Scientist Academy

New Scientist's expertly curated online courses allow you to learn from top scientists and education providers about the hottest topics in science.

Video tutorials from world renowend experts

Join discussion groups and share ideas

100% online course: Learn at your own pace

What our learners say about our courses

Some kind words from our course graduates

I really liked the mix of videos, media, community questions, quiz and further resource points. It was engaging to have different types of media to interact with. It was a good introduction to a subject matter that I don’t know that much about. I’d now be keen to read around the topic. Katy

5 star rating of the An introduction to the biggest mysteries of the cosmos.

This fun and accessible course gave me a good base and in certain areas developed knowledge of the brain. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the brain or psychology. Sophie

5 star rating of the How your brain works and how to make the most of it

Brilliant: Thoroughly recommend this course. Harriet

5 star rating of the How your brain works and how to make the most of it course.

Approaching problems in a scientific way can improve your decision making. ...

Stay updated.

Sign up and join our academy for free. You'll gain access to free course-preview content. You will also be the first to hear about new courses, promotional offers and events.

Please enter a valid email address

Oops, something went wrong. Please try again with a different email address.

You can opt out of this any time by using an ‘unsubscribe’ link that’s included in each email.

Thank you for signing up for updates

DOI: 10.56566/ijses.v1i1.105
Corpus ID: 268904377

Effect of Science Learning on Students' Critical Thinking Ability: A Review

Rosi Pratiwi , Aris Doyan
Published in International Journal of… 5 March 2024
International Journal of Science Education and Science

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Open access journal.

ISSN: 2222-6990

Perception and Challenges in Fostering Critical Thinking through the Reading Activities in CEFR Alligned Textbooks

Kanchana balakrishnan.

Pages 1750-1753
Received: 01 Jun, 2024
Revised: 05 Jul, 2024
Published Online: 16 Aug, 2024

http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i8/22546

Open access

Critical thinking has become a vital skill that every person needs to equip themselves with from school to working life. It is a metacognitive process where one does not settle with what is being learned, but instead explores it by asking questions and making judgments. Teachers often face multiple challenges in fostering critical thinking among the students as this skill has to be developed through various activities. One of the focus activities for this research would be reading activities in the CEFR-aligned textbooks in Malaysian secondary school classrooms. The CEFR-aligned curriculum and textbooks have been incorporated into the Malaysian education system since 2013 which provides teachers with guided lesson plans, a scheme of work, and a curriculum framework. Thus, this research aims to explore the teachers' familiarity and the challenges they face in using reading activities in CEFR-aligned textbooks to foster critical thinking. It is quantitative research with questionnaires that will be distributed to secondary school teachers using purposive sampling methods.

Ba?, H. & Gürsoy, E. (2021). The Effect of Critical Thinking Embedded English Course Design to The Improvement of Critical Thinking Skills of Secondary School Learners. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 41. 100910. 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100910. Eliyasni, R., Kenedi, A. K., & Sayer, I. M. (2019). Blended learning and project-based learning: the method to improve students’ higher-order thinking skill (HOTS). Jurnal Iqra': Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan, 4(2), 231-248. Gopalan, Y., & Hashim, H. (2021). Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills (Hots) Through Literature Components in ESL Classrooms. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(2), 317-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i2/9673 Katoningsih, S. & Sunaryo, I. (2020). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) as Reading Literacy Standard: Critical Thinking Skill is Priority. Education, Sustainability And Society. 3. 08-10. 10.26480/ess.01.2020.08.10. Malaysian Ministry of Education (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya: MOE Ma, W. and Han, J. (2020) Cultivation of Critical Thinking Skills in the Course of Readings from British and American Press. Creative Education, 11, 1351-1356. doi: 10.4236/ce.2020.118099.

Balakrishnan, K. (2024). Perception and Challenges in Fostering Critical Thinking through the Reading Activities in CEFR Alligned Textbooks. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(8), 1750–1753.

Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s) Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com) This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Further Information

Article Processing Charges

Our Journals

Get intouch with us.

Main navigation

Our Articles
Dr. Joe's Books
Media and Press
Our History
Public Lectures
Past Newsletters
Photo Gallery: The McGill OSS Separates 25 Years of Separating Sense from Nonsense

Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!

Woman in blue shirt reading book with shocked expression.

Add to calendar
Tweet Widget

To the conspiracy-minded alternative health practitioner, everything was great until the Flexner Report was published. Humanity was crushing diseases with herbal remedies and natural potions until 1910 when the “medical-industrial complex” came together and “criminalized natural therapies.” We are now afflicted by Rockefeller medicine, where ill citizens are hooked on expensive drugs that never heal them and the truth about the benefits of herbs is being hidden by paid-off politicians and academics.

This alleged fall from paradise can all be blamed on the original sin of that darn Flexner Report.

I would wager that most of the people hurling insults at this century-old book have never actually read it; I did, because I wanted to know what the fuss was all about.

The Flexner Report was commissioned because the state of medical education in the United States and Canada was dire. A young educator was hired to visit all of North America’s medical colleges and report back, which led to much-needed changes and some unfortunate consequences.

And, yes, he did have some harsh words for what he called “the unconscionable quacks.”

A medical degree and a free trip to Europe!

There is a reason why leeches and purging agents are now rarely used in medicine: the discipline has evolved over the millennia, and Abraham Flexner found himself at the beginning of a new and exciting era.

Medicine in the Western tradition began with Hippocrates and Galen. It began with dogma. “Facts,” Flexner wrote in his report, “had no chance if pitted against the word of the master.” Those who despise modern medicine will claim it has remained dogmatic to this day; but while practitioners can be set in their ways and new findings can linger before they are adopted, we are far from the pontifical medicine of old.

With the rapid development of anatomy in the 1500s, medicine moved from dogma to empiricism. This meant that instead of doctors simply parroting what they had been taught by the rock stars of their field, they would learn from their own experience. They would observe and they would treat accordingly. This approach was more welcoming to discovery, but it was still hard for doctors of that era to properly disentangle diseases that superficially looked the same.

What propelled the discipline forward was science. We came to realize that the human body obeys the laws of biology: it grows, reproduces itself, and dies in predictable ways, and by understanding this underlying biology, the doctor would be better able to prevent and treat disease. Scientific research fed clinical practice, and the medical student, no longer limited to watching, would do as well.

Like medicine, medical training itself had changed over the centuries. It started as a system of apprenticeship, where a trainee became indentured at a young age to a doctor and ran his errands. Eventually, he would get to learn the secrets of his master’s trade. In Europe, the teaching of medicine would move to the lecture halls, which were host to anatomy demonstrations, and many American students would cross the Atlantic to benefit from this enrichment in Paris or Edinburgh. It wouldn’t take long before American doctors saw a way to sprout a similar system stateside and reap its financial benefits.

They were called proprietary schools. They were privately owned, with their teachers splitting the profits among themselves. They could rent a cheap hall, get some inexpensive benches, and recruit students who didn’t even have a high school diploma. “A school that began in October,” Flexner wrote, “would graduate a class the next spring.” Their facilities were poorly stocked, with barely-existing laboratories. The money that didn’t end up in the founders’ pockets was used to make all sorts of wild promises in the advertising material. One of these medical colleges swore it would gift its graduates a trip to Europe!

Following this explosion in questionable proprietary medical schools in the mid-1800s, change was thankfully afoot, but something major was needed around which this change could crystallize.

