Accepted Manuscript

Title: Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in

higher education: The teacher’s view

Authors: Marı́a José Bezanilla, Donna Fernández-Nogueira,

Manuel Poblete, Hector Galindo-Domı́nguez

PII: S1871-1871(19)30038-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584
Article Number: 100584

Reference: TSC 100584

To appear in: Thinking Skills and Creativity

Received date: 4 February 2019

Revised date: 21 June 2019
Accepted date: 10 July 2019

Please cite this article as: Bezanilla MJ, Fernández-Nogueira D, Poblete M,

Galindo-Domı́nguez H, Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in
higher education: The teacher’s view, Thinking Skills and Creativity (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view

María José Bezanilla marijose.bezanilla@deusto.es – University of Deusto (Bilbao, Spain)

Donna Fernández-Nogueira donna.fernandez@deusto.es - University of Deusto (Bilbao, Spain)
Manuel Poblete manuel poblete@deusto.es – University of Deusto (Bilbao, Spain)
Hector Galindo-Domínguez hector.galindo@opendeusto.es – University of Deusto (Bilbao, Spain)

HIGHLIGHTS

T
 The paper includes an extensive literature review on methodologies for teaching critical

IP
thinking in higher education. A synthesis table on the methodologies that the literature states
as good for teaching critical thinking is presented. This can be very useful for teachers and
academic and research community interested in critical thinking development.

R
 The paper analyses the methodologies to teach critical thinking that 230 university teachers
from Spain and Latin use in their teaching and also provides information about which of them

SC
are considered the most effective by teachers. Critical thinking is important and difficult to
develop. The results of this analysis can help teachers to reflect on the methodologies they
are using for teaching critical thinking and explore the use of other methodologies different to


those they are using at the moment.
U
The paper analyses the relationship between the concept teachers have of critical thinking
N
and the methodologies they use for its development, finding some interesting relations. Since
teachers have different views of critical thinking and these views may be developmental,
A
some considerations about using different methodologies depending on the different
moments of the learning process (for example at first or final year of the degree) can be
M

established. Implications for curriculum design and implementation in relation to critical

thinking are presented.
D

Abstract
TE

Critical thinking is a competency which is being required from students in their personal and
professional life. For this reason, universities must do their most to include it in their syllabus,
EP

programs, and classes. However, there is still much work to be done since there is not a clear
definition of this competency, and also new active methodologies need to be enhanced for its
development. This article starts with a literature review of the main methodologies to teach this
CC

competency, and moreover, analyzes the main methodologies that 230 university teachers from Spain
and Latin America use in the classroom as well as the ones they consider as more effective for the
development of critical thinking. This information is contrasted with the concept these teachers have
of critical thinking, based on previous research in which six different categories of concept were found.
A

The data is analyzed using the test of Chi-square and Cohen’s Kappa. The results seem to indicate
that teachers use and consider as most effective mainly three different methodologies: oral and
written reflection and argumentation; reading, analysis and synthesis of resources; and case studies,
regardless the concept they have of critical thinking, although some other tendencies between
methodologies and concept of critical thinking are observed. In addition, there is a significant
relationship between methodologies teachers use and those they consider most effective. Finally,
some implications for curriculum design and implementation in relation to critical thinking are
presented.

1
 Keywords: Critical Thinking, Methodologies, Higher Education, Latin America, Spain

1. Introduction and context

In the era of artificial intelligence, personal competencies and qualities are being more demanded,
such as, emotional intelligence, teamwork and intrapersonal competencies. In this research, a
competency is understood as the integration and mobilization of knowledge, abilities and skills,
attitudes as well as values which are developed when solving problems. It should be noticed that the
term “competency” is often known as ‘skill’ in the Anglo-Saxon world and is related to generic or
transversal skills.
In a recent survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) about the

T
competencies which employers prefer when hiring employees (NACE, 2017), the results showed that

IP
only 9.9% of senior employees rated themselves as proficient in critical thinking, while 99.2% of
employers considered that critical thinking was extremely essential for new hires. According to NACE
(2017), employers rated the need for critical thinking/problem solving as the most needed competency

R
for career readiness. During the last two decades students at higher education are being more
exposed to the concept of critical thinking as a way to improve not only their professional skills, but

SC
their personal competencies as members of a global community (Altuve, 2010; Crenshaw, Hale, &
Harper, 2011; Facione, 2013; Moore, 2013; Villarini, 2003). Halpern (1998; 2014) warns that in our
era, in which a myriad of knowledge can be easily accessed at one click, it is important to teach

U
students to be critical and effective thinkers. Critical thinking is usually related to other skills that are
considered key in the 21st century in students’ learning process, with stakeholders, and in everyone’s
N
family life: metacognition, motivation, and creativity (Moeti, Mgawi, & Mealosi, 2017).
In 2012 the European Higher Education Area has stressed the importance for the student to think
critically as part of a genuine student-centered learning, as can be seen in the curriculums of many
A
universities. As Zelaieta Anta & Camino Ortiz de Barrón (2018) state critical thinking is a reflective
activity that leads to action and that in order to develop it students must think about what they think.
M

Universities should encourage how to think and not what to think. Pando (2016) concluded from a
research at the National Trujillo University that comprehensive reading programs of texts highly
developed critical thinking in students. Reading and reflecting from different sources can overcome
D

the lack of experience in undergraduates. To think critically is a process, and its acquisition takes
time. Within this process, university teachers must be aware of the need of a transformation to adjust
TE

their teaching methodologies to the learning of their students, as their way of thinking may generate
fixed routines in their teaching practices (Ossa Cornejo et al., 2018). That is, the teacher must also
reflect on their practices and introduce different and varied methodologies.
EP

In the past years, one of the degrees that have conducted much research in critical thinking has
been that of healthcare, especially nursing. Sharples et al. (2017) indicate that there have been more
than 2800 indexed articles by PubMed with critical thinking either in the title or in the abstract within
the field of nursing. In spite of that interest, there is no universal definition of this competency although
CC

there have been many attempts to define it (Ennis, 1991; Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011; Facione,
2013). Moreover, there is an open debate whether higher education enhances this competency or not
(Arum & Roska, 2011; Huber & Kuncel, 2016) as it is believed that this competency is only acquired
through experience and the maturity gained throughout the years (Arum & Roska, 2011). On the other
A

hand, Norris (1985; 1988) states that even if there is little research on the effectiveness of critical
thinking in teaching, it is an essential part of education, and it should be made, as Dwyer, Hogan,&
Steward (2014) indicate, explicit to students.
It seems to be a fact that a person with “good” thinking has more opportunities in his/her
professional, academic, and daily life (Franco, Costa, Butler, & Almeida, 2017). However, as Tsui
(2002) states, in higher education more work should be done to teach students how to think, as the
growth in critical thinking is highly related to instructional factors. She includes as positive activities for
its development, research, working in a group project, taking essay exams, and being critically

2
corrected by the instructor; and as negative, multiple choice exams. The methodologies that she
analyses are case studies, data analysis strategies, and, over all, emphasizes on the importance of
writing and rewriting besides class discussion as the best classroom techniques to enhance critical
thinking.
In addition, there seems to be a growing awareness of the need to prepare students with a
knowledge and capacity to take decisions. Research on methodologies and critical thinking show a
variety of results which do not seem to differ substantially from author to author. Most studies analyze
one methodology and the impact of that methodology on students. For example, Makhene (2017) in
the area of nursing, only studies argumentation, which is very common in communicative approaches,
both written and oral. According to this author, argumentation boosts decision-making and problem
solving through the process of critical thinking. Nonetheless, the process must be conducted in an
environment that learners feel psychologically safe to express themselves without fear of undermining

T
their confidence. As a matter of fact, the relationship between teachers, learners and their peers is

IP
key in the acquisition of thinking skills.
Bearing all this in mind, the aim of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, it presents a compilation of the
best methodologies for developing critical thinking according to several authors, where ideas and

R
suggestions for the classroom can be found so as to facilitate teacher’s search on this matter. The
literature review focused on methodologies used to teach critical thinking in higher education and not

SC
on evaluation or on the concept of critical thinking. Therefore, after doing a search on the meta-search
engine Océano Discovery Library1 (University of Deusto) and Google Scholar, only papers that dealt
with methodologies, and teaching and learning strategies for the development of critical thinking were

U
taken into consideration. Secondly, it analyses the methodologies used by university teachers of
Spain and Latin America, and their perception of effectiveness for the development of critical thinking,
N
providing a useful framework for teaching, learning and research. Moreover, this perception of
effectiveness was contrasted with teachers ‘views of critical thinking, following the categories of
critical thinking from Bezanilla, Poblete, Fernández-Nogueira, Arranz, & Campo (2018).
A
M

2. Methodologies for teaching and learning critical thinking

To begin with, and following Duron, Limbach, & Waugh (2006), methodological elements that
D

facilitate the development of critical thinking must be taken into account. According to these authors,
in order to teach critical thinking, the positive behaviour that is expected for the student to promote
TE

this competency should be included in the teaching planning, as well as the number of activities
necessary for that behaviour to take place. In short, these authors add that critical thinking is
facilitated through practical activities which should be aligned with the evaluation of the student.
EP

Aguilera Serrano, Zubizarreta Estévez, & Mayedo Castillo (2005) also insist on the need and
importance of focusing critical thinking in the curriculum design of subjects. They believe that in order
to develop critical thinking, it is necessary to integrate theoretical aspects with professional practice.
Moreover, some authors highlight, given the complexity and polysemy of the term, the importance of
CC

clarifying from the beginning what is meant by critical thinking in the context of a particular subject
(Moore, 2013; Piergiovanni, 2014).
Clase & Bonk (1990 as cited in Duron et al., 2006) have found that although there are many
strategies to develop critical thinking, the one that has the greatest impact is when the teacher asks
A

students questions, and that the level of student thinking should be directly proportional to the level of
the questions asked. When teachers plan their classes, they should consider the purpose, level and
type of questions that best helps to achieve the objective set. In addition, all students need experience
to address complex questions. It is very important for the teacher to plan their classes well so as to
offer students these type of experiences or practices. To do so, teachers should be trained in the

1
A tool for searching bibliographic data that includes more than one hundred impact databases, both national and
international.

3
formulation of complex questions. This is a difficult task for the teacher and it implies their
commitment.
Olivares, Saiz, & Rivas (2013) indicate that it is very difficult to separate two strategies that help
the student to think in a critical way, namely, that of taking decisions and solving problems. They
believe that solving a problem conveys that an election has to be made, and thus, this may help the
student to learn how to be critical with their choice. Moreover, another study by Olivares Olivares &
Heredia Escorza (2012) show that students who are educated using the methodology of problem-
based learning develop a higher balance between inductive and deductive thinking. Nevertheless,
these same authors, after examining the impact of problem-based learning in the acquisition of the
competency of critical thinking in diverse papers, conclude that the competency is not developed
more using problem-based learning than by teaching in a traditional way.
To develop critical thinking, education activities should be appropriate and based on the principles

T
of active learning, which Fink (2003) classifies as follows: First, information and ideas based on the

IP
use of primary and secondary sources found in class, out of class or online; second, experience
concerning the activities of doing, observing or simulations; and third, reflexive dialogue, which may
include writing papers, portfolios or diaries. This author believes that whenever possible, one must

R
select direct activities: carried out in a real-life context, direct observation of a phenomenon, reflective
thinking, service learning, diary/reports, and dialogue in or outside the classroom. Halpern (2014)

SC
gives ideas of different activities for teachers to use in the classroom in order to improve critical
thinking, giving importance to visual representations, such as concept maps. Dwayer, Hogan, &
Steward (2011; 2012) also prove that argument mapping can enhance critical thinking. Walker (2003)

U
highlights the importance of questioning yourself and others, interaction in class and discussions, in
addition to written assignments as excellent methods for developing critical thinking. Another
N
fundamental methodological element is giving students feedback about their learning process within
the framework of formative assessment and evaluation, as well as creating opportunities for self-
assessment and peer review (Duron et al., 2006). In addition, they add that students should explicitly
A
be taught what is meant to think critically, that is, which are the criteria and elements that define
critical thinking. They also point out that the teacher should self-assess and review their courses to
M

ensure that effective teaching-learning strategies are helping students to develop critical thinking.
Hence, a helpful task could be a follow-up of all class activities, using a teacher diary, with their
reflections and in which they include all improvements for future classes. According to these authors,
D

student feedback is also important to improve and various techniques can be used (for example, a
two minute paper or taking notes in chain). Isla Torres et al. (2010) indicate the importance of the
TE

feedback or synchronous and asynchronous feedback to develop critical thinking, not only through
face-to-face sessions but also through electronic means (quizzes, chats, blogs and forums, among
others). Additionally, Lin, Preston, Kharrufa, & Kong (2016) support the potential of technology in
EP

collaborative learning in L2 education as a way of incorporating critical thinking in the classroom, due
to the fact that it is a way to construct arguments by giving “supporting evidence and deepening
students’ enquiry and understanding through community of inquiry” (p. 304). That is, peers, teachers
and technology bond together in the learning process.
CC

Rolón (2014) adds the following to the above methodological principles: First, create educational
environments that allow students to practice dialogue and participation so that the classroom may be
converted into a research community. Second, search for consistency between the objectives of the
course, learning activities and assessment procedures. Third, use the student’s responses as a
A

diagnosis of the depth of his/her thoughts and the strategies employed to argue and defend them.
Fourth, it is appropriate to analyze the relevance, reliability and strength of the arguments used by
students. Marín-Calderón (2014) sets out the need to define a teaching approach including different
types of activities to develop critical thinking. In this sense, it would be key to design a strategy or
sequence of activities that ensure a meaningful learning of critical thinking, rather than talking about
methodologies and activities of teaching-learning that are independent.

4
 Below there is a table/summary with the methodologies and activities that enhance critical thinking
according to a significant number of authors, and which can be a guide for teachers who wish to teach
this competency.

Table 1. Methodologies used in higher education for teaching critical thinking

Teaching Methodologies and Activities Authors

ADEA (2006); Arslan, Gulveren & Aydin (2014);

Bahr (2010); Couveia, Atencio & Morillo (2013);
Writing assignments (writing Duron, Limbach & Waugh (2006); Espíndola

T
assignments, essays, and Castro (1996); Gasca Jiménez (2017); Hawes
reports) (2003); Laiton Poveda (2010); López Aymes

IP
(Especially argumentative of (2013); Makhene (2017); Marín-Calderón (2014);
analysis of other authors) Piergiovanni (2014); Torres (2004); Tsui (2002);
Walker (2003); Wilson (2015)

R
Writing activities

SC
Concept map and Argument Dwyer, Hogan, & Steward (2011); Dwyer, Hogan,
mapping & Steward (2012); Halpern (2014)

Practical activities followed by

a written reflection, for
(2014) U
Duron, Limbach, & Waugh (2006); Piergiovanni
N
example, a diary

Abrami et al. (2015); Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin

A
(2014); Couveia, Atencio, & Morillo (2013);
Duron, Limbach, & Waugh (2006); Espíndola
M

Debates
Castro (1996); Islas Torres et al. (2010); Marín-
Calderón (2014); Tsui (2002); Walker (2003)
D

Couveia, Atencio, & Morillo (2013); Davies et al.

Dialogue and participation (2013); Halpern (2014); Makhene (2017);
TE

Oral argumentation Piergiovanni (2014); Rolón (2014); Walker (2003)

Debates and
cooperative
work
Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014); Gasca Jiménez
Cooperative/collaborative work
EP

(2017); Loes & Pascarella (2017)

Posters and interviews Bahr (2010)

CC

Abrami et al. (2015); ADEA (2006); Arslan,

Gulveren, & Aydin (2014); Duron, Limbach, &
Teacher’s questions Waugh (2006); Gasca Jiménez (2017); Hawes
(2003); Marín-Calderón (2014); Piergiovanni
A

(2014); Thompson (2011); Walker (2003)

Questions and
enquiries Questions/enquiries/surveys
ADEA (2006)
with immediate feedback

Duron, Limbach, & Waugh (2006); Halpern (1998;

Questioning (enquiry) 2014); López Aymes (2013); Rolón (2014);
Smolarek & Hora (2016); Walker (2003)

5
 Research projects Bahr (2010); Thompson (2011); Tsui (2002)

Duron, Limbach, & Waugh (2006); Facione

A well designed paper /
(2007); Laiton Poveda (2010); Piergiovanni
Project about a concrete issue
(2014); Tsui (2002)

Abrami et al. (2015); ADEA (2006); Aguilera

Serrano, Zubizarreta Estévez, & Castillo Mayedo
(2005); Bahr (2010); Couveia, Atencio, & Morillo
Problem based learning (2013); Espíndola Castro (1996); Grohs, Kirk,
(everyday issues) Soledad, & Knight (2018); Halpern (2014); Hawes
(2003); López Aymes (2013); Núñez-López et al.

T
(2017); Olivares Olivares & Heredia Escorza

IP
(2012); Saíz Sánchez & Fernández Rivas (2012)

Problem solving Projects Gasca Jiménez (2017); Thompson (2011)

R
(Problem and
project based Solving ambiguous situations
Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014); Halpern (2014)

SC
learning) set in advance

Pairwork to solve a problem Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014)

Listening to expert reasoning

solving a problem
U
ADEA (2006)
N
Analyzing other people’s work,
A
including classmate reasoning ADEA (2006); Gasca Jiménez (2017)
solving a problem
M

Activities to review the media

(commercials, YouTube Bahr (2010); Gasca Jiménez (2017)
videos)
D

Case study (when elaborating ADEA (2006); Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014);
TE

Case study the case and subsequent Espíndola Castro (1996); Freeman Herreid
analysis) (2004); Hawes (2003)

Oral Presentations or speeches

EP

Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014)

presentations: given by students
Teachers and
students Lectures Marín-Calderón (2014)
CC

Couveia, Atencio, & Morillo (2013); Duron,

Experiential learning Limbach, & Waugh (2006); Franco, Costa, Butler,
& Almeida (2017);Pierginni (2014)
A

Connecting situations with

Real-world student’s own experience Marín-Calderón (2014)
activities (experiential-based)

Ahrari, Samah, Hassan, Wahat, &

Civic engagement
Zaremohzzabieh (2016)

Simulations Hawes (2003); ADEA (2006)

6
 Duron, Limbach, & Waugh (2006); Islas Torres et
Feedback Feedback
al. (2010)

Drama Creative drama Uzunöz & Demirhan (2017)

Note: Own source

As can be seen in Table 1, all the different activities and methodologies have been grouped
according to nine categories: Writing activities, Debates and cooperative work, Questions and
enquiries, Problem solving (Problem and project based learning), Case study, Oral presentations by
teacher and students, Real-world activities, Feedback, and Drama. The above categories have been
formed in an inductive way after a wide bibliographical revision.

T
3. Objectives

IP
This research deepens into the teaching and learning of critical thinking in the field of higher

R
education. Learning is determined by multiple factors, among others, the characteristics of each
student, or what the teacher understands by critical thinking and how he or she applies this

SC
competency in the subjects taught. In a previous study, university teachers were asked to define this
competency. In view of that, six different categories were found to define critical thinking:
Analyzing/Organizing; Reasoning/Argumenting; Questioning/Asking oneself; Evaluating; Taking a
position/Taking Decisions; and Acting/Compromising (Bezanilla et al., 2018). Consequently, the

U
question raised is which were the methodologies they use for the development of critical thinking,
which of them are considered most effective and what is the relation between the methodologies used
N
and their concept of critical thinking. Thus, the main focus of this study is on methodologies and
specifically on the following research questions:
A
1. Which are the methodologies, techniques, and activities used by university teachers
M

in their subjects to develop critical thinking?

2. Which are the methodologies considered most important or effective for university
teachers in the teaching-learning of critical thinking?
D

3. Is there any relation between the methodologies considered most effective by

teachers and the concept they have of critical thinking?
TE

4. Methodological Approach
EP

A mixed methodology was applied in this research. Three open questions were analyzed so as
firstly to study the methodologies that university teachers use with their students to develop critical
thinking, as well as their perception of effectiveness; and secondly, to analyze the relation of the
teacher’s concept of critical thinking with the methodology used in the classroom. Four blind judges
CC

examined the data and worked together in the analysis of the content. Later on, this data was
quantified for the statistical analysis.
A

4.1. Sample

The sample of this study included 230 university teachers, from different fields of knowledge, and
from public and private universities of Spain as well as Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa
Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Venezuela). There had been a previous
relationship with these universities in issues having to do with innovation and teacher training. From
the 326 teachers invited to take part of the research, 230 answered the survey. That is, 70.55% of the
initial sample. From the total number of participants, 82 were from Spain and 148 from different Latin

7
American countries, mainly from Chile and Ecuador. The other countries were not highly
representative (total of 16.5); 33% were from public universities and 67% from private universities.
The majority taught in the area of Social and Legal Sciences (35.6%), followed by Arts and
Humanities (23.5%), Engineering and Architecture (18.7%), Health Sciences (12.6%), and Sciences
(9.6%). Moreover, 54% were women and 46% men. Almost 90% (88.3%) of teachers of the sample
are from 31 to 60 years old. There was a similar percentage of teachers in the age groups: 30-40
years old (30%), 41-50 (27.4%), and 51-60 (30.9%). Only 3.9% were younger than 30 and 7.8% older
than 60. Most of the teachers had a high teaching experience. Almost 52.2% from 11 to 30 years of
experience. Only 9% had less than 5 years of teaching experience.

4.2. Instruments for data collection

T
IP
In order to meet the research objectives, a questionnaire with two sections was designed: The first
part includes questions on the context data (type of university and country of origin; field of
knowledge; gender, age and teaching experience) and the importance and possibility of applying

R
critical thinking in the classroom. The second part included three open questions: What each teacher
considered critical thinking to be and how they would define it; the methodologies used for their

SC
students to develop critical thinking; and what they consider to be the best and most effective
methodologies. This article focuses on the qualitative analysis of the two last questions
(methodologies employed by teachers and their effectiveness for the development of critical thinking),

U
and its relationship to the results to the first question (concept that university teachers have of critical
thinking), discussed in a previous article (Bezanilla et al., 2018).
N
4.3. Procedure
A

As already mentioned, 326 teachers from public and private universities in both Spain and Latin
M

America were invited to participate in the study, from which 230 completed the questionnaire. After
the creation of a database of contacts, a questionnaire was sent from the internal messaging system
program of Qualtrics. Responses were collected with Qualtrics and exported to SPSS 24.0 program
D

so as to process the data. The anonymity of the participants was kept at all times. In addition, a
message of gratitude and reminder was sent one month later.
TE

5. Results

5.1. Methodologies used to develop critical thinking

EP

In order to analyze the data related to methodologies used by teachers for teaching critical
thinking, the methodologies were classified by means of an inductive analysis, and grouped into the
CC

following 12 major categories: methodologies of oral and written reflection and argumentation;
reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources (written, graphics, audio-visuals, etc.); case studies;
collaborative or cooperative learning; connection with the real world; problem and project based
learning; methodologies of assessment, follow-up, and feedback; questioning; methodologies for
A

evaluation, interpretation, and justification; research; lectures; and other methodologies (among
others, workshops, seminars, flipped classroom, dramatization and/or role playing).

Table 3. Methodologies used

Methodology Frequency

8
Oral and written reflection and argumentation 270 (20.93%)

Reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources (written, graphics, audio-visuals, 266 (20.62%)
etc.)

Case studies 140 (10.85%)

Collaborative or cooperative learning 112 (8.68%)

Connection with the real world 109 (8.44%)

Problem and project based learning 101 (7.82%)

T
Assessment, follow-up, and feedback 66 (5.11%)

IP
Questioning 62 (4.80%)

R
Evaluation, interpretation, and justification 51 (3.95%)

Research 49 (3.79%)

SC
Other methodologies (flipped classroom, role playing, etc.) 43 (3.33%)

Lectures 21 (1.62%)

Total U 1290 (100%)

N
The methodologies that are used most by teachers to teach critical thinking are oral and written
A
reflection and argumentation; reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources; case studies;
collaborative or cooperative learning; connection with the real world; and problem and project based
M

learning.
In addition, and in order to know whether there were significant differences among the different
methodologies, a Kruskal Wallis test was carried out (χ2 = 903.108, p =. 000), obtaining significant
D

results. This fact seems to suggest that there is a variation between the methodologies used for the
development of critical thinking by teachers in the sample. For example it is observed that there is a
TE

significant difference between the use of lectures and the use of oral and written reflection and
argumentation for the development of critical thinking.
EP

5.2. Methodologies considered the most effective to develop critical thinking

The 12 categories of methodologies established previously were used in order to see if there was
CC

a concordance between the methodologies chosen by teachers to work the development of critical
thinking and the methodologies considered as the most effective. The results are shown in Table 4:
A

Table 4. Methodologies considered the most effective

Methodology Frequency

Oral and written reflection and argumentation 156 (23.31%)

Reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources (written, graphics, audio-visuals, 152 (22.72%)
etc.)

Case studies 93 (13.90%)

9
Questioning 50 (7.47%)

Problem and project based learning 50 (7.47%)

Other methodologies (flipped classroom, role playing, etc.) 43 (6.42%)

Connection with the real world 40 (5.97%)

Collaborative or cooperative learning 28 (4.18%)

Research 21 (3.13%)

Evaluation, interpretation, and justification 19 (2.84%)

T
Assessment, follow-up, and feedback 9 (1.34%)

IP
Lectures 8 (1.19%)

Total 669 (100%)

R
SC
The results show that, in general, the methodologies which are most commonly used are also
perceived as the most effective, with the exception of collaborative or cooperative learning and
connection with the real world, which are perceived as not very effective. On the other hand, it should
be noted that within the group of methodologies that are used to a lesser extent, questioning is

U
considered more effective than the others. Nevertheless, the two methodologies that are considered
as the most effective are oral and written reflection and argumentation and reading, analysis, and
N
synthesis of resources.
As before, a Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out to know whether there were significant differences
A
between the perception of effectiveness of the various methodologies used. The results show that
there is a dissimilarity between methodologies that are considered as the most effective in the
M

development of critical thinking (χ2 = 465.448, p =. 000). For example, lectures, and assessment,
follow-up, and feedback are low.

5.3. Concordance between the use of methodologies and those considered the most effective by
D

teachers
TE

In addition to the two previous descriptive analyses, another statistical analysis was carried out to
compare the methodologies that the university teachers use to develop critical thinking and the
methodologies they consider the most effective. The degree of agreement between what they use
EP

and what they think was calculated through the statistical Cohen’s Kappa (k) that indicates the
concordance of both variables and ranges from 0 to 1; being 0 the lack of concordance and 1 the full
concordance. The results of this analysis are shown in table 5.
CC

Table 5. Concordance between the use of methodologies and which are considered more effective
Methodology K Sig.
A

Oral and written reflection and argumentation 370 .000

Reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources (written, graphics, audio-visuals, etc.) .420 .000

Case studies .509 .000

Collaborative or cooperative learning .244 .000

Connection with the real world .303 .000

10
Problem and project based learning .526 .000

Assessment, follow-up, and feedback .229 .000

Questioning 351 .000

Evaluation, interpretation, and justification .056 .343

Research .146 .013

Other methodologies (flipped classroom, role playing, etc.) .397 .000

Lectures .209 .001

T
The results showed that almost all the methodologies had significant values between k = .146 (p =

IP
0.13) and k = .526 (p =. 000). These results support the idea that teachers use, in their classes, the
methodologies they consider the most effective for the development of critical thinking. Nonetheless,

R
as can be seen in the values of k, the strength between both variables is significant, but quite weak
(McHugh, 2012). This fact could possibly indicate that there is not a full agreement amongst the

SC
participants. In addition, there was a total discrepancy on evaluation, interpretation and justification (k
= .056; p = .343). In this case, those who use it seem that they do not consider it as the most effective
methodology in order to develop critical thinking.

U
5.4. Relationship between methodologies considered the most effective and teachers’ concept of
N
critical thinking
A
In order to respond to the above objective, the concept that each university teacher had of critical
thinking was taken into account according to the categories defined in Bezanilla et al. (2018):
M

Analyzing/Organizing; Reasoning/Argumenting; Questioning/Asking oneself; Evaluating; Taking a

position/Taking Decisions; and Acting/Compromising, and categorized according to the
methodologies used in the classroom to develop this competency. These six categories are the result
D

of a previous research (Bezanilla et al., 2018) with the same university teachers that have taken part
in this one. They were asked what they understood by critical thinking and how they would define it.
Afterwards, their definitions were grouped through an inductive process in the categories mentioned
TE

above. These results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Frequencies and column percentages between categories of the concept of critical thinking
EP

and perception of effectiveness of methodologies

CATEGORIES - CONCEPT OF CRITICAL THINKING
CC

AO RA QAO EV TPTD AC TOTAL

Oral and written

39 40 20 26 27 4 156
reflection and
(22.2%) (27.2%) (26.3%) (19.8%) (23.1%) (18.2%) (23.3%)
A

argumentation.

Reading,
analysis, and 35 25 13 55 19 5 152
synthesis of (19.9%) (17.0%) (17.1%) (42.0%) (16.2%) (22.7%) (22.7%)
resources

28 24 7 14 17 3 93
Case studies
(15.9%) (16.3%) (9.2%) (10.7%) (14.5%) (13.6%) (13.9%)

11
Connection with 13 7 5 5 6 4 40
the real world (7.4%) (4.8%) (6.6%) (3.8%) (5.1%) (18.2%) (6.0%)

Collaborative or
6 5 4 4 7 2 28
cooperative
(3.4%) (3.4%) (5.3%) (3.1%) (6.0%) (9.1%) (4.2%)
learning

Problem and
13 10 6 5 14 2 50
project based
(7.4%) (6.8%) (7.9%) (3.8%) (12.0%) (9.1%) (7.5%)
learning

Assessment,

T
1 1 2 3 2 0 9
follow-up, and
(0.6%) (0.6%) (2.6%) (2.3%) (1.7%) (0.0%) (1.3%)
feedback

IP
15 11 10 4 9 1 50
Questioning

R
(8.5%) (7.5%) (13.2%) (3.1%) (7.7%) (4.5%) (7.5%)

Evaluation,

SC
6 6 3 2 2 0 19
interpretation,
(3.4%) (4.1%) (3.9%) (1.5%) (1.7%) (0.0%) (2.8%)
and justification

Research
5
(2.8%)
4
(2.7%)
4
(5.3%)
U
5
(3.8%)
3
(2.6%)
0
(0.0%)
21
(3.1%)
N
Other
methodologies
A
12 12 2 7 9 1 43
(flipped
(6.8%) (8.2%) (2.6%) (5.3) (7.7%) (4.5%) (6.4%)
classroom, role-
M

playing, etc.)

3 2 0 1 2 0 8
Lectures
D

(1.7%) (1.4%) (0.0%) (0.8%) (1.7%) (0.0%) (1.2%)

176 147 76 131 117 22 669

TE

TOTAL
(100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Note. AO: Analyzing / Organizing; QAO: Questioning / Asking Oneself; EV: Evaluating; TPTD: Taking
position / Taking decisions; AC: Acting / Compromising
EP

The Chi-Square of this table (χ² = 70.903; p = .073) showed that there are not significant
differences between the concept of critical thinking and the perception of effectiveness of
CC

methodologies used in order to improve critical thinking. Nonetheless, the p value was close to the
significant region (.05), which can be interpreted that, despite the fact that there are not significant
differences, there are some tendencies that usually go together. For instance, teachers with a concept
of critical thinking as Analyzing/Organizing tend to consider most effective methodologies such as oral
A

and written reflection and argumentation; reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources (written,
graphics, audio-visuals, etc.); and case studies. The same occurs with teachers who understand
critical thinking as Reasoning/Argumenting. In fact, these are the methodologies considered most
effective regardless the concept of critical thinking one has. However, those who understand critical
thinking as Questioning/Asking oneself include also questioning as an effective teaching method.
Those who understand critical thinking as Taking a position/Taking decisions consider problem and
project based learning as one of the most effective methodologies, and those who understand critical
thinking as Acting/Compromising include the connection with the real world as an effective teaching

12
and learning methodology. This fact assumes the disparity of points of view of these methodologies
and the different consideration of them among the different categories.
In spite the fact that, as said before, oral and written reflection and argumentation, and reading,
analysis and synthesis of resources have been considered the most effective methodologies
regardless the concept of critical thinking, there were some other specific methodologies that have
been considered as effective, exclusively, depending on the concept of critical thinking the teachers
had. In this sense, teachers with a concept of Analyzing/Organizing, Reasoning/Argumenting and
Evaluating also tended to think as case studies as effective, as opposed to those who had as concept
that of Questioning/Asking oneself that considered questioning as one of the most effective
methodologies. Finally, those thought critical thinking as Taking a position/Taking decisions, tended to
think that case studies and problem and project based learning were one of the most effective
methodologies, and those who had a concept of critical thinking as Acting/Compromising tended to

T
consider that one of the most effective methodologies were those in connection with the real world

IP
and case studies.

R
6. Discussion and conclusions

SC
The methodologies that university teachers use most for the development of critical thinking may
be gathered in three groups: Firstly, the methodologies that are most commonly used to develop
critical thinking are related to oral and written communication as well as to reading and text analysis,
that is, oral and written reflection and argumentation, and reading, analysis and synthesis of

U
resources; secondly, methodologies which are considered active methodologies, as for example, case
studies, collaborative and cooperative learning, connection with the real world, and problem and
N
project based learning are used; and thirdly, other methodologies which are used to a lesser extent
are: assessment, follow-up, and feedback, questioning, evaluation, interpretation, and justification,
A
research, other methodologies (flipped classroom, role playing, and so on), and lectures. Of these
methodologies, the most effective, according to university teachers, are the ones that are mostly used
M

in the classroom: reading, analysis, and synthesis of information; oral and written communication; and
case studies, traditional activities in higher education. Methodologies of average effectiveness are
questioning, and problem and project based learning. On the other hand, the least effective, as
D

perceived by teachers, are lectures; assessment, follow-up, and feedback, which some authors
believe as important (Duron et al., 2016); evaluation, interpretation, and justification; research;
TE

collaborative or cooperative learning; connection with the real world and other methodologies, such as
flipped classroom or roleplaying.
Moreover, and after carrying out an inductive analysis, it is important to mention that the
methodologies that university teachers use to enhance critical thinking coincide to what the literature
EP

says (see Table 1). Studies, such as those of Makhane (2017), Olivares Olivares & Heredia Escorza
(2012) or Tsui (2002), show that oral and written argumentation are the best methodologies followed
by solving problems or a problem-based methodology. In addition, there seems to be more studies
CC

concerning methodologies about writing assignments or projects, oral activities, than methodologies
having to do with questioning.
Although teachers consider a variety of methodologies as effective regardless their concept of
critical thinking, the methodologies of oral and written reflection and argumentation; reading, analysis,
A

and synthesis of resources (written, graphics, audio-visuals, etc.); and case studies are considered
the most effective for teaching critical thinking. However, teachers with a view of critical thinking as
Questioning/Asking oneself also include questioning as an effective teaching method. Moreover,
those who understand critical thinking as Taking a position/Taking decisions consider problem and
project based learning as one of the most effective methodologies and those who understand critical
thinking as Acting/Compromising include the connection with the real world as an effective teaching
and learning methodology. These findings can help teachers to think about the methodologies they
are using in the classroom and design their subjects in a different way, using new methodologies.
There seems to be a tendency of using traditional methodologies, such as writing and oral

13
assignments, as they are easier for the teacher to incorporate them in their classes and they are
thought to be easier to evaluate.
If a developmental concept of critical thinking can include different stages: Analyzing/Organizing,
Reasoning/Argumenting, Questioning/Asking oneself, Evaluating, Taking a position/Taking decisions
and Acting/compromising (Bezanilla et al., 2018), it could be suggested that the use of a sequence of
methodologies from the moment a student starts university to his/her last years can move from
traditional methodologies such as those related to reading and argumentation to more active ones like
problem and project based learning or connection with the real world. The results of this study support
this proposal to some extent, although this could be affected by the field of study and other variables.
Additionally, although an analysis of methodologies for the development of critical thinking has
been presented, it is important to say that in many cases it is not only the use of a specific
methodology the responsible for the development of a particular competency but a well-planned

T
sequence of teaching and learning experiences and activities, from teacher and student, which will

IP
lead to meaningful learning.
Finally, one of the actions that must be undertaken is to foster and promote teacher training in the
importance, meaning, and implication of the competency of critical thinking as well as in the

R
methodologies that can enhance the development of this competency in the formation of university
students. This is an important issue since not all teachers may understand the methodologies they

SC
use and their application forms in the same way, becoming a research limitation. Moreover, more
research must be conducted in line with this study, or in complementary areas in order to verify,
compare, and contrast the role of the university in the development of critical thinking, which is a key

U
competency for the personal and professional growth of university students.
N
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the university teachers from Spain and Latin America who have taken
A
part in this research.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or
M

not-profit sectors.
D

References
TE

ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (2006). Educational Strategies
Associated with Development of Problem-Solving, Critical Thinking, and Self-Directed Learning.
Journal of Dental Education, 70(9), 925-936.
EP

Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D.I., Wade, C.A. & Persson, T. (2015).
Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 85(2), 275-314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
CC

Aguilera Serrano,Y., Zubizarreta Estévez, M., & Castillo Mayedo, J. A. (2005). Estrategia para
fomentar el pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de Licenciatura en Enfermería. Educación
Médica Superior, 19(4). Retrieved from
http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21412005000400005
A

Ahrari, A., Samah, B. A., Hassan, S. H. B., Wahat, N. W. A., & Zaremohzzabieh, Z. (2016).
Deepening critical thinking skills through civic engagement in Malaysian higher education.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.009
Altuve, G., J.G. (2010). El pensamiento crítico y su inserción en la educación superior. Actualidad
Contable FACES, 13(20), 5-18.
Arslan, R., Gulveren, H., & Aydin, E. (2014). A Research on Critical Thinking Tendencies and
Factors that Affect Critical Thinking of Higher Education Students. International Journal of
Business and Management, 9(5), 43-59

14
Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Limited learning on college campuses. Society, 48, 203-207,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-011-9417-8
Bahr, N. (2010). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking in Higher Education. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1-17,
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040209
Behar-Horenstein, L., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching Critical Thinking skills in higher education: A
review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), 25-41.
Bezanilla, M. J., Poblete, M., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Arranz, S. & Campo, L. (2018). El
pensamiento crítico desde la perspectiva de los docentes universitarios. Estudios Pedagógicos,
44(1), 89-113.
Couveia, E. L., Atencio, M., & Morillo, A. (2013). Estrategias de enseñanza para el logro del
pensamiento crítico en el aprendizaje de la Geografía. Encuentro Educacional, 20(3), 415-433.

T
Crenshaw, P., Hale, E., & Harper, S. (2011). Producing intellectual labor in the classroom: The

IP
utilization of a critical thinking model to help students take command of their thinking. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning, 8(7), 13-26.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning

R
environments in education – A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-
91. http://dx.doi.org./10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004

SC
Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160-166.
Dwyer, C.R., Hogan, M.J. & Steward, I. (2011). The promotion of critical thinking skills through

U
argument mapping. In C.P. Horvath, & J.M. Forte. Critical Thinking (pp. 97-122). New York:
Nova Science.
N
Dwyer, C.R., Hogan, M.J. & Steward, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of
enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments.
Dwyer, C.R., Hogan, M.J. & Steward, I. (2014).An integrated critical thinking framework for the
A
21st. century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43-52.
Ennis, R. (1991). Critical Thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-24.
M

Espíndola Castro, J. L. (1996). Métodos para fomentar el pensamiento crítico. Reingeniería

Educativa. México: ANUIES. Retrieved from https://www.uv.mx/dgdaie/files/2012/11/CPP-DC-
Espindola-Metodos-para-fomentar.pdf.
D

Facione, P. A. (2007). Pensamiento Crítico:¿Qué es y por qué es importante? Insight Assessment.

Retrieved from http://eduteka.icesi.edu.co/pdfdir/PensamientoCriticoFacione.pdf
TE

Facione, P. A. (2013). Critical Thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
Retrieved from https://www.nyack.edu/files/CT_What_Why_2013.pdf.
Fink, L.D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Retrieved
EP

from.
https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2014/03/www.deefinkandassociates.com_GuidetoCourseDesignA
ug05.pdf.
Franco, A. R., Costa, P. S., Butler, H. A., & Almeida, L. S. (2017). Assessment of undergraduates'
CC

real-world outcomes of critical thinking in everyday situations. Psychological Reports, 120(4),

707-720, https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117701906
Freeman Herreid, C. (2004). Can Case Studies Be Used to Teach Critical Thinking? Journal of
College Science Teaching, 3(6), 12-14.
A

Gasca Jiménez, L. (2017). El desarrollo del pensamiento crítico y de una conciencia social crítica:
metodología y prácticas pedagógicas de un curso de nivel intermedio B1 de ELE. Revista
internacional de lenguas extranjeras, 6, 9-30.
Grohs, J.R., Kirk, G.R, Soledad, M.M, & Knight, D.B. (2018). Assessing systems thinking: A tool to
measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28,
110-130. https://doi.org./10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.003
Hawes, G. (2003). Pensamiento crítico en la formación universitaria; Documento de trabajo
2003/6. Proyecto Mecesup TAL 0101. Retrieved from

15
 http://www.freewebs.com/gustavohawes/Educacion%20Superior/2003%20PensamientoCritico.
pdf.
Halpern, D.F. (1998).Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.
Halpern, D.F. (2014). Thought and knowledge. An introduction to Critical Thinking (5th ed). New
York: Psychology Press.
Huber, C., & Kuncel, N. (2016). Does college teach Critical Thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 86(2), 431-468, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917
Islas Torres, C., Carranza Alcántar, M. R., De la Torre Barba, S., Jiménez Padilla, A. A., &
Baltazar Díaz, E. G. (2010). Propuesta metodológica para promover el pensamiento crítico y
aprendizaje autónomo en modalidades mixtas. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria_Alcantar/publication/317587791.

T
Laiton Poveda, I. (2010). Formación de pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de primeros semestres

IP
de educación superior. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 53(3), 1-7.
Lin, M.,Preston, A., Kharruga, A. & Kong, Z. (2016). Making L2 learners’ reasoning skills visible:
The potential of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Thinking Skills and

R
Creativity 22, 303-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.004
Loes, Ch. & Pascarella, E. (2017). Collaborative Learning and Critical Thinking: Testing the Link.

SC
The Journal of Higher Education. 88(5), 726-753,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1291257
López Aymes, G. (2013). Pensamiento crítico en el aula. Docencia e Investigación, 22, 41-60.

U
Makhene, A. (2017). Argumentation: a methodology to facilitate critical thinking. International
journal of nursing education scholarship, 14(1), https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2016-0030
N
Marín-Calderón, N. (2014). Implementación de la estrategia didáctica del desarrollo del
pensamiento crítico-reflexivo en el análisis literario de Hamlet de Shakespeare. Educación,
38(2), 51-62.
A
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282.
Méndez Rendón, J. C, Espinal Patiño, C., Arbeláez Vera, D. C., Gómez Gómez, J. A., & Serna
M

Aristizábal, C. (2014). La lectura crítica en la educación superior: Un estado de la cuestión.

Revista Virtual Católica del Norte, 41, 4-18.
Moeti, B., Mgawi, R., & Mealosi, W. (2017). Critical Thinking among post-graduate diploma in
D

education students in Higher Education: Reality of fuss? Journal of Education and Learning,
6(2), 13-24, https://doi.org/ 10.5539/jel.v6n2p13.
TE

Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(4), 506-522, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995
NACE (2017). Job outlook 2018. Retrieved from http://careerservices.wayne.edu/pdfs/2018-nace-
EP

job-outlook-survey.pdf.
Norris, S.P. (1985). Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Educational Leadership. Retrieved
from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198505_norris.pdf.
Norris, S.P. (1988). Research needed for critical thinking. Canadian Journal of Education, 13(1).
CC

125-137.
Nuñez-López, S., Avila-Palet, J.E.,& Olivares-Olivares, S.L. (2017). El desarrollo del pensamiento
crítico en estudiantes universitarios por medio del Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas. Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 8(23), 84-103.
A

Olivares, S., Saiz, C., & Rivas, S.F. (2013). Motivar para pensar críticamente. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 367-394.
Olivares Olivares, S.L. & Heredia Escorza, Y. (2012). Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en
ambientes de aprendizaje basado en problemas en estudiantes de educación superior. Revista
Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 17(54), 759-778.
Ossa Cornejo, C., Lepe Martínez, N., Díaz Mujica, A., Merino Escobar, J., & Larraín Sutil, A.
(2018). Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado, 22(4), 443-462.
doi:10.30827/profesorado.v22i4.8432.

16
Pando, T. (2016). Pensamiento crítico en los alumnos de la Universidad Nacional de Trujillo -
2014. Ciencia y Desarrollo, 19(2), 75-91.
Piergiovanni, P. R. (2014). Creating a critical thinker. College Teaching, 62(3), 86-93,
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.896775
Rolón, N. I. (2014). Pensamiento crítico y docencia. Breves reflexiones de su aporte y riqueza.
Didac, 64, 18–23.
Saiz Sánchez, C. & Fernández Rivas, S. (2012). Pensamiento crítico y aprendizaje basado en
problemas cotidianos. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 10(3), 325-346.
Sharples, J.M., Oxman, A.D., Mahtani, K.R., Iain Chalmers, I., Oliver, S.,Collins, K, Austvoll-
Dahlgren, A., & Hoffmann, T. (2017). Critical thinking in healthcare and education. The BMJ.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2234
Smolarek, B. B. & Hora, M. T. (2016). Examining How Faculty Reflect on Instructional Data: A Call

T
for Critical Awareness and Institutional Support (WCER Working Paper No. 2016-4). Retrieved

IP
from https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2016_04.pdf.
Thompson, C. (2011). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Process over output. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 1-7.

R
Torres, I.C. (2004). Una Mirada pedagógica a la escritura de un ensayo argumentativo. Revista de
Estudios Sociales, 19, 97-105.

SC
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(6), 740-763.
The European Higher Education Area. (2012). Bologna Process Implementation Report.
Retrieved

U
http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2012_Bucharest/79/5/Bologna_Process_Implementati
from
N
on_Report_607795.pdf
Uzunöz, F. S. & Demirhan, G. (2017). The effect of creative drama on critical thinking in
preservice physical education teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 164-174.
A
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.018
Villarini, A. R. (2003). Teoría y pedagogía del pensamiento crítico. Perspectivas psicológicas, 3-
M

4(4), 35-42.
Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic
Training, 38(3), 263-367
D

Wilson, K. (2015). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for Academic
Purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256-265.
TE

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.002
Zelaieta Anta, E. & Camino Ortiz de Barrón, I. (2018). El desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en la
formación inicial del profesorado: Análisis de una estrategia pedagógica desde la visión del
alumnado. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 22(1), 197-214.
EP
CC
A

17