effectiveness of project based learning in promoting critical thinking skills

The Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning in Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Article sidebar, main article content.

This paper aims to explore the effectiveness of project-based learning (PBL) in developing critical thinking skills among students. The study provides an overview of critical thinking and its importance in various aspects of students’ lives. It also examines the concept of project-based learning and its potential to enhance critical thinking skills. The paper discusses the results of various studies that investigated the effectiveness of PBL in developing critical thinking skills among students of different ages and academic backgrounds. The findings of these studies reveal that PBL is an effective approach in promoting critical thinking skills among students. Furthermore, the paper discusses the challenges that teachers and students may encounter while implementing PBL in the classroom, and suggests strategies for overcoming these challenges.

Article Details

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

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

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

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

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

12k Accesses

9 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

What colour are your eyes? Teaching the genetics of eye colour & colour vision. Edridge Green Lecture RCOphth Annual Congress Glasgow May 2019

David A. Mackey

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, … Antonio Ariza-Montes

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Lisa Messeri & M. J. Crockett

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Quick links

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

Promoting critical thinking in an online, project-based course

Affiliations.

• 1 Design and Engineering, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.
• 2 Computer Science Department, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.
• 3 Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.
• 4 School of Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.
• PMID: 36571081
• PMCID: PMC9759729
• DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106705

Education institutions are expected to contribute to the development of students' critical thinking skills. Due to COVID-19, there has been a surge in interest in online teaching. The aim of this study is therefore to design a strategy to promote critical thinking in an online setting for first year undergraduates. An intervention was carried out with 834 students at an engineering school; it comprised five activities designed to develop critical thinking. Both the control and experimental groups worked with a project-based learning strategy, while the experimental group was provided with scaffolding for a socially shared regulation process. All students answered an identical pre- and post-test so as to analyze the impact on critical thinking. Both strategies performed significantly better on the post-test, suggesting that online project-based learning improves critical thinking. However, following a socially shared regulation scaffolding led to a significantly greater improvement. In this sense, the socially shared regulation scaffolding provided to the experimental group proved to be key, while feedback was also an important element in the development of critical thinking. This study shows that online project-based learning fosters the development of critical thinking, while providing a socially shared regulation scaffolding also has a significant impact.

Keywords: Collaborative learning; Critical thinking; Instructional design; Project-based online learning; Socially shared regulation.

© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Critical Thinking Development Through Project-Based Learning

• Sue Wang Central University of Finance and Economics

Project-based learning has drawn increasing attention from educators and researchers because of the multiple benefits it provides. Successful project-based learning engages students in deeper learning by using language as a tool to empower discoveries about the language itself, content, and various skills in authentic contexts. Using the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy as its analytical framework, this study examined whether project-based learning promoted EFL college students’ critical thinking and how students demonstrated their thinking skills through a book report project in a reading course.

Author Biography

Sue wang, central university of finance and economics.

School of Foreign Studies

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl. D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Beckett, G. H. (1999) Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school’s ESL classes: Goals and evaluations. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of British Columbia.

Beckett, G. H., & Miller, P. C. (Eds.). (2006). Project based second and foreign language education: Past, present and future. Information Age Publishing.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 2, 108-116.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018). Technology-integrated project-based language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. John Wiley & Sons.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2020). Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks, Routledge.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans.

Deng, Y., & Wang, X. (2009). Xiang mu qu dong pei yang EFL xue sheng zi zhu neng li de shi zheng yan jiu [An empirical study on developing learner autonomy through project-based learning]. Wai yu yu wai yu jiao xue, 8, 31-34, 46-47.

Dewey, J. (2016/1926). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. The Macmillan Company.

Eslava, R. & Lawson, P. O. (1979). A project course in spoken English, TESOL Quarterly, 13, 65-72.

Eyring, J. L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project work instruction: A case study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles.

Fried-Booth, D. L. (2002). Project work. Oxford University Press.

Gao, Y. (2010). Xiang mu xue xi zai da xue ying yu jiao xue zhong de ying yong yan jiu [The application of project-based learning in college English teaching]. Wai yu jie, 6, 42-56.

Gu, P. (2007). Duo mei ti xiang mu jiao xue fa de li lun yu shi jian [Project-based CALL pedagogy: Theory and practice]. Wai yu jie, 2, 2-8.

Gu, P., & Zhu, M. (2002). Wang shang ying yu xie zuo yu xiang mu jiao xue fa yan jiu [Online English writing and project-based learning: A case study]. Wai yu dian hua jiao xue, 88, 3-7.

Hu. K. (2020). Xin wen ke shi yu xia wai yu xue ke de jian she yu fa zhan --li nian yu lu jing [The construction and development of foreign language and literature discipline in the context of new literal arts]. Zhong guo wai yu, 17, 14-19.

Stoller, L. S. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. Forum, 35(4), 2–18.

Wang, B. (2013). Xiang mu xue xi mo shi dui da xue ying yu xue xi dong ji de ying xiang yin su fen xi [An analysis of the effects of PBL model on college English learning motivation]. Wai yu dian hua jiao xue, 149, 37-41, 68.

Wang, S. (2020). Project-based language learning in China: A literature review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(1), 66-72.

Yang, L., & Han, G. (2012). Ji yu xiang mu shi xue xi mo shi de da xue wai yu xue shu xie zuo jiao xue shi zheng yan jiu [An empirical study of the PBL approach to academic college English writing]. Wai Yu Jie, 5, 8-16.

Yu, W. (2017). Xin da xue ying yu xiang mu huo dong shi jian de xue sheng ping jia yan jiu [Students’ perceptions of the impacts of project activities in learning New Experiencing English]. Zhong guo wai yu, 14(3), 82-91.

Zhang, M. (2012). Xiang mu xue xi zai ying yu yu yan xue jiao xue zhong de ying yong yan jiu [Project-based learning in the teaching of linguistics]. He bei shi fan da xue xue bao, 14(8), 89-91.

Zhang, W. (2015). iPBL: ben tu hua de yi tuo xiang mu ying yu jiao xue mo shi [iPBL: A localized project-based English teaching and learning model]. Zhong guo wai yu, (12)2, 15-23.

Zhu, L., & Zhang, J. (2011). Shi jing fang zhen ji shu zai wai mao ying yu xiang mu xue xi zhong de ying yong [Visual simulation technology in the project-based foreign trade English]. Zhong guo dian hua jiao yu, 299, 110-113.

Copyright © 2015-2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION — All Rights Reserved

Cookies help us to give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings if you wish. Otherwise we'll assume you're OK to continue. OK See our policy

January 24, 2023, by aczjb1

How project-based learning can promote students’ critical thinking skills

Embedding project-based learning and participatory action research in degree courses and executive education can provide students with the critical thinking skills increasingly in high demand by employers. Projects or challenges ideally take the form of company-based challenges or company-based dissertations. With these challenges, a framework of learning outcomes addresses knowledge, skills and behaviours through project-based learning and includes students’ reflections on what they have learned through the experience of real-life community or work-based issues and challenges.

A recent book from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlights how universities must increasingly provide their students with the critical thinking skills required by employers.  In their study – analysing data from the US, UK, Italy, Mexico, Finland and China – 45 per cent of students were found to be proficient in critical thinking, with only 20 per cent having an “emerging” talent.

Crucially, the OECD’s definition of critical thinking skills involves not only thinking, but the application of this thinking to real-life scenarios through the interrelated processes of “inquiring, imagining, doing and reflecting”. Students on such courses will often benefit from the practical application of their learning through partnerships in the workplace or in their local community.

While  research from cognitive sciences  focuses on how critical thinking skills should be taught through direct instruction, an argument could also be made that direct instruction is precisely what can hinder students from developing critical thinking skills in the first place. What, therefore, might be another solution to developing critical thinking in our students? The obvious answer is to think about other pedagogical approaches, which include students practically applying their learning and which develop the key competency of independent learning –  an established prerequisite to critical thinking .

Professor Andrew Bacon explained: “While working with Dr Tom Dobson from York St John University throughout 2022,  we  review ed  research undertaken into pedagogies used with 11- to 19-year-olds. This looked at where the students engaged with their local communities and businesses on projects of their own devising. In the review, substantive evidence was found of positive outcomes when students had experienced one of two pedagogical approaches: project-based learning (PBL); and youth participatory action research (YPAR).”

For each of these projects, students worked through processes with a facilitator in a way that mirrored the OECD’s definition of critical thinking skills. This includes:

• Imagining and enquiring – where they develop developing and research a problem and think about beneficiaries and barriers involved.
• Taking action, where they work in partnership with local businesses and third sector organisations
• Receiving feedback on their actions, helping them reflect and set actions and targets for the future development of their projects.

YPAR is differentiated from PBL in that it also involves the teaching of research methods to students. This formal understanding of research methods helps students to gather data to develop their problem statement as well as design a project that will impact positively upon their target beneficiaries. To date, YPAR is relatively underused in the UK and tends to take place in the US and Asia.

Given that most university courses already develop students’ knowledge of research methods and require them to undertake an independent project towards the end of their course, embedding PBL in Level 4 modules and then YPAR in Level 5 and 6 modules would be one way of facilitating student progression in developing critical thinking skills in line with  the frameworks for higher education .

Given also that most social science courses involve partnerships with local business or third sector organisations, and that most natural sciences courses are driven by the pursuit of knowledge to improve people’s lives and the environment, the use of PBL and YPAR should be seen as highly feasible and a way of meaningfully developing partnerships and the application of knowledge.

Andrew Bacon OBE is a Professor of Practice at Nottingham University Business School and CEO of Enactus UK.

Tom Dobson is Professor of Education at York St John University, UK. He is a former secondary school teacher whose research focuses on creative pedagogies, and this article is drawn from research he is currently undertaking with Enactus UK into the benefits of students driving their own community-based projects.

Read about how Nottingham University Business School’s MSc students take part in company-based challenges at nottingham.ac.uk/business/study-with-us/masters

We are always interested in hearing from businesses that are interested in working with us. Find out how to collaborate with Nottingham University Business School at nottingham.ac.uk/business/collaborate/

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Google+
• Share on LinkedIn

Previous Post

No comments yet, fill out a comment to be the first

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Subscribe by email

About this blog.

This blog showcases the activities of Nottingham University Business School an international leader in finance and management education and a research pioneer in entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainability. Here you will find information about our students’ successes, our multi-disciplinary research and our engagement with businesses.

