Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Acquisition of critical thinking skills is considered an important goal in higher education, but it is still unclear which specific instructional techniques are effective for fostering it. The main aim of this study was to unravel the impact of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation prompts during practice, on students’ reasoning skills that are prone to bias. Another aim was to replicate findings regarding the influence of dispositions on reasoning skills prior to and after instructions, and to explore the relationship between reasoning performance, confidence, and invested mental effort prior to and after instructions. Economics students (N = 152) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a pre-test post-test control group design. Only participants exposed to critical thinking instruction improved their reasoning skills; practice and self-explanation prompts did not improve reasoning compared to instructions only. Dispositions (i.e., actively open-minded thinking) correlated positively with pre- and post-test reasoning scores; however, the instructions were equally effective for all participants. Confidence scores correlated negatively with invested mental effort. Instructions affected invested mental effort but not confidence ratings on the post-test. This study showed that first year economics students could enhance their reasoning performance by means of a short and relatively straightforward instructional intervention that was equally effective for all participants regardless of their disposition scores, which is promising for longer-term educational interventions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102–1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on colleges campuses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Boston, MA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  • Baron, J. (2008). Actively open-minded thinking. In J. Baron (Ed.), Thinking and deciding (pp. 199–232). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), The dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 1–16. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.697878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106, 1248–1299. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York: Dover Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, J. E., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–48. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 98–121. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43, 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Reviews, 31, 86–102. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2012). Spot the difference: Distinguishing between two kinds of processing. Mind & Society, 11, 121–131. doi:10.1007/s11299-012-0104-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Fullerton: California State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2012). Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44, 212–230. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effect of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253–292. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90001-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. W. (2002). Introduction heuristics and biases: Then and now. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahnemen (Eds.), Heuristic and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. W., & Tversky, A. (2002). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 230–249). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 69–74. doi:10.1002/tl.8005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving critical thinking: Effects of dispositions and instructions on economics students’ reasoning skills. Learning & Instruction, 29, 31–42. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efficiency: Applications in learning and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 45, 1–14. doi:10.1080/00461520903213618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2007). Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical thinking and the disciplinary context. Australian Journal of Education, 51, 84–103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00243.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002). The calibration of expert judgment: Heuristics and biases beyond the laboratory. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 686–715). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment & decision making (pp. 316–337). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Larrick, R. P., Morgan, J. N., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). Teaching the use of cost-benefits reasoning in everyday life. Psychological Science, 1, 362–370. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00243.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. S., & Anderson, J. R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction got to do with It? Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 445–469. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9055-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 464–470. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cogitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamede, S., Van Gog, T., van den Berge, K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., van Saase, J. L. C. M., van Guldener, C., et al. (2010). Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA, 304, 1198–1203. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markovits, H., & Nantel, G. (1989). The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions. Memory & Cognition, 17, 11–17. doi:10.3758/BF03199552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education, 26, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19, 10–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X019004010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W. (1987). Teaching reasoning. Science, 238, 625–631. doi:10.1126/science.3672116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem solving skills in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003a). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003b). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitieve load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental efforts and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743. doi:10.1177/001872089303500412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paese, P. W., & Sniezek, J. A. (1991). Influences on the appropriateness of confidence in judgments: Practice, effort, information and decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 100–130. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90008-H.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Blaich, C., Martin, G. L., & Hanson, J. M. (2011). How robust are the findings of academically adrift? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43, 20–24. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.568898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18, 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prowse Turner, J. A., & Thompson, V. (2009). The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 15, 69–100. doi:10.1080/13546780802619248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski, J. J. (2004). Heuristics, biases, and governance. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment & decision making (pp. 567–584). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775–802). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multi-media learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multi-media learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, W., Kelley, C., Ho, C., & Stanovich, K. E. (2005). Thinking about personal theories: Individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1149–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. F. (2003). Beyond critical thinking and decision making: Teaching business students how to think. Journal of Management Education, 27, 24–51. doi:10.1177/1052562902239247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective algorithmic and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processess and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality & the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 225–247. doi:10.1080/13546780600780796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14, 359–379. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual processes theories; A metacognitive perspective. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–195). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2013). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4, 1–17. doi:10.5539/hes.v4n1p1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgent. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26. doi:10.1080/00461520701756248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C., & Shapiro, D. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930–941. doi:10.1037/a0012842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776–806. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01113.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, S. K., Baril, C. P., Cunningham, B. M., Fordham, D. R., & Pierre, K. S. (2002). Critical thought on critical thinking research. Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 85–103. doi:10.1016/S0748-5751(01)00029-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning and Innovation Centre, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Hogeschoollaan 1, Postbus 90116, 4800 RA, Breda, The Netherlands

    Anita Heijltjes

  2. Institute of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Tamara van Gog & Fred Paas

  3. Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jimmie Leppink

  4. Early Start Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

    Fred Paas

Authors
  1. Anita Heijltjes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamara van Gog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jimmie Leppink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fred Paas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Heijltjes.

Appendix

Appendix

Example of a syllogistic task

Below you can see two premises. Assume that the premises are true.

Premise 1: All publicly traded companies issue shares

Premise 2: Oil companies issue shares

What can you conclude about oil companies on the basis of these premises?

  1. 1.

    All publicly traded companies are oil companies

  2. 2.

    Some publicly traded companies are oil companies

  3. 3.

    Some oil companies are not publicly traded companies

  4. 4.

    No right conclusion possible*

(Explanation:* = right option. Option 1, 2 and 3 are invalid (affirmation of the consequent/ denial of the antecedent; note that those options are in conflict with its believability).

Example of a base-rate task

A trial tested 1,000 participants: 950 participants who buy their clothes at C&A and 50 participants who buy their clothes in exclusive clothes shops. Sacha was randomly selected out of those 1,000 participants. She is 36 years old, has a job as asset manager at a bank, drives a Porsche, and lives in a Penthouse with her friend. How likely is it that Sacha buys her clothes in exclusive clothes shops?

  1. (1)

    more than 75%

  2. (2)

    50%

  3. (3)

    30%

  4. (4)

    less than 10% *

(Explanations:* = right option. Note that option 1, 2 and 3 demonstrate the tendency to base-judgments on prior belief and to neglect the base-rate).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heijltjes, A., van Gog, T., Leppink, J. et al. Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instr Sci 43, 487–506 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation