Next Article in Journal
Use of Arduino in Primary Education: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Educational Inequity and Skill Formation Differences Experienced by Floating Rural Students in the Process of Urbanization: A Case Study from a School Perspective
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Methodologies for Fostering Critical Thinking Skills from University Students’ Points of View

Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Sports, University of Deusto, 20012 Donostia/San Sebastián, Spain
Department of Didactics and School Organization, Faculty of Education and Sports, University of the Basque Country, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Sports, University of Deusto, 48007 Bilbao, Spain
Department of Modern Languages, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Deusto, 48007 Bilbao, Spain
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, University of Deusto, 48007 Bilbao, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(2), 132;
Received: 13 December 2022 / Revised: 12 January 2023 / Accepted: 23 January 2023 / Published: 27 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Higher Education)


Developing critical thinking skills appears to be a challenge for higher education institutions. However, little is known about the students’ points of view regarding the methodologies they consider to foster the development of this competence. To answer this question, a total of 263 Spanish university students participated in this study and were asked what they understood by critical thinking and the methodologies they considered to be the most effective for developing it. The results indicated that, based on students’ points of view, there were six methodologies that mainly contributed to developing critical thinking: Debates, project-based learning, practices in real contexts, doing research, cooperative learning, and case studies. These results were unanimous regardless of the student’s understanding of critical thinking: Analyzing/organizing, reasoning/arguing, questioning/asking oneself, evaluating, taking a position/taking a decision, compromising/acting. These findings have important theoretical and practical implications for teachers and educational institutions in relation to the development of critical thinking in higher education.

1. Introduction

Over the last decades, critical thinking has become a keyword within pedagogic theory and practice. According to Song [1], it is one of the main issues in educational communities, conferences, research studies, workshops, or within university policies. As suggested by Bezanilla et al. [2], critical thinking is oriented to understanding and solving problems, evaluating alternatives, and decision-making. It also involves self-evaluation, meta-thinking, and reflecting before reaching conclusions. These authors also defend, according to research, that in higher education, critical thinking is a key element to achieving a sustainable society. Nevertheless, there seem to be few universities that meet the conditions to develop critical thinking in students [3].
In order to foster this competence, methodologies used by universities and teachers should accomplish certain features oriented to learning. The main characteristic of the different approaches to developing critical thinking in education is that it should be learner-centered instead of teacher-centered [4]. That is, the depth of the learning process that students reach with the methodology chosen by the teacher is crucial for their learning to be durable and transferable to other real situations [5]. This idea can also be found in other studies. For instance, Turner and Baskerville [6] found that teachers thought that students may experience deeper learning when learning tasks were individualized and authentic, with regular formative and summative feedback, as long as teamwork, teacher-student relationship, and instruction were integrated. In addition, some authors claim that the expectations and instruments used for assessment will predict the performance of the student during their teaching-learning process [5,7].
These elements are presented in different active methodologies as some studies have previously pointed out. Lira-Valdivia [8] proposes that active methodologies may develop students’ critical thinking as they stimulate and make their learning process more significant, as well as help them rethink their ideas and opinions. It may, moreover, foster their autonomy, responsibility, and cooperative work. In addition, these active methodologies need to face students with real-world situations and encourage students to ask questions and study the effect and causes of their thoughts and reflections [9].
Furthermore, Kusumoto [10] revealed how interventions based on active learning approaches significantly helped Japanese EFL learners enhance their critical thinking disposition (n = 72) more than a teacher-centered class (n = 62). Despite the fact that the sample was relatively small, these results showed the relevance of active learning methodologies when teaching critical thinking.
As students’ points of view should be taken into consideration in their learning process, this study has two main objectives. First, which methodologies they consider to enhance the acquisition of the competence of critical thinking, and second, if these methodologies differ according to their understanding of the competence.

2. Theoretical Background

With regard to teachers’ interventions and their points of view, there are studies that highlight the effectiveness of certain methodologies for developing critical thinking skills. Amongst others, there is evidence of the effectiveness of debates or lecture discussions in fostering critical thinking [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. In addition, other studies analyze the advantages of applying the following methodologies: Project-based learning [13,20,21], simulations and practices in real contexts [22,23], service learning, in which students are exposed to authentic or situated problems [24,25,26], doing research [27], problem-based learning [28,29,30,31,32], cooperative learning [13,33], case studies or scenarios [34,35], feedback and assessment [13,36], role-playing [13], reading [37], analyzing and synthesis of resources [38], writing assignments, essays or reports [18,39,40], conceptual and argument maps [31,41], oral presentations [18], flipped classroom [42], and master classes/storytelling [18].
Despite the fact that the previous studies mentioned above analyzed the effectiveness of those methodologies based on teachers’ points of view in order to develop critical thinking, little is known about the effectiveness of teaching-learning methodologies from the students’ points of view. If teachers want to develop critical thinking, it may be understood that the perceptions of higher education students would be an important factor to study.
What is clear is that higher education students consider themselves competent in thinking critically when it comes to solving complex problems, analyzing ideas objectively, and evaluating advantages or disadvantages or certain situations [43] and hence, it could be interesting to consider their thoughts. Although there is a scarcity of studies based on students’ points of view, these should be considered to analyze the impact of certain methodologies to develop critical thinking. The following are some of the main studies that analyze the effectiveness of certain methodologies from the student’s points of view.
  • Feedback: A study by Castro and González-Palta [44] shows that most of the participant students perceived that the use of peer feedback and discussion through social networks, concretely Facebook, contributed to the development of critical thinking. Besides, there was a general degree of satisfaction and a favorable attitude towards the use of this platform to complement their classes.
  • Debate: Lira Valdivia [8] highlights the importance of using active methodologies, and in particular, the face-to-face forum, for the development of critical thinking in higher education. Students value this methodology at a cognitive level, favoring “understanding complex ideas”, “ability to analyze problems”, “learning to confront different ideas”, “rethinking opinions before expressing them”, and the “ability to reflect”, to name but a few. Moreover, attitudinal aspects were described, such as “motivation to learn”, “valuing consensus”, “respect for the opinion of others”, “honesty in facing weaknesses”. Scott’s [16] study, which included 111 students in a technology classroom, also examines the effectiveness of debates for developing critical thinking. The results showed that students believed that this methodology helped them to improve their critical thinking skills due to the fact that debates require research, assessing arguments, analysis, questioning assumptions, and demonstrating interpersonal skills. This finding was also shared by Zare and Othman [19], who reached similar conclusions with undergraduate students majoring in Teaching English as a Second Language. According to their study, students thought that they developed their critical thinking skills through debates, as they had to look for evidence and proof to support their arguments and consider different perspectives, as well as points of view. Finally, Zelaieta and Camino [45] found that undergraduate students in Early Childhood Education stated that academic debates in the classroom improved their critical thinking skills as they had to search and analyze information.
  • Problem-Solving, Service Learning, and Reflective Learning: Collazo Expósito and Geli de Ciurana [46] analyzed students’ points of view about three methodologies employed for the development of critical thinking: Problem-solving, service learning, and reflective learning through a teaching portfolio. Results showed that 90% of the 30 students surveyed were convinced that the application of active methodologies allowed them to develop critical thinking, teamwork, the search for solutions, and understand their surroundings in such a way that they could feel the need to engage themselves to change it for better. Approximately 82% of the participants strongly agreed that the problem posed as a starting point for PBL is essential for their learning process. PBL allows them to work on critical and reflective thinking, and providing a link with real experience and emotions is an effective way to foster greater engagement with the environment. Moreover, 83% of the students agreed that sometimes the questions or learning resources used in the classroom provoked a dilemma or reflection concerning their previous ideas on the topics covered. Further, 77% of the students thought that they sometimes preferred lectures, and 73% said that they would always like to be able to apply some of what they have learned in their work as a secondary school teacher.
  • Practices in real contexts: García-Carpintero [47] analyzed the thoughts of students regarding the use of a portfolio as a part of an internship context subject (practicum). Results showed that the portfolio was a tool that facilitated students’ reflection and critical thinking during their practicum. They saw it as a valuable resource that facilitated self-assessment through a reflective process, as well as generating self-criticism, and the analysis of their practice. This process allowed them to make changes in order to improve their learning.
  • Flipped Classroom: Rodríguez et al. [9] applied the Flipped Classroom methodology with Medicine students. They mixed jigsaw, cooperative work, and role-play activities. The students thought these activities and methodology contributed to the development of their critical thinking skills, as they had to use their imagination, reflect, and discuss different issues, and thus, the methodology led them to construct sound arguments, elaborate new ideas, and consider different points of view.
  • Role-playing: Latif et al. [48] observed that role play and debate were both well accepted by medical students in the Problem-Based Learning curriculum as an effective teaching methodology. Both were perceived as good methodologies for improving critical thinking skills. However, role play was perceived as better than debates for integrating knowledge of basic medical sciences into clinical skills and reflecting on real-life experiences.
  • Doing Research: Sahoo and Mohammed [49] claimed that medical students reported improvement in their critical thinking skills when doing research for writing tasks. All participants agreed that it helped to apply concepts to new situations in their studies. Moreover, it enhanced higher-order cognitive skills.
  • Case studies: González-González and Jiménez-Zarco [50] found that, according to students, the use of audio-visual cases in an e-learning context helped students reach accurate problem identification, sensible problem resolution, and critical thinking development.
What is clear from the analysis of these studies is that although there is some evidence of how a certain methodology may develop students’ critical thinking skills, little is known about the effectiveness of the different methodologies from the students’ point of view. This is the reason why this study attempts to give a reply to the following research questions (RQ):
  • RQ1: What are the main methodologies that, according to students, contribute more to developing critical thinking?
Hence, the first aim of this study is to understand what are the main methodologies that contribute more to developing critical thinking according to students’ points of view.
In addition, we could infer that depending on the conception that the students have about critical thinking, the perceived effectiveness of different methodologies to develop critical thinking may vary. Though little is known about in what way, and that is why the current study also attempts to reply to the following research question (RQ):
  • RQ2: Is the perceived effectiveness of the methodologies for developing critical thinking different based on the conception the students have about critical thinking?
Hence, the second aim of this study is to analyze whether there is any type of association between the different methodologies and the students’ understanding of critical thinking.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