Useful links

• Nottingham University Business School Homepage
• Opinion piece
• Uncategorized

Recent Posts

• Laura Bond – From science to Professor of Practice
• Izzy Bradley – Help to Grow: Management alumni
• Women’s work matters by Professor Tracey Warren
• Research spotlight: Accelerating youth entrepreneurship in tourism for sustainable development by Professor Marina Novelli (FASC) 
• Navigating AI in Education and Business

Project-Oriented Problem-Based Learning Through SR-STEM to Foster Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Renewable Energy Material

• Published: 27 February 2024

Cite this article

• Iqbal Ainur Rizki   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8618-5592 1 &
• Nadi Suprapto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8990-7412 1  

291 Accesses

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Fostering students’ critical thinking skills is an urgent issue that requires immediate attention. One viable solution to address this is the implementation of project-oriented problem-based learning (POPBL) through the SR-STEM project. This research aims to describe the implementation, effectiveness, and student perception of the POPBL model through the SR-STEM project in enhancing critical thinking skills in renewable energy materials. The study adopts a quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent control group. The participants are 74 senior high school students in the academic year 2022/2023. Data collection employs observation sheets, written tests, and questionnaires. The data are analyzed descriptively and inferentially and using confirmatory factor analysis. The key findings of the study are as follows: (1) the model demonstrates a high level of feasibility; (2) the learning model effectively improves students’ critical thinking skills; and (3) the learning model exhibits a positive correlation with student achievement, perceived control, and affective perception. This research suggests introducing innovative learning approaches to enhance students’ critical thinking skills, particularly in renewable energy materials, to promote Education for Sustainable Development. Moreover, it highlights the significance of considering factors that influence the effective implementation of lessons.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Synergy Between Problem-Based Learning and Educating for Sustainability: A Review of the Literature

New Competences to Develop in Students to Help Them Get Involved in Sustainable Development While They Learn Through Inquiry Methods

Using a Problem-Based Learning Approach to Develop Sustainability Competencies in Higher Education Students

Availability of data and materials.

Not applicable.

Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2015). Analyzing the many skills involved in solving complex physics problems. American Journal of Physics, 83 (5), 459–467.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Adriyawati, A., Utomo, E., Rahmawati, Y., & Mardiah, A. (2020). Steam-project-based learning integration toimprove elementary school students’ scientific literacy on alternative energy learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8 (5), 1863–1873.

Article   Google Scholar  

Akor, T. S., Tyav, D. A., Iorbee, M. M., & Nande, K. B. (2020). Developing fourth industrial revolution ready electronics engineers in a problem-oriented project-based learning environment: A theoretical framework. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 11 (3), 1209–1217.

Google Scholar  

Alpizar, D., Vo, T., French, B. F., & Hand, B. (2022). Growth of critical thinking skills in middle school immersive science learning environments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46 , 101192.

Alwi, A., & Hussin, R. (2018). Becoming socially responsible: The implementation of project-oriented problem-based learning. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 5 (2), 103–112.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5–11.

Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 , 267–272.

Barak, M., & Shahab, C. (2022). The conceptualization of critical thinking: Toward a culturally inclusive framework for technology-enhanced instruction in higher education. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 1–12.

Baran, E., CanbazogluBilici, S., & Mesutoglu, C. (2016). Moving STEM beyond schools: Students’ perceptions about an out-of-school STEM education program. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4 (1), 9.

Brookfield, S. D. (1997). Assessing critical thinking. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997 (75), 17–29.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research . The Guilford Press.

Changwong, K., Sukkamart, A., & Sisan, B. (2018). Critical thinking skill development: Analysis of a new learning management model for Thai high schools. Journal of International Studies, 11 (2), 37–48.

Chedid, L. G. (2005). Energy, society, and education, with emphasis on educational technology policy for K-12. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14 (1), 75–85.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth). SAGE.

de los Ríos-Carmenado, I., Lopez, F. R., & Garcia, C. P. (2015). Promoting professional project management skills in engineering higher education: Project-based learning (PBL) strategy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31 (1), 184–198.

Dutta, R., Mantri, A., Singh, G., & Singh, N. P. (2023). Measuring the impact of augmented reality in flipped learning mode on critical thinking, learning motivation, and knowledge of engineering students. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 1–19.

Eliyawati, E., Sanjaya, Y., & Ramdani, A. S. (2020). Implementation of project oriented problem-based learning (Popbl) model integrated with stem to enhance junior high school students’ science concept mastery. Jurnal Pena Sains, 7 (2), 120–129.

Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice . Teachers College Press.

Gregory, R. (1970). The intelligent eye . Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Greiff, S., & Kyllonen, P. (2016). Contemporary assessment challenges: The measurement of 21st century skills. Applied Measurement in Education, 29 (4), 243–244.

Hailikari, T., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). The relevance of prior knowledge in learning and instructional design. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72 (5), 113.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Halpern, D. F., & Dunn, D. S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9 (2), 1–7.

Harerimana, A., & Mtshali, N. G. (2020). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to understand the role of technology in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 92 , 104490.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hockings, C., Thomas, L., Ottaway, J., & Jones, R. (2018). Independent learning–What we do when you’re not there. Teaching in Higher Education, 23 (2), 145–161.

Husin, W. N. F. W., Arsad, N. M., Othman, O., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Iksan, Z. (2016). Fostering students’ 21st century skills through project oriented problem based learning (POPBL) in integrated STEM education program. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 17 (1), 1–19.

Hussain, D. M. A., & Rosenørn, T. (2008). Assessment of student competencies for a second-year operating system course. Proceedings of 36th European Society for Engineering Education, SEFI Conference on Quality Assessment, Employability and Innovation , July , 2–5.

Ibrahim, N., & Halim, S. A. (2013). Implementation of project-oriented problem-based learning (POPBL) in introduction to programming course. The 4th International Research Symposium on Problem-Based Learning (IRSPBL) , 279–288.

Issa, H. B., & Khataibeh, A. (2021). The effect of using project based learning on improving the critical thinking among upper basic students from teachers’ perspectives. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 11 (2), 52–57.

Jeong, J. S., & González-Gómez, D. (2020). A web-based tool framing a collective method for optimizing the location of a renewable energy facility and its possible application to sustainable STEM education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251 , 119747.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language . Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

Kwee, V., Radford, A. D., & Bruton, D. (2007). Architecture on Digital Flatland: Opportunities for presenting architectural precedence. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) , 110–119.

Lachapelle, P. (2008). A sense of ownership in community development: Understanding the potential for participation in community planning efforts. Community Development, 39 (2), 52–59.

Latada, F., & Kassim, H. (2017). Project-oriented problem -based learning (Popbl): An initiative to enrich soft skills among students at a public university. Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship, 1 (3), 75–83.

León, J., Núñez, J. L., & Liew, J. (2015). Self-determination and STEM education: Effects of autonomy, motivation, and self-regulated learning on high school math achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 43 , 156–163.

Lorencová, H., Jarošová, E., Avgitidou, S., & Dimitriadou, C. (2019). Critical thinking practices in teacher education programmes: A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 44 (5), 844–859.

Mahanal, S., Zubaidah, S., Sumiati, I. D., Sari, T. M., & Ismirawati, N. (2019). RICOSRE: A learning model to develop critical thinking skills for students with different academic abilities. International Journal of Instruction, 12 (2), 417–434.

Martawijaya, M. A., Rahmadhanningsih, S., Swandi, A., Hasyim, M., & Sujiono, E. H. (2023). The effect of applying the ethno-stem-project-based learning model on students’ higher-order thinking skill and misconception of physics topics related to Lake Tempe. Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 12 (1), 1–13.

McGunagle, D., & Zizka, L. (2020). Employability skills for 21st-century STEM students: The employers’ perspective. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10 (3), 591–606.

Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1 (1), 7.

Mohamed, M., Mat Jubadi, W., & Wan Zaki, S. (2011). An implementation of POPBL for analog electronics (BEL10203) course at the Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Uthm. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 3 (2), 45–53.

Moreno, R. (2010). Educational psychology . John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Mutakinati, L., Anwari, I., & Yoshisuke, K. (2018). Analysis of students’ critical thinking skill of middle school through stem education project-based learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7 (1), 54–65.

Mayasari, T., Susilowati, E., & Winarno, N. (2019). Practicing integrated STEM in renewable energy projects: solarpower. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280 (5), 52033.

Nielsen, J. F. D., Alminde, L., Bisgaard, M., Laursen, K. K., & Bhanderi, D. (2006). A large scale problem based learning Inter-European student satellite construction project. In PBL at Aalborg university: contributions to the International PBL Conference in Lima July 17–24 (pp. 57–66). Technology, Environment and Society, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University.

Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to Reach Product Quality. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training . Springer Netherlands.

Nu’man, M., Retnawati, H., Sugiman, S., & Jailani, J. (2021). Measuring self-regulated learning in the STEM framework: A confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Educational Research, 10 (4), 2067–2077.

OECD. (2019). Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018 . In OECD Publisher.

Book   Google Scholar  

Perlmuter, L. C., Scharff, K., Karsh, R., & Monty, R. A. (1980). Perceived control. Motivation and Emotion, 4 (1), 35–45.

Pucher, R., & Lehner, M. (2011). Project based learning in computer science – A review of more than 500 projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29 , 1561–1566.

Qureshi, U. M., Aziz, Z., Shaikh, F. K., Bohra, N., & Memon, A. A. (2014). Project oriented problem based learning: A wireless sensor network perspective. Wireless Personal Communications, 76 (3), 463–477.

Reynders, G., Lantz, J., Ruder, S. M., Stanford, C. L., & Cole, R. S. (2020). Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (9), 1–15.

Riduwan, R. (2012). Skala Pengukuran Variabel-variabel Penelitian . Alfabeta.

Ríos, I. D. L., Cazorla, A., Díaz-Puente, J. M., & Yagüe, J. L. (2010). Project-based learning in engineering higher education: Two decades of teaching competences in real environments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 1368–1378.

Rizki, I. A., Suprapto, N., & Hariyono, E. (2023). Designing vertical axis wind turbine prototype as future renewable energy source in STEAM learning. TEM Journal, 12 (1), 452–458.

Sakib, N., Bhuiyan, A. K. M. I., Hossain, S., Al Mamun, F., Hosen, I., Abdullah, A. H., Sarker, M. A., Mohiuddin, M. S., Rayhan, I., Hossain, M., Sikder, M. T., Gozal, D., Muhit, M., Islam, S. M. S., Griffiths, M. D., Pakpour, A. H., & Mamun, M. A. (2022). Psychometric validation of the Bangla fear of COVID-19 scale: Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20 (5), 2623–2634.

Salomon, G. (1996). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations . Cambridge University Press.

Saphira, H. V., Rizki, I. A., Alfarizy, Y., Saputri, A. D., Ramadani, R., & Suprapto, N. (2022). Profile of students’ critical thinking skills in physics learning: A preliminary study of games application integrated augmented reality. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2377 , 012088.

Sari, Y. S., Selisne, M., & Ramli, R. (2019). Role of students worksheet in STEM approach to achieve competence of physics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1185 (1), 012096.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23–74.

Schoor, C., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2015). Regulation during cooperative and collaborative learning: A theory-based review of terms and concepts. Educational Psychologist, 50 (2), 97–119.

Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson.

Sharif, R., Maarof, S., & Razali, M. M. F. M. (2012). Project oriented problem based learning in architecture design studio in bachelor of architecture program, UPM. The Proceedings of Malaysian Architectural Education Conference , 65–75.

Shekar, A. (2014). Project-based learning in engineering design education : Sharing best practices. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014 , 1–18.

Spiropoulou, D., Antonakaki, T., Kontaxaki, S., & Bouras, S. (2007). Primary teachers’ literacy and attitudes on education for sustainable development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (5), 443–450.

Suprapto, N. (2016). tudents’ attitudes towards STEM education: Voices from Indonesian junior high schools. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13 (Specialissue), 75–87.

Suprapto, N., & Ku, C. H. (2019). Implementation of KS-STEM project: Bridging the STEM curriculum into science education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 1417 (1).

Suprapto, N. (2019). Development and validation of students’ perception on learning by questioning scale in physics. International Journal of Instruction, 12 (2), 242–258.

Suprapto, N., & Mursid, A. (2017). Pre-service teachers ’ attitude s toward teaching science and their science learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18 (4), 66–77.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press.

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48 (6), 1273–1296.

Tapsir, R., Pa, N. A. N., & Zamri, S. N. A. B. S. (2018). Reliability and validity of the instrument measuring values in mathematics classrooms. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6 (2), 37–47.

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36 (1), 23–39.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Bankole, R. A., Mitchell, R. M., & Moore, D. M. (2013). Student academic optimism: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 51 (2), 150–175.

Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.-J., & Chen, W.-P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 , 87–102.

van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Asma, L. J. F. (2012). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96 (1), 158–182.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Wahono, B., Lin, P.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 36.

Walsh, L. N., Howard, R. G., & Bowe, B. (2007). Phenomenographic study of students’ problem solving approaches in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3 (2), 1–12.

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8 , 84.

Yasin, R. M., & Rahman, S. (2011). Problem oriented project based learning (POPBL) in promoting education for sustainable development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 , 289–293.

You, S., Hong, S., & Ho, H.-Z. (2011). Longitudinal effects of perceived control on academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104 (4), 253–266.

Download references

This research is financially supported through the Thesis Assistance Fund—Indonesian Education Scholarship (BPI) by the Education Financing Service Center (Puslapdik), Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of Indonesia.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Iqbal Ainur Rizki & Nadi Suprapto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Iqbal Ainur Rizki is involved in the processed of data analysis and drafted the manuscript. Nadi Suprapto is involved in planning, supervised the work, and finalized the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadi Suprapto .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The authors declare that this is an original work that has not been previously published. It is not being considered for publication elsewhere at this time. The manuscript accurately represents the authors’ research and analysis, and co-authors and co-researchers are properly credited. The findings are well-placed within the existing body of knowledge. All sources used are appropriately acknowledged and cited. Each author contributed significantly to the development of the manuscript and accepts full responsibility for its content.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of State University of Surabaya. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

The participants involved in this research have been provided with comprehensive information regarding the potential risks and benefits associated with their participation. What is more, they have been reassured that any inquiries arising in the future will be addressed. They have willingly consented to partake in this study and acknowledge that this consent statement applies to each of them individually. The school principal has also granted permission for the involvement of their students as research participants in this study.

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient/parent/guardian/ relative of the patient. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the editor of this journal.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rizki, I., Suprapto, N. Project-Oriented Problem-Based Learning Through SR-STEM to Foster Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Renewable Energy Material. J Sci Educ Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10102-2

Download citation

Accepted : 16 February 2024

Published : 27 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10102-2

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

• Critical thinking skill
• Renewable energy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Implementing project-based learning: a practical guide

Ibham Veza and Mohd Syaifuddin Mohd provide practical guidance and methodologies for introducing project-based learning and outline its potential impact on students

.css-76pyzs{margin-right:0.25rem;} ,

Mohd syaifuddin mohd.

• More on this topic

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

A diy guide to starting your own journal, universities, ai and the common good, artificial intelligence and academic integrity: striking a balance, create an onboarding programme for neurodivergent students.

The term “project-based learning” (PBL) is more than just a buzzword. This phenomenon represents a significant shift in educational methodology that is fundamentally reshaping our approach to the processes of teaching and learning. PBL moves students from being passive recipients of knowledge to engaged participants who actively analyse and evaluate information. The approach encourages critical thinking skills by bridging the gap between the theories taught in academia and their practical application in real-world scenarios. This helps students actively engage with the subject matter, ultimately resulting in a deeper and more thorough comprehension of the subject.

What is PBL?

The increasing interconnectedness of the world has led to a growing need for people who can think creatively and generate innovative solutions to complex challenges. Conventional methods of education are no longer seen as adequate in equipping students with the requisite degree of proficiency. PBL, however, integrates theory and practice, believing that students will gain deeper knowledge through exploring real-world challenges and problems – and designing hands-on solutions to those problems.

• Real-world education: embracing project-based learning
• Using project-based learning to boost student motivation and engagement
• Flip the classroom to improve practical skills teaching

PBL provides students with a safe environment in which they can engage in experimentation, experience setbacks, acquire knowledge and achieve success. Students develop a proactive approach to learning, equipping themselves to effectively address challenges and opportunities in an uncertain environment. PBL cultivates critical thinking skills, effective collaboration abilities, innovative approaches to problem-solving and a deep enthusiasm for learning. The availability of numerous resources, groups and digital technology facilitates the transition to PBL. These resources help lecturers in effectively managing PBL activities.

Implementation of PBL

Initiating PBL may appear daunting, yet the numerous advantages derived from the approach justify the challenges encountered. Let’s examine the essential procedures that must be undertaken to effectively integrate PBL within an educational setting.

1. Defining the project: creating the learning blueprint

The establishment of a robust project framework is crucial for the effective execution of PBL. Students should be furnished with a clear and understandable guide to adhere to, in the form of a blueprint, which encompasses the educational objectives, schedule of tasks, anticipated results and criteria for assessment.

Advice that can be implemented:

• Ensure that the objectives of the project align with the educational goals of the course and any applicable real-world contexts.
• Handle expectations – it is vital to precisely establish the project’s schedule, significant points of progress and final outcomes.
• Develop assessment criteria that encompass both the final outcome and the procedural aspects (the process) in order to foster an environment that facilitates comprehensive learning.

2. Facilitating collaborative efforts and group work

PBL is a collaborative educational approach that fosters diverse abilities, perspectives and ideas among students to address complex problems. It exemplifies the dynamics of cooperation required in real-world scenarios, underscoring the need for students to cultivate skills in this area.

• In order to foster a sense of ownership and accountability, it is advisable to allocate duties that align with the unique talents of each student.
• Cultivate a team atmosphere that promotes open communication and inclusive decision-making protocols.
• Foster a culture that promotes mutual respect among individuals, valuing diverse perspectives and embracing constructive criticism as an integral part of the discourse.

3. Establishing a connection between theory and practice.

The unique power of PBL lies in its ability to integrate classroom theories with practical applications. This crucial linkage enhances the educational process by adding greater levels of engagement, pertinence and practicality in relation to real-life scenarios.

• Ensure that the subjects of the projects align with the content addressed in the course and foster the utilisation of students’ theoretical understanding.
• Foster student engagement in reflective practices by offering them opportunities to establish links between their project experiences and their academic learning.

4. Promoting self-awareness and fostering critical thinking via feedback.

PBL is characterised by its reliance on the consistent provision of feedback and opportunities for reflection. This pedagogical approach encourages students to acquire knowledge through personal experiences, critically assess their own performance and engage in continual development.

• It is advisable to incorporate periodic feedback loops throughout the duration of the project, affording students the chance to engage in reflection and iteration.
• One potential approach to enhance the learning experience and gain a deeper understanding of the project’s objectives is to integrate mechanisms for peer feedback.

5. Incorporating technology

The emergence of digital tech has introduced novel opportunities for the progression of PBL when said tech is incorporated into the experience. Students exhibit a higher level of preparedness for a future characterised by technological dominance. The integration of technology into educational settings promotes the development of digital literacy, nurtures creativity and stimulates innovation.

Practical advice that can be implemented:

• Utilise online collaboration tools for the purpose of project management and conducting research.
• To enhance the quality of project outputs, it is recommended to motivate students to utilise visualisation tools and software.

Conclusion: embracing the future with PBL

PBL is a promising approach for embracing the future. It places significant focus on the development of critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, collaborative work and fostering creativity, all of which enhance the acquisition of knowledge. Furthermore, it caters to all learning modalities, enabling all students to excel and demonstrate their understanding. PBL is a very beneficial approach that offers rewards to educators and learners alike. Facilitating students’ PBL endeavours and witnessing their acquisition of ideas, abilities and self-assurance is an immensely gratifying aspect of teaching.

Ibham Veza and Mohd Syaifuddin Mohd are lecturers in the department of mechanical engineering at Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

Global perspectives: navigating challenges in higher education across borders, how to help young women see themselves as coders, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, authentic assessment in higher education and the role of digital creative technologies, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

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
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Promoting critical thinking in an online, project-based course

Catalina cortázar.

a Design and Engineering, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Miguel Nussbaum

b Computer Science Department, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Jorge Harcha

Danilo alvares.

c Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Felipe López

Julián goñi, verónica cabezas.

d School of Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Education institutions are expected to contribute to the development of students' critical thinking skills. Due to COVID-19, there has been a surge in interest in online teaching. The aim of this study is therefore to design a strategy to promote critical thinking in an online setting for first year undergraduates. An intervention was carried out with 834 students at an engineering school; it comprised five activities designed to develop critical thinking. Both the control and experimental groups worked with a project-based learning strategy, while the experimental group was provided with scaffolding for a socially shared regulation process. All students answered an identical pre- and post-test so as to analyze the impact on critical thinking. Both strategies performed significantly better on the post-test, suggesting that online project-based learning improves critical thinking. However, following a socially shared regulation scaffolding led to a significantly greater improvement. In this sense, the socially shared regulation scaffolding provided to the experimental group proved to be key, while feedback was also an important element in the development of critical thinking. This study shows that online project-based learning fosters the development of critical thinking, while providing a socially shared regulation scaffolding also has a significant impact.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 has challenged education systems and made us rethink how we teach, forcing us to adopt remote learning and teaching methodologies. In an online teaching environment, critical thinking is one skill that remains relatively unstudied ( Saadé et al., 2012 ). Even though the number of studies has increased, they are still rarely cited ( Chou et al., 2019 ).

In 1990, the American Philosophical Association stated that critical thinking “is essential as a tool of inquiry, and a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life.” They defined a critical thinker as someone who is analytical and knowledgeable, willing to challenge information, investigate, and seek rigorous results; someone who understands who they are, understands their biases, and is likely to rethink and reconsider. They consider critical thinking to be the foundation of a democratic society ( Facione, 1990 ).

Today, we live in a rapidly changing society immersed in a knowledge economy ( van Laar et al., 2017 ), where the internet has become people's main source of information ( Saadé et al., 2012 ). As the effects of fake news have become a major issue, media literacy and critical thinking have emerged as essential skills (; Scheibenzuber et al., 2021 ). Employers expect employees to discriminate between information that is useful and information that is not, as well as implementing newly acquired knowledge ( van Laar et al., 2017 ). Critical thinking is therefore key as it allows us to understand information and determine whether it is reliable, regardless of the domain ( Saadé et al., 2012 ). This involves independent thinking and the ability to formulate opinions after considering different perspectives ( van Laar et al., 2019 ). In summary, it is a higher-order thinking skill that involves problem-solving, decision-making, and creative thinking ( Facione, 1990 ).

In this context, education institutions are expected to contribute to the development of their students' critical thinking skills ( Thorndahl & Stentoft, 2020 ). In other words, they should teach students how to think and not what to think ( Velez & Power, 2020 ). Learning how to think, through the development of critical thinking, should therefore be encouraged from the first year of university ( Thomas, 2011 ). First-year courses should promote critical thinking by making it explicit and having students reflect on their learning processes ( Thomas et al., 2007 ). By doing so, students will be more successful in their university studies and have more time to practice and develop their critical thinking skills before they graduate ( Thomas, 2011 ).

Project-based learning is one educational methodology that improves communication skills and promotes critical thinking ( Wengrowicz et al., 2017 ). It promotes learning based on real-life projects ( Dilekli, 2020 , p. p53), while motivating students; helping improve their problem-solving and argumentation skills, and encouraging them to broaden their minds ( Velez & Power, 2020 ). This involves working autonomously in teams to tackle open-ended problems, from the research phase through to developing a final product ( Usher & Barak, 2018 ), thus boosting their intellectual development ( Wengrowicz et al., 2017 ). Project-based learning enhances collaboration ( McManus & Costello, 2019 ), allowing students not only to learn from themselves but also from each other ( Hernández et al., 2018 ). Students who participate collaboratively do significantly better on critical thinking tests than those who work independently ( Erdogan, 2019 ; Silva et al., 2019 ; and; Gokhale, 1995 ). Therefore, implementing collaborative learning and providing adequate instructions may help students develop critical thinking ( Loes & Pascarella, 2017 ).

Previous studies of online project-based learning have mainly focused on how students collaborate; only a few studies examine the methodologies used to help students acquire knowledge ( Koh et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, digital technology has allowed education systems to move from a physical to an online environment ( Saadé et al., 2012 ). While presenting a challenge to the field of education, it can also help students acquire the skills that are essential for modern life ( Sailer et al., 2021 ). Recent studies have highlighted the challenges of teaching critical thinking online. This includes facilitating social interactions ( Wan Husssin et al., 2019 ), maintaining quality when taking a course online ( Goodsett, 2020 ), and designing effective feedback ( Karaoglan & Yilmaz, 2019 ). Additionally, critical thinking has important effects on student performance in online activities, especially when it comes to the correct use of information ( Jolley et al., 2020 ) and engaging in higher-order thinking ( Al-Husban, 2020 ).

Developing critical thinking in an online environment requires the interplay between content, interactivity, and instructional design ( Saadé et al., 2012 ). In this sense, traditional teaching methods are less effective at developing critical thinking ( Chou et al., 2019 ). When working with ill-structured problems in an online, project-based learning environment ( Şendaǧ & Odabaşi, 2009 ), effective student interaction leads to higher levels of knowledge construction ( Koh et al., 2010 ). Project- and problem-based courses foster a student's ability to take positions and make decisions, both of which are essential to critical thinking ( Bezanilla et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, the most common approach to enhancing critical thinking is through online synchronous or asynchronous discussions ( Chou et al., 2019 ). Through online discussions, students can share and contrast knowledge, engage in discussions and debates, and sustain group motivation ( Afify, 2019 ). More research into how online, project-based and problem-based learning affects the development of critical thinking is therefore encouraged ( Foo & Quek, 2019 ).

In terms of instructional design, the extent to which critical thinking skills are developed online depends on the scaffolding that is provided ( Giacumo & Savenye, 2020 ; Hussin et al., 2018 ). Structured interaction is essential for promoting critical thinking and knowledge construction in online teaching ( He et al., 2014 ). Although there is a general consensus that critical thinking can be promoted by designing specific instructional strategies ( Butler et al., 2017 ), little is known about how teachers promote critical thinking in their classrooms ( Cáceres et al., 2020 ). There is therefore a need for more instructional strategies that specifically aim to promote critical thinking skills ( Butler et al., 2017 ), especially in an online setting.

Considering the above, our research question asks: How can we develop critical thinking among first-year undergraduates in an online setting?

2.1. Research context

Every year, around 800 first-year undergraduate students enroll in Engineering Challenges, a cornerstone course implemented by the Engineering School at a university in Chile. Cornerstone courses are engineering design courses that provide first-year students with an initial introduction to the skills they need for solving real-world problems ( Dringenberg & Purzer, 2018 ). One of the most efficient ways of teaching design is by letting the students become active participants in the design process, which is best achieved through project-based learning ( Dym et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, project-based learning provides substantial support for the teaching and learning of science and engineering ( Usher & Barak, 2018 ), while also being an excellent way of introducing students to the life of an Engineer ( Lantada et al., 2013 ). Because of this, cornerstone courses are usually taught through project-based learning, which promotes critical thinking and provides students with a space to express their views ( Wengrowicz et al., 2017 ).

This cornerstone course was chosen as a case study as it is a required course and had a relatively high number of participants (see the course summary in Appendix A ). The total number of students enrolled in 2020 was 834. Students were divided into ten sections. Each section was randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. In engineering design courses with a project-based methodology, students usually work in teams of three to eight students ( Chen et al., 2020 ). In this course, students were divided into teams of six or seven members. This was mainly because of methodological constraints, such as the time needed for the students' oral presentations, as well as resource constraints, such as the number of teaching assistants available.

Classroom diversity encourages active thinking and intellectual engagement, which is beneficial for students and improves academic outcomes ( Berthelon et al., 2019 ). At the same time, higher satisfaction and lower dropout rates have been associated with increased levels of perceived similarity ( Shemla et al., 2014 ). Based on these criteria, the Office of Undergraduate Studies was tasked with choosing the teams. They separated students from the same high school and paired students belonging to minority subgroups: female students (30%), students who came from outside the Metropolitan Region (23%), and students who entered through alternative admissions programs (22%).

As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were faced with the challenge of teaching this cornerstone course remotely. These students had never been to the university campus, never met each other face-to-face, and had to work from home without ever physically interacting with their peers or professors.

2.2. Research model and procedure

The research design for this study involved an intervention consisting of five class activities and a pre- and post-test designed to analyze the impact of the intervention on critical thinking, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Research design.

Students in both groups worked online with a project-based methodology following a design thinking process throughout the semester. Design thinking is understood as a design process where divergent and convergent thinking is perpetuated ( Dym et al., 2005 ). It also involves the user throughout the whole design process as their feedback is seen as fundamental for solving most complex engineering problems ( Coleman et al., 2020 ).

Students in both groups worked on five assignments individually during the semester (see Appendix B for an example of an individual assignment). Students completed a team-based activity after each individual assignment. During these collaborative sessions, an intervention was carried out. A teaching assistant explained the objective and deliverables for each activity to the students in the experimental and control groups. The students in both groups worked in teams using breakout rooms in Zoom. The students on each team had to use their individual assignment as input for the activity and were supported by the teaching assistant. After finishing the activity, each team had to upload the corresponding deliverable to Canvas. Both groups worked exclusively online. See Appendix C for a detailed explanation of each of the five activities completed by both groups (i.e. control and experimental).

Students in the control group worked in teams, with the same objective and deliverable as the experimental group. As the experimental group, teams in the control group were placed in breakout rooms in Zoom. Following a project-based methodology, the students in the control group worked freely in teams in order to achieve the objective and produce the deliverable while the teaching assistants answered questions and gave support to whoever needed it. Appendix D presents an example script for the third activity given to the students in the control group.

For students to develop and apply critical thinking skills to a new and unknown situation, they must acquire metacognitive skills ( Thomas, 2011 ). While working in teams, socially shared regulation promotes metacognition when structure guidance exists ( Kim & Lim, 2018 ). Malmberg et al. (2017) establish the following categories for a socially shared regulation process: (i) define the objective (i.e. task understanding), (ii) determine the relevant components of the task and how to accomplish them (i.e. planning), (iii) establish clear goals, (iv) monitor, and (v) evaluate progress in terms of timeframes and actions. The scaffolded activities were designed based on these categories (see Table 1 ).

Implementing Malmberg et al.’s (2017) categories for socially shared regulation.

Fig. 2 shows the script for the activities for the experimental group. For each activity, every team received a worksheet shared through Google Drive, which they could work on collaboratively. The file specified the objective of the activity, the deliverable (goal), and the exact plan to be followed by the students. It also included a specific area where they could execute the plan and monitor each step. Appendix H shows the example script for the third activity given to the students in the experimental group.

Script for the activities for the experimental group.

Team-based metacognitive processes can be supported by having a clear objective, as well as carrying out activities such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, and reflecting ( Schraw et al., 2006 ). Such activities help students develop team awareness and content understanding ( Kim & Lim, 2018 ). As Pintrich (2000) suggested, monitoring represents the level of awareness and self-observation of cognition, behavior, and motivation. The scaffolding questions therefore looked to encourage students to observe how they worked as a team when completing the task. Appendix F presents the questions to be answered during the monitoring phase, as well as an example of the data.

Roberts (2017) argues that reflection is a crucial part of the metacognitive process and allows students to “close the loop” by evaluating their learning and improving their learning skills. According to Pintrich (2000) , reflection involves evaluating our cognitive behavior and motivation by looking at the information that is available or analyzing the causes of success/failure. At the end of each activity, students had to write an individual reflection on their work. This included how they worked collaboratively, what they did right or wrong (i.e. evaluate), and what they could have done better. During the day, students had to upload their personal reflection to Canvas. Appendix G shows the questions that had to be answered during the individual reflection process, as well as some example entries.

Providing feedback on how students go about completing critical thinking activities is the best way of encouraging its development ( Foo & Quek, 2019 ). Such feedback should be provided when the students can make sense of it, as well as being associated with the following task ( Henderson et al., 2019 ). During the third activity, students were therefore given general feedback on their previous reflections and then asked to reflect on their work by answering the same questions they had answered for the previous activities. Appendix I shows the feedback given to students and how they relate to the different critical thinking skills.

2.3. Hypothesis

Based on the theoretical framework presented above, the following hypotheses were developed:

An online project-based learning methodology encourages the development of critical thinking.

The development of critical thinking improves when following a socially shared regulation scaffolding in online courses involving collaborative project-based learning activities.

Giving feedback on previous reflections in an online setting focusing on critical thinking skills encourages the development of such skills.

2.4. Ethical considerations

This research was conducted with the approval of the university ethics committee. Students were informed about this research at the beginning of the semester and signed a consent form if they agreed to participate. They were advised that their participation would not affect their grade and that they could drop out of the study at any time.

2.5. Research sample

Only students who completed the critical thinking pre- and post-tests and participated in all five activities were considered in the study (see Table 2 for the number of participants).

Number of participants.

Not all of the students who enrolled in the course completed the pre- and post-tests ( Table 2 ). Of the students who did, 191 from the experimental group uploaded their reflection for all five activities (Section 2.2 ). Based on gender, stratified random sampling was then used to select 191 students from the control group to form the final sample ( Frey, 2018 ).

The admissions process in Chile involves a standardized university entrance exam (PSU) and the student's school grades. This system has historically benefited high socioeconomic status students as students from private schools perform significantly better on the PSU test than students from public schools ( Bernasconi & Rojas, 2003 ; Matear, 2006 ). For this reason, the students' school type was also considered in the statistical analysis (see Section 2.7 ).

Each of the ten sections was taught by a different professor and teaching assistants. This was therefore also considered as a variable in the statistical analysis so as to understand whether teaching effectiveness influenced the development of critical thinking (see section 2.7 ).

2.6. Instruments used and their validation

This quasi-experimental study involved a critical thinking pre- and post-test, as well as the students' monitoring and self-reflection for the five activities mentioned in Section 2.2 . The data was analyzed using mixed-methods research, which aims to “increase the scope of the inquiry by selecting the methods most appropriate for multiple inquiry components” ( Greene et al., 1989 ). In this type of study, the qualitative data is mainly used to assess the implementation and processes, while the quantitative methods are used to assess the outcomes ( Greene et al., 1989 ; Schoonenboom et al., 2018 ). Following this approach, the critical thinking pre- and post-test was analyzed from a quantitative perspective. As the monitoring and reflection were part of the process they were analyzed using qualitative methods (see Section 2.6.2 for a description of the analysis).

2.6.1. Critical thinking pre- and post-test

To understand the impact of online problem-based learning on critical thinking, as well as the impact of the socially shared regulation scaffolding, the students completed an identical pre- and post-test ( López et al., 2021 ).

The critical thinking assessment tool used in this study was developed following an iterative process of design-based research ( Bakker & van Eerde, 2015 ). This process began with the theoretical definition of critical thinking proposed by the American Philosophical Association, where critical thinking is composed of the following skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation ( Facione, 1990 ). This definition was updated and complemented, replacing explanation with argumentation ( Bex & Walton, 2016 ), and self-regulation with metacognition ( Garrison & Akyol, 2015 ; Roebers, 2017 ). Therefore, the definition of critical thinking used in this assessment tool comprises the following sub-skills: interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, argumentation, and metacognition.

Based on this construct, a series of questions were developed for each of the sub-skills mentioned above. These questions were tested during each iteration of the design-based research process. For each iteration, a panel of experts evaluated the questions to determine whether they adequately reflected the sub-skills upon which they were based ( Almanasreh et al., 2019 ). The psychometric properties were also evaluated based on item analysis ( Shaw et al., 2019 ). This process led to the development of a test comprising 28 questions, with each measuring one of the sub-skills from the definition of critical thinking described above. The questions on the test were based on videos, news articles, and infographics, among others. All of the questions were open-ended as this format allows for the evaluation of higher-order thinking skills ( Ku, 2009 ). As interpretation is a lower-order skill and cannot be measured using this format, the test did not include any questions based on this sub-skill ( Tiruneh et al., 2017 ). See Appendix J for the critical thinking pre and post-test.

Item analysis was used to validate the pre- and post-tests. This involved evaluating the difficulty and discrimination of the items ( DeVellis, 2006 ). Items with a difficulty value outside the range of 0.1 and 0.9 (i.e. the percentage of students who answered these items correctly) were eliminated ( Shaw et al., 2019 ). Items with a discrimination value of less than 0.1 were also eliminated ( Shaw et al., 2019 ).

The reliability of the tests was analyzed specifically based on this set of questions. Cronbach's alpha for the pre-test was α = 0.675, while for the post-test it was α = 0.651.

2.6.2. Reflections and monitoring

Investigator Triangulation (IT) was used to analyze the teams' monitoring and the students' reflections. The most common form of collaborative Investigator Triangulation involves multiple investigators using a pre-established coding framework to code qualitative data ( Archibald, 2016 ).

The critical thinking skills measured by the pre- and post-test were used as the coding framework to analyze the teams' monitoring and students' reflections qualitatively. As the intervention followed a socially shared regulation process, it was also important to code the students' processes for regulating learning. This was done based on the definitions for self-regulation, co-regulation, and socially shared regulation proposed by Järvelä and Hadwin (2013) and Miller and Hadwin (2015) . See Appendix K for these definitions and examples of the coding.

The research team designed a rubric based on these categories (see Appendix K ). Using this rubric, a quality parameter (1 or 2) was assigned to each piece of data. If a code was present more than once in a student reflection or team monitoring the highest score was considered. See Appendix K for examples of the quality parameter.

Investigator Triangulation is enhanced when each investigator's area of expertise is different ( Kimchi et al., 1991 ). For this study, a sociologist and an engineering student therefore coded the teams' monitoring and students' reflections. During the analysis, the research team met with the two raters in order to compare, discuss, and reach a consensus on the coding. When no consensus was reached, the two researchers independently coded the pieces. The Intercoder Reliability between both researchers was 0.641, which is considered substantial for qualitative data in exploratory academic research ( Landis & Koch, 1977 ). Following this, a “negotiated agreement” strategy was adopted ( Campbell et al., 2013 ; O'Connor & Joffe, 2020 ), meaning that the two researchers met, discussed, and reached a consensus on every piece of text ( O'Connor & Joffe, 2020 ). By following this process, the researchers reviewed the codes assigned by the observers, thus strengthening the reliability of the results ( Archibald, 2016 ). Fig. 3 shows the process of data coding.

Process of data coding.

This data was used to understand the development of critical thinking skills and the importance of feedback, present in the third activity (See section 2.7 ).

2.7. Data analysis

The experiment included a critical thinking pre- and post-test design ( Campbell & Stanley, 1963 ). The first step was to check whether the post-test score was higher than the pre-test one for the whole data set (i.e. control and experimental) and for each group (i.e. control or experimental). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) ( Owen et al., 1998 ) was conducted, as well as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in order to verify the assumption of normality ( Mishra et al., 2019 ).

The association between the critical thinking post-test score (0–100) and the information available on each student, such as pre-test score (0–100), gender (male or female), school type (private or public), student section (coded from 1 to 10 with a median of 39 students per section), and group (control or experimental) were considered. Linear regression modeling was proposed for examining this association ( Kutner et al., 2004 ). Mathematically, this model is written as follows:

where Y i represents the post-test score of the i th student and X i = ( X 1 i , X 2 i , … , X p i ) is her/his covariate vector with coefficients β = ( β 0 , β 1 , … , β p ) . Finally, ε i denotes the error term and follows a Normal (0, σ 2 ) distribution.

Although the model is specified generically as in (1) , there are different combinations of variables (2 5  = 32) that can potentially explain the post-test score. For example, the simplest model includes only the intercept ( β 0 ), i.e. no variables, while the most complex model includes all of the variables. To obtain the best model, all combinations were tested and the model with the best fit was selected. This selection was made based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), with the lowest AIC indicating the best fit ( Akaike, 1973 ). Typically, if one model is more than 2 AIC units less than another, the former is considered significantly better than the latter ( Brewer et al., 2016 ).

Finally, based on the qualitative data (see Section 2.6.2 ), the student reflections from the experimental group were analyzed by comparing Activities 1 and 3 and then Activities 1 and 5. Activities 1 and 5 are the first and last activities, while Activity 3 was when the students were given feedback on their reflections. This comparison looks to identify any trends by comparing the presence of each skill at two different moments during the experiment. These proportions were analyzed using a chi-square (χ 2 ) test ( Cochran, 1954 ). All of these analyses were performed in the R programming language ( R Core Team, 2020 ).

There was an improvement on the post-test, both overall as well as for each group ( Table 3 ). However, the improvement for the experimental group was greater than the control group, suggesting that the intervention influenced the development of critical thinking.

Mean score and SD on critical thinking test.

Since the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test did not reject the hypothesis of normality for the total sample (p-value = 0.57) and for the two groups (control p-value = 0.28 and experimental p-value = 0.27), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze whether the online project-based learning methodology improved critical thinking for all participants. The null hypothesis of the ANCOVA was that the mean score on the pre- and post-tests would be equal. This hypothesis was rejected for the total sample (F = 44.41, df = 1, p-value < 0.05, η 2  = 0.10, and Cohen's F effect size = 0.34) and for the two groups (control: F = 56.51, df = 1, p-value < 0.05, η 2  = 0.23, and Cohen's F effect size = 0.55; experimental: F = 8.31, df = 1, p-value < 0.05, η 2  = 0.04, and Cohen's F effect size = 0.21). Note that the Cohen's F effect size for the experimental group is relatively small. This is because this group has a non-linear relationship between the pre- and post-test scores, which can be verified through the small η 2 .

The association between the post-test scores and the information available for each student was analyzed using a linear regression model (see Section 2.7 ). All possible combinations of the five covariates (i.e. initial test score, gender, school type, student section, and group) were analyzed in 32 models. The best model was then selected based on the AIC, which is a model selection criterion that considers the trade-off between the goodness of fit and the simplicity of the model (see Section 2.7 for some references). Table 4 shows a summary of the regression parameters for the best model. Appendix L includes a ranking of all the models, explained variance (adjusted R-squared) of each model, and the significant variables (p-value < 0.05).

Statistical summary for the best model (AIC = 3294.8) with an asterisk for the significant variables (considering a significance level of 5%, p-value < 0.05).

The intercept estimates the average post-test score (38.86) for a control group student with a pre-test score of zero. The estimate of β 1 suggests that a percentage point increase in the pre-test score leads to an average increase of 0.31 percentage points in the post-test score. On the other hand, the estimate of β 2 shows that, on average, students in the experimental group scored 5.24 points higher on the post-test than students in the control group. Furthermore, the explained variance (adjusted R-squared) of this model is 12%, which is satisfactory for this type of problem ( Cohen, 1988 ).

Concerning the qualitative data, Table 5 presents the progression tendency for each critical thinking skill observed during activities 1, 3, and 5 (see Section 2.7 ). Even though metacognition was considered a coding category, it was not included in the data analysis because only ten phrases were coded under this specific category. For an example of each critical thinking skill, see Appendix K .

Progression tendency for each critical thinking skill.

Table 5 shows that the number of students in the experimental group who were able to construct an argument, evaluate, and analyze increased significantly between the first and third activities. The presence of regulation (i.e. self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation) increased, albeit not significantly, between the first and third activities. The students' inference and interpretation skills decreased, though again not significantly. Between the third and the fifth activities, interpretation and evaluation decreased, while argumentation and analysis increased. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, inference and regulation decreased significantly.

4. Discussion

The main objective of this study was to understand how can we develop critical thinking among first-year undergraduates in an online setting.

Throughout the semester, the experimental and control groups in our study worked in teams following an online project-based methodology. Both groups performed significantly better on the critical thinking post-test than the pre-test (see Section 3 ). This increase in critical thinking is consistent with previous research, which suggests that active learning methodologies such as project-based learning ( Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019 ), as well as collaboration, promote critical thinking ( Erdogan, 2019 ; Loes & Pascarella, 2017 ; Silva et al., 2019 ). The development of critical thinking skills in an online context has mainly focused on asynchronous discussion about real-world situations ( Puig et al., 2020 ). The contribution of the present study is that it shows that project-based learning can foster critical thinking in a purely online setting.

Our findings align with the conceptual framework, the C♭-model, proposed by Sailer et al. (2021) . This model suggests that engaging students in learning activities involving digital technologies supports the construction of new knowledge and the development of skills, while also positively affecting students' attitudes towards technology. It also indicates that students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes are, at the same time, requisites for the success of the proposed learning activities. In this study, students were involved in the four types of learning activities proposed by the C♭-model: Interactive activities, when working on a team project; Constructive activities, when students ideate and design the solution to a real-life problem; Passive learning, while watching the class videos or listening to class presentations; and Active learning, when making digital notes. In terms of the students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes, the model proposes four dimensions to be considered: Professional knowledge and skills, Self-regulation, Basic digital skills, and Attitudes towards digital technology. These four dimensions co-existed in the present study, as the students in both groups learned about and used 3D modeling software, Zoom, Canvas, and Google Drive (basic digital skills), positively affecting their attitudes towards technology ( Sailer et al., 2021 ). The socially shared regulation scaffolding, which requires the students to self-regulate ( Järvelä et al., 2019 ), fostered professional knowledge and skills, such as critical thinking. Self-regulation is also essential when working with ill-structured problems ( Lawanto et al., 2019 ) as it is done within project-based learning which also proved to foster critical thinking.

Progress among students in the experimental group was significantly greater than for students in the control group (see Section 3 ). This suggests that the proposed socially shared regulation scaffolding promoted high-level group regulation strategies ( Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013 ) that allowed for the development of critical thinking. It also supports the general idea that a team's success is influenced by the quality of the adopted regulation strategy and not just by the fact that they are working together ( Panadero & Järvelä, 2015 ). The use of a socially shared regulation scaffolding is in line with the existing literature, which highlights the fact that scaffolding can allow learners to engage in activities that would otherwise be beyond their capabilities ( Mohd Rum & Ismail, 2017 ). We have proven empirically that following a socially shared regulation scaffolding can boost the development of critical thinking in an online project-based setting.

Students in the experimental group were given feedback before writing their reflections for the third activity. This feedback emphasized the following critical thinking skills: analysis, evaluation, metacognition, regulation, and argumentation (see Appendix I ). No feedback was given following the third activity. Analysis, evaluation and argumentation increased significantly, while regulation also increased (albeit not significantly) between the first and third activity ( Table 5 ). These results are consistent with Thomas (2011) , who states that when it comes to higher-order thinking skills students require feedback on what they need to do to develop a specific skill. As feedback increases the likelihood of meaningful learning ( Henderson et al., 2019 ), it should be provided continuously. When reflecting, students could freely answer the questions in Appendix G , without explicitly referring to any of the critical thinking skills. These results therefore show that the students transitioned between skills. For example, the way argumentation was defined allowed an interpretation to become an argument if the reasons supporting the student's position were described (see Appendix K ). Accordingly, this may explain the decrease in interpretation and subsequent increase in argumentation. The reason for the decrease in inference throughout the activities can be explained by the fact that it was not mentioned in the feedback given to the students (see Appendix I ).

None of the other variables that were studied (i.e. gender, school type, and student section) proved to be significant for any of the 32 models (see Appendix L ). These findings are in line with the findings by Masek and Yamin (2011) , who showed that gender did not appear to be a relevant predictor for the development of critical thinking when using project-based learning. The fact that school type was also not significant is consistent with the results described by Hilliger et al. (2018) , who found that students from the public-school system in Chile enjoy considerable academic success during their first year at university. Finally, the fact that student section (i.e. teaching effectiveness) was not significant is in line with Uttl et al. (2017) , who showed that the correlation between teaching effectiveness and student learning decreases when the number of sections increases.

5. Conclusion, limitations, and future research

This study aimed to answer the research question: How can we develop critical thinking among first-year undergraduates in an online setting?

To answer this question, 834 first-year engineering undergraduates participated in an online project-based course involving five collaborative activities. A control and experimental group were established, with the experimental group following a socially shared regulation scaffolding. A critical thinking pre- and post-test was completed by both groups in order to assess the impact on critical thinking. We learned that online project-based learning had a significant impact on both groups. However, following a socially shared regulation scaffolding led to significantly greater improvements.

The first hypothesis of this study was that an online project-based learning methodology encourages the development of critical thinking. The results of this study show that both groups increased their critical thinking skills significantly throughout the experience. The first contribution of this study is that it demonstrates empirically that an online project-based learning methodology can be used to develop critical thinking skills (see Section 3 ).

The second hypothesis was that the development of critical thinking improves when following a socially shared regulation scaffolding in online courses involving collaborative project-based learning activities. The results showed that the experimental group improved their critical thinking skills significantly more than the control group (see Section 3 ). Therefore, the second contribution of this study is that it demonstrates that critical thinking can be boosted by following a socially shared regulation scaffolding in an online project-based setting.

The third hypothesis was that giving feedback on previous reflections in an online setting focusing on critical thinking skills encourages the development of such skills. The results revealed that three of the skills (Argumentation, Evaluation, and Analysis) improved significantly when giving feedback. While a fourth skill (Regulation) also improved, the results were not significant. As feedback on critical thinking was only provided to the students once during the course, future work should study the impact of providing students with feedback on every element of critical thinking after each activity.

The existing literature has systematically highlighted the importance of project-based learning in developing critical thinking skills ( Bezanilla et al., 2019 ). It has also shown that socially shared regulation can foster higher-order thinking skills such as metacognition ( Sobocinski et al., 2020 ). However, there has been little assessment of how these effects translate into an online setting. These findings bridge that gap by providing quality evidence supporting the assumption that these effects do indeed translate into an online environment.

While the results are encouraging, we must consider the limitations of the study. Of the 834 learners enrolled in the course, only 382 students were considered in the study (see Section 2.5 ). The selection bias generated by this loss of participants may therefore affect the findings ( Wolbring & Treischl, 2016 ). However, any possible hypothesis regarding the direction of this bias would be completely unfounded. The sample only comprised students from an engineering school at a highly selective university. Only 31% of the sample were female, while just 27% came from the public education system. As for the limitations of the course itself, the final deliverable for a project-based course is the development of a product ( Usher & Barak, 2018 ). In this case, the main difference between the online and face-to-face versions of the course was the prototyping phase. Students normally use the university prototyping laboratories during the face-to-face course in order to deliver an actual physical product. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, students were asked to deliver an abstract of their project, a poster, and a 3D model or mock-up of their solution. Furthermore, the critical thinking pre-and post-tests were completed asynchronously and, therefore, the conditions in which they were taken are also unknown. Finally, the study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and it is not known how this context may have affected the students' performance.

These limitations represent opportunities for future research. It would be important to repeat the study with a different profile of student. Another important addition would be to include qualitative research based on the students' reflections and analyze how their writing changes from one critical thinking skill to another. Furthermore, the intervention was originally designed to be carried out during face-to-face lectures and had to be adapted to an online context. We therefore recommend redesigning the activities to take full advantage of the sort of interactive media and reusable learning objects available in an online setting. In terms of online collaboration, the intervention was based on a socially shared scaffolding for the regulation of learning; the way teams regulate their work online, and face-to-face may be different ( Lin, 2020 ). Future research should therefore also look to examine the differences between the impact of the proposed scaffolding in a blended and face-to-face setting.

Credit author statement

Catalina Cortázar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft; Miguel Nussbaum: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Supervision; Jorge Harcha: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation; Danilo Alvares: Formal analysis; Felipe López: Resources; Julián Goñi Investigation; Verónica Cabezas: Writing – review & editing

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the team of professors who taught the course, the Office of Undergraduate Studies, and the Office of Engineering Education. This study was partially funded by FONDEDOC and FONDECYT 1180024.

Cornerstone Course Summary

Appendix B. Example of an individual assignment

Individual assignment 3.

Objective: To advance in the analysis of your data individually.

• 1. Individually you should interview at least two people using the set of questions your team defined. Before starting the interviews, you must have the consent of the interviewee.
• 2. Transcribe the two interviews that you conducted. The transcript must include the consent, questions, and answers obtained.
• 3. Qualitatively analyze both interviews according to the methodologies seen in class.
• 4. Identify concepts and characteristics in each of the texts (remember that concepts are short words or phrases). Each answer must have at least one concept. If the answer has several paragraphs, the minimum-optimum is one concept per paragraph.

Recommendation: This analysis will serve as input for your first presentation.

Example of concept and characteristic

Each concept must be linked to its characteristic(s). For example, when faced with the question: How have you felt during confinement?

My interviewees could answer:

• • Interviewee 1: I've been sad since I haven't been able to see my friends.
• • Interviewee 2: Being at home, not seeing anyone, has allowed me to spend my time on the things that I am most passionate about, such as painting and playing the guitar.

As an example, in both cases my concept could be Loneliness.

However, the characteristics are different.

• • Interviewee 1 speaks from nostalgia.
• • Interviewee 2 speaks from optimism.

Appendix C. Detailed explanation of each of the five activities completed by both groups (i.e. control and experimental)

Appendix d. example script for the third activity given to the students in the control group, objective of the activity: identify three design opportunities based on a qualitative analysis of your interviews (concepts and characteristics identified in the individual assignment).

Steps to follow:

• 1 Each member of the team should read out the concepts and characteristics determined by their interviews.
• i. What are the central phenomena or ideas that emerge from the interviews?
• ii. What are the characteristics or properties of those central phenomena or ideas?
• iii. How are these central ideas or phenomena related?
• 3 Determine three design opportunities that respond to your chosen user and their context.
• 4 Each team leader must upload the document with their three design opportunities to the section created in Canvas.
• 5 The document must contain the answer to the questions above, as well as the three design opportunities.

Appendix E. Planning

Plan for the first activity

Plan for the second activity

Plan for the third activity

Plan for the fourth activity

Plan for the fifth activity. In this activity, each team had to design their own plan. Two of the teams' plans are presented below.. E.5.1. Plan proposed by team “A”E.5.2. Plan proposed by team “B”

Appendix F. Monitoring

Appendix g. reflections, appendix h. example script for the third activity given to the students in the experimental group.

Appendix I. Feedback given to students and their relation to the different critical thinking skills

I.1. feedback given to students on the previous reflections before asking them to reflect on their work from the third activity.

By analyzing previous reflections, we have seen that there are students who can:

• 1 Analyze the process and draw conclusions from the activity.
• 2 Reflect on how the instructions for the task were followed.
• 3 Determine the criteria for evaluating the work done by the team or individually.
• 4 Recognize mistakes and propose improvements.
• 5 Transfer observations from the activity to another context.
• 6 Indicate what they learned or concluded from this process of reflection.

I.2. Relation between each Critical Thinking skill and the feedback given. This table was not given to the students

Appendix j. critical thinking pre- and post-test, i . video ( advertising campaigns).

• a. Watch the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtabkq9f9Co
• 1. What is the main message of the commercial for Soprole Milk Custard?
• 2. Identify 3 steps that you followed in order to answer the previous question
• 3. Now, in your opinion, do you think that your response to question 1 was correct or incorrect?
• 4. When answering the question: “1. What is the main message of the commercial for Soprole Milk Custard?” Did you find it easy or difficult?
• 5. Based on your response, why did you find it easy or difficult?
• 6. Write your own question based on the commercial
• 7. Based on your previous question, set a requirement that the response to the question should meet in order to be considered correct.
• 8. You can write another criteria if you want to.
• b. Watch the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhESgLoQbZQ

Based on this video, please answer the following question: Imagine that a classmate is asked the following question: What is the main message of the commercial for Colun manjar ? And their response was this: “Everything tastes better with Colun manjar ”.

• 9. What score would you give your classmate's response based on the following marking guide?
• 10. Justify the score you gave, based on the above marking guide:
• 11. One student's response to the following question: What was the author's main intention when including the phrase “Me too, we're brothers, gimme five”? Was “To evoke a positive emotion”
• 12. Do you think this is correct or incorrect?
• 13. Justify your response to question 12

II. INFORMATIVE TEXT

Informative texts are the sort of texts whose main aim is to inform and raise awareness about specific issues. Please read Estadounidenses ven la inteligencia artificial como destructora de empleos [Americans see Artificial Intelligence as a Job Destroyer] ( San Juan, 2019 ), and then answer the questions that follow.

• 14 What is the main idea of this text?

III. INFOGRAPHICS

Just like letters, images have been with us throughout our existence. This type of visual language has enabled and fostered the development of a range of different skills and media. One such media is infographics, an informative and visual representation that looks to communicate a message using a combination of data and images. Inteligencia Artificial aplicada a Chatbots [Artificial Intelligence Applied to Chatbots] ( Hey Now, 2018 ) is an example of an infographic. Study it carefully and then complete the activities that follow.

• 15. What conclusion could you make regarding the use of chatbots by companies?
• 16. Do you think that people benefit from companies using artificial intelligence?

IV. OPINION PIECE

An opinion piece is a type of text where thought leaders give their opinion on a relevant topic of interest. Politicians, academics, journalists, sportspeople and other public figures have found opinion pieces to be a useful way of expressing themselves and sharing their point of view on a range of topics.

• 17. What is the main idea of this opinion piece?
• 18. What might the author's intention have been when including the following phrase in their opinion piece?
• “They're joined by groups of different cultural heritage who seem to have forgotten that their own story begins with … [an] immigrant”.
• 19. Based on the text, what can we conclude about modern societies?
• 20. In terms of patriotism in Chilean society, we can infer that:
• 21. Identify and write a conclusion based on this column
• 22. Why do you think that the author included the following phrase in his column? … “the plague is not tailored to man, therefore man thinks that the plague is unreal, it is a bad dream that will go away”.
• 23. Identify and describe an idea that the author wanted to communicate through this column.
• 24. What phrase(s) did the author use to support this idea?
• 25. Identify and describe an idea (different from the previous one) that the author wanted to communicate through this column. If you think there are no more ideas, you can suggest this as your answer.
• 26. What phrase(s) did the author use to support this idea? (in case you have identified a new idea)
• 27. What is the main conclusion you could take from this opinion piece?
• 28. What is a secondary conclusion that you could take from this opinion piece?

Appendix K. Coding definitions, rubric and examples

Critical thinking skills definition, rubric & examples

Regulations of learning: definitions, rubric &; examples

Appendix L. Ranking of the 32 models according to the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) with an asterisk for the significant variables (considering a significance level of 5%, p-value < 0.05). Adj. R 2 represents the adjusted explained variance of the model

• Afify M.K. The influence of group size in the asynchronous online discussions on the development of critical thinking skills, and on improving students' performance in online discussion forum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2019; 14 (5):132–152. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v14i05.9351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akaike H. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on information theory. Petrov B.N., Csaki F., editors. Akademiai Kiado; Budapest: 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle; pp. 267–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Husban N.A. Critical thinking skills in asynchronous discussion forums: A case study. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE) 2020; 3 (2):82–91. doi: 10.46328/ijte.v3i2.22. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almanasreh E., Moles R., Chen T.F. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2019; 15 (2):214–221. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Archibald M.M. Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2016; 10 (3):228–250. doi: 10.1177/1558689815570092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A., van Eerde D. Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Springer; Dordrecht: 2015. An introduction to Design-Based Research with an example from statistics education; pp. 429–466. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernasconi A., Rojas F. Instituto Internacional de la UNESCO; 2003. Informe sobre la educación superior en 1980-2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berthelon M., Bettinger E., Kruger D.I., Montecinos-Pearce A. The structure of peers: The impact of peer networks on academic achievement. Research in Higher Education. 2019; 60 :931–959. doi: 10.1007/s11162-018-09543-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bex F., Walton D. Combining explanation and argumentation in dialogue. Argument & Computation. 2016; 7 (1):55–68. doi: 10.3233/AAC-160001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezanilla M.J., Fernández-Nogueira D., Poblete M., Galindo-Domínguez H. Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher's view. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019; 33 doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer M.J., Butler A., Cooksley S.L. The relative performance of AIC, AICC and BIC in the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2016; 7 (6):679–692. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12541. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler H.A., Pentoney C., Bong M.P. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 25 :38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cáceres M., Nussbaum M., Ortiz J. Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 (June) doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100674. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell D.T., Stanley J.C. Handbook of research on teaching. 1st ed. Rand McNally; 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching; pp. 171–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell J.L., Quincy C., Osserman J., Pedersen O.K. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research. 2013; 42 :294–320. doi: 10.1177/0049124113500475. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen J., Kolmos A., Du X. Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: A review of literature. European Journal of Engineering Education. 2020:1–26. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2020.1718615. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chou T.-L., Wu J.-J., Tsai C.-C. Research trends and features of critical thinking studies in E-learning environments: A review. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2019; 57 (4):1038–1077. doi: 10.1177/0735633118774350. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochran W.G. Some methods for strengthening the common χ 2 tests. Biometrics. 1954; 10 (4):417–451. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge; 1988. Multiple regression and correlation analysis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman E., Shealy T., Grohs J., Godwin A. Design thinking among first-year and senior engineering students: A cross-sectional, national study measuring perceived ability. Journal of Engineering Education. 2020; 109 (1):72–87. doi: 10.1002/jee.20298. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeVellis R.F. Classical test theory. Medical Care. 2006; 44 (11):50–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457043 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dilekli Y. Paradigm shifts in 21st Century teaching and learning. 2020. Project-based learning; pp. p53–68. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dringenberg E., Purzer Ş. Experiences of first-year engineering students working on ill-structured problems in teams. Journal of Engineering Education. 2018; 107 (3):442–467. doi: 10.1002/jee.20220. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dym C.L., Agogino A.M., Eris O., Frey D.D., Leifer L.J. Vol. 94. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2005. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning; pp. 103–120. (Journal of engineering education). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erdogan F. Effect of cooperative learning supported by reflective thinking activities on students' critical thinking skills. European Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 19 (80):1–24. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2019.80.5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P.A. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ERIC document ED. 1990:315–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foo S.Y., Quek C.L. Developing students ’ critical thinking through asynchronous online discussions: A literature review. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 7 (2):37–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey B. Vols. 1–4. SAGE Publications; 2018. (Stratified random sampling. The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation). [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison D.R., Akyol Z. Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education. 2015; 24 :66–71. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giacumo L.A., Savenye W. Asynchronous discussion forum design to support cognition: Effects of rubrics and instructor prompts on learner's critical thinking, achievement, and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2020; 68 (1):37–66. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09664-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gokhale A.A. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education. 1995; 7 :22–30. doi: 10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodsett M. Best practices for teaching and assessing critical thinking in information literacy online learning objects. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2020; 46 (5):102163. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102163. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene J.C., Carcelli V.J., Graham W.F. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989; 11 (3):255–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson M., Phillips M., Ryan T., Boud D., Dawson P., Molloy E., Mahoney P. Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research and Development. 2019; 38 (7):1401–1416. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández-de-Menéndez M., Vallejo Guevara A., Tudón Martínez J.C., et al. Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing. 2019; 13 :909–922. doi: 10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández C.H., Flórez F.B., Tocora M.A., León D.G. Problem based learning and the development of professional competencies: An experience in the field of biomedical engineering. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET. 2018; 17 (3):104–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• He W., Xu G., Kruck S.E. Online is education for the 21st century. Journal of Information Systems Education. 2014; 25 (2):101–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hey Now . 2018, 07, 05. Inteligencia artificial aplicada a chatbots [artificial intelligence applied to chatbots] [infographic]. Hey Now. https://www.heynowbots.com/post/infograf%C3%ADa-inteligencia-artificial-aplicada-a-chatbots [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilliger I., Gelmi C.A., Cifuentes L., Bennett M., de la Llera J.C. Design and implementation of an alternative admission program to engineering: Talent and Inclusion. Studies in Higher Education. 2018; 43 (8):1454–1467. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1263291. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hussin W.N.T.W., Harun J., Shukor N.A. Problem based learning to enhance students critical thinking skill via online tools. Asian Social Science. 2018; 15 (1):14. doi: 10.5539/ass.v15n1p14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Järvelä S., Hadwin A.F. New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist. 2013; 48 (1):25–39. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.748006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Järvelä S., Järvenoja H., Malmberg J. Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: Methodological progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2019; 14 (4):425–441. doi: 10.1007/s11412-019-09313-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jolley D., Davis M., Lavender A.P., Roberts L. An online critical thinking course reduces misconceptions in the knowledge of personal trainers. Studies in Continuing Education. 2020:1–16. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2020.1738373. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karaoglan Yilmaz F.G., Yilmaz R. The impact of feedback form on transactional distance and critical thinking skills in online discussions. Innovations in Education & Teaching International. 2019; 1–12 doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1612265. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimchi J., Polivka B., Stevenson J.S. Triangulation. Nursing Research. 1991; 40 (6):364–366. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199111000-00009. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim D., Lim C. Promoting socially shared metacognitive regulation in collaborative project-based learning: A framework for the design of structured guidance. Teaching in Higher Education. 2018; 23 (2):194–211. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1379484. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh J.H.L., Herring S.C., Hew K.F. Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13 (4):284–291. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku K.Y.L. Assessing students' critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using a multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2009; 4 (1):70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutner M.H., Nachtsheim C.J., Neter J., Li W. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2004. Applied linear statistical models. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Laar E., van Deursen A.J.A.M., van Dijk J.A.G.M., de Haan J. The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 72 :577–588. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Laar E., van Deursen A.J.A.M., van Dijk J.A.G.M., de Haan J. Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019; 100 :93–104. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33 (1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lantada A.D., Morgado P.L., Munoz-Guinosa J.M., Sanz J.L.M., Otero J.E., Garcia J.M., Tanarno E.C., Ochoa E.D.L.G. Towards successful project based teaching learning experiences in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2013; 29 (2):476–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawanto O., Febrian A., Butler D., Mina M. Self-regulation strategies in an engineering design project. International Education Studies. 2019; 12 (5):133. doi: 10.5539/ies.v12n5p133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin G.-Y. Scripts and mastery goal orientation in face-to-face versus computer-mediated collaborative learning: Influence on performance, affective and motivational outcomes, and social ability. Computers & Education. 2020; 143 :103691. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103691. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loes C.N., Pascarella E.T. Collaborative learning and critical thinking: Testing the link. Journal of Higher Education. 2017; 88 (5):726–753. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2017.1291257. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López F., Mussuto V., Nussbaum M., Paredes R., López X., Gelerstein D., Contrereas M., Chiuminatto P., Recabarren M. 2021. Assessing Critical Thinking and Metacognition in Higher Education. Submitted For Publication. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malmberg J., Järvelä S., Järvenoja H. Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2017; 49 :160–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Masek A., Yamin S. The effect of problem based learning on critical thinking ability: A theoretical and empirical review. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2011; 2 (1):215–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matamala D. 2020, 03, 14. La Peste [La plague]. La Tercera. https://www.latercera.com/la-tercera-domingo/noticia/columna-de-daniel-matamala-la-peste/WERYSDOD2ZFHBF7ACKL247ZSNI/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Matear A. Barriers to equitable access: Higher education policy and practice in Chile since 1990. Higher Education Policy. 2006; 19 :31–49. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300114. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McManus J.W., Costello P.J. Project-based learning in computer science: A student and research advisor's perspective. J . Comput. Sci. Coll. 2019; 34 (3):38–46. 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller M., Hadwin A. Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 52 :573–588. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra P., Pandey C.M., Singh U., Gupta A., Sahu C., Keshri A. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia. 2019; 22 (1):67–72. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohd Rum S.N., Ismail M.A. Metocognitive support accelerates computer assisted learning for novice programmers. Educational Technology & Society. 2017; 20 (3):170–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Connor C., Joffe H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2020; 19 doi: 10.1177/1609406919899220. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owen S.V., Froman R.D., Gerald B. Uses and abuses of the analysis of covariance. Research in Nursing & Health. 1998; 21 (6):557–562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Panadero E., Järvelä S. Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist. 2015; 20 (3):190–203. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000226. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peña C. El Mercurio; 2019, 08, 11. Defensa de la inmigración [In Defense of Immigration] https://ww3.museodelamemoria.cl/Informate/defensa-de-la-inmigracion-por-carlos-pena/ Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P.R. Handbook of self-regulation. Elsevier; 2000. The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning; pp. 451–502. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puig B., Blanco Anaya P., Bargiela I.M. In: Handbook of research in educational communications and technology. Bishop M.J., Boling E., Elen J., Svihla V., editors. Springer; Cham: 2020. A systematic review on e-learning environments for promoting critical thinking in higher education. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team . R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts M.W. ASEE rocky mountain section conference, 2017, USA. 2017. Fostering reflection and metacognition with engineering homework. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roebers C.M. Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review. 2017; 45 :31–51. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saadé R.G., Morin D., Thomas J.D.E. Critical thinking in E-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 2012; 28 (5):1608–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sailer M., Schultz-Pernice F., Fischer F. Submitted This Issue; 2021. Towards more systematic research on digital learning and teaching in higher education: A learning activities model. [ Google Scholar ]
• San Juan P. La Tercera; 2019, 07, 09. Estadounidenses ven a la inteligencia artificial como destructora de empleos [Americans see Artificial Intelligence as a Job Destroyer. https://www.latercera.com/pulso/noticia/estadounidenses-ven-la-inteligencia-artificial-destructora-empleos/734677/ Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheibenzuber C., Hofer S., Nistor N. Submitted This Issue; 2021. A problem-based online-course on fake news for undergraduate students of educational sciences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoonenboom J., Johnson R., Fröhlich D. Combining multiple purposes of mixing within a mixed methods research design. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2018; 10 :271–282. doi: 10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a17. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schraw G., Crippen K.J., Hartley K. Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education. 2006; 36 (1–2):111–139. doi: 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Şendaǧ S., Odabaşi H.F. Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education. 2009; 53 (1):132–141. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw A., Liu O.L., Gu L., Kardonova E., Chirikov I., Li G., Loyalka P. Thinking critically about critical thinking: Validating the Russian HEIghten® critical thinking assessment. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 5079 doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1672640. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shemla M., Meyer B., Greer L., Jehn K.A. A review of perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team's composition affect team processes and outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2014; 37 :S89–S106. doi: 10.1002/job.1957. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva H., Lopes J., Dominguez C. In: Tsitouridou M., Diniz J.A.J.A., Mikropoulos T., editors. Vol. 13. Cham: Springer; 2019. Enhancing college students' critical thinking skills in cooperative groups; pp. 181–192. (Technology and innovation in learning, teaching and education). [ Google Scholar ]
• Sobocinski M., Järvelä S., Malmberg J., Dindar M., Isosalo A., Noponen K. How does monitoring set the stage for adaptive regulation or maladaptive behavior in collaborative learning? Metacognition and Learning. 2020; 15 (2):99–127. doi: 10.1007/s11409-020-09224-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas T. Developing first-year students' critical thinking skills. Asian Social Science. 2011; 7 (4):26–35. doi: 10.5539/ass.v7n4p26. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas T., Davis T., Kazlauskas A. Embedding critical thinking in IS curricula. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 2007; 6 :327–346. doi: 10.28945/219. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndahl K., Stentoft D. Thinking critically about critical thinking and problem-based learning in higher education: A scoping review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 2020; 14 doi: 10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28773. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiruneh D.T., De Cock M., Weldeslassie A.G., Elen J., Janssen R. Measuring critical thinking in physics: Development and validation of a critical thinking test in electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017; 15 (4):663–682. doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9723-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Usher M., Barak M. Peer assessment in a project-based engineering course: Comparing between on-campus and online learning environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018; 43 (5):745–759. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1405238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uttl B., White C.A., Gonzalez D.W. Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies In Educational Evaluation. 2017; 54 :22–42. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velez G., Power S.A. Teaching students how to think, not what to think: Pedagogy and political psychology. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2020; 8 (1):388–403. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wan Husssin W.T.T., Harun J., A Shukor N. Online interaction in social learning environment towards critical thinking skill: A framework. Journal of Technology and Science Education. 2019; 9 (1):4. doi: 10.3926/jotse.544. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wengrowicz N., Dori Y.J., Dori D. Meta-assessment in a project-based systems engineering course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017; 42 (4):607–624. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolbring T., Treischl E. Selection bias in students' evaluation of teaching: Causes of student absenteeism and its consequences for course ratings and rankings. Research in Higher Education. 2016; 57 (1):51–71. doi: 10.1007/s11162-015-9378-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Read our new Case Study on Cypress Elementary.

• TMLC Support
• Training Calendar

Developing Thinking Skills for Project-Based Learning

NOVEMBER 15, 2023

Project-based learning (PBL) immerses students in engaging, real-world challenges and problems. But do all students have the skills they need to work within a PBL framework? PBL isn’t just about the final product—it’s about the thinking behind it. Thinking Maps can give students a framework for thinking, planning and organizing their ideas for successful completion of learning projects.

What Is Project-Based Learning?  

Project-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that emphasizes students working on real-world projects over an extended period. PBLWorks , an initiative of the Buck Institute for Education, defines PBL this way: 

Project-Based Learning is a teaching method in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an extended period of time to investigate and respond to an authentic, engaging, and complex question, problem, or challenge.

PBL has roots dating back to the progressive education theories of John Dewey and other researchers in the early 20 th century, but it has gained considerable ground over the last thirty years. Much of this interest has been driven by the focus on “21 st Century Skills” and college and career readiness standards. Educators and employers recognize that for students to be successful in the knowledge economy, rote learning and memorization aren’t enough. Students need to develop the skills needed for lifelong learning, citizenship and participation in the information age—often referred to as the “Four Cs” (Critical Thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication). Project-based learning, with its open-ended, student-centric design, is often considered to be an ideal method to grow these skills. 

In 2021, two gold-standard studies led by Lucas Education Research , a sister division of Edutopia, provided compelling evidence that PBL works. These studies, conducted by the University of Southern California and Michigan State University, showed that students learning in a PBL environment outperformed peers using traditional curricula on assessments, including AP tests. These results held for students of all academic backgrounds and demographics, including students from traditionally underserved or marginalized groups. Other studies have also demonstrated the effectiveness of PBL across a variety of educational contexts. 

What makes PBL so effective? PBL requires students to engage deeply with concepts in the course of solving real-world problems or creating holistic end products. This student-driven, problem-based approach not only promotes higher levels of engagement but also requires students to develop skills in research, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving as they work toward their final project. Because projects are created in groups and often involve presentation of the final product, students also develop collaboration and communication skills as they work together with their peers.

Are Students Ready for PBL?

As magical as PBL sounds, it is not without its critics. PBL puts much more onus on the students to direct their own learning. Some critics argue that by focusing on in-depth projects, students might miss out on covering the breadth of content required by certain curricula or standards. Others argue that many students may not be equipped with the necessary critical thinking skills and foundational knowledge to complete projects successfully. If not implemented correctly, PBL can lead to projects that lack depth and rigor, leading to superficial understanding.

The Buck Institute, along with other researchers and educators, created the Framework for High-Quality Project-Based Learning to identify the criteria that lead to successful outcomes in PBL. These include:  

• Intellectual challenge and accomplishment
• Authenticity
• Public Product
• Collaboration
• Project Management

Done right, PBL demands that students exercise higher-order thinking skills and take responsibility for their own learning. This shift from teacher-directed to student-directed learning supports deeper engagement and comprehension. However, PBL also demands a base level of competency in higher-order skills, including: 

• Research skills and media literacy 
• Critical thinking and creative problem-solving
• Metacognition, reflection and self-assessment
• Self-regulation and time management
• Social-emotional skills for collaborative teamwork

These skills must be explicitly taught and nurtured before students can be set free to complete student-directed projects on their own. Most students benefit from having a structured approach and a framework for developing these skills within the context of a learning project.

Thinking Maps as a Framework for Project-Based Learning

Thinking Maps provides an excellent framework for PBL. Thinking Maps, as visual tools, provide a structured way for students to organize, represent, and analyze information, which can be highly beneficial in a PBL environment. Here’s how they support the PBL process.

• Brainstorming : At the outset of a project, students often need to gather ideas, recall prior knowledge, and identify questions or challenges. Thinking Maps offer a clear and structured way to visualize these preliminary thoughts, helping students see connections, gaps, and potential directions for their projects.
• Organizing Ideas : As students delve into a project, they will need to gather information from many different sources. Thinking Maps can help them organize, categorize and synthesize this information, making it easier to understand, recall, and use effectively.
• Planning : PBL often requires students to manage their time and resources, sequence tasks, and determine relationships between different elements of their project. By providing a visual representation of the steps in the project, Thinking Maps can aid in the planning process, ensuring a more structured and systematic approach to project execution.
• Collaboration : Working in teams is a cornerstone of many PBL experiences. Thinking Maps serve as a shared visual language, helping teams communicate more effectively, align their thinking, and merge diverse perspectives.
• Critical Thinking : Projects challenge students to analyze information, identify patterns, compare and contrast ideas, and make informed decisions. Thinking Maps provide frameworks for these cognitive processes, supporting deeper analysis and more thoughtful decision-making.
• Reflection : A crucial phase of PBL is reflection, where students look back on their work, evaluate their performance, and identify lessons learned. Thinking Maps can facilitate this reflective process, allowing students to visually trace their project’s evolution, recognize strengths and areas for improvement, and find opportunities to extend their learning.

In essence, Thinking Maps serve as cognitive anchors throughout the PBL process. Integrating Thinking Maps throughout their projects gives students a framework for completing the various steps in their projects and activating the cognitive, metacognitive and self-regulatory skills needed to succeed in project-based learning.

Ready to learn more about Thinking Maps? Sign up for an upcoming webinar, or contact your rep for a demo! 

More about Project-Based Learning

• For TMLC subscribers only: Exploring Project-Based Learning (TMLC Navigator article) 
• A Framework for High-Quality Project-Based Learning (Buck Institute)
• PBLWorks (Buck Institute) 
• Project-Based Learning Resources for Teachers (Education World)
• Project-Based Learning Teaching Guide (Boston University) 

Continue Reading

February 15, 2024

A majority of teachers believe that students are finally catching up from pandemic learning losses. But those gains are far from evenly distributed—and too many students were already behind before the pandemic. To close these achievement gaps, schools and districts need to focus on the underlying issue: the critical thinking gap.

January 16, 2024

Student engagement is a critical factor in the learning process and has a significant impact on educational outcomes. Thinking Maps enhance engagement by encouraging active participation in the learning process, facilitating collaboration, and providing students with structure and support for academic success.

October 16, 2023

Drawing complex concepts results in better learning outcomes than listening, reading or taking written notes. Learn what the research says and how Thinking Maps can help students tap into the benefits of drawing.

September 14, 2023

Reading comprehension is the foundation for academic success across all subject areas. And yet, many students still struggle to engage deeply with written content and pull meaning from complex text. Here’s how teachers can support development of “deep cognitive structures” for reading comprehension that reduce the cognitive load so students can focus on content.