level of critical thinking skills of senior high school

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
• Open access
• Published: 02 December 2020

Enhancing senior high school student engagement and academic performance using an inclusive and scalable inquiry-based program

• Locke Davenport Huyer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1526-7122 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Neal I. Callaghan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8214-3395 1 , 3   na1 ,
• Sara Dicks 4 ,
• Edward Scherer 4 ,
• Andrey I. Shukalyuk 1 ,
• Margaret Jou 4 &
• Dawn M. Kilkenny   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3899-9767 1 , 5  

npj Science of Learning volume  5 , Article number:  17 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

40k Accesses

4 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

The multi-disciplinary nature of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers often renders difficulty for high school students navigating from classroom knowledge to post-secondary pursuits. Discrepancies between the knowledge-based high school learning approach and the experiential approach of future studies leaves some students disillusioned by STEM. We present Discovery , a term-long inquiry-focused learning model delivered by STEM graduate students in collaboration with high school teachers, in the context of biomedical engineering. Entire classes of high school STEM students representing diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds engaged in iterative, problem-based learning designed to emphasize critical thinking concomitantly within the secondary school and university environments. Assessment of grades and survey data suggested positive impact of this learning model on students’ STEM interests and engagement, notably in under-performing cohorts, as well as repeating cohorts that engage in the program on more than one occasion. Discovery presents a scalable platform that stimulates persistence in STEM learning, providing valuable learning opportunities and capturing cohorts of students that might otherwise be under-engaged in STEM.

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

An open source knowledge graph ecosystem for the life sciences

Tiffany J. Callahan, Ignacio J. Tripodi, … Lawrence E. Hunter

Introduction

High school students with diverse STEM interests often struggle to understand the STEM experience outside the classroom 1 . The multi-disciplinary nature of many career fields can foster a challenge for students in their decision to enroll in appropriate high school courses while maintaining persistence in study, particularly when these courses are not mandatory 2 . Furthermore, this challenge is amplified by the known discrepancy between the knowledge-based learning approach common in high schools and the experiential, mastery-based approaches afforded by the subsequent undergraduate model 3 . In the latter, focused classes, interdisciplinary concepts, and laboratory experiences allow for the application of accumulated knowledge, practice in problem solving, and development of both general and technical skills 4 . Such immersive cooperative learning environments are difficult to establish in the secondary school setting and high school teachers often struggle to implement within their classroom 5 . As such, high school students may become disillusioned before graduation and never experience an enriched learning environment, despite their inherent interests in STEM 6 .

It cannot be argued that early introduction to varied math and science disciplines throughout high school is vital if students are to pursue STEM fields, especially within engineering 7 . However, the majority of literature focused on student interest and retention in STEM highlights outcomes in US high school learning environments, where the sciences are often subject-specific from the onset of enrollment 8 . In contrast, students in the Ontario (Canada) high school system are required to complete Level 1 and 2 core courses in science and math during Grades 9 and 10; these courses are offered as ‘applied’ or ‘academic’ versions and present broad topics of content 9 . It is not until Levels 3 and 4 (generally Grades 11 and 12, respectively) that STEM classes become subject-specific (i.e., Biology, Chemistry, and/or Physics) and are offered as “university”, “college”, or “mixed” versions, designed to best prepare students for their desired post-secondary pursuits 9 . Given that Levels 3 and 4 science courses are not mandatory for graduation, enrollment identifies an innate student interest in continued learning. Furthermore, engagement in these post-secondary preparatory courses is also dependent upon achieving successful grades in preceding courses, but as curriculum becomes more subject-specific, students often yield lower degrees of success in achieving course credit 2 . Therefore, it is imperative that learning supports are best focused on ensuring that those students with an innate interest are able to achieve success in learning.

When given opportunity and focused support, high school students are capable of successfully completing rigorous programs at STEM-focused schools 10 . Specialized STEM schools have existed in the US for over 100 years; generally, students are admitted after their sophomore year of high school experience (equivalent to Grade 10) based on standardized test scores, essays, portfolios, references, and/or interviews 11 . Common elements to this learning framework include a diverse array of advanced STEM courses, paired with opportunities to engage in and disseminate cutting-edge research 12 . Therein, said research experience is inherently based in the processes of critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. This learning framework supports translation of core curricular concepts to practice and is fundamental in allowing students to develop better understanding and appreciation of STEM career fields.

Despite the described positive attributes, many students do not have the ability or resources to engage within STEM-focused schools, particularly given that they are not prevalent across Canada, and other countries across the world. Consequently, many public institutions support the idea that post-secondary led engineering education programs are effective ways to expose high school students to engineering education and relevant career options, and also increase engineering awareness 13 . Although singular class field trips are used extensively to accomplish such programs, these may not allow immersive experiences for application of knowledge and practice of skills that are proven to impact long-term learning and influence career choices 14 , 15 . Longer-term immersive research experiences, such as after-school programs or summer camps, have shown successful at recruiting students into STEM degree programs and careers, where longevity of experience helps foster self-determination and interest-led, inquiry-based projects 4 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 .

Such activities convey the elements that are suggested to make a post-secondary led high school education programs successful: hands-on experience, self-motivated learning, real-life application, immediate feedback, and problem-based projects 20 , 21 . In combination with immersion in university teaching facilities, learning is authentic and relevant, similar to the STEM school-focused framework, and consequently representative of an experience found in actual STEM practice 22 . These outcomes may further be a consequence of student engagement and attitude: Brown et al. studied the relationships between STEM curriculum and student attitudes, and found the latter played a more important role in intention to persist in STEM when compared to self-efficacy 23 . This is interesting given that student self-efficacy has been identified to influence ‘motivation, persistence, and determination’ in overcoming challenges in a career pathway 24 . Taken together, this suggests that creation and delivery of modern, exciting curriculum that supports positive student attitudes is fundamental to engage and retain students in STEM programs.

Supported by the outcomes of identified effective learning strategies, University of Toronto (U of T) graduate trainees created a novel high school education program Discovery , to develop a comfortable yet stimulating environment of inquiry-focused iterative learning for senior high school students (Grades 11 & 12; Levels 3 & 4) at non-specialized schools. Built in strong collaboration with science teachers from George Harvey Collegiate Institute (Toronto District School Board), Discovery stimulates application of STEM concepts within a unique term-long applied curriculum delivered iteratively within both U of T undergraduate teaching facilities and collaborating high school classrooms 25 . Based on the volume of medically-themed news and entertainment that is communicated to the population at large, the rapidly-growing and diverse field of biomedical engineering (BME) were considered an ideal program context 26 . In its definition, BME necessitates cross-disciplinary STEM knowledge focused on the betterment of human health, wherein Discovery facilitates broadening student perspective through engaging inquiry-based projects. Importantly, Discovery allows all students within a class cohort to work together with their classroom teacher, stimulating continued development of a relevant learning community that is deemed essential for meaningful context and important for transforming student perspectives and understandings 27 , 28 . Multiple studies support the concept that relevant learning communities improve student attitudes towards learning, significantly increasing student motivation in STEM courses, and consequently improving the overall learning experience 29 . Learning communities, such as that provided by Discovery , also promote the formation of self-supporting groups, greater active involvement in class, and higher persistence rates for participating students 30 .

The objective of Discovery , through structure and dissemination, is to engage senior high school science students in challenging, inquiry-based practical BME activities as a mechanism to stimulate comprehension of STEM curriculum application to real-world concepts. Consequent focus is placed on critical thinking skill development through an atmosphere of perseverance in ambiguity, something not common in a secondary school knowledge-focused delivery but highly relevant in post-secondary STEM education strategies. Herein, we describe the observed impact of the differential project-based learning environment of Discovery on student performance and engagement. We identify the value of an inquiry-focused learning model that is tangible for students who struggle in a knowledge-focused delivery structure, where engagement in conceptual critical thinking in the relevant subject area stimulates student interest, attitudes, and resulting academic performance. Assessment of study outcomes suggests that when provided with a differential learning opportunity, student performance and interest in STEM increased. Consequently, Discovery provides an effective teaching and learning framework within a non-specialized school that motivates students, provides opportunity for critical thinking and problem-solving practice, and better prepares them for persistence in future STEM programs.

Program delivery

The outcomes of the current study result from execution of Discovery over five independent academic terms as a collaboration between Institute of Biomedical Engineering (graduate students, faculty, and support staff) and George Harvey Collegiate Institute (science teachers and administration) stakeholders. Each term, the program allowed senior secondary STEM students (Grades 11 and 12) opportunity to engage in a novel project-based learning environment. The program structure uses the problem-based engineering capstone framework as a tool of inquiry-focused learning objectives, motivated by a central BME global research topic, with research questions that are inter-related but specific to the curriculum of each STEM course subject (Fig. 1 ). Over each 12-week term, students worked in teams (3–4 students) within their class cohorts to execute projects with the guidance of U of T trainees ( Discovery instructors) and their own high school teacher(s). Student experimental work was conducted in U of T teaching facilities relevant to the research study of interest (i.e., Biology and Chemistry-based projects executed within Undergraduate Teaching Laboratories; Physics projects executed within Undergraduate Design Studios). Students were introduced to relevant techniques and safety procedures in advance of iterative experimentation. Importantly, this experience served as a course term project for students, who were assessed at several points throughout the program for performance in an inquiry-focused environment as well as within the regular classroom (Fig. 1 ). To instill the atmosphere of STEM, student teams delivered their outcomes in research poster format at a final symposium, sharing their results and recommendations with other post-secondary students, faculty, and community in an open environment.

The general program concept (blue background; top left ) highlights a global research topic examined through student dissemination of subject-specific research questions, yielding multifaceted student outcomes (orange background; top right ). Each program term (term workflow, yellow background; bottom panel ), students work on program deliverables in class (blue), iterate experimental outcomes within university facilities (orange), and are assessed accordingly at numerous deliverables in an inquiry-focused learning model.

Over the course of five terms there were 268 instances of tracked student participation, representing 170 individual students. Specifically, 94 students participated during only one term of programming, 57 students participated in two terms, 16 students participated in three terms, and 3 students participated in four terms. Multiple instances of participation represent students that enrol in more than one STEM class during their senior years of high school, or who participated in Grade 11 and subsequently Grade 12. Students were surveyed before and after each term to assess program effects on STEM interest and engagement. All grade-based assessments were performed by high school teachers for their respective STEM class cohorts using consistent grading rubrics and assignment structure. Here, we discuss the outcomes of student involvement in this experiential curriculum model.

Student performance and engagement

Student grades were assigned, collected, and anonymized by teachers for each Discovery deliverable (background essay, client meeting, proposal, progress report, poster, and final presentation). Teachers anonymized collective Discovery grades, the component deliverable grades thereof, final course grades, attendance in class and during programming, as well as incomplete classroom assignments, for comparative study purposes. Students performed significantly higher in their cumulative Discovery grade than in their cumulative classroom grade (final course grade less the Discovery contribution; p  < 0.0001). Nevertheless, there was a highly significant correlation ( p  < 0.0001) observed between the grade representing combined Discovery deliverables and the final course grade (Fig. 2a ). Further examination of the full dataset revealed two student cohorts of interest: the “Exceeds Expectations” (EE) subset (defined as those students who achieved ≥1 SD [18.0%] grade differential in Discovery over their final course grade; N  = 99 instances), and the “Multiple Term” (MT) subset (defined as those students who participated in Discovery more than once; 76 individual students that collectively accounted for 174 single terms of assessment out of the 268 total student-terms delivered) (Fig. 2b, c ). These subsets were not unrelated; 46 individual students who had multiple experiences (60.5% of total MTs) exhibited at least one occasion in achieving a ≥18.0% grade differential. As students participated in group work, there was concern that lower-performing students might negatively influence the Discovery grade of higher-performing students (or vice versa). However, students were observed to self-organize into groups where all individuals received similar final overall course grades (Fig. 2d ), thereby alleviating these concerns.

a Linear regression of student grades reveals a significant correlation ( p  = 0.0009) between Discovery performance and final course grade less the Discovery contribution to grade, as assessed by teachers. The dashed red line and intervals represent the theoretical 1:1 correlation between Discovery and course grades and standard deviation of the Discovery -course grade differential, respectively. b , c Identification of subgroups of interest, Exceeds Expectations (EE; N  = 99, orange ) who were ≥+1 SD in Discovery -course grade differential and Multi-Term (MT; N  = 174, teal ), of which N  = 65 students were present in both subgroups. d Students tended to self-assemble in working groups according to their final course performance; data presented as mean ± SEM. e For MT students participating at least 3 terms in Discovery , there was no significant correlation between course grade and time, while ( f ) there was a significant correlation between Discovery grade and cumulative terms in the program. Histograms of total absences per student in ( g ) Discovery and ( h ) class (binned by 4 days to be equivalent in time to a single Discovery absence).

The benefits experienced by MT students seemed progressive; MT students that participated in 3 or 4 terms ( N  = 16 and 3, respectively ) showed no significant increase by linear regression in their course grade over time ( p  = 0.15, Fig. 2e ), but did show a significant increase in their Discovery grades ( p  = 0.0011, Fig. 2f ). Finally, students demonstrated excellent Discovery attendance; at least 91% of participants attended all Discovery sessions in a given term (Fig. 2g ). In contrast, class attendance rates reveal a much wider distribution where 60.8% (163 out of 268 students) missed more than 4 classes (equivalent in learning time to one Discovery session) and 14.6% (39 out of 268 students) missed 16 or more classes (equivalent in learning time to an entire program of Discovery ) in a term (Fig. 2h ).

Discovery EE students (Fig. 3 ), roughly by definition, obtained lower course grades ( p  < 0.0001, Fig. 3a ) and higher final Discovery grades ( p  = 0.0004, Fig. 3b ) than non-EE students. This cohort of students exhibited program grades higher than classmates (Fig. 3c–h ); these differences were significant in every category with the exception of essays, where they outperformed to a significantly lesser degree ( p  = 0.097; Fig. 3c ). There was no statistically significant difference in EE vs. non-EE student classroom attendance ( p  = 0.85; Fig. 3i, j ). There were only four single day absences in Discovery within the EE subset; however, this difference was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.074).

The “Exceeds Expectations” (EE) subset of students (defined as those who received a combined Discovery grade ≥1 SD (18.0%) higher than their final course grade) performed ( a ) lower on their final course grade and ( b ) higher in the Discovery program as a whole when compared to their classmates. d – h EE students received significantly higher grades on each Discovery deliverable than their classmates, except for their ( c ) introductory essays and ( h ) final presentations. The EE subset also tended ( i ) to have a higher relative rate of attendance during Discovery sessions but no difference in ( j ) classroom attendance. N  = 99 EE students and 169 non-EE students (268 total). Grade data expressed as mean ± SEM.

Discovery MT students (Fig. 4 ), although not receiving significantly higher grades in class than students participating in the program only one time ( p  = 0.29, Fig. 4a ), were observed to obtain higher final Discovery grades than single-term students ( p  = 0.0067, Fig. 4b ). Although trends were less pronounced for individual MT student deliverables (Fig. 4c–h ), this student group performed significantly better on the progress report ( p  = 0.0021; Fig. 4f ). Trends of higher performance were observed for initial proposals and final presentations ( p  = 0.081 and 0.056, respectively; Fig. 4e, h ); all other deliverables were not significantly different between MT and non-MT students (Fig. 4c, d, g ). Attendance in Discovery ( p  = 0.22) was also not significantly different between MT and non-MT students, although MT students did miss significantly less class time ( p  = 0.010) (Fig. 4i, j ). Longitudinal assessment of individual deliverables for MT students that participated in three or more Discovery terms (Fig. 5 ) further highlights trend in improvement (Fig. 2f ). Greater performance over terms of participation was observed for essay ( p  = 0.0295, Fig. 5a ), client meeting ( p  = 0.0003, Fig. 5b ), proposal ( p  = 0.0004, Fig. 5c ), progress report ( p  = 0.16, Fig. 5d ), poster ( p  = 0.0005, Fig. 5e ), and presentation ( p  = 0.0295, Fig. 5f ) deliverable grades; these trends were all significant with the exception of the progress report ( p  = 0.16, Fig. 5d ) owing to strong performance in this deliverable in all terms.

The “multi-term” (MT) subset of students (defined as having attended more than one term of Discovery ) demonstrated favorable performance in Discovery , ( a ) showing no difference in course grade compared to single-term students, but ( b outperforming them in final Discovery grade. Independent of the number of times participating in Discovery , MT students did not score significantly differently on their ( c ) essay, ( d ) client meeting, or ( g ) poster. They tended to outperform their single-term classmates on the ( e ) proposal and ( h ) final presentation and scored significantly higher on their ( f ) progress report. MT students showed no statistical difference in ( i ) Discovery attendance but did show ( j ) higher rates of classroom attendance than single-term students. N  = 174 MT instances of student participation (76 individual students) and 94 single-term students. Grade data expressed as mean ± SEM.

Longitudinal assessment of a subset of MT student participants that participated in three ( N  = 16) or four ( N  = 3) terms presents a significant trend of improvement in their ( a ) essay, ( b ) client meeting, ( c ) proposal, ( e ) poster, and ( f ) presentation grade. d Progress report grades present a trend in improvement but demonstrate strong performance in all terms, limiting potential for student improvement. Grade data are presented as individual student performance; each student is represented by one color; data is fitted with a linear trendline (black).

Finally, the expansion of Discovery to a second school of lower LOI (i.e., nominally higher aggregate SES) allowed for the assessment of program impact in a new population over 2 terms of programming. A significant ( p  = 0.040) divergence in Discovery vs. course grade distribution from the theoretical 1:1 relationship was found in the new cohort (S 1 Appendix , Fig. S 1 ), in keeping with the pattern established in this study.

Teacher perceptions

Qualitative observation in the classroom by high school teachers emphasized the value students independently placed on program participation and deliverables. Throughout the term, students often prioritized Discovery group assignments over other tasks for their STEM courses, regardless of academic weight and/or due date. Comparing within this student population, teachers spoke of difficulties with late and incomplete assignments in the regular curriculum but found very few such instances with respect to Discovery -associated deliverables. Further, teachers speculated on the good behavior and focus of students in Discovery programming in contrast to attentiveness and behavior issues in their school classrooms. Multiple anecdotal examples were shared of renewed perception of student potential; students that exhibited poor academic performance in the classroom often engaged with high performance in this inquiry-focused atmosphere. Students appeared to take a sense of ownership, excitement, and pride in the setting of group projects oriented around scientific inquiry, discovery, and dissemination.

Student perceptions

Students were asked to consider and rank the academic difficulty (scale of 1–5, with 1 = not challenging and 5 = highly challenging) of the work they conducted within the Discovery learning model. Considering individual Discovery terms, at least 91% of students felt the curriculum to be sufficiently challenging with a 3/5 or higher ranking (Term 1: 87.5%, Term 2: 93.4%, Term 3: 85%, Term 4: 93.3%, Term 5: 100%), and a minimum of 58% of students indicating a 4/5 or higher ranking (Term 1: 58.3%, Term 2: 70.5%, Term 3: 67.5%, Term 4: 69.1%, Term 5: 86.4%) (Fig. 6a ).

a Histogram of relative frequency of perceived Discovery programming academic difficulty ranked from not challenging (1) to highly challenging (5) for each session demonstrated the consistently perceived high degree of difficulty for Discovery programming (total responses: 223). b Program participation increased student comfort (94.6%) with navigating lab work in a university or college setting (total responses: 220). c Considering participation in Discovery programming, students indicated their increased (72.4%) or decreased (10.1%) likelihood to pursue future experiences in STEM as a measure of program impact (total responses: 217). d Large majority of participating students (84.9%) indicated their interest for future participation in Discovery (total responses: 212). Students were given the opportunity to opt out of individual survey questions, partially completed surveys were included in totals.

The majority of students (94.6%) indicated they felt more comfortable with the idea of performing future work in a university STEM laboratory environment given exposure to university teaching facilities throughout the program (Fig. 6b ). Students were also queried whether they were (i) more likely, (ii) less likely, or (iii) not impacted by their experience in the pursuit of STEM in the future. The majority of participants (>82%) perceived impact on STEM interests, with 72.4% indicating they were more likely to pursue these interests in the future (Fig. 6c ). When surveyed at the end of term, 84.9% of students indicated they would participate in the program again (Fig. 6d ).

We have described an inquiry-based framework for implementing experiential STEM education in a BME setting. Using this model, we engaged 268 instances of student participation (170 individual students who participated 1–4 times) over five terms in project-based learning wherein students worked in peer-based teams under the mentorship of U of T trainees to design and execute the scientific method in answering a relevant research question. Collaboration between high school teachers and Discovery instructors allowed for high school student exposure to cutting-edge BME research topics, participation in facilitated inquiry, and acquisition of knowledge through scientific discovery. All assessments were conducted by high school teachers and constituted a fraction (10–15%) of the overall course grade, instilling academic value for participating students. As such, students exhibited excitement to learn as well as commitment to their studies in the program.

Through our observations and analysis, we suggest there is value in differential learning environments for students that struggle in a knowledge acquisition-focused classroom setting. In general, we observed a high level of academic performance in Discovery programming (Fig. 2a ), which was highlighted exceptionally in EE students who exhibited greater academic performance in Discovery deliverables compared to normal coursework (>18% grade improvement in relevant deliverables). We initially considered whether this was the result of strong students influencing weaker students; however, group organization within each course suggests this is not the case (Fig. 2d ). With the exception of one class in one term (24 participants assigned by their teacher), students were allowed to self-organize into working groups and they chose to work with other students of relatively similar academic performance (as indicated by course grade), a trend observed in other studies 31 , 32 . Remarkably, EE students not only excelled during Discovery when compared to their own performance in class, but this cohort also achieved significantly higher average grades in each of the deliverables throughout the program when compared to the remaining Discovery cohort (Fig. 3 ). This data demonstrates the value of an inquiry-based learning environment compared to knowledge-focused delivery in the classroom in allowing students to excel. We expect that part of this engagement was resultant of student excitement with a novel learning opportunity. It is however a well-supported concept that students who struggle in traditional settings tend to demonstrate improved interest and motivation in STEM when given opportunity to interact in a hands-on fashion, which supports our outcomes 4 , 33 . Furthermore, these outcomes clearly represent variable student learning styles, where some students benefit from a greater exchange of information, knowledge and skills in a cooperative learning environment 34 . The performance of the EE group may not be by itself surprising, as the identification of the subset by definition required high performers in Discovery who did not have exceptionally high course grades; in addition, the final Discovery grade is dependent on the component assignment grades. However, the discrepancies between EE and non-EE groups attendance suggests that students were engaged by Discovery in a way that they were not by regular classroom curriculum.

In addition to quantified engagement in Discovery observed in academic performance, we believe remarkable attendance rates are indicative of the value students place in the differential learning structure. Given the differences in number of Discovery days and implications of missing one day of regular class compared to this immersive program, we acknowledge it is challenging to directly compare attendance data and therefore approximate this comparison with consideration of learning time equivalence. When combined with other subjective data including student focus, requests to work on Discovery during class time, and lack of discipline/behavior issues, the attendance data importantly suggests that students were especially engaged by the Discovery model. Further, we believe the increased commute time to the university campus (students are responsible for independent transit to campus, a much longer endeavour than the normal school commute), early program start time, and students’ lack of familiarity with the location are non-trivial considerations when determining the propensity of students to participate enthusiastically in Discovery . We feel this suggests the students place value on this team-focused learning and find it to be more applicable and meaningful to their interests.

Given post-secondary admission requirements for STEM programs, it would be prudent to think that students participating in multiple STEM classes across terms are the ones with the most inherent interest in post-secondary STEM programs. The MT subset, representing students who participated in Discovery for more than one term, averaged significantly higher final Discovery grades. The increase in the final Discovery grade was observed to result from a general confluence of improved performance over multiple deliverables and a continuous effort to improve in a STEM curriculum. This was reflected in longitudinal tracking of Discovery performance, where we observed a significant trend of improved performance. Interestingly, the high number of MT students who were included in the EE group suggests that students who had a keen interest in science enrolled in more than one course and in general responded well to the inquiry-based teaching method of Discovery , where scientific method was put into action. It stands to reason that students interested in science will continue to take STEM courses and will respond favorably to opportunities to put classroom theory to practical application.

The true value of an inquiry-based program such as Discovery may not be based in inspiring students to perform at a higher standard in STEM within the high school setting, as skills in critical thinking do not necessarily translate to knowledge-based assessment. Notably, students found the programming equally challenging throughout each of the sequential sessions, perhaps somewhat surprising considering the increasing number of repeat attendees in successive sessions (Fig. 6a ). Regardless of sub-discipline, there was an emphasis of perceived value demonstrated through student surveys where we observed indicated interest in STEM and comfort with laboratory work environments, and desire to engage in future iterations given the opportunity. Although non-quantitative, we perceive this as an indicator of significant student engagement, even though some participants did not yield academic success in the program and found it highly challenging given its ambiguity.

Although we observed that students become more certain of their direction in STEM, further longitudinal study is warranted to make claim of this outcome. Additionally, at this point in our assessment we cannot effectively assess the practical outcomes of participation, understanding that the immediate effects observed are subject to a number of factors associated with performance in the high school learning environment. Future studies that track graduates from this program will be prudent, in conjunction with an ever-growing dataset of assessment as well as surveys designed to better elucidate underlying perceptions and attitudes, to continue to understand the expected benefits of this inquiry-focused and partnered approach. Altogether, a multifaceted assessment of our early outcomes suggests significant value of an immersive and iterative interaction with STEM as part of the high school experience. A well-defined divergence from knowledge-based learning, focused on engagement in critical thinking development framed in the cutting-edge of STEM, may be an important step to broadening student perspectives.

In this study, we describe the short-term effects of an inquiry-based STEM educational experience on a cohort of secondary students attending a non-specialized school, and suggest that the framework can be widely applied across virtually all subjects where inquiry-driven and mentored projects can be undertaken. Although we have demonstrated replication in a second cohort of nominally higher SES (S 1 Appendix , Supplementary Fig. 1 ), a larger collection period with more students will be necessary to conclusively determine impact independent of both SES and specific cohort effects. Teachers may also find this framework difficult to implement depending on resources and/or institutional investment and support, particularly if post-secondary collaboration is inaccessible. Offerings to a specific subject (e.g., physics) where experiments yielding empirical data are logistically or financially simpler to perform may be valid routes of adoption as opposed to the current study where all subject cohorts were included.

As we consider Discovery in a bigger picture context, expansion and implementation of this model is translatable. Execution of the scientific method is an important aspect of citizen science, as the concepts of critical thing become ever-more important in a landscape of changing technological landscapes. Giving students critical thinking and problem-solving skills in their primary and secondary education provides value in the context of any career path. Further, we feel that this model is scalable across disciplines, STEM or otherwise, as a means of building the tools of inquiry. We have observed here the value of differential inclusive student engagement and critical thinking through an inquiry-focused model for a subset of students, but further to this an engagement, interest, and excitement across the body of student participants. As we educate the leaders of tomorrow, we suggest that use of an inquiry-focused model such as Discovery could facilitate growth of a data-driven critical thinking framework.

In conclusion, we have presented a model of inquiry-based STEM education for secondary students that emphasizes inclusion, quantitative analysis, and critical thinking. Student grades suggest significant performance benefits, and engagement data suggests positive student attitude despite the perceived challenges of the program. We also note a particular performance benefit to students who repeatedly engage in the program. This framework may carry benefits in a wide variety of settings and disciplines for enhancing student engagement and performance, particularly in non-specialized school environments.

Study design and implementation

Participants in Discovery include all students enrolled in university-stream Grade 11 or 12 biology, chemistry, or physics at the participating school over five consecutive terms (cohort summary shown in Table 1 ). Although student participation in educational content was mandatory, student grades and survey responses (administered by high school teachers) were collected from only those students with parent or guardian consent. Teachers replaced each student name with a unique coded identifier to preserve anonymity but enable individual student tracking over multiple terms. All data collected were analyzed without any exclusions save for missing survey responses; no power analysis was performed prior to data collection.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Protocol # 34825) and the Toronto District School Board External Research Review Committee (Protocol # 2017-2018-20). Written informed consent was collected from parents or guardians of participating students prior to the acquisition of student data (both post-hoc academic data and survey administration). Data were anonymized by high school teachers for maintenance of academic confidentiality of individual students prior to release to U of T researchers.

Educational program overview

Students enrolled in university-preparatory STEM classes at the participating school completed a term-long project under the guidance of graduate student instructors and undergraduate student mentors as a mandatory component of their respective course. Project curriculum developed collaboratively between graduate students and participating high school teachers was delivered within U of T Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering (FASE) teaching facilities. Participation allows high school students to garner a better understanding as to how undergraduate learning and career workflows in STEM vary from traditional high school classroom learning, meanwhile reinforcing the benefits of problem solving, perseverance, teamwork, and creative thinking competencies. Given that Discovery was a mandatory component of course curriculum, students participated as class cohorts and addressed questions specific to their course subject knowledge base but related to the defined global health research topic (Fig. 1 ). Assessment of program deliverables was collectively assigned to represent 10–15% of the final course grade for each subject at the discretion of the respective STEM teacher.

The Discovery program framework was developed, prior to initiation of student assessment, in collaboration with one high school selected from the local public school board over a 1.5 year period of time. This partner school consistently scores highly (top decile) in the school board’s Learning Opportunities Index (LOI). The LOI ranks each school based on measures of external challenges affecting its student population therefore schools with the greatest level of external challenge receive a higher ranking 35 . A high LOI ranking is inversely correlated with socioeconomic status (SES); therefore, participating students are identified as having a significant number of external challenges that may affect their academic success. The mandatory nature of program participation was established to reach highly capable students who may be reluctant to engage on their own initiative, as a means of enhancing the inclusivity and impact of the program. The selected school partner is located within a reasonable geographical radius of our campus (i.e., ~40 min transit time from school to campus). This is relevant as participating students are required to independently commute to campus for Discovery hands-on experiences.

Each program term of Discovery corresponds with a five-month high school term. Lead university trainee instructors (3–6 each term) engaged with high school teachers 1–2 months in advance of high school student engagement to discern a relevant overarching global healthcare theme. Each theme was selected with consideration of (a) topics that university faculty identify as cutting-edge biomedical research, (b) expertise that Discovery instructors provide, and (c) capacity to showcase the diversity of BME. Each theme was sub-divided into STEM subject-specific research questions aligning with provincial Ministry of Education curriculum concepts for university-preparatory Biology, Chemistry, and Physics 9 that students worked to address, both on-campus and in-class, during a term-long project. The Discovery framework therefore provides students a problem-based learning experience reflective of an engineering capstone design project, including a motivating scientific problem (i.e., global topic), subject-specific research question, and systematic determination of a professional recommendation addressing the needs of the presented problem.

Discovery instructors were volunteers recruited primarily from graduate and undergraduate BME programs in the FASE. Instructors were organized into subject-specific instructional teams based on laboratory skills, teaching experience, and research expertise. The lead instructors of each subject (the identified 1–2 trainees that built curriculum with high school teachers) were responsible to organize the remaining team members as mentors for specific student groups over the course of the program term (~1:8 mentor to student ratio).

All Discovery instructors were familiarized with program expectations and trained in relevant workspace safety, in addition to engagement at a teaching workshop delivered by the Faculty Advisor (a Teaching Stream faculty member) at the onset of term. This workshop was designed to provide practical information on teaching and was co-developed with high school teachers based on their extensive training and experience in fundamental teaching methods. In addition, group mentors received hands-on training and guidance from lead instructors regarding the specific activities outlined for their respective subject programming (an exemplary term of student programming is available in S 2 Appendix) .

Discovery instructors were responsible for introducing relevant STEM skills and mentoring high school students for the duration of their projects, with support and mentorship from the Faculty Mentor. Each instructor worked exclusively throughout the term with the student groups to which they had been assigned, ensuring consistent mentorship across all disciplinary components of the project. In addition to further supporting university trainees in on-campus mentorship, high school teachers were responsible for academic assessment of all student program deliverables (Fig. 1 ; the standardized grade distribution available in S 3 Appendix ). Importantly, trainees never engaged in deliverable assessment; for continuity of overall course assessment, this remained the responsibility of the relevant teacher for each student cohort.

Throughout each term, students engaged within the university facilities four times. The first three sessions included hands-on lab sessions while the fourth visit included a culminating symposium for students to present their scientific findings (Fig. 1 ). On average, there were 4–5 groups of students per subject (3–4 students per group; ~20 students/class). Discovery instructors worked exclusively with 1–2 groups each term in the capacity of mentor to monitor and guide student progress in all project deliverables.

After introducing the selected global research topic in class, teachers led students in completion of background research essays. Students subsequently engaged in a subject-relevant skill-building protocol during their first visit to university teaching laboratory facilities, allowing opportunity to understand analysis techniques and equipment relevant for their assessment projects. At completion of this session, student groups were presented with a subject-specific research question as well as the relevant laboratory inventory available for use during their projects. Armed with this information, student groups continued to work in their classroom setting to develop group-specific experimental plans. Teachers and Discovery instructors provided written and oral feedback, respectively , allowing students an opportunity to revise their plans in class prior to on-campus experimental execution.

Once at the relevant laboratory environment, student groups executed their protocols in an effort to collect experimental data. Data analysis was performed in the classroom and students learned by trial & error to optimize their protocols before returning to the university lab for a second opportunity of data collection. All methods and data were re-analyzed in class in order for students to create a scientific poster for the purpose of study/experience dissemination. During a final visit to campus, all groups presented their findings at a research symposium, allowing students to verbally defend their process, analyses, interpretations, and design recommendations to a diverse audience including peers, STEM teachers, undergraduate and graduate university students, postdoctoral fellows and U of T faculty.

Data collection

Teachers evaluated their students on the following associated deliverables: (i) global theme background research essay; (ii) experimental plan; (iii) progress report; (iv) final poster content and presentation; and (v) attendance. For research purposes, these grades were examined individually and also as a collective Discovery program grade for each student. For students consenting to participation in the research study, all Discovery grades were anonymized by the classroom teacher before being shared with study authors. Each student was assigned a code by the teacher for direct comparison of deliverable outcomes and survey responses. All instances of “Final course grade” represent the prorated course grade without the Discovery component, to prevent confounding of quantitative analyses.

Survey instruments were used to gain insight into student attitudes and perceptions of STEM and post-secondary study, as well as Discovery program experience and impact (S 4 Appendix ). High school teachers administered surveys in the classroom only to students supported by parental permission. Pre-program surveys were completed at minimum 1 week prior to program initiation each term and exit surveys were completed at maximum 2 weeks post- Discovery term completion. Surveys results were validated using a principal component analysis (S 1 Appendix , Supplementary Fig. 2 ).

Identification and comparison of population subsets

From initial analysis, we identified two student subpopulations of particular interest: students who performed ≥1 SD [18.0%] or greater in the collective Discovery components of the course compared to their final course grade (“EE”), and students who participated in Discovery more than once (“MT”). These groups were compared individually against the rest of the respective Discovery population (“non-EE” and “non-MT”, respectively ). Additionally, MT students who participated in three or four (the maximum observed) terms of Discovery were assessed for longitudinal changes to performance in their course and Discovery grades. Comparisons were made for all Discovery deliverables (introductory essay, client meeting, proposal, progress report, poster, and presentation), final Discovery grade, final course grade, Discovery attendance, and overall attendance.

Statistical analysis

Student course grades were analyzed in all instances without the Discovery contribution (calculated from all deliverable component grades and ranging from 10 to 15% of final course grade depending on class and year) to prevent correlation. Aggregate course grades and Discovery grades were first compared by paired t-test, matching each student’s course grade to their Discovery grade for the term. Student performance in Discovery ( N  = 268 instances of student participation, comprising 170 individual students that participated 1–4 times) was initially assessed in a linear regression of Discovery grade vs. final course grade. Trends in course and Discovery performance over time for students participating 3 or 4 terms ( N  = 16 and 3 individuals, respectively ) were also assessed by linear regression. For subpopulation analysis (EE and MT, N  = 99 instances from 81 individuals and 174 instances from 76 individuals, respectively ), each dataset was tested for normality using the D’Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test. All subgroup comparisons vs. the remaining population were performed by Mann–Whitney U -test. Data are plotted as individual points with mean ± SEM overlaid (grades), or in histogram bins of 1 and 4 days, respectively , for Discovery and class attendance. Significance was set at α ≤ 0.05.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author DMK. These data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns of personal data according to the ethical research agreements supporting this study.

Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M. & Lloyd, A. An integrated analysis of school students’ aspirations for STEM careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 16 , 655–675 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dooley, M., Payne, A., Steffler, M. & Wagner, J. Understanding the STEM path through high school and into university programs. Can. Public Policy 43 , 1–16 (2017).

Gilmore, M. W. Improvement of STEM education: experiential learning is the key. Mod. Chem. Appl. 1, e109. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6798.1000e109 (2013).

Roberts, T. et al. Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. Int. J. STEM Educ. 5 , 35 (2018).

Gillies, R. M. & Boyle, M. Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26 , 933–940 (2010).

Nasir, M., Seta, J. & Meyer, E.G. Introducing high school students to biomedical engineering through summer camps. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-20701 (2014).

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z. & Tai, R. Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: a gender study. Sci. Educ. 96 , 411–427 (2012).

Sarikas, C. The High School Science Classes You Should Take . https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-high-school-science-classes-you-should-take (2020).

Ontario, G. o. The ontario curriculum grades 11 and 12. Science http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/2009science11_12.pdf (2008).

Scott, C. An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the US. J. STEM Educ.: Innov. Res. 13 , 30 (2012).

Google Scholar  

Erdogan, N. & Stuessy, C. L. Modeling successful STEM high schools in the United States: an ecology framework. Int. J. Educ. Math., Sci. Technol. 3 , 77–92 (2015).

Pfeiffer, S. I., Overstreet, J. M. & Park, A. The state of science and mathematics education in state-supported residential academies: a nationwide survey. Roeper Rev. 32 , 25–31 (2009).

Anthony, A. B., Greene, H., Post, P. E., Parkhurst, A. & Zhan, X. Preparing university students to lead K-12 engineering outreach programmes: a design experiment. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 41 , 623–637 (2016).

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. researcher 18 , 32–42 (1989).

Reveles, J. M. & Brown, B. A. Contextual shifting: teachers emphasizing students’ academic identity to promote scientific literacy. Sci. Educ. 92 , 1015–1041 (2008).

Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L. & Burgess, W. D. Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: mediating effects of research self-efficacy. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50 , 940–951 (2013).

Boekaerts, M. Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learn. Instr. 7 , 161–186 (1997).

Honey, M., Pearson, G. & Schweingruber, H. STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and An Agenda for Research . (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2014).

Moote, J. K., Williams, J. M. & Sproule, J. When students take control: investigating the impact of the crest inquiry-based learning program on self-regulated processes and related motivations in young science students. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 12 , 178–196 (2013).

Fantz, T. D., Siller, T. J. & Demiranda, M. A. Pre-collegiate factors influencing the self-efficacy of engineering students. J. Eng. Educ. 100 , 604–623 (2011).

Ralston, P. A., Hieb, J. L. & Rivoli, G. Partnerships and experience in building STEM pipelines. J. Professional Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 139 , 156–162 (2012).

Kelley, T. R. & Knowles, J. G. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 3 , 11 (2016).

Brown, P. L., Concannon, J. P., Marx, D., Donaldson, C. W. & Black, A. An examination of middle school students’ STEM self-efficacy with relation to interest and perceptions of STEM. J. STEM Educ.: Innov. Res. 17 , 27–38 (2016).

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V. & Pastorelli, C. Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Dev. 72 , 187–206 (2001).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Davenport Huyer, L. et al. IBBME discovery: biomedical engineering-based iterative learning in a high school STEM curriculum (evaluation). Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-30591 (2018).

Abu-Faraj, Ziad O., ed. Handbook of research on biomedical engineering education and advanced bioengineering learning: interdisciplinary concepts: interdisciplinary concepts. Vol. 2. IGI Global (2012).

Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. Situated engineering learning: bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. J. Eng. Educ. 100 , 151–185 (2011).

O’Connell, K. B., Keys, B. & Storksdieck, M. Taking stock of oregon STEM hubs: accomplishments and challenges. Corvallis: Oregon State University https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/hq37vt23t (2017).

Freeman, K. E., Alston, S. T. & Winborne, D. G. Do learning communities enhance the quality of students’ learning and motivation in STEM? J. Negro Educ. 77 , 227–240 (2008).

Weaver, R. R. & Qi, J. Classroom organization and participation: college students’ perceptions. J. High. Educ. 76 , 570–601 (2005).

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D. & Wright, L. Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. J. Manag. Educ. 30 , 557–569 (2006).

Hassaskhah, J. & Mozaffari, H. The impact of group formation method (student-selected vs. teacher-assigned) on group dynamics and group outcome in EFL creative writing. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 6 , 147–156 (2015).

Ma, V. J. & Ma, X. A comparative analysis of the relationship between learning styles and mathematics performance. Int. J. STEM Educ. 1 , 3 (2014).

Weinstein, C. E. & Hume, L. M. Study Strategies for Lifelong Learning . (American Psychological Association, 1998).

Toronto District School Board. The 2017 Learning Opportunities Index: Questions and Answers. https://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/research/docs/reports/LOI2017v2.pdf (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been possible due to the support of many University of Toronto trainee volunteers, including Genevieve Conant, Sherif Ramadan, Daniel Smieja, Rami Saab, Andrew Effat, Serena Mandla, Cindy Bui, Janice Wong, Dawn Bannerman, Allison Clement, Shouka Parvin Nejad, Nicolas Ivanov, Jose Cardenas, Huntley Chang, Romario Regeenes, Dr. Henrik Persson, Ali Mojdeh, Nhien Tran-Nguyen, Ileana Co, and Jonathan Rubianto. We further acknowledge the staff and administration of George Harvey Collegiate Institute and the Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), as well as Benjamin Rocheleau and Madeleine Rocheleau for contributions to data collation. Discovery has grown with continued support of Dean Christopher Yip (Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, U of T), and the financial support of the IBME and the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) PromoScience program (PROSC 515876-2017; IBME “Igniting Youth Curiosity in STEM” initiative co-directed by DMK and Dr. Penney Gilbert). LDH and NIC were supported by Vanier Canada graduate scholarships from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and NSERC, respectively . DMK holds a Dean’s Emerging Innovation in Teaching Professorship in the Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science, U of T.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Locke Davenport Huyer, Neal I. Callaghan.

Authors and Affiliations

Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Locke Davenport Huyer, Neal I. Callaghan, Andrey I. Shukalyuk & Dawn M. Kilkenny

Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Locke Davenport Huyer

Translational Biology and Engineering Program, Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Neal I. Callaghan

George Harvey Collegiate Institute, Toronto District School Board, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sara Dicks, Edward Scherer & Margaret Jou

Institute for Studies in Transdisciplinary Engineering Education & Practice, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Dawn M. Kilkenny

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LDH, NIC and DMK conceived the program structure, designed the study, and interpreted the data. LDH and NIC ideated programming, coordinated execution, and performed all data analysis. SD, ES, and MJ designed and assessed student deliverables, collected data, and anonymized data for assessment. SD assisted in data interpretation. AIS assisted in programming ideation and design. All authors provided feedback and approved the manuscript that was written by LDH, NIC and DMK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn M. Kilkenny .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

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.

Supplementary information

Supplemental material, reporting summary, 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.

Davenport Huyer, L., Callaghan, N.I., Dicks, S. et al. Enhancing senior high school student engagement and academic performance using an inclusive and scalable inquiry-based program. npj Sci. Learn. 5 , 17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00076-2

Download citation

Received : 05 December 2019

Accepted : 08 October 2020

Published : 02 December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00076-2

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

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2022 pp 79–96 Cite as

Critical Thinking Skills Profile of High School Students in AP Chemistry Learning

• Gilan Raslan 12  
• Open Access
• First Online: 11 May 2023

4068 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 320))

From classrooms to workplaces, educators and policy makers have emphasized the necessity of graduating students who are strong critical thinkers for nearly 50 years and more (Forawi 2016). Critical thinking skills are a vital pillar skill to tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Critical thinking is defined as a set of fundamental skills that must be mastered before one may progress to more complicated thinking. Aiming to obtain more insight into the aspects of critical thinking, the present study particularly examines quantitively the critical thinking skills level of grade 12 students in a scientific learning context. Over a 35-min test, based on Danczak DOT criteria, data was collected and analyzed. The study’s findings revealed that the students’ critical thinking abilities are in medium range. However, other implications regarding curriculum modifications, educational teaching strategies and teachers’ readiness are needed to foster students’ critical thinking skills.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

1 Introduction

Skills matter, and poor skills severely hinder access to better-paying and more gratifying professions, according to a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2016, 2018). Unsurprisingly, critical thinking skills, or CTS, have become a fundamental educational focus in recent decades (OECD 2016; Forawi 2020 ; Starichkova, Moskovskaya and Kalinovskaya 2022). Because CTS acts as a catalyst, students are able to go beyond simply gathering knowledge to developing a deep grasp of the information offered to them (Amin and Adiansyah 2018 ; Setyawan and Mustadi 2020 ). As a result, its most significant contribution is to promote good decision-making and problem-solving in real-world settings (Perez 2019; Forawi 2020 ).

Critical thinking CT is a reflective decision-making process that includes critical analysis based on relevant and accountable evidence and justifications (Hasan et al. 2020 ). Critical thinking is not the same as just thinking. It’s metacognitive, meaning it includes thinking about your own thoughts (Mai 2019).

According to Hidayati and Sinaga ( 2019 ), critical thinking necessitates logical and interpretative cohesiveness in order to detect prejudices and incorrect reasoning, and it is essential that students learn it.

Learning in the twenty-first century requires a shift in learning orientation, meaning mastering the content of knowledge, skills, expertise (Miterianifa et al. 2021 ). Students must also have thinking ability, action, and living skills in order to learn in the twenty-first century. One of the life skills is the ability to think critically, and students must have this ability in the twenty-first century, according to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Saleh 2019 ). In addition, students at the postsecondary level and in the workplace require learning assessment and critical thinking abilities in the 21 st century (Forawi 2020 ).

The major interest of future-oriented scientific, current, and chemical education is to develop students’ potential to think critically in all aspects of life (Sadhu et al. 2019). Critical thinking is also important because it allows students to successfully deal with problems and make a tangible contribution to society. It is one of the most important and well-known skills because it is required of everyone in the workplace of different fields such as leadership, and professions that require making decisions and clinical judgment. As a result, critical thinking is an important talent to be taught and educated (Abazar 2020).

In 1955, College Board established the Advanced Placement (AP) program as a non-profit organization that allows willing and academically qualified students to seek studies in the college-level while still in high school, with the chance of obtaining college credit, advanced placement, or both. Through AP classes in 38 disciplines, students learn to think critically, build good arguments, and understand different sides of a problem, all of which culminate in a hard test. These are abilities that will help them succeed in college and beyond (Conger et al. 2021 ). The AP Chemistry course gives students a college-level foundation in chemistry that will help them succeed in advanced chemistry courses in the future (College Board 2020 ; Conger et al. 2021 ). Students learn about chemistry through inquiry-based inquiries that cover topics including the structure of atoms, interactions and bonding between molecules, chemical reactions, reaction rates and thermodynamics equivalent of a college course (College Board 2020 ). The AP Chemistry course is meant to be a substitute for the general chemistry course that most students take their freshman year of college. Science practices are essential components of the course framework. These practices are; (1) models and representations, (2) question and method, (3) representing data and phenomena, 4) model analysis, (5) mathematical routines, and (6) argumentation; and they explain what a student should be able to do while discovering course concepts (College Board 2020 , p. 13–15). Practices are divided into skills, which serve as the foundation for the AP exam’s tasks (College Board 2020 ).

However, the extent to which those science practice skills help in improving the critical thinking skills of the students, not only to comprehend course and to pass the AP exam, but also for them to spot difficulties, solve those problems, and solve problems in everyday life, is still a question to be answered.

Therefore, the research has a purpose to examine the profile of critical thinking skills of high school students studying AP Chemistry course adopted in an American curriculum school in Dubai, using Danczak-Overton-Thompson Chemistry Critical Thinking Test or DOT test.

The study attempts to answer the following question:

To what extent do the AP Chemistry course foster the development of 12th grade students’ critical thinking skills?

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 bloom’s taxonomy theory of learning.

Bloom’s Taxonomy and critical thinking go hand in hand (see Fig.  1 ). Bloom’s taxonomy walks students through the process of evaluating material or knowledge critically (Wilson 2016 ).

(Adopted from: https://bcc-cuny.libguides.com/c.php?g=824903&p=5897590 )

Interconnection between Critical Thinking and Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s taxonomy begins with knowledge or memory and progresses through a series of levels of questions and keywords that encourage the learner to act. Education and meta-cognition which is the master level of thinking, require both critical thinking and Bloom’s taxonomy (Wilson 2016 ). Critical thinkers can dissect their own reasoning, draw inferences from available data or apply their understanding of a concept in a variety of ways. They can rephrase questions, divide down tasks into parts, apply information, and generate new data. This is a set of skills that can be taught and learned (Arievitch 2020 ). Critical thinking, according to Paul, is thinking about one’s thinking while he/she is already thinking in order to improve your his/ her thinking.

2.2 Critical Thinking and ZPD

Cognitive psychologists were particularly interested in deep thinking and the internal understanding process.

Critical thinking is a cognitive activity that involves the use of the intellect. The ability to transfer knowledge from one discipline to another is referred to as critical thinking. Critical thinking has been linked to the development of individual pondering skills such as logical reasoning and personal judgment, as well as the support of suspicious thoughts (Santos 2017 ). According to Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory, cognitive skills like critical thinking are socially guided and produced (Stetsenko and Selau 2018 ). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky, often known as scaffolding, is a concept used in schools to help students learn new skills. The expert gradually withdraws help as the learner achieves competency, until the student is capable of doing the activity on his or her own. This used to be accomplished by offering the student some suggestions and tips to help him solve the problem, while the teacher remained mute until the solver came up with his own hypothesis after properly understanding the problem. Close observation and reason-guide tests would be followed by hypothesis modifications as essential CT phases (Shah and Rashid 2018 ).

2.3 Guided Inquiry Model

The guided inquiry learning model is a teaching approach that can be used to help students build problem-solving skills through experience (Nisa et al. 2017 ). This paradigm has been found to be useful in training and guiding students in their grasp of concrete topics as well as their capacity to create higher-order thinking patterns (Seranica et al. 2018 ). The goal of inquiry-based learning is to educate learners how to research and explain an event. Orientation, formulation of the problem, formulation of hypotheses, data collection, hypothesis testing, and formulation of conclusions, are the guided inquiry learning phases (Putra et al. 2018 ) which go along with the CT aspects to be assessed in this study (see Table 1 ) (Hasan and Pri 2020 ).

3 Literature Review

3.1 defining critical thinking.

‘Critical,’ ‘Criticicism’, and ‘Critic’ are all derivatives of the ancient Greek term ‘Kritikos’, which means ‘able to authorise, perceive, or decide’. In modern English, a ‘critic’ is someone whose job it is to pass judgment on things like movies, novels, music, and food. It entails expressing an objective and unprejudiced view about anything (Padmanabha 2021 ).

Philosophy, cognitive psychology, and educational research are the three domains that dominate the debate over the meaning of critical thinking (see Table 2 ). The philosophy literature focuses on the generation of an argument or opinion (Hitchcock 2018 ). The critical thinking process is found to encourage problem solving and deciding what to do, according to the literature in psychology (Sternberg and Halpern 2020 ). While the majority of education research concentrates on observing behaviors. Critical thinking, according to these experts, is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based” (Danczak 2018 ).

3.2 Development of Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills are developed at a young age, and the effectiveness of educational strategies for enhancing these skills does not vary by grade level (Abrami et al. 2015).

This conclusion is startling from the perspective of Piaget, which considers young children’s cognitive processes to be underdeveloped in comparison to those of older people. Thinking is dependent on experience,” Piaget says. “Intelligence is the result of an individual’s natural potential interacting with their surroundings,” he says, adding that small children know more than he can express. The term “development” refers to the general mechanics of action and thought. However, research reveals that there is no specific age at which a child is cognitively equipped to learn more complicated strategies of thinking (Silva 2008), which is in line with both sociocultural and cognitive learning theories. Social connection, according to Vygotsky, is crucial in the cognitive development process (Padmanabha 2021 ).

3.3 Approaches for Teaching Critical Thinking

Many studies have found that the best teaching effects occur when students’ critical thinking skills are explicitly taught and developed over the course of their studies rather than in a single course or semester (Haber 2020 ). At K-12 education institutions, pedagogical techniques to developing critical thinking range from writing exercises, inquiry-based projects, flipped lectures, and open-ended practical to gamification and work integrated learning WIL (Danczak 2018 ). Chemical learning necessitates a thorough grasp of concepts, which serves as a basis for grasping later topics (Taber 2019 ). Students’ knowledge is built based on their learning experiences and is linked to their developmental stage as well as the influence of their surroundings. Linking existing understandings with new insights is one strategy to achieve learning success. The constructivist approach is concerned with this process, which focuses on the learners, fostering inventive thinking and allowing them to reach their full potential (Yezierski 2018 ).

The guided inquiry learning methodology outperforms traditional learning in terms of critical thinking skills, according to many studies (Mulyana et al. 2018 and Seranica et al. 2018 ). Students will be engaged in learning and will be taught how to tackle environmental problems through guided inquiry. They claim that students’ critical thinking abilities develop step by step in inquiry-based learning, including the processes of recognizing and defining issues, generating hypotheses, designing and performing experiments, and formulating conclusions based on the experimental data. Guided inquiry promotes students to develop scientific thinking habits (see Fig.  2 ) by encouraging them to be more receptive to new ideas in the group and by teaching them critical thinking skills when teachers engage in question-and-answer sessions and guide students in formulating relevant facts. Students consider the entire process rather than simply the final result (Suardana et al. 2019 and Rambe et al. 2020 ).

(Adopted from: Crockett, L. 2018)

Scientific thinking habits

Moreover, cooperative Learning is a set of teaching/learning approaches for assisting students in developing critical thinking skills. Students work together to acquire and practice subject matter aspects and achieve common learning objectives. It entails much more than simply grouping students and hoping for the best. These strategies necessitate greater teacher control. Students are asked to discuss a specific topic or participate in brainstorming exercises. Cooperative Learning is a very formal manner of organizing activities in a learning environment that contains specific features aimed at increasing the participants’ ability to learn richly and deeply. Examples of these strategies: Think-Pair-Share, Circle-the-Sage, Timed-Pair-Share, Agree-Disagree Line-ups and Rally Coach (Macpherson 2019).

3.4 Importance of Critical Thinking

Is it necessary for us to develop critical thinking skills? What about knowing how to acquire knowledge? In fact, acquiring information is a harmful habit that stands in the way of any discovery. Because, as de Bono puts it, “the illusion of knowledge” will imprison people in what they think they know and prevent them from being open to new ideas (Abazar 2020).

Developing our thoughts is an important element of being educated; it is crucial to a person’s development, and every human being has the right to do so. To grow as a well-educated person, our minds must think critically and creatively (Forawi 2020 ).

Solving complex problems and complicated life issues that necessitate quick and effective solutions is a feature of the 21 st century (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019 ). The development of students’ abilities and competences is in high demand all around the world. Major concerns concerning the capacities of the next generation are regularly acknowledged among educators. Critical thinking, communication, and teamwork abilities are especially important. Schools are obligated to give students with relevant learning opportunities in order for them to develop the skills and competences necessary to succeed in the workplace (Carson 2017 ).

One of the UAE’s main challenges is guaranteeing that its system of education equips students with the skills that the country’s developing private market requires, consequently assisting in the diversification of the country’s industries and correcting the country’s manpower population imbalance. In an innovative economy, the circumstances demonstrate how critical it is for the government to have highly skilled Emirati laborers with significant skill sets available (Forawi 2020 ). As a result, students’ critical thinking skills should be practiced as soon as possible. Junior high school children, with an average age of 11–13 years, are included in the concrete operational cognitive stage, according to Piaget’s (1927–1980) cognitive development theory. The idea is that youngsters of that age have been able to use their cognitive skills to identify tangible objects but have not been able to identify abstract objects (Ibda 2015). As a result, kids can begin practicing critical thinking abilities as soon as they enter high school (Hasanah et al. 2020 ).

3.5 The Assessment of Critical Thinking

According to certain research findings around the world, students’ CT skills are still in the poor category (Fadhlullah et al. 2017; OECD 2019; Haber 2020 ).

The critical thinking assessment is critical because there are various objectives to be met, particularly in science education. Because grasping science information necessitates additional reasoning, CT abilities are required. The importance of critical thinking assessment, according to Ennis, is diagnosing students’ CT skills, providing constructive feedback and encouraging students to improve their ability to think critically, as well as inspiring teachers about the suitable teaching strategies needed to teach students CT skills (Hidayati 2019).

The significance of developing students’ critical thinking skills at higher education institutions can be seen in its inclusion as a graduate criterion for universities. In addition, research emphasizes the importance of exhibiting critical thinking skills to employers, instructors, and students (Danczak 2018 ).

The learning outcome can be used to assess the effectiveness of a learning process (Panter and Williford 2017). Critical thinking is difficult to assess. There are features of critical thinking that are both domain-specific and generic (Rashel and Kinya 2021).

The main point of contention in the assessment of CT is whether it is best taught in broad or in specialized disciplines such as history, medicine, law, and education. Critical thinking has been considered as a global, general skill that can be used to any practice of teaching by the ‘generalists’. The ‘specialists’, on the other hand, perceive critical thinking as a skill unique to a certain context and specialty. The discussion over this long-running topic is vital for gaining an insight into the nature of human thought; yet, taking one side or the other is not required. The idea of combining the two approaches has a lot of support. The authors endorse the idea of preparing students for ‘multifaceted critical thinking’ and the concept of CT that strikes a chord with the pioneers of ‘infusion’. (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019 ).

At universities, critical thinking skills are rarely directly assessed. There are infomercial CT assessments available, which are frequently broad in nature. However, research suggests that evaluations that use a context appropriate to the students’ CT skills quite effectively represent their abilities (Chevalier et al. 2020 ; Wei et al. 2021 ).

A variety of commercial tools that evaluate critical thinking are available (AssessmentDay Ltd. 2015; Ennis and Weir 1985; Insight Assessment 2013; The Critical Thinking Co. 2015). The setting of these examinations is generally broad or abstract, and they are created for recruitment purposes. When students, on the other hand, assign meaning to the test environment, a more reliable reflection of students’ critical thinking can be derived (Bhutta et al. 2019 ).

Therefore, for the context of this study, a critical thinking evaluation that tests critical thinking especially from chemistry study is required. According to Suwandi (2011), attainment of advanced thinking skills should not be isolated from assessment, and must be conducted as an integral component of the learning environment to identify students’ cognitive growth and learning outcomes, as well as to improve the learning process (Nurfatihah et al. 2021 ).

4 Methodology

4.1 design and methods.

This study is quantitative in nature, and aims to examine the critical thinking abilities of class 12 students.

Quantitative research involves the collection of numerical data, and the use of statistics. (Bhandari 2020 ).

Reflecting on the research question, which focuses on fostering students’ critical thinking skills, an assessment tool is used to collect data quantitatively from the students’ test results. Then, the test results are analyzed into percentages to measure the causal relation between the quality of the science practice skills implemented in AP Chemistry course and the development of CT skills of high school students.

The paradigm of the study, which is the philosophy that underpins it, is post positivism. Only “fact based” information obtained through using the senses to observe and monitor, including measurement, is considered reliable by this philosophy (Bloomfield and Fisher 2019 ). In the context of this study, the DOT test results of students are the measurement on which the study’s outcomes rely on. In positivism studies, the researcher’s role is confined to gather data and analyze it objectively. In other words, while conducting research, the researcher acts as an unbiased analyst who disconnects himself or herself from personal preferences (Bloomfield and Fisher 2019 ).

4.2 Participants and Ethical Considerations

The participants in this study are 30 twelfth grade students from an American curriculum school in Dubai, adopting American curriculum and AP courses.

Participants were informed that participating in the study was completely voluntary, anonymous, and would have no bearing on their academic records, and that they had the option to withdraw at any moment. All students have been acknowledged with the informed consent. In addition, all techniques were authorized and acknowledged by the school principal.

4.3 Data Collection Instrument

The tool used in this study in a test designed using Google Forms. The test’s questions are constructed based on the Danczak-Overton-Thompson Chemistry Critical Thinking Skills Test (Danczak 2018 ), which is a tool that can be used to assess a student’s CT ability at any point during their study of Chemistry. Within a range of quantitative and qualitative reliability and validity testing phases, the DOT test was developed and evaluated throughout three versions. According to the studies, (Li et al. 2020 , Salirawati et al. 2021 ; Susetyo et al. 2021 and Helix et al. 2021 ) the final version of the DOT test has good internal reliability, strong test–retest reliability, moderate convergent validity, and is independent of past academic success and university of study (Danczak et al. 2016 ).

The DOT test consists of multiple-choice questions in Chemistry topics to assess five main aspects of CT including: (1) making assumptions: 7 questions (2) analyzing arguments: 7 questions (3) developing hypotheses: 6 questions (4) testing hypotheses: 5 questions (5) drawing conclusions: 5 questions.

A debriefed and revised form of DOT is used in this study, including 15 questions to examine the five critical thinking indicators with three questions for each indicator.

5 Data Analysis and Results

This section depicts the results derived from the DOT examination of student responses.

Data is gathered by including each student’s responses to each of the five aspects of the DOT Test.

The students’ grades in each of the five key areas are subsequently transformed into percentages (Fig. 3 ).

Percentage of the students’ CT skills aspects in DOT-Test

The students’ critical thinking percentage score is then transformed into qualitative values (categories) based on the following (see Table 3 ).

The graph (see Fig. 3 ) below shows the results of students’ critical thinking skills exam, which reveal that three components categorized as medium score including ‘Developing Hypotheses’ (56,6%), ‘Testing Hypothesis’ (54.4%), and ‘Drawing Conclusion’ (46.6%), while two components receive scores categorized as low, including ‘Making Assumptions’ (38.8%) and ‘Analyzing Arguments’ (36.6%).

The graph displays the average proportion of students’ CT skills from the five components, which is 46.6% which is considered medium. According to the findings, the average outcomes of 12th grade students’ critical thinking abilities exams are medium, at 46.6%. This is not in accordance with other studies, which claim that high school students’ CT skills are poor (Fadhlullah et al. 2017; Haber 2020 ).

In the aspects of developing and testing hypothesis of the DOT test, the students demonstrated the ability to predict what will happen in a specific context of interest based on existing evidence and reasoning, then seeking information to confirm or refute this prediction, and lastly drawing a conclusion.

On the other hand, students struggled a bit to postulate and decide the validity of an argument in the aspects of making assumptions and analyzing arguments.

6 Discussion

In discussing the results of the study, three keys with high order abilities were determined to be the greatest in the results of the DOT test: developing hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and drawing conclusion.

Critical thinking skills in the ‘Developing Hypotheses’ component of students were rated at [49%].

In scientific reasoning, scientists make conclusions based on data, observations, and assumed facts while developing hypotheses. To make a connection or find the intended meaning, an inference is employed to fill in the gaps. These conclusions are not certain, but the hypothesis being constructed has a high level of confidence based on the evidence supplied (Danczak 2018 ).

The results of the tests suggest that this element is medium, which indicates that students are trained to design a hypothesis through applying the guided inquiry teaching technique as discussed in the literature review.

Results obtained in the section of ‘Testing Hypothesis’, reflect the same analysis as in the ‘Developing Hypothesis’ section. With a score of 54.4%, students were able to decide if the idea presented in the passage was supported by the evidence presented, or the deduction had nothing to do with the hypothesis, and there wasn’t enough data to back it up.

In a guided inquiry approach, experiments are carried out to test hypotheses (Putra et al. 2018 ).

Students start with a theory or assertion that they believe is correct and then seek information to corroborate or contradict it. As a result, a premise is formed that is thought to be correct or true (Danczak 2018 ). This area is very fundamental in science education.

By 46.6% in the area of ‘Drawing Conclusion’, these results are considered medium; however, it could be considered as ‘low’ medium. Students may struggle to formulate a conclusion due to a lack of comprehension and inability to make connections. A conclusion’s strength is defined by how well the deductions, inferences, and/or premises support it. To reach a conclusion, a scientist will combine multiple pieces of knowledge, such as deductions, inferences, or premises (Danczak 2018 ). This indicator is consistent with the constructivist approach discussed earlier in the literature review, which emphasizes learners using prior knowledge, encouraging inventive thinking, and allowing them to grow and thrive (Yezierski 2018 ).

Moreover, formulation of conclusions is one of its essential learning phases in the guided inquiry model (Putra et al. 2018 ).

The test findings revealed that the area with the lowest score, 36.6%, is ‘Analyzing Arguments’.

Students must decide whether or not an argument is valid as part of the scientific process. This necessitates distinguishing assumptions (spoken or implicit), inferences, deductions, and premises, conclusions (certain conclusions in a statement may be implied), and if the argument is relevant to the topic being addressed.

Even if there is sufficient evidence, reliable sources, and supporting material, an argument might be regarded weak if it is unimportant and unrelated to the question being presented (Danczak 2018 ).

In summary, the average of all components of critical thinking skills is 46.6%, demonstrating a medium category, according to the criteria used. Referring to this research question, this 46.6% average indicates that the science practice implemented in the AP Chemistry course can assist in fostering the CT skills of the high school students.

Whereas, it contradicts the results of the three-year PISA research conducted from 2009 to 2015, which revealed low scores due to students’ lack of familiarity with higher-order thinking (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019 ).

7 Recommendations and Limitations

The exam results are influenced by a number of other factors, such as the process of teaching and learning in the classroom, which is not attuned to developing CT skills in conformance with the expectations of the twenty-first century. Students’ inadequate critical thinking abilities are attributable to a lack of activity and training, as well as restricted resources and time, which limit the environment’s ability to build critical thinking skills (Fadhlullah et al. 2017).

Memorization should not be prioritized in learning activities (DuDevoir 2018 ). To solve problems and make judgments, students should be able to derive, interpret, and evaluate information. In the learning process, teamwork and collaboration are also stressed while solving difficulties (Hagemann and Kluge 2017 ). Learning must also shift from a focus on low-level thinking abilities to one that prioritizes high-level thinking skills (Hasanah et al. 2020 ).

The study’s limitations include the small sample size, making it difficult to generalize the findings and draw firm conclusions based on such a small sample size. To confirm the study results, tt is necessary to conduct a larger sample size study on a broader scope. For example, conduct the study on all grades 10, 11 and 12 students who study Chemistry.

Also, the gender factor can be included in the results and the data analysis. The study conducted by the researcher was on two sets of students, 20 students from the girls’ high school section and 10 students from the boys’ high school section. Moreover, confounding variables should have been taken into consideration (Jeske and Yao 2020 ). The environmental conditions of the exam were not identical, since another instructor teaches in the boys section. This instructor may have influenced the students’ responses.

Lastly, the study’s instrumental tool did not include all the components of the original DOT exam. These metrics may not be able to fully represent all characteristics of an instance.

In summary, the way science curricula are developed will have an impact on future science instruction. This concept is further backed by a significant requirement to incorporate critical thinking skills into science training in order to improve learning outcomes in schools and beyond.

8 Conclusion

The learning experiences that students have, have a big impact on their critical thinking skills. Students will acquire critical thinking abilities if they are frequently offered training to carry out CT activities during the learning process. As a result, future study should emphasize the significance of teaching critical thinking skills to students at an early age, and making it a main priority educational objective. Moreover, teachers should devise teaching techniques that allow students’ engagement in activities that assess in the development of critical thinking skills (Chu et al., 2017 ; Emerson 2019 ). It is the role of the institutes to keep a closer eye on actual teaching in the classrooms.

Once educated, creative and critical thinking need to be assessed (Abazar 2020). Several instruments are available to help with this, but evaluators must ensure that these instruments are used appropriately in a correct setting, because changes in testing techniques can impact the result’s accountability (Forwai 2020). In addition, a study of how science teachers integrate reasoning and critical thinking abilities into teaching and increasing students’ learning should be conducted.

Finally, we may firmly admit at the end that critical thinking in science education is the magic wand that will usher in a knowledge-actions based society. That knowledge-actions based society, whether in the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere in the world, will be able to maintain control over the present while deciding on and planning for the future with the adherence to high ethical and moral standards.

Amin, A., & Adiansyah, R. (2018). Lecturers’ perception on students’ critical thinking skills development and problems faced by students in developing their criticalthinking skills . Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia.

Google Scholar  

Arievitch, I. (2020). Reprint of: the vision of developmental teaching and learning and Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact., 27 , 100473.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhandari, P. (2020). What is quantitative research? | Definition, uses and methods.

Bhutta, S., Chauhan, S., Ali, S., Gul, R., Cassum, S. & Khamis, T. (2019). Developing a rubric to assess critical thinking in a multidisciplinary context in higher education .

Bloomfield, J. & Fisher, M. (2019). Quantitative research design. J. Australas. Rehabil. Nurses Assoc.

Carson, A. (2017). Problem with problem solving: teaching thinking without teaching knowledge the mathematics educator, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.7–14.

Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A. & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: a model for creative computational problem solving. Int. J. STEM Educ., 39 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z

Chu, S., Reynold, R., Tavares, N. & Notari, M. (2017). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning; from theory to practice . Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2481-8

College Board. (2020). AP Chemistry course and exam description .

Conger, D., Long, M. & McGhee, R. (2021). Advanced placement and initial college enrollment: evidence from an experiment. Educ. Financ. Policy . https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00358

Danczak, S. (2018). Development and validation of an instrument to measure undergraduate chemistry students’ critical thinking skills . PhD. Thesis. Monash University.

Danczak, S., Thompson, C. & Overton, T. (2016). Development of a chemistry critical thinking test: initial reliability and validity studies.

Danczak, S., Thompson, C., & Overton, T. (2017). What does the term critical thinking mean to you? A qualitative analysis of chemistry undergraduate, teaching staff and employers’ views of critical thinking. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18 , 420–434.

Dressel, P. L., & Mayhew, L. B. (1954). General education: Explorations in evaluation . Washington, D.C.: American Council on Eduction.

Dudevoir, C. (2018). It’s not a memory test; education needs to focus on critical thinking.

Emerson, K. (2019). A model for teaching critical thinking. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540588.pdf

Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive summary. “The delphi report”.Millbrae, CA: T. C. A. Press

Forawi, S. (2020). Science and mathematics education in multicultural contexts: new directions in teaching and learning . Champaign, IL:Common Ground ResearchNetworks

Book   Google Scholar  

Haber, J. (2020). It’s time to get serious about teaching critical thinking. The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series

Hagemann, V. & Kluge, A. (2017). Complex problem solving in teams: the impact of collective orientation on team process demands. Front. Psychol., 8 , 1730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730

Halpern, D. F. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J. Gen. Educ. , 50 (4), 238–254.

Hasan, M. & Pri, S. (2020). Implementation of guided inquiry learning oriented to green chemistry to enhance students’ higher-order thinking skills. J. Phys. . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339680788_Implementation_of_guided_inquiry_learning_oriented_to_green_chemistry_to_enhance_students'_higher-order_thinking_skills

Helix, M., Coté, L., Stachl, C. & Baranger, A. (2021). Measuring integrated understanding of undergraduate chemistry research experiences: Assessing oral and written research artifacts. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Hidayati, Y. & Sinaga, P. (2019). The profile of critical thinking skills students on science learning. J. Phys.

Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking/

Jeske, D. & Yao, W. (2020). Sample size calculations for mixture alternatives in a control group vs. treatment group design. Stat. J. Theor. Appl. Stat., 54 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02331888.2020.1715407

Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology , 26 , 952–960.

Li, Y., Li, X., Zhu, D. & Guo, H. (2020). Cultivation of the students’ critical thinking ability in numerical control machining course based on the virtual simulation system teaching method. IEEE Access, 8 , 173584–173598. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3025079 .

Li, Z., Cai, X., Kuznetsova, M., & Kurilova, A. (2022). Assessment of scientific thinking and creativity in an electronic educational environment. Int. Sci. Educ. , 1–24.

Miterianifa, M. & Ashadi, A. & Saputro, S. (2021). A Conceptual framework for empowering students’ critical thinking through problem based learning in chemistry. J. Phys. 012046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012046 .

Mulyana, S., Rusdi, R. & Vivanti, D. (2018). The effect of guided inquiry learning model and scientific performance on student learning outcomes. Indones. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 2 , 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02331888.2020.1715407

Nisa, E. T., Koestiari, T., Habibbulloh, M. & Jatmiko, B. (2017). Effectiveness of guided inquiry learning model to improve students’ critical thinking skills at senior high school. J. Phys .

Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W. (1987). Teaching reasoning. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 238 , 625–631.

Nurfatihah, R., Nahadi, N., & Firman, H. (2021). Development of chemistry tests for students on reaction rate subject matter based on critical thinking skills using framework DOT test. J. Educ. Sci., 5 (4), 702–711.

Padmanabha, C. (2021). Critical thinking: conceptual framework. J. Educ. Psychol., 11 (4), 45–53, (2018). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3772743

Planter, A. & Williford, L. (2017). Introduction to Student Learning Outcomes Assessment for Continuing Program Improvement: study guide. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Putra, B., Prayitno, B., & Maridi, M. (2018). The effectiveness of guided inquiry and INSTAD towards students critical thinking skills on circulatory system materials. J. Pendidik. IPA Indones., 7 (4), 476–482.

Rambe, Y., Silalahi, A. & Sudrajat, A. (2020). The effect of guided inquiry learning model and critical thinking skills on learning outcomes. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201124.033 .

Rashel, U., & Shimuzu, K. (2021). Development and validation of a test to measure the secondary students’ critical thinking skills: a focus on environmental education in Bangladesh. Int. J. Educ. Res. Rev., 6 , 264–274.

Saleh, S. (2019). Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: conceptions, implementation, and challenges in the EFL classroom. Eur. J. Foreign Lang. Teach., 4 (1), 1–16.

Salirawati, D., Priyambodo, E., Nugraheni, A. & Basuki, R. (2021). Critical thinking ability of high school students in daily life acid-base concept. J. Pendidik. SAINS (JPS) , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.26714/jps.9.1.2021.1-13 .

Santos, F. (2017). The role of critical thinking. J. Educ. Pract,. 8 (20). http://archive.org/stream/ERIC

Seranica, C., Purwoko, A., & Hakim, A. (2018). Influence of guided inquiry learning model to critical thinking skills. IOSR J. Res. Method Educ., 8 (1), 28–31.

Seranical, C. & Purwoko, A. (2018). Influence of guided inquiry learning model to critical thinking skills. J. Res. Method Educ., 8 (2), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0801022831

Setyawan, D., & Mustadi, A. (2020). Is hidrorium able to improve the students’ critical thinking skills? Jurnal Prima Edukasia. , 8 , 20–28.

Seventika, S., Sukestiyarno, Y. & Mariani, S. (2018). Critical thinking analysis based on Facione (2015). J. Phys. Conf. Ser . https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012067

Shah, T. & Rashid, S. (2018). Applying Vygotsky to adult learning.

Sternberg, R. & Halpern, D. (2020). Critical thinking in psychology (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternod. L., & French. B. (2015). The Watson–Glaser™ II critical thinking appraisal. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Pullman , USA: Washington StateUniversity.

Stetsenko, A., & Selau, B. (2018). Presentation–Vygotsky’s approach to disability in the context of contemporary debates and challenges: charting the next steps (special issue–Vygotsky’s defectology). Educação, 41 (3), 315–333.

Suardana, I., Selamet, K., Sudiatmika, A., Putri, S. & Devi, N. (2019). Guided inquiry learning model effectiveness in improving students’ creative thinking skills in science learning. J. Phys . https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012215

Susetyo, B., Siswaningsih, W. & Fizky, F. (2021). Development of critical thinking test instruments with problem solving context on the salt hydrolysis material. Indones. J. Sci. Math. Educ .

Taber, S. (2019). Progressing chemistry education research as a disciplinary field. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0011-z

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 results combined executive summaries Volume I, II & III . https://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm

Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S. & Kinshuk. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ Computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Comput. Educ., 160 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023

Wilson, L. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised. Understanding the new version of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Yezierski, K. (2018). Complexity in thinking: constructivism within chemistry learning.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Master in Education, Faculty of Education, British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Gilan Raslan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilan Raslan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Khalid Al Marri

Farzana Mir

Solomon David

Aos Aljuboori

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter'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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Raslan, G. (2023). Critical Thinking Skills Profile of High School Students in AP Chemistry Learning. In: Al Marri, K., Mir, F., David, S., Aljuboori, A. (eds) BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 320. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27462-6_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27462-6_8

Published : 11 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-27461-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-27462-6

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Our Mission

Helping Students Hone Their Critical Thinking Skills

Used consistently, these strategies can help middle and high school teachers guide students to improve much-needed skills.

Critical thinking skills are important in every discipline, at and beyond school. From managing money to choosing which candidates to vote for in elections to making difficult career choices, students need to be prepared to take in, synthesize, and act on new information in a world that is constantly changing.

While critical thinking might seem like an abstract idea that is tough to directly instruct, there are many engaging ways to help students strengthen these skills through active learning.

Make Time for Metacognitive Reflection

Create space for students to both reflect on their ideas and discuss the power of doing so. Show students how they can push back on their own thinking to analyze and question their assumptions. Students might ask themselves, “Why is this the best answer? What information supports my answer? What might someone with a counterargument say?”

Through this reflection, students and teachers (who can model reflecting on their own thinking) gain deeper understandings of their ideas and do a better job articulating their beliefs. In a world that is go-go-go, it is important to help students understand that it is OK to take a breath and think about their ideas before putting them out into the world. And taking time for reflection helps us more thoughtfully consider others’ ideas, too.

Teach Reasoning Skills 

Reasoning skills are another key component of critical thinking, involving the abilities to think logically, evaluate evidence, identify assumptions, and analyze arguments. Students who learn how to use reasoning skills will be better equipped to make informed decisions, form and defend opinions, and solve problems. 

One way to teach reasoning is to use problem-solving activities that require students to apply their skills to practical contexts. For example, give students a real problem to solve, and ask them to use reasoning skills to develop a solution. They can then present their solution and defend their reasoning to the class and engage in discussion about whether and how their thinking changed when listening to peers’ perspectives. 

A great example I have seen involved students identifying an underutilized part of their school and creating a presentation about one way to redesign it. This project allowed students to feel a sense of connection to the problem and come up with creative solutions that could help others at school. For more examples, you might visit PBS’s Design Squad , a resource that brings to life real-world problem-solving.

Ask Open-Ended Questions 

Moving beyond the repetition of facts, critical thinking requires students to take positions and explain their beliefs through research, evidence, and explanations of credibility. 

When we pose open-ended questions, we create space for classroom discourse inclusive of diverse, perhaps opposing, ideas—grounds for rich exchanges that support deep thinking and analysis. 

For example, “How would you approach the problem?” and “Where might you look to find resources to address this issue?” are two open-ended questions that position students to think less about the “right” answer and more about the variety of solutions that might already exist. 

Journaling, whether digitally or physically in a notebook, is another great way to have students answer these open-ended prompts—giving them time to think and organize their thoughts before contributing to a conversation, which can ensure that more voices are heard. 

Once students process in their journal, small group or whole class conversations help bring their ideas to life. Discovering similarities between answers helps reveal to students that they are not alone, which can encourage future participation in constructive civil discourse.

Teach Information Literacy 

Education has moved far past the idea of “Be careful of what is on Wikipedia, because it might not be true.” With AI innovations making their way into classrooms, teachers know that informed readers must question everything. 

Understanding what is and is not a reliable source and knowing how to vet information are important skills for students to build and utilize when making informed decisions. You might start by introducing the idea of bias: Articles, ads, memes, videos, and every other form of media can push an agenda that students may not see on the surface. Discuss credibility, subjectivity, and objectivity, and look at examples and nonexamples of trusted information to prepare students to be well-informed members of a democracy.

One of my favorite lessons is about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus . This project asks students to explore what appears to be a very real website that provides information on this supposedly endangered animal. It is a wonderful, albeit over-the-top, example of how something might look official even when untrue, revealing that we need critical thinking to break down “facts” and determine the validity of the information we consume. 

A fun extension is to have students come up with their own website or newsletter about something going on in school that is untrue. Perhaps a change in dress code that requires everyone to wear their clothes inside out or a change to the lunch menu that will require students to eat brussels sprouts every day. 

Giving students the ability to create their own falsified information can help them better identify it in other contexts. Understanding that information can be “too good to be true” can help them identify future falsehoods. 

Provide Diverse Perspectives 

Consider how to keep the classroom from becoming an echo chamber. If students come from the same community, they may have similar perspectives. And those who have differing perspectives may not feel comfortable sharing them in the face of an opposing majority. 

To support varying viewpoints, bring diverse voices into the classroom as much as possible, especially when discussing current events. Use primary sources: videos from YouTube, essays and articles written by people who experienced current events firsthand, documentaries that dive deeply into topics that require some nuance, and any other resources that provide a varied look at topics. 

I like to use the Smithsonian “OurStory” page , which shares a wide variety of stories from people in the United States. The page on Japanese American internment camps is very powerful because of its first-person perspectives. 

Practice Makes Perfect 

To make the above strategies and thinking routines a consistent part of your classroom, spread them out—and build upon them—over the course of the school year. You might challenge students with information and/or examples that require them to use their critical thinking skills; work these skills explicitly into lessons, projects, rubrics, and self-assessments; or have students practice identifying misinformation or unsupported arguments.

Critical thinking is not learned in isolation. It needs to be explored in English language arts, social studies, science, physical education, math. Every discipline requires students to take a careful look at something and find the best solution. Often, these skills are taken for granted, viewed as a by-product of a good education, but true critical thinking doesn’t just happen. It requires consistency and commitment.

In a moment when information and misinformation abound, and students must parse reams of information, it is imperative that we support and model critical thinking in the classroom to support the development of well-informed citizens.

Development of 21st century skills at the senior high school: Teachers’ perspective

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Herawati Susilo , Ninik Kristiani , Ahmad Kamal Sudrajat; Development of 21st century skills at the senior high school: Teachers’ perspective. AIP Conf. Proc. 1 April 2020; 2215 (1): 030018. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000559

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Twenty-first-century skills development is a basic requirement in the 21st century. The development of 21st-century skills (critical thinking and problem-solving; creativity and innovation; communication; and collaboration) for students is determined by the learning process in the classroom. The learning process in the classroom involves teachers as learners. It needs to be studied further, what are the difficulties and needs of teachers in developing 21st-century skills for students. The purpose of this paper is to describe the difficulties and needs of high school teachers to implement 21st-century teaching and learning. The method of this research is descriptive and literature studies. Data retrieval is done through questionnaires given to high school teachers in Malang. The questionnaire was filled by 49 biology teachers in Malang who taught class 10-12. The questionnaire tried to find out the difficulties and needs of teachers in teaching 21st-century life skills. The results of the questionnaires given showed that the difficulties experienced by teachers in teaching 21st-century skills related to the condition of students, teachers, facilities, and existing policies. Whereas what the teacher needs in teaching 4Cs (creativity, critical thinking skills, collaboration skills, and communication skills) are innovative teaching and learning models/methods and IT Mastery for teaching and learning.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help
• Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

Effectiveness of guided inquiry learning model to improve students' critical thinking skills at senior high school

E K Nisa 1 , T Koestiari 2 , M Habibbulloh 3 and Budi Jatmiko 4

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Volume 997 , Seminar Nasional Fisika (SNF) 2017 25 November 2017, Surabaya, Indonesia Citation E K Nisa et al 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 997 012049 DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/997/1/012049

Article metrics

5314 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 Physics Teacher of Public Senior High School-1 Tarik, Sidoarjo, Indonesia

2 Department of Chemistry, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

3 Physics Teacher of Vocational High School IKIP Surabaya, Indonesia

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

Buy this article in print

This research aimed to describe the effectiveness of guided inquiry learning model to improve students' critical thinking skills. Subjects in the research were 90 students at three groups of senior high school grade X on Tarik (Indonesia), which follows a physics lesson on static fluid material in academic year 2016/2017. The research was used one group pre-test and post-test design. Before and after being given physics learning with guided discovery learning model, students in the three groups were given the same test (pre-test and post-test). The results of this research showed: 1) there is an increased score of students' critical thinking skills in each group on α = 5%; 2) average N-gain of students' critical thinking skills of each group is a high category; and 3) average N-gain of the three groups did not differ. The conclusion of this research is that learning model of guided inquiry effective to improve students' critical thinking skills.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Thinking Skills of ABM Senior High School Students of Philippine State University

2022, khirtz

This study aims to determine the level of thinking skills of Accountancy and Business Management Senior High School Students of Philippine State University and tries to find out the relationship between thinking skills level and the age and sex of the respondents. The study used the descriptive-correlational method of research. The methods involved range from the survey which describes the status quo, the correlation study which investigates the relationship between variables, to developmental studies which seek to determine changes overtime. The descriptive method was utilized to describe the thinking skills level of the ABM Senior high school students. The correlation was employed in investigating the relationship between the thinking skills level of the respondents and their demographic profile limited only to age and sex. The researchers used a Test questionnaire in gathering the data needed to evaluate the thinking skills level of the respondents. Based on the findings, it was concluded that most of the respondents acquired low level thinking skills in Anderson and Krathwohl Taxonomy. It was also concluded that there was no significant relationship between the level of thinking skills of the respondents and their demographic profile. With the conclusions, it was recommended that school administrators may initiate faculty enrichment program to enhance teaching strategies geared towards the development of thinking skills. Teachers should expose students to different skills activities which will help the students to develop their thinking skills.

Related Papers

Razali Hassan

The purpose of this research was to identify the level of higher order thinking skills among lower secondary students in Malaysia. A higher order thinking skills test was modified and distributed to 384 students throughout the whole country to assess their higher order thinking skills levels. The results showed that higher order thinking skills levels among the students were at very low level. The findings also revealed that there was a low positive significant relationship between the higher order thinking skills and academic result, r = 0.468, p &lt; 0.05. In addition, the results indicated that there was a significant difference in Living Skills subject results on the higher order thinking skills. The authors proposed a new approach by using a specialised instructional module for individualised learning to deliver the thinking skills learning task.

Rahil Mahyuddin

The focus of current classroom teaching in Malaysia is the utilization of metacognitive strategies especially thinking skills. In fact many educational psychologists argued that thinking skills are important aspects in education (Sternberg, 1990a, l990b). In Malaysia, it is realized that many teachers are not fully capable of incorporating thinking skills in their teaching strategies. Therefore it is the objectives of this study to find out how far students are inculcated with: a) critical thinking; b) creative thinking; and c) divergent/convergent thinking. A research survey was carried out on 387 secondary school students aged between 15–16 years. Results showed that teachers incorporated critical thinking skills, creative thinking skills as well as convergent/divergent thinking skills in their teaching of their subjects. Though this study showed that there is a new trend in teaching and learning where students are actively involved in the learning process, there is plenty of room...

Kartika Kartika

Thinking skills can be divided into critical thinking and creative thinking. Critical thinking is an ability to solve the problem, examine hypothesis, and reach conclusion by the scientific way. Creative thinking can be defined as the mental activity to increase purity or sensitivity to develop something. Students need to be trained to develop the two abilities because both abilities grow through the process, not instantly. This is the same as development of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills. There are many learning models can be used to explore the two abilities. On this research, we used Contextual Teaching and Learning which has known as learning method usually used in thinking skill explorations. The development of thinking skill test through several steps, those were getting the information, working with the information, judging the quality of information, using the information for a purpose, and using information to craft a product/presentation. Critical thinking a...

Journal of Education and Practice

Burcu Yasar

Thinking is a highly complex process. Thinking skills include important skills such as problem solving, decision making, critical thinking and creative thinking. The necessity for individuals to be equipped with these skills in order to cope with problems in life and to arrange their lives according to their needs has become the subject of studies in the field of education in recent years. Educational systems seek to find ways to equip individuals with these skills. However, in the Turkish Education System, students are mostly engaged in a teaching activity to transfer the information taught without thinking on it, from primary school to university. Observations suggest that students make learning in this way become a habit and avoid situations that require them to think on their own. In this sense, the problem continues to grow and establish roots until university. In university, it is important that teacher candidates demonstrate the expected performance in their thinking activiti...

International Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research

Rolina Ferita

This study aims to determine the relationship between gender and students’ thinking skills and compare their score between male and female based on their level of thinking skills. Moreover, the result of this study can also be used to evaluate the implementation of the 2013 Curriculum on mathematics junior high school especially Higher-Order Thinking Skills. The method used in this study is ex-post facto, with a population of all 7th grade public junior high schools students in Banjarmasin city. Sample taken were 391 students, divided into 6 schools that were selected randomly. The instrument used is 16 multiple choice test that is valid and reliable. This developed test respectively focused on measuring thinking skills, namely Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. The result showed that female students were better than male students in almost all of the thinking skills, except Creating. However, there is no relationship between gender and thinki...

Artha M A H I N D R A Diputera

Essay tests have the ability to interpret the value of individual tests in relation to a set of goals, skills or competencies. The study aims to determine the ability of high-school students to think high. The research was conducted by quantitative technique with 30 samples on small scale test and 105 students on large scale test. Samples were taken randomly from the population. data collection techniques using Tests. Students do not seem too different because they get the ability to answer a short enough question. The results of large-scale test ability of analysis of 43% very high, 26% High, 26% medium, and 6% low. Evaluation ability of 30% very high, 21% high, 20% medium, 29% low, and 1% very low. Create ability 29% very high, 28% high, 41% medium, and 3% low. Analyze and create capabilities have the same percentage for each category. Large-scale tests show an increase in ability of each ability. Decreasing the category is very effective, teachers need to improve their ability an...

Proceedings of the 2016 Global Conference on Business, Management and Entrepreneurship

Erika Simanungkalit

Zulhelmi Zulkpli , ABDUL HALIM BIN ABDULLAH FP

Teaching of thinking skills, paramount in effective teaching and learning of Mathematics, requires sufficiently knowledgeable teachers for its delivery. As such, it is equally important to determine the minimum level of knowledge required of the teachers, so that, the intended tasks could be carried out successfully. Thus, this quantitative study was conducted with its aim to identify the level of teachers' knowledge in teaching thinking skills. A total of 199 Mathematics teachers were selected as the respondents in this study. The collected data was analyzed inferentially to identify the levels of teachers' knowledge in teaching thinking skills across school categories. The results obtained showed that, Mathematics teachers in primary schools had a relatively lower level of knowledge in teaching thinking skills, compared to their peers in secondary schools. This study revealed the importance of teaching thinking skills to students. Teacher must gain the mastery of thinking skills themselves, so that they would be able to deliver the related lessons effectively. Thus, Mathematics teacher should always keep improving themselves to fully master the teaching of thinking skills to the students. The education system in Malaysia has undergone quite a radical transformation that began in the 1990's, in response to changes in the global rankings. Teachers act as recipients of the information about the curriculum and learning materials gained from external resources and subsequently disseminate them to the students [1]. Teaching thinking skills in Malaysia was introduced in the teaching and learning process in 1994 [3]. The teaching of thinking skills in schools is important as it enables students to solve problems and make decisions in their daily lives, ([4] and [5]). Thinking skills are the ability to do cognitive processes, including perception, knowledge, and, creation and exploration of ideas, decision making and problem solving with the best options. ([2], [6], [7], and [19]). In addition, thinking skills could also be defined as a discipline of knowledge which could be practised and learned [8]. Generally, thinking skills could be divided into four components, namely, critical thinking, creative thinking, decision making and problem solving skills. Teachers must equip themselves with knowledge, skills and new practices required to fulfil the objectives of teaching and learning of the 21st century [10] and they must give priority to effectively get the thinking skills across the various fields of knowledge among students. [11]. Besides, they need to be wise to cultivate students' ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate facts and information, to use thinking skills to solve problems and make decisions, to have personal and inter-personal communication skills and to find alternative pedagogy while applying these skills with the passage of time. ([12] and [13]). The aims of this study were to identify the levels of Mathematics teachers' knowledge in teaching thinking skills, and to ascertain the differences in these levels across school categories (primary school teachers versus secondary school teachers). Problem Statement The hesitation among teachers to implement teaching of thinking skills was due to the lack of knowledge and skills, and this was considered to be the most serious problem which hindered the achievement of the intended set objectives [4]. In general, teachers were not well prepared to teach thinking skills due to lack of understanding in the field of critical and creative thinking ([4] and [15]). Most of them were more inclined to emphasize on the teaching of lower order thinking skills, compared to higher-order thinking skills. According to [17], most teachers did not know how to apply thinking skills to students while some were not willing to do it. Some teachers were of the opinion that, students had to find out all the facts and concepts of a subject, before they could be encouraged to think [14]. These were some of the hindrances that prevented teachers from utilizing more promising teaching practices, such as, problem solving, decision making and inquiry skills to develop thinking skills among the students. Thinking Skills and Knowledges A variety of terms have been invented to describe various types of thinking, including thinking reflexively, critical thinking, creative thinking, deductive thinking, logical thinking, inductive thinking, analytical thinking and analogical thinking. The definition of thinking

Mohd Azmir Mohd Nizah

Rajendran Nagappan

Graduates are increasingly expected to perform multiple and varied tasks which require them to be critical enough to analyze problems, be creative enough to look for alternatives, and be practical enough to identify the most workable solution(s). The kind of roles and responsibilities one is expected to perform are ever increasing. This expectation has brought about the need to teach thinking skills, more specifically, higherorder thinking skills to students. As a result, the teaching of thinking skills has increasingly gained attention from educators, in general, in the last few decades. In Malaysia, official attempts started in the early 1990s to teach thinking skills in schools and teacher education colleges. With far-reaching implications brought about by the knowledge economy the need to teach thinking skills has become even more evident, significant, and urgent. This paper will discuss the issues, challenges, and prospects in teaching thinking skills at institutions of higher ...

RELATED PAPERS

The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering

Vishwas Pangarkar

Lhea Manzan

Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics

Leena Haataja

2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)

Ammar Shaker

Guntars Šņepsts

Kennedy Okiro

Southeast Asian Bulletin of Mathematics

Bijan Davvaz

پژوهش‌های تجربی حسابداری

vahid ahmadian

Open Journal of Nephrology

Hala Sabbah

Syamsul Ma'arif

Ralph Hertel

Pratibha Narayanan

Adriana Sandoval Moreno

Tribology International

Sukru Taktak

IGARSS 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

Zhiyu Jiang

Int. J. Electrochem. Sci

Farnoush Faridbod

Pedagogia Social Revista Interuniversitaria

Genoveva Ramos Santana

Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College

Muhammad Maaz

Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications

Pankaj Gupta

Oroitz Jauregi

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

Paul Fullagar

Suri Ratnapala

Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics

Susan El-Deken

Ds 70 Proceedings of Design 2012 the 12th International Design Conference Dubrovnik Croatia

Dr. Ozgu Işık Hafizoglu

Eva 做 雅 思 成 绩 单 li

RELATED TOPICS

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