A total of 263 Spanish university students in the field of Social Sciences (Age = 20.40; SD = 1.38) participated in this study: 203 came from the University of Deusto (private university) and 63 came from the University of the Basque Country (public university). 187 were females and 76 were males. From the total sample, 56 were students from the double degree of Primary Education and Sports Sciences, 23 from Sports Sciences, 33 from Early Childhood Education, 125 from Primary Education, 15 from Social Education, 3 from Social Work, and 8 from other degrees. From the total sample collected, 42 were enrolled in their first academic year, 62 were enrolled in their second year, 107 were in their third year, and 52 were in their fourth year.
Convenience sampling was used for this sample selection. That is, data were collected from participants based on their proximity to the researchers. Specifically, information was collected from students who belonged to the classes in which the researchers of this study were teaching during the year of data collection. Therefore, this sample represents a portion of the total population of students (n = 1085).

3.2. Instruments

An ad-hoc online survey was designed for the entire study. First, students were asked about sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, degree they are studying, etc. Next, they were asked about their conception of critical thinking. In order to do so, they were provided with a list of six different dimensions extracted from a model based on the teacher’s perception of critical thinking [2]. These dimensions were analyzing/organizing, reasoning/arguing, questioning/asking oneself, evaluating, taking a position/taking decisions, and acting/compromising. A more detailed description of the dimensions is shown in Appendix A.
  • From these six dimensions, students were asked to choose a maximum of three dimensions that corresponded more to their understanding of critical thinking.
Finally, they were provided with a list of methodologies that are commonly applied in higher education. From this list, they were required to select the five methodologies that they considered contributed the most to the development of critical thinking. The list of these methodologies included: Debates, PBL, practices in real contexts, doing research, cooperative learning, case studies, feedback, role-playing, reading and analysis of resources, written work, conceptual maps, service learning, oral presentations, flipped classroom, master classes, and others. Due to the fact that the participants were students in the field of Social Sciences, in which these methodologies were commonly used in both participant universities, they were familiar with all the methodologies listed above.

3.3. Procedure

The procedure of data gathering of students began in May 2021, when the deans and degree coordinators of the faculties gave their permission to collect data for this study. The students were then asked, through their voluntary participation, and always respecting their anonymity and privacy, to accept the terms of the study. They completed the ad-hoc online survey by digital means through Google Forms outside university hours. It should be added that students were asked for their email if they wanted to receive a report with the main results of the study.

3.4. Data Analysis

The data analysis process started by studying the frequencies of the different methodologies that contributed more to developing critical thinking. For this purpose, students were given a predetermined list with the different methodologies. From this list, students had to choose five. Then, these frequencies were collected in a cross table with the conception students had about critical thinking. Students’ conception of critical thinking was quantitatively measured by means of the different dimensions of the model (analyzing/organizing, reasoning/arguing, etc.). From the different dimensions of critical thinking, students selected a maximum of three.
Finally, based on the information from the cross-table, a correspondence analysis was carried out in order to know whether there was any type of relationship between the different methodologies and students’ conceptions of critical thinking. From this analysis, special attention was given to Chi-square value, p-value, and explained inertia. First, Chi-square value was useful in order to determine the strength of the association between the different methodologies and students’ conception of critical thinking. Moreover, in order to make a sound decision on the correspondence analysis, the p-value linked to the Chi-square test revealed whether the association assessed was statistically significant. Second, explained inertia is a concept used in correspondence analyses that express the quantity of explained variance of a cross table regardless of its length. It is calculated by dividing the Chi-square value (X2) by the total frequencies of the cross-table. Low inertia values mean that all points are located very close to the center and are therefore, very similar, whereas high inertia values in certain categories imply large significant differences in the average profile of rows or columns. This statistical analysis was useful in order to evaluate the quality of the model.