Quality over quantity

The Flexner Report’s actual title is Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. It was commissioned by industrialist Andrew Carnegie’s policy and research foundation. Much has been made of the report’s ties to Carnegie and to Rockefeller, whose own foundation alongside eight others would pour a lot of money to implement the solutions proposed in the Flexner Report. Flexner’s brother, Simon, was also a friend of John D. Rockefeller, Jr, and he directed the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research for more than three decades. Seen through our modern lens, this friendly alliance between medical education and capitalistic interest can trigger a fair amount of skepticism, if not outright conspiracy theories. It was in the wealthy elite’s interest to downplay the impact of social disparities on health and to promote the simpler idea that the human body was a machine whose broken parts could be mended by the right science-informed technician. But as we’ll see, the report itself did not stick to this narrow viewpoint.

Abraham Flexner, whom the Carnegie Foundation recruited for this massive work, was not a doctor; he was a teacher. Born in Louisville, Kentucky, Flexner studied Greek, Latin and philosophy as an undergrad at Johns Hopkins, and this university made a profound mark on him. It would become the template for Flexner’s medical education revolution.

After teaching high school, Flexner opened his own private preparatory school, which served as a laboratory for his educational convictions. After receiving a Master’s degree in philosophy from Harvard, exploring Europe, and writing a book on American education, he was recruited by the head of the Carnegie Foundation. His mission: to tour the 150 medical schools in the United States and Canada and report back in writing on what their problems were and how to solve them. Already, the deceptive marketing of many of these schools and their deficient scientific education was known; Flexner was to document it. His report was scathing.

Flexner wrote of the dissection rooms where cadavers were as dry as tanned leather. He denounced the medical colleges claiming to have access to a hospital for their students when that was not the case. Many schools did not have full-time faculty and lacked proper laboratories. At the North Carolina Medical College, in Charlotte, Flexner was told that asking about laboratories was futile: their students were “all thumbs,” better suited to be farmers.

His year-and-a-half survey of North America resulted in a three-tiered list of medical colleges.

Sixteen were in tier one, requiring at least two years of college for admission and doing their best to meet the standard set by the Johns Hopkins Medical School. Fifty were salvageable and required of their student applicants a high school diploma. The rest, mostly found in the south of the United States, was a complete loss, in his opinion. “For the law, if enforced, would stamp them out.” (In case my colleagues are curious, he admired McGill’s own medical school, calling it “excellent” and being impressed by its anatomical and pathological museums, as well as its library. Its medical budget at the time was a mere $77,000.)

Flexner’s short-term solution to the proliferation of inadequate, for-profit medical schools was to shut them down and fund the ones that had stricter standards and that were affiliated with a university. He recommended quality over quantity, with fewer but better equipped schools graduating fewer physicians that were better trained. His influential book-length report was used to justify an influx of $154 million in the medical education system over the course of nearly two decades.

While prioritizing quality is commendable, the consequences of the Flexner Report were not all positive. Almost all women’s and historically Black medical colleges shut down in its wake , and women were nearly eliminated from the physician workforce until the 1970s. Medical schools were consolidated in large urban centres and required more money and education to get in, which meant that middle- and upper-class white men had an easier time becoming physicians. And closing a bad medical college in the American South might have been smart in the short term, but if it was not replaced by a better school, it simply created an educational desert.

But if the Flexner Report was focused on improving medical education, why are so many homeopaths and naturopaths mad about it?

Made-up minds

In chapter 10 of his report, Flexner goes for the jugular of what he calls the “medical sects.” Those were competing philosophies of medicine, like homeopathy, osteopathy, and eclectic medicine (a plant-based approach). Flexner correctly observes that unlike the doctor who wants facts and not dogma, “the sectarian […] begins with his mind made up.” He denounces the contradiction in many of the best sectarian colleges, where students underwent two years of chemistry, biology, and physics, before entering clinical training and suddenly being introduced to a pseudoscientific principle that contradicted what they had just learned.

Flexner was not single-handedly responsible for shutting these colleges down. In the ten years before the publication of his report, the 22 homeopathic colleges in the U.S. were trimmed down to 15. Much like the scientific revolution changing medicine, the Flexner Report did not begin the transformation but simply galvanized it.

Yet, Flexner, perceived as the hatchet man that tore down much of the medical education infrastructure, has become a lightning rod for misconceptions and bad arguments. He is sometimes accused of having denigrated the value of public health, which is simply false. In his report he writes of bad environmental conditions that breed disease, such as a contaminated water and food supply. The good doctor’s role, he writes on page 68, “is equally to heal the sick and to protect the well. The public health laboratory belongs, then, under the wing of the medical school.” To make the point even clearer, Flexner notes that “the physician’s function is fast becoming social and preventive, rather than individual and curative.”

And while a hyperfocus on science as the answer to medical problems can lead to inhumane treatment (and certainly had a role to play in eugenics and unconscionable medical experiments like Tuskegee’s), Flexner understood the importance of care. His ideal doctor required “insight and sympathy” in order to heal. That priority may have gotten lost in the implementation of his plan, but it is present in the report, black on white.

When the sectarians he condemns criticize his report, they often claim that he transformed medicine from a holistic view of the entire body into a myopic practice that only focused on broken body parts. This is a convenient argument for them. As scientific research nourished clinical practice, our body of medical knowledge grew, forcing doctors to specialize. But there is no real growth in so-called alternative medicine. There is no need to specialize when you believe there is only one true cause to all diseases. Whether it’s an alleged chiropractic subluxation or a blockage of the supposed life force called qi, it’s just an obstruction. All these practitioners need to do is find the source of the blockage and declog the pipe, much like a plumber. As Flexner pointed out, though, this is not science but dogma masquerading as knowledge.

As for the loss of holism in medicine, it still exists in family medicine, and especially in group practices, where integrating knowledge from specialties is commonplace. But given the incredible amount of knowledge generated in scientific medicine, it is absurd to expect every doctor to know everything.

The Flexner Report of 1910 was an imperfect catalyst that helped move medicine into its science-informed era. It would take many more decades, though, before the randomized controlled clinical trial was adopted as a gold standard for determining the worth of a treatment or preventative. The report also exacerbated inequalities in access to medical education in an attempt to reward the most rigorous institutions. Nonetheless, it argued that the best place for medical education was not in a privately owned and poorly regulated makeshift school but in a university, where foundational research could provide new solutions to the healer.

The kind of quackery that Flexner decried has not really gone away, despite what he predicted, and its practices certainly have not been criminalized. Osteopathy raised its standards in the United States and became, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to medicine. Homeopathic colleges are rare but their hyperdiluted concoctions are still widely available. Some dubious professions, like naturopaths, have acquired an unearned legitimacy in some states and provinces, and the concept of integrative medicine—of adding junk practices to actual medicine to get some sort of best of both worlds—has unfortunately made massive strides in academia .

The battle against medical sectarianism has not been won. There is a lot of work left to do.

Take-home message: - The Flexner Report, published in 1910, crystallized a revolution in North America toward teaching a type of medicine that was strongly influenced by scientific discoveries - The claim that Flexner downplayed the importance of public health and preventive medicine in his report because he was working for the Carnegie Foundation is simply false - The claim that medicine stopped treating the whole person after the Flexner Report came out but that natural healers still do is false: family medicine is holistic; medical specialties exist because of our increased knowledge; and natural healing practices have no need to specialize since they often believe there is one true cause to every disease, which is wrong

@CrackedScience

What to read next

Water cures have flowed through history 16 aug 2024.

Whipping Up Some Science 14 Aug 2024

How a Crazy Claim About a 'Bottle Jumper' Led to a Riot 9 Aug 2024

Doc of Detox Tries to Rewrite All of Medicine 9 Aug 2024

Coffee for the Brain 7 Aug 2024

From Black Goo to Blue Dye and Beyond — the Fascinating History of Aniline 2 Aug 2024

Department and University Information

Office for science and society.

Search Search icon

Majors & Programs
Tuition & Aid
Student Life
Christian Formation

$${headerImage__alt}$

Gender Studies Minor

Undergrad Majors & Programs Biblical & Theological Studies Majors & Minors

With a gender studies minor, you’ll explore our notions of gender, their historical and cultural origins, and find ways to apply what you’re learning in your education and career.

$${introImage__alt}$

Apply now Request info Visit campus

☰ In This Section

Biblical & Theological Studies

- Majors & Minors
Biblical & Theological Studies Major
Missional Ministries Major
Biblical and Theological Studies Minor
Learning Opportunities

Why should I study gender studies at Bethel?

Here, you’ll find a Christ-centered learning community where you belong. Your learning will center in the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies , where you’ll learn from professors who get to know you personally and will invest in your success. You’ll experience:

Merge gender studies with your major You’ll have an opportunity integrate a gender studies topic that interests you into a course within your field of study. You’ll design an integrative project through either research or service-learning that explores how issues of gender impact your major field of study. See the Gender-tag form (pdf) for more information.
Flexibility This minor offers lots of flexibility, as many of the course offerings also count toward general education requirements and will enhance your primary area of study.
Faith-fueled learning We teach with the belief that all God’s creation and all human beings are worthy of study, so you’ll gain a broad knowledge of human history that is deepened by the integration of a Christian perspective.
A community where you belong You’ll learn in a welcoming community of intellectually curious students and professors who will invest in your success.

Request info

Interested in learning more about Bethel's gender studies minor? Fill out this simple form and we'll send you more information soon.

$${introImage__alt}$

Connect with a counselor

They’ll answer your questions, connect you with professors, and help you find the right time to visit campus. They’ll be there every step of the way to help make applying to Bethel as smooth as possible.

Find your counselor

Courses and skills

What skills will I develop?

As you explore gender studies, you’ll expand your knowledge and develop critical thinking skills for evaluating different beliefs and systems about gender. You’ll better understand how personal beliefs about gender influence thoughts about ourselves and others.

$${skillsImage__alt}$

A strong base of knowledge

You’ll gain a better understanding of the key contexts that have and continue to shape gender experiences. And you’ll better recognize discrimination at the intersection of gender, race, class, and more.

Faith-fueled learning

As you explore key issues and beliefs around gender, you’ll develop the ability to apply biblical perspectives to gender issues.

Strong communication skills

You’ll be able to respectfully and thoughtfully communicate personal perspectives. And you’ll gain a stronger sense of empathy for how gender shapes and impacts people of other cultures.

Skills for any career

Gender studies is an area that will enhance your critical thinking skills as you evaluate different beliefs and systems. And these skills can be applied to almost any area of study and career.

Students having a discussion in the Brushaber commons

Academic plans

Map out your time at Bethel—from day one to your diploma. Your course schedule is designed to help you grow, gain skills, and become who you’re meant to be.

Learning opportunities

What experiences will I have?

Hands-on learning is at the core of all Bethel majors and minors. That means you’ll find numerous opportunities to get involved, apply what you’ve learned, and gain experience.

A serene view of a lake with a cross in the foreground, symbolizing faith and reflection.

Study abroad

Study around the world through trips over a full semester, January session, spring break, and summer. Off-campus study abroad programs include the January trip to Morocco, Spain, and France. Or you can study for a semester at a university in another country. Recent students have studied in Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Lithuania.

A student and a professor having a one-on-one discussion in a classroom, focused and engaged.

Internships and on-campus work

You’ll apply what you’ve learned through great internships. And we have partnerships like a paid internship at the White Bear Lake Historical Society. You’ll have the chance to intern at sites like the Minnesota Legislature and the Minnesota Historical Society. You’ll also have opportunities to apply to work for the department as a teaching assistant (TA).

A professor lecturing a group of attentive students in a classroom, fostering an interactive learning environment.

You’ll have the chance to conduct research with professors through programs like Edgren Scholars and summer research projects. And you can conduct your own original research in local or digital archives for your senior seminar paper.

See all experiences

Real-world impact

How will a minor in gender studies help my career goals?

You’ll gain knowledge of political systems and communication, writing, and critical thinking skills that can prepare you for almost any job.

Stand out to employers

Through your service learning or research project, you’ll display the type of critical thinking skills that will help you stand out to employers and graduate schools.

Show your passion

Through rigorous study in a field like gender studies, you’ll stand out to employers with your passion and purpose.

Apply your faith to your career

As you wrestle with important questions and study from a Christian perspective, you’ll be well-equipped to glorify God wherever your career takes you.

Students conversing on Lake Valentine dock

Start your journey

Explore Bethel for yourself

Visiting campus is the best way to learn about Bethel and our majors. As you try out academic and campus life at Bethel, you can attend a class, chat with students, meet professors and coaches, tour campus, and get a taste of life in our program.

Schedule a visit

Faculty mentors

Meet your professors

You’ll learn alongside professors who are accessible and usually have an open-door policy so you can stop by with questions.

Department of Biblical & Theological Studies

Barnes Academic Center (BAC) 356

Erik Leafblad

Michael holmes.

Assistant Professor of Missional Ministries and Department Chair

University Professor of Biblical Studies and Early Christianity Emeritus and Department Chair

James K. Beilby

Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies

Victor Ezigbo

Kaz Hayashi

Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies

Juan Hernandez

Professor of Biblical Studies

Catherine Wright

Adjunct Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies

Adjunct Instructor of Biblical and Theological Studies

Jennifer Scott

Gloria wiese.

Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies

Carissa Wyant

Peter Kapsner

Donald alexander.

Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus

Pamela Erwin

Professor of Biblical Studies Emerita

John Herzog

Karen McKinney

Carl rasmussen.

Professor of Old Testament Emeritus

full-time professors in the department

students in the department

Overhead view of student working on laptop

Accessible education

Tuition and financial aid

College is an investment in your future. That’s why we strive to make your education attainable and provide you with clear and accurate information as you consider your next steps. The net price calculator is a great place to start.

Estimate your cost today

Smiling student wearing Bethel University beanie

Become A Bethel Student

You belong at Bethel. If you're ready to see who you could become, start your free application today.

Start your application

Find your fit

Explore related majors

This flexible minor will complement almost any major you choose. But here are a few examples:

Psychological Sciences Major

Political Science Major

Communication Studies Major: Health Communication Emphasis

Explore the full lists:

Majors and minors Preprofessional programs Endorsements

Accreditation

University accreditation.

Bethel University has been continuously accredited by the Higher Learning Commission since 1959. This regional accreditation, recognized by the United States Department of Education, demonstrates that the university meets quality educational standards.

Update your browser for the best possible experience

As of January 1st, 2020, Internet Explorer (versions 11 and below) is no longer supported by Evolve. To get the best possible experience using Evolve, we recommend that you use another web browser. See the browsers we support. .

IMAGES

Cultivating Critical Thinking in Science
8 Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking
Definition and Examples of Critical Thinking
The benefits of critical thinking for students and how to develop it
CRITICAL THINKING STRATEGIES-PPT
Critical_Thinking_Skills_Diagram_svg

COMMENTS

Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education
For many years, cognitive science has been interested in studying what scientific thinking is and how it can be taught in order to improve students' science learning (Klarh et al., 2019; Zimmerman & Klarh, 2018).To this end, Kuhn et al. propose taking a characterization of science as argument (Kuhn, 1993; Kuhn et al., 2008).They argue that this is a suitable way of linking the activity of ...
Critical Thinking in Science: Fostering Scientific Reasoning Skills in
Critical thinking is essential in science. It's what naturally takes students in the direction of scientific reasoning since evidence is a key component of this style of thought. It's not just about whether evidence is available to support a particular answer but how valid that evidence is. It's about whether the information the student ...
Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and
This framework makes clear that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes; for example, "understanding the process of science" requires students to engage in (and be metacognitive about) scientific reasoning, and having the "ability to interpret data" requires critical-thinking skills.
Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and
Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students' development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in ...
Teaching critical thinking
Although teaching quantitative critical thinking is a fundamental goal of science education, particularly the laboratory portion, the evidence indicates this is seldom, if ever, being achieved (1-6). To address this educational need, we have analyzed the explicit cognitive processes involved in such critical thinking and then developed an ...
Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of
In recent decades, approaches to critical thinking have generally taken a practical turn, pivoting away from more abstract accounts - such as emphasizing the logical relations that hold between statements (Ennis, 1964) - and moving toward an emphasis on belief and action.According to the definition that Robert Ennis (2018) has been advocating for the last few decades, critical thinking is ...
Thinking critically on critical thinking: why scientists' skills need
Pushing critical thinking from the realms of science and maths into the broader curriculum may lead to far-reaching outcomes. With increasing access to information on the internet, giving ...
Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and
Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students' development of these constructs, and it offers a uniqu …
Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and
Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning Scientific Reasoning Scientific reasoning is a complex process that is broadly defined as "the skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evi - dence evaluation, and inference that are done in the service of
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Fostering Students' Creativity and Critical Thinking in Science
3.2.1 Creativity and Critical Thinking. Creativity and critical thinking are two distinct but related higher-order cognitive skills. As such, both require significant mental effort and energy; both are cognitively challenging. Creativity aims to create novel, appropriate ideas and products.
IBE
Defining critical thinking. Critical thinking is a mental process 11 like creative thinking, intuition, and emotional reasoning, all of which are important to the psychological life of an individual 10. It pertains to a family of forms of higher order thinking, including problem-solving, creative thinking, and decision-making 15.
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
The basis of science and democracy Critical thinking skills are used every day in a myriad of ways and can be applied to situations such as a CEO approaching a group project or a nurse deciding in which order to treat their patients. ... Critical thinking, in part, is the cognitive process of reading the situation: the words coming out of their ...
Critical Thinking in Science: What Are the Basics?
Abstract. This paper reviews some of the most critical issues in science in terms of scientific thinking, and. reasoning. Many students arrive at college poorly prepared to function in the typical ...
35 Scientific Thinking and Reasoning
Abstract. Scientific thinking refers to both thinking about the content of science and the set of reasoning processes that permeate the field of science: induction, deduction, experimental design, causal reasoning, concept formation, hypothesis testing, and so on. Here we cover both the history of research on scientific thinking and the different approaches that have been used, highlighting ...
Science, method and critical thinking
Science is founded on a method based on critical thinking. A prerequisite for this is not only a sufficient command of language but also the comprehension of the basic concepts underlying our understanding of reality. This constraint implies an awareness of the fact that the truth of the World is not directly accessible to us, but can only be ...
Critical Thinking in Science
A platform that helps teachers incorporate more critical thinking in physics labs. Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (36), 11199-11204. An approach to improving critical thinking and reflection in science labs.
Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking
Below are 8 science-based strategies for critical thinking. 8 Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking. 1. Challenge all assumptions. And that means all assumptions. As a teacher, I've done my best to nurture the students' explorative questions by modeling the objective scientific mindset. Regardless of our goals in the teaching and ...
Critical Thinking and Science Education
It is widely held that developing critical thinking is one of thegoals of science education. Although there is much valuable work in the area, the field lacksa coherent and defensible conception of critical thinking. As a result, many efforts to foster criticalthinking in science rest on misconceptions about the nature of critical thinking. This paper examines some of themisconceptions, in ...
Critical Thinking, Science, and Pseudoscience
Release Date: March 8, 2016. Paperback / softback. 304 Pages. Trim Size: 7in x 10in. ISBN: 9780826194190. eBook ISBN: 9780826194268. Reviews. This unique text for undergraduate courses teaches students to apply critical thinking skills across all academic disciplines by examining popularpseudoscientific claims through a multidisciplinary lens.
Teaching tips
The following tips grow out of the research literature just reviewed and the guidance of teacher advisors to Understanding Science. Overall: Be explicit about how your classroom activities and content relate to the nature and process of science. Model the behaviors, strategies, and scientific language that you want from your students. Incorporate the nature and process of science
Using Critical Thinking in Essays and other Assignments
Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process ...
How to think critically, rationally and creatively
This course will teach you to refine your critical thinking skills so that you are in a better position to evaluate information. You will learn how to think more logically, more rationally, more scientifically - and more creatively. ... David Robson is a science writer and author specialising in neuroscience and psychology. A graduate of ...
Effect of Science Learning on Students' Critical Thinking Ability: A
Critical thinking ability is one of the high-level thinking abilities in solving problems. Several learning models can be applied to improve students' critical thinking skills. Some of these models include problem based learning, discovery learning, project based learning, and so on. This research is a literature study or literature review of 25 articles related to students' critical thinking ...
Perception and Challenges in Fostering Critical Thinking through the
Critical thinking has become a vital skill that every person needs to equip themselves with from school to working life. It is a metacognitive process where one does not settle with what is being learned, but instead explores it by asking questions and making judgments. Teachers often face multiple challenges in fostering critical thinking ...
The Ultimate Guide to Making Science Fun for Kids: Tips and Tricks
Making science fun for kids is a great way to enhance their learning experience and stimulate their curiosity. ... including critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and fostering a love ...
The Book Natural Healers Really Hate
To the conspiracy-minded alternative health practitioner, everything was great until the Flexner Report was published. Humanity was crushing diseases with herbal remedies and natural potions until 1910 when the "medical-industrial complex" came together and "criminalized natural therapies." We are now afflicted by Rockefeller medicine, where ill citizens are hooked on expensive drugs ...
Gender Studies Minor
This flexible minor provides critical thinking and lessons that can pair well with majors like education, history, social work, business, and more. And you'll work on a research or service learning project that will help you apply lessons from gender studies courses to your major field of study. Apply now Request info Visit campus
Elsevier Education Portal
Search for products and resources by ISBN, author, title, or keyword. Toggle Sign-in

Critical Thinking in Science: Fostering Scientific Reasoning Skills in Students

What is critical thinking?

Why is critical thinking important?

How does critical thinking in science impact students?

4 Ways to promote critical thinking

Project-Based Learning

Self-Reflection

Addressing Assumptions

Lab Activities With Trial-And-Error

Thinking like a scientist

Share this post!

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELP Standards!

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

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

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Thinking critically on critical thinking: why scientists’ skills need to spread

Disclosure statement

What is critical thinking?

Can you teach it?

Just for scientists?

Microsoft and Citrix Technical Consultant

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Other Literature Sources

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Table of contents

Scribbr Citation Checker New

Academic examples

Nonacademic examples

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Critical thinking

Science, method and critical thinking

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

3. Critical Thinking in Science: How to Foster Scientific Reasoning Skills

Argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

I. Critical Thinking in Science and Scientific Inquiry

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support.

Goals for Teaching Critical Thinking Through Scientific Inquiry

How to Teaching Critical Thinking in Science Via Inquiry

The concept of uncertainty comes up in every scientific domain.

Tips and Challenges for teaching critical thinking in science

Lesson Plan Outline

II. Rethinking Science Labs

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice.

How to Make Science Labs Run Smoothly

Download our Teachers’ Guide

Sources and Resources

Privacy Overview

What Are The Best Science-Based Strategies For Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking and Science Education

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Primary and Secondary Science Education

Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education

Author information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Critical Thinking, Science, and Pseudoscience

Critical thinking definition

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

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

How to think critically and creatively

Supercharge your thinking

Watch this video to find out more about this course from our expert speakers