Journal of Science Education and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09999-4

The Conceptualization of Critical Thinking: Toward a Culturally

Inclusive Framework for Technology‑Enhanced Instruction in Higher
Education
Miri Barak1,2   · Carmella Shahab1

Accepted: 20 September 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Abstract
The proliferation of fake news and pseudoscience requires a proactive educational approach to the cultivation of critical
thinking (CT); yet, university lecturers and students alike appear to have insufficient guidance. Moreover, studies on CT
overlook globalization trends such as student mobility, where international students are a significant portion of the student
body. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine the way CT is conceptualized and experienced by instructors, local
students, and international students from China in a science and engineering university, and accordingly design a culturally
inclusive theoretical framework for CT cultivation in the digital era. The study applied an integrated dual-analytic approach,
where data was collected via a survey and semi-structured interviews. The findings show that many instructors and students
lack a comprehensive understanding of CT skills. The findings also show that the international students were more familiar
with CT in theory and practice than the local students, with “analysis” as one of the prominent skills experienced in aca-
demic courses. The study presents a technology-enhanced instructional framework that integrates individual learning with
collaborative and culturally inclusive assignments.

Keywords  Critical thinking · Higher education · International students · Technology-enhanced instruction

Introduction 2016). Among the various conceptualizations, one defini-

The prevalence of different forms of fake news and pseu-
doscience raises the need to refocus research on critical
thinking (CT) and its role in twenty-first century education
(OECD, 2018; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019). CT is rec-
ognized as a higher order cognitive function with a wide
range of applications across science disciplines (Barak et al.,
2007; Lamb et al., 2021). It is a key competency that dates
back to the Greek philosophers and has been readdressed
by educational researchers (e.g., Barak et al., 2007; Ennis,
2018; Gray, 1993; Paul & Elder, 2007). A review of the
literature shows numerous definitions of CT (e.g., Chen,
2017; Dwyer et al., 2015; Ennis, 2018; Wang & Zheng,
* Miri Barak
bmiriam@technion.ac.il
Carmella Shahab
hushahab@campus.technion.ac.il
1
Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion-
Israel Institute of Technology, 320003 Haifa, Israel
2
The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
tion stands out—that of the Delphi report that was developed
by a cross-disciplinary panel of 46 experts in the field of
CT, under the sponsorship of the American Philosophical
Organization (Facione, 1990, 2015). This report remains one
of the leading documents on critical thinking which serves
as the basis for the work of researchers until this day (Barak
et al., 2007; Carbogim et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2017).
According to the report, CT encompasses core skills, such
as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and self-
regulation (Facione, 1990, 2015). Interpretation refers to the
ability to comprehend and express the meaning or signifi-
cance of a wide variety of information. Analysis refers to the
ability to identify the relationships among concepts or other
forms of representation. Evaluation refers to the ability to
assess the credibility of statements and the logical strength
of the inferential relationships. Inference refers to the ability
to form hypotheses and identify the information needed to
draw reasonable conclusions. Self-regulation refers to the
ability to monitor one’s cognitive activities and the results
obtained, with a view toward validating or correcting one’s
reasoning or results.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Critical thinking is viewed as a required lifelong compe-
tency that enables people to take an active role in a democratic
society (Barak et al., 2007; Kuhn, 2019; Paul & Elder, 2007;
Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). In the last decade, policy docu-
ments have recommended the promotion of CT skills (e.g.,
OECD, 2018; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012; Vincent-Lancrin
et al., 2019); yet, a sustainable educational change has not
been observed (Lombardi, et al., 2021; Manalo, 2020). In the
context of higher education, the promotion of CT is a key
goal; but, lecturers and students alike appear to have insuffi-
cient guidance (Petek, 2018; Tosuncuoglu, 2018). This can be
due to a lack of a unified educational framework and/or ade-
quate training programs (Petek, 2018; Tosuncuoglu, 2018).
Studies on the effectiveness of instructional approaches offer
inconclusive results regarding the promotion of CT. In some
cases, the literature advocates the infusion approach, in which
students’ thinking skills are reinforced and retained through a
process of self-awareness and improvement (Wang & Zheng,
2016). In other cases, the immersion approach is supported,
as CT is seen as an implicit goal and students acquire skills
as a natural outcome of the learning process (Gray, 1993).
Hence, without a clear framework, instructors and students
alike might experience difficulties in transferring CT skills to
other subjects of study and to daily life (Dwyer et al., 2015;
Guo, 2013; Lombardi, et al., 2021).
Research on Critical Thinking
Developing CT skills is an important goal in every field of
knowledge, particularly in the fields of science and engi-
neering. University graduates in these fields work in global
and competitive environments, process new information on a
regular basis, and use CT to solve complex problems (Ahern
et al., 2019; Avsec & Savec, 2019; Forawi, 2016; Osman
et al., 2016). Hence, there is a growing body of research on
CT in science and engineering, from studies that examined
the way it is applied in engineering learning and students’
daily lives (Douglas, 2012; Osman et al., 2016) to studies that
investigated the utilization of CT in practice (Ahern et al.,
2019; Forawi, 2016). One of the early studies was conducted
by Douglas (2012) who identified five engineering practices
that involve the application of CT: identifying a problem,
organizing information, using prior knowledge, expressing
an opinion, and making decisions. Osman et al. (2016) found
elements of CT and mathematical thinking that are used in
real-world engineering practice. A related study identified
CT as an important competency for establishing relation-
ships between evidence and explanations, as well as design-
ing and conducting scientific experiments (Forawi, 2016). A
more recent study found that engineering courses can foster
CT skills when applying real-world problem-solving strate-
gies (Ahern et al., 2019).
13
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Despite their importance, the abovementioned studies
overlook current globalization trends in higher education.
Such trends include the transition to online learning and
international student mobility. With reference to online
learning, the reexamination of CT is highly important, as the
current pandemic instigated not only a plethora of misinfor-
mation but also a shift to emergency remote education. This
necessitates a better understanding of both the teaching and
learning processes in the online environment (Barak et al.,
2016; Barak & Green, 2021). The shift to online learning
requires a clear definition of what constitutes CT in an era of
digital teaching and learning. Experts are still debating upon
CT conceptualization and the creation of a unified definition
(Dwyer et al., 2015; Lombardi, et al., 2021). This underlines
the importance of conducting an ongoing examination on CT
in online environments.
Critical Thinking from a Sociocultural Perspective
The development of critical thinking skills is valued not only
in Western countries, but also in developing countries, such
as China, which is in the process of economic growth. In the
past decade, the Chinese government encouraged student
mobility as one of the means of advancing knowledge and
skills. Visiting students from China are a significant portion
of the international student body. In 2019 alone, the number
of Chinese students who traveled abroad to study in foreign
universities exceeded 700,000 (New Oriental Education &
Technology Group, 2019). This drew attention to cultural
differences in learning habits of international and local stu-
dents (Barak & Yuan, 2021; Chen, 2017). With regard to
CT, Chinese political and educational stakeholders view
it as a core competency needed by university graduates in
the contemporary era of globalization. Already in 2001, the
ministry of education in China claimed that one objective of
its curriculum reform was to encourage the development of
students’ CT skills (Chen, 2017; Yang, 2016). However, the
differences between Chinese and Western education raise
significant concerns (Chen, 2017; Yang, 2016). Chinese
students have unique and varied conceptualizations of CT
based on cultural contexts which differ from Western culture
(Chen, 2017; Heng, 2018; Tan, 2017). For example, Chinese
students are reluctant to speak up and challenge instructors
or ask many questions, but rather reflect and ponder prob-
lems quietly (Chen, 2017; Heng, 2018). Chinese students
prefer a communal approach to CT which preserves social
harmony and the dignity of all participants, claiming that the
Western approach is more confrontational and individualis-
tic (Heng, 2018; Tan, 2017). Scholars claim that the defini-
tions and criteria used to measure CT are culturally biased
against Asian students since it is the Western philosophy
that dictates the conceptualization of CT (Chen, 2017; Guo,
Journal of Science Education and Technology

2013; Tan, 2017). Following this theoretical gap, the current inclusive theoretical framework for CT cultivation in the
study is purposely situated in an Israeli university and in its digital era. This goal raised the following research questions:
extension in China, as a case study for examining CT from
a sociocultural perspective. 1. How is critical thinking perceived and experienced by
The sociocultural perspective maintains that learning academic instructors, international students, and local
is a social process, rooted in a cultural-historical context students?
(Lemke, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Thus, 2. What critical thinking skills can be associated with
knowledge and skills are a product of learning activities technology-enhanced learning?
situated in the culture, context, and environment, in which
they are developed and used (Lemke, 2001; Wertsch, 1991).
Rooted in the work of Vygotsky (1978) and extended by Methodology
others (e.g., Chen, 2017; Marginson & Dang, 2017; Wass
& Golding, 2014; Wertsch, 1991), this approach is based on Participants
three main suppositions: learning is conducted in a cultural
context; learners can be advanced within their Zone of Prox- The study took place at a research university in Israel
imal Development (ZPD) when provided with appropriate which offers degrees in science and engineering. The
scaffolding; and learning occurs while using mediator aids. study participants were ten higher education instructors,
Thinking is perceived as the product of the culture where it ten local students, and ten Chinese international students.
is developed. It often reflects what a culture has transmitted The students were between the ages of 19 and 29, eight
to its members, including how we learn, what we believe, females and twelve males. The study purposely targeted
and what we value (Barak & Green, 2021; Guo, 2013; Lemke, participants from science and engineering disciplines, since
2001). In our global and technological world, learners have CT is considered an essential competency for learning and
virtual and physical mobility and come to sustain multiple working in these fields (Ahern et al., 2019; Avsec & Savec,
and hybrid identities (Heng, 2018; Marginson & Dang, 2019; Osman et al., 2016). The Israeli and Chinese students
2017). Online technologies enable cross-border interactions were recruited through online listservs and message boards,
and collaboration as well as the sharing of limitless data to provide a random sampling of both Western and Eastern
(Barak & Dori, 2011; Barak & Yuan 2021). These dynamic viewpoints on CT. The university instructors were recruited
changes raise the need to examine higher education from a through personal contacts to sample a variety of academic
sociocultural standpoint, with a focus on the various manifes- degrees and teaching experiences (Table 1).
tations of CT (Guo, 2013; Tan, 2017; Wass & Golding, 2014). To ensure ethical conduct, the participants signed an
Overall, studies on CT in higher education show a gap in informed consent form that described the research, explain-
the literature related to following three main points. Firstly, ing that participation is voluntary and that they can withdraw
past studies were conducted in the settings of a classroom, at any time with no negative implications. Their answers were
overlooking the contemporary shift to online learning envi- analyzed in the aggregate and their names and personal details
ronments (e.g., Ahern et al., 2019; Tan, 2017; Tosuncuoglu, were removed; research records were kept in a protected
2018). Secondly, reported interventions in higher education locked file and the study received the approval of the IRB.
lack reference to international mobility and cultural differ-
ences among students (e.g., Ahern et al., 2019; Avsec &
Savec, 2019). Thirdly, studies present CT skills in a list-like Table 1  Instructors’ demographics, academic degree, and teaching expe-
manner (Facione, 2015; Kuhn, 2019), requiring the design of rience
an updated model that better represents inter-relationships and Pseudonym Gender Academic degree Teaching experience
CT complexity. The current study was designed to address
1 Miley Female Master’s 26 years
these gaps by adding to the conceptualization and application
Ariella Female Master’s 14 years
of CT in technology-enhanced learning environments, from a
3 Tanya Female Doctorate 36 years
sociocultural perspective.
4 Talia Female Doctorate 22 years
5 Herman Male Master’s 30 years
Goal and Questions
6 Sharon Female Master’s 38 years
7 Abigail Female Doctorate 13 years
The goal of this study was to examine the way critical think-
8 Lisa Female Master’s 13 years
ing (CT) is conceptualized and experienced by instructors,
9 Izak Male Master’s 30 years
local students, and international students in a science and
10 Ross Male Doctorate 10 years
engineering university, and accordingly design a culturally

13

Methods and Tools
In order to address the research goal, the study applied a
dual-analytic approach (Bazeley, 2012), in which the data
set was analyzed form both qualitative and quantitative
perspectives, each making a supplementary contribution.
The study applied the case study approach with designated
participants, which is applied in social science research for
generating in-depth understanding of real-life events (Yin,
2014). Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data
were collected via semi-structured interviews and a survey
through a series of personal meetings, administered during
the last few weeks of the semester, to allow the participants
to accumulate academic experiences. The meetings were
carried out face-to-face in a private setting and varied in
length up to 50 min. Notes were taken and the participants’
comments were audio-recorded and later transcribed in
detail.
The first part of each meeting included semi-structured
interviews that involved open questions pertaining to
whether participants are familiar with critical thinking and
are able to provide a definition as well as examples of the
concept and descriptions of experiences with the fostering
of critical thinking in previous science and engineering
courses. The driving questions were as follows: What do
you think critical thinking means? Can you give an example
of critical thinking? What learning activities may promote
critical thinking?
Both the local and international students were prompted
to describe occurrences of learning activities that encompass
critical thinking that they have experienced. The instruc-
tors were prompted to describe instances in which students
are engaged in critical thinking in their lessons. In addition,
instructors were questioned on their experiences of promot-
ing critical thinking to both local and international students
from a cultural perspective. The interviews were based on
participants’ self-report, providing details about their own
thoughts and experiences related to CT. Self-report has been
a primary assessment method in psychology and education
for many years and studies continue to demonstrate that it
is useful in measuring facets of students’ learning (Pekrun,
2020).
The second part of the personal meetings included a sur-
vey (Table 3 in the Appendix) based on the Delphi report
(Facione, 2015), which includes five core CT skills: inter-
pretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and self-regulation.
Each skill included a list of related learning assignments and
the participants were asked to indicate whether they experi-
enced them in previous university courses. These skills were
chosen for this study since they have been validated and veri-
fied by studies over the years (e.g., Carbogim et al., 2018;
Snyder & Wiles, 2015). For each skill, the participants were
presented with learning assignments and they were asked to
13
Journal of Science Education and Technology
state whether they found these examples as related to critical
thinking and could provide examples of learning activities
from their courses.
Content analysis was conducted via a combination of
inductive and deductive analysis methods (Willig, 2013)
according to the following steps: (1) The answers of the
instructors, local students, and international students to
the interviews and survey were compiled into one coher-
ent and unified file according to the research questions; (2)
Two expert researchers (the authors) read the participants’
answers rigorously; (3) First separately and then together,
the researchers marked relevant text segments that indicate
CT components; (4) The researchers assigned the marked
text segments with categories based on the CT skills pre-
sented in the Delphi report (Facione, 1990, 2015); (5)
The independent coding reached about 90% agreement,
after which the researchers discussed the text excerpts in
dispute, resolved gaps, and reached full agreement; (6) A
third expert, with a PhD degree, validated the data analy-
sis and interpretation process after she was presented with
a representative sample of the text excerpts, reaching full
agreement (Cohen’s kappa = 1.00); (7) The categories were
assigned with numerical values; (8) Frequencies and mean
percentages were calculated for each category (i.e., CT
skill), for each research group separately. That is, the num-
ber of participants who incorporated or experienced each
CT-related learning assignment was summed and averages
were calculated per research group.
In order to ensure research trustworthiness, the study
included three types of triangulation: methodological,
data, and investigator (Denzin, 2006). Methodological tri-
angulation entailed the use of the dual-analytic approach
(Bazeley, 2012), in which the data set was analyzed form
both qualitative and quantitative perspectives, to decrease
the shortcomings and biases that come from using a single
method. Data triangulation was applied by collecting data
from both a survey and a series of interviews from different
stakeholders, such as academic instructors, local students,
and international students. Investigator triangulation was
applied by involving three researchers, with PhD and MSc
degrees, who reached full agreement, as described in the
previous paragraph.
Results
The Way Critical Thinking Is Perceived by Academic
Instructors and Students
Data analysis of participants’ responses indicated that only a
third of the Israeli students asserted familiarity with the con-
cept of critical thinking, whereas all the instructors and most
of the Chinese students (90%) stated that they are familiar
Journal of Science Education and Technology
with CT and its practice in higher education courses. How-
ever, even those who stated that they are familiar with the
concept were only able to provide a partial description. For
example, Ms. Miley (all names are pseudonyms), an instruc-
tor with 26 years of teaching experience, stated that critical
thinking is a higher order thinking skill that involves “…
trying to encourage students to think instead of just site or
give patterned answers. It is more than just a technique.
Once you understand a strategy for answering, you would
have to employ an additional mode of thinking to get to
the answer.” This perception of CT focuses on thinking and
solving problems, in general terms, but it does not refer to
the idea of self-regulatory judgment or specific CT skills
such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, or inference.
Fang, an international student in electrical engineering,
stated: “I think it is thinking about something from two
directions… it also relates to providing a correct answer to
a given problem.” Similarly, Fen, an international student
in chemical engineering, stated: “I believe it is to say some-
thing from the opposite side. It is to disagree with some-
thing.” Both students provided a narrow binary perception
of CT, ignoring the complexity of thinking in a critical man-
ner. They depicted CT as a problem-solving situation or as
a disagreement between people, with an erroneous notion
that there is one correct answer. Another example was indi-
cated by Matan, an Israeli student studying computer sci-
ence, who stated: “It sounds like in critical situations you
act fast and think fast. It occurs in different situations when
you are under pressure like when you have a few minutes to
complete an exam.” Here, the student mistakenly confused
critical thinking with fast and impulsive decision-making,
which is contrary to the definition of CT.
The Way Critical Thinking Skills Are Experienced
in Academic Courses
Based on the Delphi report (Facione, 1990, 2015), the quan-
titative analysis of participants’ responses focused on five
Fig. 1  Percentage of partici-
pants who have incorporated or
experienced each CT skill
critical thinking skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation,
inference, and self-regulation. Figure 1 portrays the percent-
age of instructors, international students from China, and
local Israeli students who have incorporated or experienced
each CT skill in the classroom or homework assignments.
Figure 1 shows that both the instructors (78%) and interna-
tional students (90%) found analysis to be the most prominent
critical thinking skill in their courses, while only half of the
local students (52%) indicated this. The data also shows that
self-regulation is the CT skill least apparent among the instruc-
tors (48%) and local students (40%). While analysis assign-
ments engage students in identifying main claims and providing
reasons to support or criticize them, self-regulation assignments
engage students in monitoring and evaluating their inferential
judgments and self-correction. According to the participants,
academic courses tend to involve students in critical thinking
mainly through analysis processes, and less by means of self-
regulation activities. Overall, it is apparent that the Chinese
students claim to have had more experience with all of the CT
skills. It must be noted that the experiences the Chinese students
depicted transpired both in Israel and in their homeland.
Table 2 depicts the frequencies of instructors, interna-
tional students, and local students who have incorporated
or experienced each CT subskill. For example, with regard
to the subskill of “interpretation,” among the group of aca-
demic instructors, 7 denoted “Understanding a problem
without bias,” 7 denoted “Distinguishing between the main
& subordinate ideas,” 6 denoted “Categorizing or organizing
information,” 7 denoted “Paraphrasing ideas,” and 7 denoted
“Identifying an author’s purpose or opinion.” Calculating the
average of 7, 7, 6, 7, and 7 indicated 6.8 for the subskill of
“interpretation” for academic instructors.
Critical Thinking Skills and Technology‑Enhanced
Learning
The conceptualization of critical thinking indicated
two core skills that seem to be strongly associated with
13
 Journal of Science Education and Technology

Table 2  Frequencies of participants who have incorporated/experienced each CT subskill

CT skill Subskill Number
Instructors Int’l students Local
students

Interpretation Understanding a problem without bias 7 5 5

Distinguishing between the main and subordinate ideas 7 8 9
Categorizing or organizing information 6 8 6
Paraphrasing ideas 7 7 3
Identifying an author’s purpose or opinion 7 7 9
Analysis Comparing similarities and differences 9 10 5
Identifying the main claim of a claim 7 8 7
Identifying reasons to support a claim 8 9 4
Identifying pros and cons 7 9 4
Analyzing the relationships of ideas to one another 8 9 6
Evaluation Judging the credibility of a source of information 3 8 5
Judging if a claim is true or false 7 8 8
Comparing strengths and weaknesses 6 8 4
Judging if evidence supports a conclusion 6 8 5
Judging if an argument is relevant or applicable 7 8 3
Inference Recognizing implications 3 5 2
Creating deeper meaning 4 7 6
Predicting 5 10 6
Synthesizing ideas 7 8 4
Drawing conclusions 7 10 9
Self-regulation Considering the influence of personal biases and self-interest 3 4 2
Separating personal opinions from that of an author 4 8 1
Monitoring comprehension 6 7 5
Reconsidering interpretations 5 10 6
Revising conclusions 6 10 6