4. Results

In reference to the first aim focused on the students’ view of which methodologies contributed more to the development of critical thinking (see Table 1), there are some methodologies that students considered to contribute to developing critical thinking to a greater degree.
As seen in Table 1, university students consider that the best methodologies for developing critical thinking, in order of preference and based on the frequencies (f), are debates (f = 650; 19.7%), project-based learning (f = 468, 14.2%), practices in real contexts (f = 364; 11.0%), doing research (f = 321; 9.7%), cooperative learning (f = 312; 9.5%), and case studies (f = 263; 8.0%). These methodologies totaled 8% or more of all the responses. This threshold, although arbitrarily selected, makes it possible to discriminate between methodologies with more and with less than 200 responses, and there is a gap of more than 2% between the sixth methodology (case studies) and the seventh methodology (feedback). Moreover, there are some other methodologies that students consider do not contribute as much to the development of critical thinking. These methodologies are service learning (f = 63; 1.9%), oral presentations (f = 59; 1.8%), flipped classroom (f = 30; 0.9%), and master classes (f = 21; 0.6%).
Concerning the second aim, a cross-table was built to analyze the association between students’ understanding of critical thinking and the methodologies that were considered the most effective for developing this competence. As can be seen from the frequency (f) analysis in Table 2, from students’ points of view and according to the model of the six dimensions proposed, there are mainly two ways of understanding critical thinking. Firstly, as a competence closely related to reasoning/arguing (REA/ARG in Table 2, total f = 970), and secondly, as a competence very related to questioning/asking oneself (QUE/AO in Table 2, total f = 904). Besides, students considered analyzing/organizing (ANA/ORG in Table 2, total f = 505) and taking a position/taking decisions (PO/TD in Table 2, total f = 405) also are dimensions related to critical thinking skills. Finally, acting/compromising (COM/ACT in Table 2, total f = 268) or evaluating (EVAL in Table 2, total f = 244) were not chosen as the most related dimensions when defining critical thinking.
Furthermore, on the one hand, it can be seen that the cells with the highest frequencies (arbitrarily, those f ≥ 100 in order not to extend the explanation of results) are observed in the crossover between debates and reasoning/arguing (f = 190). That is, the majority of students who would define critical thinking as reasoning/arguing also believe that debates are a methodology that fosters critical thinking. Other correlations with a high frequency were found, as debates and questioning/asking oneself (f = 185), PBL and reasoning/arguing (f = 134), PBL and questioning/asking oneself (f = 127), practice in real contexts and reasoning/arguing (f = 110), and practice in real contexts and questioning/asking oneself (f = 110).
On the other hand, there are certain cells with a low frequency (arbitrarily, those f ≤ 3, in order not to extend the explanation of results), such as oral presentations and compromising/acting (f = 3), master classes and positioning/taking a decision (f = 3), flipped classroom and evaluating (f = 3), oral presentations and evaluating (f = 2), master classes and compromising/acting (f = 2), master classes and evaluating (f = 1), or flipped classroom and analyzing/organizing (f = 0).
Nonetheless, in order to verify whether there was an association between the methodologies students considered the most effective for developing critical thinking and what they understood by critical thinking, a correspondence analysis was carried out (see Table 3).
As can be seen in Table 3, there is not a significant association between the different methodologies and the different conceptions of critical thinking (X2 = 48.86; p = 0.996). Therefore, it is impossible to name dimensions 1 and 2 of the different axes of the correspondence analysis. As a result, it could be understood that there are certain methodologies that contribute to developing this competence from the students’ points of view, regardless of what they understand by critical thinking. In addition, as seen in Figure 1, most elements are located close to the origin point, hence, reflecting that there is not a clear association between the dimensions of critical thinking and the methodologies. This finding can be accounted for by the low inertia explained both from the first dimension (λ1 = 0.006) and from the second dimension (λ2 = 0.003), and in general, by the low total explained inertia (φ2 = 0.014).

5. Discussion

The aim of this research has been to analyze the methodologies students think may contribute the most to the development of the different dimensions of critical thinking. The results revealed that students consider that critical thinking can be better developed with six different methodologies: Debates, PBL, practices in real contexts, doing research, cooperative learning, and case studies. These results are partially consistent with previous literature on the topic that, in order to develop critical thinking, highlighted the effectiveness of debates [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], project/problem-based learning [13,20,21] practices in real contexts [24,25,26], doing research [27], cooperative learning [13], and case studies [34]. Moreover, these results may be related to the knowledge that students perceive about these methodologies. Likewise, this result could be a positive sign of changes in teaching-learning methods towards teaching-oriented to meaningful learning and related to the development of thinking.
Nonetheless, our results suggest that there are certain methodologies that, contrary to previous research, do not seem to contribute so much to the development of critical thinking from students’ points of view. This is the case of service learning [51], oral presentations [18,52,53], flipped classroom [42], and master classes [18]. This finding could be justified by the fact that students may have valued these methodologies less highly because they have been less exposed to them, or when they have been exposed to them, they have used them in an inappropriate way.
In addition, this study revealed that there is not a significant association between students’ conceptions of critical thinking and the different types of methodologies to enhance its development. This finding is novel in the literature due to the fact that studies up to now have mainly focused on analyzing the effectiveness of critical thinking based on only one methodology. In contrast, this study sheds some light on how the perception of the effectiveness of the main methodologies applied in higher education is not affected by students’ conceptions of critical thinking.
The results from this study have a significant impact on theoretical and practical knowledge. First, theoretically, these results are useful for strengthening the basis of how critical thinking should be taught considering students’ points of view. Knowing the students’ perceptions and opinions could bring interesting knowledge to the literature and complement previous findings, mainly based on teachers’ perspectives.
In addition, these findings also have practical implications for students, university teachers, and institutions. Firstly, with regard to students, knowledge about the development of critical thinking skills will be useful and crucial in their professional careers in ever-changing workplaces, as well as citizens of today’s society [54]. Moreover, most of the participants in this study will work as teachers in the future, hence, these results contribute to deducing which kind of methodologies these students could apply in the near future with their primary school students. In addition, with regard to university teachers, these results highlight the relevance of communicating and dialoguing with their students to meet teaching and learning processes in a coherent way.
In the previous literature (e.g., [38]), teachers’ conceptions of critical thinking vary from those of students. In fact, some recent literature has started to debate the necessity of co-creating and co-planning the courses so that learning outcomes, methodologies, evaluation techniques, and other curricular elements can be agreed upon beforehand [55,56]. Moreover, these results emphasize the need to consider students’ points of view when designing and planning the curricula. More specifically, these findings could be useful for university teachers as they can get to know the most effective methodologies for developing critical thinking from the students’ point of view and hence, introduce them into their programs. Likewise, these results could be interesting for educational institutions when developing their institutional plans for developing transversal competencies, as in the case of critical thinking.
Finally, this study is not exempted from limitations when interpreting the results. The main limitation of this study stems from the fact that students were asked two different questions, first, their understanding of critical thinking, and second, what were the methodologies that they considered to contribute the most to developing this competence. In this sense, despite the fact that this research has selected the main methodologies thought to develop critical thinking, there could be other equally adequate methodologies. That is why future studies could attempt to ask students one by one the perception of the effectiveness of each methodology for developing critical thinking, as well as what they understand by critical thinking.
Another limitation is that students did not have a description of the meaning of each methodology. Despite the fact that all students were familiar with the different methodologies as they had already used them in their degrees, it cannot be ensured that all students interpreted all the methodologies in the same way, and they may have chosen those that they knew better. Therefore, it would be interesting for future research to try to replicate this study by adding a description of each methodology.
Finally, it should be remarked that the vast majority of the sample came from the educational field. Hence, future studies could attempt to replicate the procedure of this paper by carrying out comparative analyses considering the knowledge field of the student (engineering, architecture, sciences, social sciences, health sciences, arts, and/or humanities).
Despite these limitations, it is hoped that this study will be the origin of a series of future research studies that will help to investigate the students’ points of view on how critical thinking should be taught in a higher education classroom.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.-J.B., L.C., D.F.-N. and M.P.; methodology, M.-J.B. and H.G.-D.; software, L.C. and H.G.-D.; validation, H.G.-D.; formal analysis M.-J.B., L.C., D.F.-N. and H.G.-D.; investigation, M.-J.B., L.C., D.F.-N. and M.P.; resources, M.-J.B. and L.C.; data curation, H.G.-D.; writing—original draft preparation, M.-J.B., L.C., D.F.-N., H.G.-D. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, D.F.-N.; visualization, M.-J.B., L.C. and H.G.-D.; supervision, M.-J.B., L.C. and H.G.-D.; project administration, M.-J.B. and L.C.; funding acquisition, M.-J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The APC was funded by eDucaR research team through the University of Deusto/Basque Government Contract-Programme.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available online at: (accessed on 24 January 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Theoretical Model of the Different Dimensions of CT (Bezanilla et al., 2018)

  • Analyzing/organizing: These are answers that refer to critical thinking as a way of examining something in detail (a text, a reality...) considering its parts in order to know its characteristics and draw conclusions. In some cases, they include aspects related to the structuring and organization of information, but do not go beyond that (e.g., I analyze the information by contrasting different sources).
  • Reasoning/arguing: These definitions add to the analysis the relation and comparison of ideas and experiences based on arguments, to obtain conclusions and form a reasoned judgment. It involves expressing in words or in writing reasons for or against something, or justifying it as a reasonable action to convey a content and promote understanding (e.g., When I give my opinion I provide reasons or arguments that justify it).
  • Questioning/asking oneself: Critical thinking is understood as the questioning of an issue that is controversial or commonly accepted. It means to question things, to ask oneself questions about the reality in which one lives (e.g., When reading an article, I ask myself questions about the topics covered).
  • Evaluating: It means to value, to weigh, to determine the value of something, to estimate the importance of a fact, taking into account various elements or criteria. It is more than an argumentation (deducing pros and cons of a reality) because it implies determining the value of something according to certain criteria (e.g., Before making a decision, I evaluate the pros and cons of the situation).
  • Taking a position/taking decisions: It implies not only analyzing, reasoning, questioning or evaluating, but also making a decision about it. It means to give a solution or make a definitive judgment on a matter in a certain way, including a position or proposed solution (e.g., When I make a decision, I take it and move forward, despite the fact that others may think differently).
  • Acting/compromising: Critical thinking is understood as a means of transforming reality through social commitment. It is to take action, to act, to behave by performing voluntary and conscious acts in a determined and committed manner. It implies the adoption of a certain attitude or position before a certain matter (e.g., I get involved to respond to a situation of injustice or inequality).


  1. Song, X. ‘Critical Thinking’ and Pedagogical implications for higher education. East Asia 2016, 33, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bezanilla, M.J.; Poblete, M.; Fernández-Nogueira, D.; Arranz, S.; Campo, L. El pensamiento crítico desde la perspectiva de los docentes universitarios. Estud. Pedagógicos 2018, 44, 89–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  3. Koreshnikova, Y.N.; Froumin, I.D. Teacher Professional Skills as a Factor in the Development of Students Critical Thinking. Psychol. Sci. Educ. 2020, 25, 88–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kowalczyk, N.; Hackworth, R.; Case-Smith, J. Perceptions of the use of critical thinking teaching methods. Radiol. Technol. 2012, 83, 226–252. [Google Scholar]
  5. Samuelowicz, K.; Bain, J.D. Identifying academics’ orientations to assessment practice. High. Educ. 2002, 43, 173–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Turner, M.; Baskerville, R. The experience of deep learning by accounting students. Account. Educ. Int. J. 2013, 22, 582–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  7. Marton, F.; Saljo, R. On qualitative differences in learning 2- Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1976, 46, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lira-Valdivia, R.I. Las metodologías activas y el foro presencial: Su contribución al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. Actual. Investig. Educ. 2010, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rodríguez, G.; Díez, J.; Pérez, N.; Baños, J.E.; Carrió, M. Flipped classroom: Fostering creative skills in undergraduate students of health sciences. Think. Ski. Creat. 2019, 33, 100575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kusumoto, Y. Enhancing critical thinking through active learning. CercleS 2018, 8, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Betancourth Zambrano, S.; Tabares Díaz, Y.; Martínez Daza, V. Programa de intervención en debate crítico sobre el pensamiento crítico en universitarios. Educación y Humanismo 2020, 22, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chikeleze, M.; Johnson, I.; Gibson, T. Let’s Argue: Using Debate to Teach Critical Thinking and Communication Skills to Future Leaders. J. Leadersh. Educ. 2018, 17, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dumitru, D.; Bigu, D.; Elen, J.; Ahern, A.; McNally, C.; Ciaran, O. A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions; UTAD: Vila Real, Portugal, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. Irman, J.N.; Angraini, N. Discussion Task Model in EFL classroom: EFL learners’ perception, oral proficiency, and critical thinking achievements. Pedagogika 2019, 133, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Rodríguez-Dono, A.; Hernández-Fernández, A. Fostering Sustainability and Critical Thinking through Debate—A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Scott, S. Perceptions of students’ learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: A case study. J. Technol. Stud. 2008, 34, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, H.C.; Rusli, E. Using debate as a pedagogical tool in enhancing pre-service teachers’ learning and critical thinking. J. Int. Educ. Res. 2012, 8, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zamir, S.; Yang, Z.; Sarwar, U.; Maqbool, S.; Fazal, K.; Ihsan, H.M.; Arif, A. Teaching methodologies used for learning critical thinking in higher education: Pakistani teachers’ perceptions. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2021, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zare, P.; Othman, M. Students’ perceptions toward using classroom debate to develop critical thinking and oral communication ability. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aránguiz, P.; Palau-Salvador, G.; Belda, A.; Peris, J. Critical Thinking Using Project-Based Learning: The Case of the Agroecological Market at the “Universitat Politècnica de València”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cortázar, C.; Nussbaum, M.; Harcha, J.; Alvares, D.; López, F.; Goñi, J.; Cabezas, V. Promoting critical thinking in an online, project-based course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 119, 106705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kaddoura, M.A. New Graduate Nurses’ Perceptions of the Effects of Clinical Simulation on Their Critical Thinking, Learning, and Confidence. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2010, 41, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zarifsanaiey, N.; Amini, M.; Saadat, F. A comparison of educational strategies for the acquisition of nursing student’s performance and critical thinking: Simulation-based training vs. integrated training (simulation and critical thinking strategies). BMC Med. Educ. 2016, 16, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  24. Abrami, P.; Bernard, R.; Borokhovski, E.; Waddington, D.I.; Wade, C.A.; Persson, T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2015, 85, 275–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barrios Araya, S.; Rubio Acuña, M.; Gutiérrez Núñez, M.; Sepúlveda Vería, C. Aprendizaje-servicio como metodología para el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en educación superior. Rev. Cuba. De Educ. Médica Super. 2012, 26, 594–603. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuntjara, E.H. Students’ reflection on their service-learning experience as a way of fostering critical thinking and a peace building initiative. Citizsh. Teach. Learn. 2019, 14, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cangalaya Sevillano, L.M. Habilidades del pensamiento crítico en estudiantes universitarios a través de la investigación. Desde El Sur 2020, 12, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  28. Guzmán, S.; Sánchez, P. Efectos del entrenamiento de profesores en el pensamiento crítico en estudiantes universitarios. Rev. Latinoam. De Estud. Educ. 2008, 38, 189–199. [Google Scholar]
  29. Núñez-López, S.; Ávila-Palet, J.E.; Olivares-Olivares, S.L. The development of critical thinking abilities in university students by means of problem-based learning. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Super 2017, 8, 84–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Olivares-Olivares, S.L.; Heredia, Y. Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en ambientes de aprendizaje basado en problemas en estudiantes de educación superior. Rev. Mex. De Investig. Educ. 2012, 17, 759–778. [Google Scholar]
  31. Orique, S.B.; McCarthy, M.A. Critical thinking and the use of nontraditional instructional methodologies. J. Nurs. Educ. 2015, 54, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Urrutia, M.E.; Hamui-Sutton, A.; Castañeda, S.; Fortoul, T.I.; Guevara-Guzmán, R. Impacto del aprendizaje basado en problemas en los procesos cognitivos de los estudiantes de medicina. Gac. Médica De México 2011, 147, 385–393. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lin, M.; Preston, A.; Kharruga, A.; Kong, Z. Making L2 learners’ reasoning skills visible: The potential of computer supported collaborative learning environments. Think. Ski. Creat. 2016, 22, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  34. Popil, I. Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Educ. Today 2011, 23, 204–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McDade, S.A. Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teach. Psychol. 1995, 22, 9–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lynch, R.; McNamara, P.M.; Seery, N. Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self- and peer-assessment and feedback. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2012, 35, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sultan, S.; Rofiuddin, A.; Nurhadi, N.; Priyatni, E.T. Development of mass media text-based instructional materials to improve critical reading skills of university students. Pedagogika 2018, 131, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Bezanilla, M.J.; Fernández-Nogueira, D.; Poblete, M.; Galindo-Domínguez, H. Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view. Think. Ski. Creat. 2019, 33, 100584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Islamiyah, M.; Fajri, M. Investigating Indonesian Master’s students’ perception of critical thinking in Academic Writing in a British university. Qual. Rep. 2020, 25, 4402–4422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yusri. The Effects of Problem Solving, Project-Based Learning, Linguistic Intelligence and Critical Thinking on the Students’ Report Writing. Adv. Lang. Lit. Stud. 2018, 9, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Dwyer, C.R.; Hogan, M.J.; Steward, I. The promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping. In Critical Thinking; Horvath, C.P., Forte, J.M., Eds.; Nova Science: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 97–122. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dehghanzadeha, S.; Jafaraghaee, F. Comparing the effects of traditional lecture and flipped classroom on nursing students’ critical thinking disposition: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 71, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rodzalan, S.A.; Saat, M.M. The perception of critical thinking and problem solving among Malaysian undergraduate students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Castro, P.J.; González-Palta, I.N. Percepción de Estudiantes de Psicología sobre el Uso de Facebook para Desarrollar Pensamiento Crítico. Formación Universitaria 2016, 9, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Zelaieta, E.; Camino, E. El desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en la formación inicial del profesorado: Análisis de una estrategia pedagógica desde la visión del alumnado. Profesorado Rev. De Currículum Form. Del Profr. 2018, 22, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Collazo Expósito, L.M.; Geli de Ciurana, A.M. Avanzar en la educación para la sostenibilidad. Combinación de metodologías para trabajar el pensamiento crítico y autónomo, la reflexión y la capacidad de transformación del sistema. Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. 2017, 73, 131–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. García-Carpintero, E. El portafolio como metodología de enseñanza-aprendizaje y evaluación en el practicum: Percepciones de los estudiantes. REDU. Rev. De Docencia Univ. 2017, 15, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Latif, E.; Mumtaz, S.; Mumtaz, R.; Hussain, A. A comparison of debate and role play in enhancing critical thinking and communication skills of medical students during problem based learning. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2018, 46, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sahoo, S.; Mohammed, C.A. Fostering critical thinking and collaborative learning skills among medical students through a research protocol writing activity in the curriculum. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2018, 30, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. González-González, I.; Jiménez-Zarco, A.I. Using learning methodologies and resources in the development of critical thinking competency: An exploratory study in a virtual learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 1359–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ahrari, A.; Samah, B.A.; Hassan, S.H.B.; Wahat, N.W.A.; Zaremohzzabieh, Z. Deepening critical thinking skills through civic engagement in Malaysian higher education. Think. Ski. Creat. 2016, 22, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arslan, R.; Gulveren, H.; Aydin, E. A research on critical thinking tendencies and factors that affect critical thinking of higher education students. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 9, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marín-Calderón, N. Implementación de la estrategia didáctica del desarrollo del pensamiento crítico-reflexivo en el análisis literario de Hamlet de Shakespeare. Educación 2014, 38, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  54. Ahuna, K.H.; Tinnesz, C.G.; Kiener, M. A New Era of Critical Thinking in Professional Programs. Transformative Dialogues. Teach. Learn. J. 2014, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bovill, C. A Co-creation of Learning and Teaching Typology: What Kind of Cocreation are you Planning or Doing? Int. J. Stud. Partn. 2019, 3, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Kaminskiene, L.; Žydžiunaite, V.; Jurgile, V.; Ponomarenko, T. Co-Creation of Learning: A Concept Analysis. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2020, 9, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Plot of the results of the correspondence analysis. ANA/ORG, Analyzing/Organizing; REA/ARG, Reading/Arguing; QUE/AO, Questioning/Asking oneself; EVAL, Evaluating; POS/TD, Taking a position/Taking a decision; COM/ACT, Compromising/Acting; Practices, Practices in real contexts; PBL, Project-based Learning; Rea. and Ana. of res., Reading and Analysis of resources; Cooperative, Cooperative Learning; FC, Flipped Classroom.
Figure 1. Plot of the results of the correspondence analysis. ANA/ORG, Analyzing/Organizing; REA/ARG, Reading/Arguing; QUE/AO, Questioning/Asking oneself; EVAL, Evaluating; POS/TD, Taking a position/Taking a decision; COM/ACT, Compromising/Acting; Practices, Practices in real contexts; PBL, Project-based Learning; Rea. and Ana. of res., Reading and Analysis of resources; Cooperative, Cooperative Learning; FC, Flipped Classroom.
Education 13 00132 g001
Table 1. Methodologies that students consider to contribute to developing critical thinking.
Table 1. Methodologies that students consider to contribute to developing critical thinking.
Methodologiesf (%)
Debates650 (19.7%)
PBL468 (14.2%)
Practices in real contexts364 (11.0%)
Doing research321 (9.7%)
Cooperative learning312 (9.5%)
Case studies263 (8.0%)
Feedback195 (5.9%)
Role-playing170 (5.1%)
Reading and analysis of resources161 (4.9%)
Written work114 (3.4%)
Conceptual maps103 (3.1%)
Service learning63 (1.9%)
Oral presentations59 (1.8%)
Flipped classroom30 (0.9%)
Master classes21 (0.6%)
Others2 (>0.01%)
Total3296 (100%)
Table 2. Cross-table between methodologies that students consider to contribute to developing critical thinking and their conception of critical thinking.
Table 2. Cross-table between methodologies that students consider to contribute to developing critical thinking and their conception of critical thinking.
Doing research439497184326321
Cooperative learning459279264426312
Case studies477768242720263
Reading and analysis of resources225047121911161
Written work2434289154114
Conceptual maps2130255139103
Service learning10171477863
Oral presentations111914210359
Flipped classroom09736530
Master classes46413221
Note. ANA/ORG, Analyzing/Organizing; REA/ARG, Reasoning/Arguing; QUE/AO, Questioning/Asking oneself; EVAL, evaluating; POS/TD, taking a position/Taking a decision; COM/ACT, Compromising/Acting.
Table 3. Summary of the correspondence analysis.
Table 3. Summary of the correspondence analysis.
DimensionSingular ValueInertiaχ2Proportion of Inertia
Accounted forCumulative
10.0790.006 0.4400.440
20.0580.003 0.2400.680
30.0520.003 0.1930.873
40.0380.001 0.1000.972
50.0200.000 0.0281.00
Total 0.01446.86 (p = 0.996)1.001.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Campo, L.; Galindo-Domínguez, H.; Bezanilla, M.-J.; Fernández-Nogueira, D.; Poblete, M. Methodologies for Fostering Critical Thinking Skills from University Students’ Points of View. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 132.

AMA Style

Campo L, Galindo-Domínguez H, Bezanilla M-J, Fernández-Nogueira D, Poblete M. Methodologies for Fostering Critical Thinking Skills from University Students’ Points of View. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(2):132.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Campo, Lucía, Héctor Galindo-Domínguez, María-José Bezanilla, Donna Fernández-Nogueira, and Manuel Poblete. 2023. "Methodologies for Fostering Critical Thinking Skills from University Students’ Points of View" Education Sciences 13, no. 2: 132.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop