Situation Higher-Order, Critical, and Critical-Analytic Thinking in Problem- and Project-Based Learning Environments: A Systematic Review

• In Event: Navigating the Murky Waters of Higher-Order, Critical, and Critical-Analytic Thinking

Abstract

Critical thinking (CT) is widely regarded as an important competence to learn, and its importance has only increased over time (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). Mastery of this ability is not only necessary for students but also for working professionals and informed citizens (Bezanilla et al., 2021). Therefore, thinking critically is a central aim of education (e.g., Butler & Halpern, 2020). A meta-analysis demonstrated that the opportunity for dialogue, exposing students to authentic or situated problems and examples, and mentoring them in these habits of mind positively affected CT (Abrami et al., 2015). All of these pedagogical elements are, to some extent, present in student-centered instructional environments. Thus, it would seem that a good way to teach CT is by using active, student-centered instructional methods (Bezanilla et al., 2021; Lombardi et al., 2021). Problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL) are prototypical examples of active, student-centered instructional methods. Even though fostering HOT, CT, and CAT may not be an explicit goal of these student-centered approaches, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to expect an association to exist.

Therefore, the first research question we posed was: How are HOT, CT, and CAT conceptualized in student-centered learning environments? In addition, parallels exist between processes involved in HOT, CT, and CAT and the learning activities and processes in P(j)BL. Moreover, effective instructional activities to foster HOT, CT, and CAT (e.g., Abrami et al., 2015) are core activities in P(j)BL. Therefore, the second aim of this study was to review the evidence on the effectiveness of student-centered environments in fostering either HOT, CT, or CAT. To that end, we carried out a review of studies investigating HOT, CT, and CAT in the context of PBL and PjBL.

Results demonstrated an absence of CAT in P(j)BL research and a stronger focus on CT processes than CT dispositions (i.e., trait-like tendency or willingness to engage in CT). Further, while we found positive effects of P(j)BL on HOT and CT, there was a lack of clarity and consistency in how researchers conceptualized and measured these forms of thinking. It is a lack of clear conceptualizations of HOT, CT, and CAT that complicates the measurements and findings. This lack of conceptual clarity carries into instruments and tools of assessment that are limited in number (and sometimes availability) and of questionable validity. A lack of conceptual clarity also extends to P(j)BL environments, where essential components of PBL and PjBL were not always articulated or addressed in studies claiming to implement these approaches. Design issues in effect studies add to these complications. Further, the reference to HOT or CT skills conflicts with the literature on what differentiates skills from more intentional and purposefully implemented processes (i.e., cognitive and metacognitive strategies).

Authors

• Sofie Loyens, Utrecht University
  Presenting Author

• Julianne Elizabeth van Meerten, University of Maryland
  Presenting Author

• Lydia Schaap, Erasmus University
  Presenting Author

• Lisette Wijnia, Open Universiteit Nederland
  Presenting Author