technology-enhanced learning: analysis and evaluation.
The skill “analysis” was conceptualized through explor-
ing multiple perspectives and examining pros and cons,
whereas the skill “evaluation” was conceptualized through
judging arguments and determining truth. Examples of
participants’ assertions for each skill are presented below.
First, “exploring multiple perspectives” (under the analy-
sis skill) refers to using technology to engage students in
exploring multiple ideas and perspectives, i.e., analyz-
ing views or scientific methods from different angles. For
example, Dr. Abigail, an instructor with 13 years of teach-
ing experience, asserted: “In my course, I have an online
forum where I show interesting scientific cases and ask
questions that require critical thinking, beyond what is
written in the text. It is not about remembering the mate-
rial, but involves case analysis and looking at things from
different perspectives.”
The second sub-category is “examining pros and cons”
(under the analysis skill), which refers to using technology
as a platform to support or criticize a claim as an element
of critical thinking. For instance, Ms. Sharon, an instructor
with 38 years of academic teaching, stated that CT involves
the ability “to analyze facts or information, examine pros
and cons, and reach a conclusion.” Ping, a Chinese student
in computer science, stated that “Social media platforms can
be used to facilitate a discussion on the pros and cons of a
specific scientific topic. In debates, one group can provide
supporting evidence to a claim while the other group plays
the role of the antagonist.”
The third sub-category is “judging arguments” (under the
evaluation skill), which refers to using technology to evalu-
ate contentions and judge the strength of arguments. For
instance, Dr. Abigail stated that “critical thinking is looking
at something from different perspectives… I tell my students
that it is okay to be critical but not judge arguments.” Gang,
an international student studying chemistry, stated: “There
are videos on pseudoscience and controversial cases that can
be used to prompt judgmental arguments …also, we can use
annotation applications when we read an article, to think
critically about the drawbacks of the study.”
The fourth sub-category is “determining truth” (under
the evaluation skill), which refers to using technology to

13
Journal of Science Education and Technology
determine if a claim or an idea is believable and likely to be
true or false. For instance, Dr. Tanya, an academic instruc-
tor with 36 years of experience, stated: “…it is trying to
determine whether an idea is logically correct, whether it is
evidence-based or pseudo-science. On the Internet we have
all kinds of information and to think critically is to evalu-
ate information and see whether it is true, based on facts
and cross-referencing.” Yosi, an Israeli student studying
computer science, contended: “It is about posing questions
and not taking things for granted. For example, lectures can
post different solutions to a computer code that intention-
ally include a mistake to prompt students’ critical thinking.”
The participants pointed out that critical thinking skills
can be organized in a hierarchal taxonomy. For example,
Ariella stated: “I would classify critical thinking skills
into types – more advanced ones that require higher order
thinking and more basic types of thinking.” Accordingly,
the emerging categories, presented above, were portrayed
in a pyramid model (Fig. 2), which was used to develop
an instructional framework for promoting critical thinking
through the use of technology.
Overall, the differences in which critical thinking is per-
ceived and experienced in academic courses and the impor-
tance of engaging students in technology-enhanced activities
constituted the motives for the development of a generic and
inclusive instructional framework, as described below.
Suggested Instructional Framework
for Promoting Critical Thinking
Based on the results presented above and theoretical con-
ceptions of critical thinking (Facione, 1990, 2015), a new
instructional framework was suggested to be carried out in
conjunction with traditional course materials. The frame-
work involves nine main activities that incorporate technol-
ogy and intertwine individual and collaborative activities to
promote critical thinking. The activities are not necessar-
ily consecutive and can be applied in a different order (i.e.,
“choose and mix”), according to the academic course goals
and contents. They involve individual work that develops
into a social and culturally responsive assignment, through
Fig. 2  Conceptions of critical
thinking skills, limited to analy-
sis and evaluation
teamwork and group discussions, as detailed in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
First Activity—Learning About Critical Thinking
via a Kahoot Game
Students express their perceptions about critical thinking
based on their cultural background and experience. Then,
they are presented with the significance of CT, including the
skills involved in thinking critically. Subsequently, students
socially engage in an online game (Kahoot) to reinforce
social interactions and the content of the lecture. The game
entails questions with different scenarios to strengthen the
understanding of critical thinking (interpretation, analysis,
inference). For example, students are provided with several
instances and must decide which is not an instance of apply-
ing critical thinking: “taking the future into account when
making decisions,” “adopting a negative attitude to new
information,” “arguing with your friends over a difference
of opinion,” or “reviewing different articles for alternative
information on a subject.” Other questions call on students to
look at instances and decipher which specific critical think-
ing skill is demonstrated.
Second Activity—Reading Scientific Articles Using
Annotation Tools
Students discuss the topic of an article and pose questions
related to what they expect and hope to learn (truth-seeking).
While reading, students partake in discussion groups pertain-
ing to the topic of the article, main claims, and the author’s
opinion (interpretation, self-regulation). When appropri-
ate, participants organize information from the article into
electronic graphical organizers (systematic, interpretation).
For instance, in a computer science course, students trace
the historical development of the computer in a chart which
is organized according to the various devices and includes
information regarding the inventor, the technical advance
involved, and the device’s practical application. Likewise,
they identify similarities and differences between items like
types of computer viruses and display the descriptions in
comparative tables or Venn diagrams (analysis).
13

Third Activity—Writing Tasks Through Online
Forums
Students individually write about various scientific topics
through online discussion forums. Some of the assignments
involve summarizing the main points brought up in the read-
ing material or comparing ideas and claims (interpretation,
analysis). In other cases, students share their opinions on
various scientific topics, support their views, respond to
their classmates’ comments, and reconsider their initial
views (interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, self-
regulation, open-minded, judicious, analytical). For exam-
ple, after reading an article about an engineering process,
students share their knowledge about its contribution to the
field. They may relate to mathematics and the physical sci-
ences and/or to the technological developments. In another
instance, students learn the engineering behind the robotics
industry, as well as voice their opinions about issues related
to them replacing people in the job market. Students are
encouraged to support their claims with relevant scientific
evidence.
Fourth Activity—Active Listening Exercise to Video
Lectures
Students watch videos related to the course contents given
by prominent science and engineering researchers. They also
watch lectures about pseudoscience and misleading informa-
tion on an educational website called Ted-Ed. This combines
questions on the content of the videos as well as open ques-
tions for a class discussion on the difference between human
error and organized campaigns of deception, why false infor-
mation is spread, the problems that false information creates,
and the consequences (interpretation, analysis, evaluation,
inference, truth-seeking, analytical, judicious).
Fifth Activity—Written Debate via Kialo Edu Tool
Students participate in a discussion pertaining to a debated
science or engineering topic that has been opened exclusively
for the class on a website by the name of Kialo Edu. This
is a forum discussion site, specifically designed for holding
debates, in which students read a short passage pertaining
to an issue and then share their opinions. Moreover, stu-
dents comment on one another’s responses and evaluate the
strength of their peers’ claims by choosing one of the options
provided by the site such as clicking an icon for claims that
they like or others that they find “unsupported,” “unrelated,”
“not a claim,” or “unclear” (interpretation, analysis, infer-
ence, evaluation, truth-seeking, self-regulation). Students
then view their peers’ comments regarding what they initially
wrote and reflect on whether they should reconsider their
initial claims (self-regulation).
13
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Sixth Activity—Debate Group Presentation
Students working collaboratively in small groups search
and retrieve information about the pros and cons of a sci-
ence and engineering topic of their choice via online search
engines. Subsequently, the groups organize the material they
have collected into sections: an overview of the topic and
its significance, the pros, the cons, and the group members’
personal opinions on the subject (interpretation, analysis,
inference, evaluation, truth-seeking, open-minded, and ana-
lytical). The groups present in front of the class their find-
ings through digital presentations with PowerPoint slides.
Seventh Activity—Literature Review Presentations
To begin with, students individually search and retrieve
information about a scientific or engineering topic of their
choice through online search engines and organize this mate-
rial for an ensuing presentation (interpretation, analysis,
inference, evaluation, truth-seeking, open-minded, analyti-
cal). Afterwards, students present the reviewed topic to the
class through digital presentations with PowerPoint slides.
Subsequently, students write short essays which embrace
the rationale for choosing the topic, a brief summary of the
topic, and reflections of their personal experience develop-
ing the presentations and presenting to the class (interpreta-
tion, analysis, inference, evaluation, self-regulation).
Eighth Activity—Peer Evaluations
After completing a collaborative assignment, students evalu-
ate the contribution of their partners to the team effort and
complete an online form regarding whether their partners
were prepared, clear, and helpful. Likewise, while listening
to classmates’ presentations, students take notes and subse-
quently write in a blog comments for each presentation in
which they provide compliments as well as recommenda-
tions, cite facts they learned, and pose relevant questions.
This blog is available for all classmates to view and com-
ment on (interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation,
truth-seeking).
Ninth Activity—Self‑evaluation Forms
Throughout the semester, students individually monitor their
performance in the course by answering questions which
are presented through online forms. This includes students
examining the facts and views they shared in the online
debate writing task, the forum writing assignments, and the
oral presentation mini-projects (analysis, evaluation, self-
regulation, truth-seeking, open-minded, judicious). Students
reflect on their performance by answering questions such as
whether they made good use of available sources, developed
Journal of Science Education and Technology
strong claims, supported the claims with adequate evidence,
or should reconsider their positions. In addition, students
participate in online polls reflecting on how well they com-
prehend the course material, whether they ask questions
when they need assistance or request further explanations
regarding certain topics, and in which areas they would like
to further develop (analysis, evaluation, self-regulation).
Figure  3 presents the five critical thinking skills and
examples of related learning activities that can be incorpo-
rated in science and engineering courses.
Discussion
The current study is significant in providing insights into
the conceptualization of critical thinking (CT) and its prac-
tice in contemporary higher education, particularly at times
of pseudoscience and fake news. The study highlights four
important outcomes: First, academic instructors and students
lack a comprehensive understanding of CT skills and prac-
tices; second, international students from China indicated
more familiarity with and experience in learning activities
that incorporate CT than the local Israeli students; third,
“analysis”—the ability to identify relationships among
concepts, explore multiple perspectives, and examine pros
and cons—is one of the prominent CT skills experienced in
academic courses; fourth, critical thinking can be facilitated
through a technology-enhanced instructional framework
which incorporates collaborative and culturally inclusive
assignments into science and engineering courses.
While previous studies present CT skills in a list-like
manner, with equal significance (e.g., Facione, 2015; Kuhn,
2019), this study presents the varied complexity of the CT
skills and a framework that involves nine technology-based
activities to foster those skills. In this study, we suggest a
Fig. 3  Critical thinking skills and examples of learning activities
non-linear approach in which the CT activities can be applied
in varying order, adapted to the goals and contents of the
science and engineering courses. Science education research-
ers describe critical thinking as encompassing higher order
thinking through complex scientific processes and reason-
ing (Lamb et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022). Although CT is
regarded as an important higher order cognitive function
(Barak et al., 2007; Lamb et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022), little
attention has been placed on the skills that constitute CT and
their application in higher education. Addressing this gap, the
current study features a nuanced conceptualization of CT and
its progression from basic skills to those that demand higher
order thinking, a process which complies with contemporary
science education (Barak & Dori, 2009; Lamb et al., 2021;
Sun et al., 2022).
Furthermore, since science and engineering education
is experiencing a transition to online learning, the current
study bestows a better understanding of CT application
through the use of digital technologies. This is significant
since the transition of best practices from the classroom to
the online environment requires the generation of adaptive
instructional frameworks (Barak, 2017). Online technologies
allow flexibility in time and place of learning, as well as
facilitating collaboration among students around the world
(Barak & Dori, 2011; Barak & Yuan, 2021). The use of
online tools provides learning continuity when students
cannot be physically present on university campuses; how-
ever, it is necessary to introduce technology that supports
the goals of science and engineering education (Barak &
Green, 2021; Lamb et al., 2021; Manalo, 2020). In referring
to this need, we designed an instructional framework for CT
cultivation that includes detailed activities and the use of a
variety of digital tools for individual and collaborative learn-
ing. This framework was generated to address the challenges
that instructors and students feel when teaching or learning
in online courses (Barak et al., 2016; Lamb et al., 2021).
The study is significant in addressing recent trends in
higher education with relation to the internationalization of
universities. This is an important contribution to the litera-
ture because of the limited information that is available on
the cultivation of CT from a cultural perspective. In this
study, we focused on international students from China as
they are a significant portion of the international student
body (New Oriental Education & Technology Group, 2019).
Focusing on CT, educational stakeholders from China view
it as an important competency that should be cultivated and
applied in curriculum reforms (Chen, 2017; Yang, 2016).
Nonetheless, studies should take into consideration dif-
ferences between local and international students in their
learning experiences and habits (Barak & Yuan, 2021; Chen,
2017). Accordingly, this study investigated CT perceptions
and experiences of both Chinese and Israeli students, iden-
tifying a varied conceptualization of critical thinking.
13
 Journal of Science Education and Technology

Conclusions of ideas and viewpoints. The activities are designed to pro-

The study provides insights regarding the factors through
which university instructors, Israeli students, and interna-
tional students perceive and experience critical thinking
through the use of digital technology. As higher education
is adapting to global changes, the current study provides a
theoretical contribution to the role of critical thinking, inte-
gral to the examination of scientific ideas in a world that
faces misinformation from unreliable sources. Adhering to
previous work on critical thinking (Facione, 1990, 2015),
this study presents examples of learning activities that can
be incorporated in lesson plans. The culturally inclusive
activities utilize online technology, allowing free expression
vide a safe place for students to express ideas and critical
thoughts along with mutual respect, support, and tolerance.
The instructional framework provides an adaptive model
with explicit and implicit CT activities that include digi-
tal technology and social interaction while focusing on the
five CT skills that can be integrated in academic courses for
science education, for policy makers, and for instructional
designers. In future studies, we plan to further examine the
application of the CT framework in diverse science and engi-
neering courses.
Appendix Survey

Table 3  The following table includes a list of learning assignments The second column indicates whether you have experienced or incor-
that students perform in class or for homework. The first column indi- porated the learning assignment in your classes and provides examples
cates whether each assignment may encourage and be related to CT.

Learning assignments CT-related Experience in

classes

1. Interpretation
Comprehending a problem without bias
Distinguishing a main idea from less important ideas in a text
Creating a way of organizing something you are studying—for example, into categories
Restating someone’s ideas in your own words
Identifying an author’s purpose, topic or opinion
2. Analysis
Identifying the similarities and differences between two approaches to a solution
Identifying the main claim of an argument
Identifying the reasons an author provides for a claim
Providing reasons to support or criticize a claim or conclusion
Analyzing the relationship of sentences or paragraphs to each other and to the main purpose of a text
3. Evaluation
Determining the credibility/reliability of a source of information
Determining if a claim is true or false
Comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different interpretations
Judging if evidence supports a conclusion
Judging if an argument is relevant or applicable
4. Inference
Recognizing the implications of the position someone is supporting
Constructing meaning from text
Predicting what will happen next based on what is known
Combining related ideas into a clear perspective
Drawing reasonable conclusions
5. Self-regulation
Examining your views on an issue with sensitivity to the possible influences of your personal biases or
self-interest
Reminding yourself to separate your personal opinions from those of the author of a text
Monitoring how well you seem to comprehend what you are listening to or reading
Reconsidering your interpretation or judgment because of further analysis of the facts of the case
Revising your conclusions because you did not notice or misjudged certain factors

13
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Acknowledgements  The authors gratefully acknowledge the Ludwig
& Augusta Menasche Memorial Scholarship for the generous support.
The authors would also like to thank the university instructors and
students for their collaboration in the study.
Funding  Financial support was received from the Ludwig & Augusta
Menasche Memorial Scholarship.
Declarations  Skills and Creativity, 24, 140–151.
Ethics Approval  The authors confirm that the study was conducted
according to the university’s ethical guidelines, approved by the insti-
tutional review board (IRB) and the Office of the Chief Scientist at the
Ministry of Education. The study was performed in accordance with
the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent to Participate  The authors affirm that informed consent was
obtained from legal guardians.
Conflict of Interest  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Ahern, A., Dominguez, C., McNally, C., O’Sullivan, J. J., & Pedrosa,
D. (2019). A literature of critical thinking in engineering educa-
tion. Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), 816–828.
Avsec, S., & Savec, V. F. (2019). Creativity and critical thinking in
engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation.
Global Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 30–36.
Barak, M. (2017). Cloud pedagogy: Utilizing web-based technolo-
gies for the promotion of social constructivist learning in sci-
ence teacher preparation courses. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 26(5), 459–469.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking
skills among in-service science education teachers via embed-
ded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5),
459–474.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Science education in primary
schools: Is an animation worth a thousand pictures? Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 608–620.
Barak, M., & Green, G. (2021). Applying a social constructivist
approach to an online course in ethics of research. Science
and Engineering Ethics, 27(8), 1–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11948-​021-​00280-2
Barak, M., & Yuan, S. (2021). A cultural perspective to project-
based learning and the cultivation of innovative thinking. Think-
ing Skills and Creativity, 39, 100766. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
tsc.​2020.​100766
Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching
for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of criti-
cal thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353–369.
Barak, M., Hussein-Farraj, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2016). On-campus or
online: Examining self-regulation and cognitive transfer skills
in different learning settings. International Journal of Educa-
tional Technology in Higher Education, 13(35). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1186/​s41239-​016-​0035-9
Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data
sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828.
Carbogim, F. C., Barbosa, A. C. S., de Oliviera, L. B., Sa Diaz, F. B.
B., Toledo, L. V., Alves, K. R., Friedrich, D. B. C., Luiz, F. S.,
& Puschel, V. A. A. (2018). Educational intervention to improve
critical thinking for undergraduate nursing students: A rand-
omized clinical trial. Nurse Education in Practice, 22, 121–126.
Carvalho, D. P. S. R. P., Azevedo, I. C., Cruz, G. K. P., Mafra, G. A.
C., Rego, A. L. C., Vitor, A. F., Santas, V. E. P., Cogo, A. L. P.,
& Ferreira, M. A. (2017). Strategies used for the promotion of
critical thinking in nursing undergraduate education: A system-
atic review. Nurse Education Today, 57, 103–107.
Chen, L. (2017). Understanding critical thinking in Chinese socio-
cultural contexts: A case study in a Chinese college. Thinking
Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (5th ed.).
Aldine Transaction.
Douglas, E. P. (2012). Defining and measuring critical thinking in engi-
neering. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 153–159.
Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The effects of argu-
ment mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflec-
tive judgement performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
16, 11–26.
Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision.
Topoi, 37, 165–184.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert con-
sensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction
- The Delphi report. California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts.
Hermosa Beach, CA: Measured Reasons.
Forawi, S. A. (2016). Standard-based science education and critical
thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 20, 52–62.
Gray, P. (1993). Immersion approach to critical thinking in psychol-
ogy. Teaching of Psychology, 20(2), 68–74.
Guo, M. (2013). Developing critical thinking in English class:
Culture-based knowledge and skills. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 3(3), 503–507.
Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereo-
types of Chinese international students in US higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36.
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Develop-
ment, 62, 146–164.
Lamb, R., Hand, B., & Kavner, A. (2021). Computational modeling
of the effects of the science writing heuristic on student critical
thinking in science using machine learning. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 30, 283–297.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural per-
spectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.
Lombardi, L., Mednick, F. J., De Backer, F., & Lombaerts, K.
(2021). Fostering critical thinking across the primary school’s
curriculum in the European schools system. Education Sciences,
11, 505. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​educs​ci110​9050
Manalo, E. (Ed.). (2020). Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and
critical thinking: Research-based strategies for the classroom.
Routledge.
Marginson, S., & Dang, T. K. A. (2017). Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory in the context of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 37(1), 116–129.
New Oriental Education & Technology Group. (2019). Report on
Chinese students’ overseas study. Retrieved February 2022, from
http://​goabr​oad.​xdf.​cn/​201905/​10909​318.​html
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]
(2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030;
Secretary-General: Paris, France, 2018. Retrieved February 2022,
from: https://​www.​oecd.​org/​educa​tion/​2030/​E2030%​20Pos​ition%​
20Pap​er%​20(05.​04.​2018).​pdf
Osman, S., Abu, M. S., Mohammad, S. B., & Mokhtar, M. B. (2016).
Identifying pertinent elements of critical thinking and mathemati-
cal thinking used in civil engineering practice in relation to engi-
neering education. The Qualitative Report, 21(2), 212–227.
13

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking competency standards.
Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and
work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st
century. The National Academies Press.
Pekrun, R. (2020). Commentary: Self-report is indispensable to assess
students’ learning. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 185–193.
Petek, E. (2018). Critical thinking as a nourishing interface to EFL
context in higher education. International Education Studies,
11(5), 1–13.
Snyder, J. J., & Wiles, J. R. (2015). Peer led team learning in introduc-
tory biology: Effects on peer leader critical thinking skills. PLoS
ONE, 10(1), 1–18.
Sun, H., Xie, Y., & Lavonen, J. (2022). Exploring the structure of
students’ scientific higher order thinking in science education.
Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tsc.​2022.​
100999
Tan, C. (2017). Teaching critical thinking: Cultural challenges and
strategies in Singapore. British Educational Research Journal,
43(5), 988–1002.
Tosuncuoglu, I. (2018). Place of critical thinking in EFL. International
Journal of Higher Education, 7(4), 26–32.
Vincent-Lancrin, S., Gonzalez-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., Luca,
F. D., Fernandex-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., &
Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and criti-
cal thinking: What it means in school. Educational Research
and Innovation, Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved Febru-
ary 2022, from: https:// ​ r ead. ​ o ecd- ​ i libr ​ a ry. ​ o rg/ ​ e duca ​ t ion/
fostering-students-creativity-and-critical-thinking
13
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, X., & Zheng, H. (2016). Reasoning critical thinking: Is it
born or made? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(6),
1323–1331.
Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: The
Zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education,
19(6), 671– 684.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to
mediated action. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology (3rd
Ed.). Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Yang, Y. (2016). Lessons learnt from contextualizing a UK teaching think-
ing program in a conventional Chinese classroom. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 19, 198–209.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.).
Sage.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.