Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher

T
education: The teacher’s view
⁎
María José Bezanilla , Donna Fernández-Nogueira, Manuel Poblete,
Hector Galindo-Domínguez
University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Critical thinking is a competency which is being required from students in their personal and
Critical thinking professional life. For this reason, universities must do their most to include it in their syllabus,
Methodologies programs, and classes. However, there is still much work to be done since there is not a clear
Higher education definition of this competency, and also new active methodologies need to be enhanced for its
Latin America
development. This article starts with a literature review of the main methodologies to teach this
Spain
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. 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 ad-
dition, 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. 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 competencies which employers prefer
when hiring employees (NACE, 2017), the results showed that 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 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

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J. Bezanilla), [email protected] (D. Fernández-Nogueira),
[email protected] (M. Poblete), [email protected] (H. Galindo-Domínguez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584
Received 4 February 2019; Received in revised form 21 June 2019; Accepted 10 July 2019
Available online 16 July 2019
1871-1871/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

only their professional skills, but 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 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 family life: metacognition, motivation, and creativity (Moeti, Mgawi, & Mealosi, 2017).
The European Higher Education Area (2012) 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 universities. As Zelaieta Anta and 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. 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 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 their teaching
methodologies to the learning of their students, as their way of thinking may generate fixed routines in their teaching practices (Ossa
Cornejo, Lepe Martönez, Döaz Mujica, Merino Escobar, & Larraön Sutil, 2018). That is, the teacher must also reflect on their practices
and introduce different and varied methodologies.
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 there have been many attempts to define it (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011; Ennis, 1991; 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 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, and 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 corrected by the instructor; and as
negative, multiple choice exams. The methodologies that she analyses are case studies, data analysis strategies, and, over all, em-
phasizes 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 their confidence. As a matter of fact, the relationship between teachers, learners and their peers is 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 de-
veloping critical thinking according to several authors, where ideas and 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 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 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, pro-
viding a useful framework for teaching, learning and research. Moreover, this perception of effectiveness was contrasted with tea-
chers ‘views of critical thinking, following the categories of critical thinking from Bezanilla, Poblete, Fernández-Nogueira, Arranz,
and Campo (2018)).

2. Methodologies for teaching and learning critical thinking

To begin with, and following Duron, Limbach, and Waugh (2006)), methodological elements that 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 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. Aguilera Serrano, Zubizarreta Estévez, and Castillo Mayedo
(2005) also insist on the need and importance of focusing critical thinking in the curriculum design of subjects. They believe that in

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

2
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

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 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 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 formulation of complex questions. This is a difficult task for the teacher and it implies their
commitment.
Olivares, Saiz, and 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
and 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 of active learning, which Fink
(2003) classifies as follows: First, information and ideas based on the 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 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) 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. Dwyer, Hogan, and Steward, 2011; 2012) also
prove that argument mapping can enhance critical thinking. Walker (2003) 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 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 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 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, student feedback is also important to improve and various techniques can be used (for example, a two
minute paper or taking notes in chain). Islas Torres, Carranza Alcántar, De la Torre Barba, Jiménez Padilla, and Baltazar Döaz (2010)
indicate the importance of the 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,
Kharruga, and Kong (2016) support the potential of technology in 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.
Rolón (2014) adds the following to the above methodological principles: First, create educational environments that allow stu-
dents 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 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. Marön-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.
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.
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.

3. Objectives

This research deepens into the teaching and learning of critical thinking in the field of higher 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 competency in the subjects taught. In a previous study, university teachers were asked to define this compe-
tency. In view of that, six different categories were found to define critical thinking: Analyzing/Organizing; Reasoning/Argumenting;

3
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

Table 1
Methodologies used in higher education for teaching critical thinking.
Teaching Methodologies and Activities Authors

Writing activities Writing assignments (writing assignments, essays, ADEA (2006); Arslan, Gulveren, and Aydin (2014); Bahr (2010);
and reports) (Especially argumentative of analysis Couveia, Atencio, and Morillo (2013); Duron et al. (2006);
of other authors) Espíndola Castro (1996); Gasca Jiménez (2017); Hawes (2003);
Laiton Poveda (2010); López Aymes (2013); Makhene (2017);
Marín-Calderón (2014); Piergiovanni (2014); Torres (2004); Tsui
(2002); Walker (2003); Wilson (2015)
Concept map and Argument mapping Dwyer et al. (2011); Dwyer, Hogan, & Steward, 2012; Halpern
(2014)
Practical activities followed by a written Duron et al. (2006); Piergiovanni (2014)
reflection, for example, a diary
Debates and cooperative work Debates Abrami et al. (2015); Arslan et al. (2014); Couveia et al. (2013);
Duron et al. (2006); Espíndola Castro (1996); Islas Torres et al.
(2010); Marín-Calderón (2014); Tsui (2002); Walker (2003)
Dialogue and participation Oral argumentation Couveia et al. (2013); Davies et al. (2013); Halpern (2014);
Makhene (2017); Piergiovanni (2014); Rolón (2014); Walker (2003)
Cooperative/collaborative work Arslan et al. (2014); Gasca Jiménez (2017); Loes and Pascarella
(2017)
Posters and interviews Bahr (2010)
Questions and enquiries Teacher’s questions Abrami et al. (2015); ADEA (2006); Arslan et al. (2014); Duron
et al. (2006); Gasca Jiménez (2017); Hawes (2003); Marín-Calderón
(2014); Piergiovanni (2014); Thompson (2011); Walker (2003)
Questions/enquiries/surveys with immediate ADEA (2006)
feedback
Questioning (enquiry) Duron et al. (2006); Halpern (1998; 2014); López Aymes (2013);
Rolón (2014); Smolarek and Hora (2016); Walker (2003)
Research projects Bahr (2010); Thompson (2011); Tsui (2002)
Problem solving (Problem and A well designed paper / Project about a concrete Duron et al. (2006); Facione (2007); Laiton Poveda (2010);
project based learning) issue Piergiovanni (2014); Tsui (2002)
Problem based learning (everyday issues) Abrami et al. (2015); ADEA (2006); Aguilera Serrano et al. (2005);
Bahr (2010); Couveia et al. (2013); Espíndola Castro (1996); Grohs,
Kirk, Soledad, and Knight (2018); Halpern (2014); Hawes (2003);
López Aymes (2013); Nuñez-López, Avila-Palet, and Olivares-
Olivares (2017); Olivares Olivares and Heredia Escorza (2012); Saiz
Sánchez and Fernández Rivas (2012)
Projects Gasca Jiménez (2017); Thompson (2011)
Solving ambiguous situations set in advance Arslan et al. (2014); Halpern (2014)
Pairwork to solve a problem Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014)
Listening to expert reasoning solving a problem ADEA (2006)
Analyzing other people’s work, including ADEA (2006); Gasca Jiménez (2017)
classmate reasoning solving a problem
Activities to review the media (commercials, Bahr (2010); Gasca Jiménez (2017)
YouTube videos)
Case study Case study (when elaborating the case and ADEA (2006); Arslan et al. (2014); Espíndola Castro (1996);
subsequent analysis) Freeman Herreid (2004); Hawes (2003)
Oral presentations: Teachers and Presentations or speeches given by students Arslan, Gulveren, & Aydin (2014)
students Lectures Marín-Calderón (2014)
Real-world activities Experiential learning Couveia et al. (2013); Duron et al. (2006); Franco et al. (2017);
Piergiovanni (2014)
Connecting situations with student’s own Marín-Calderón (2014)
experience (experiential-based)
Civic engagement Ahrari, Samah, Hassan, Wahat, & Zaremohzzabieh (2016)
Simulations Hawes (2003); ADEA (2006)
Feedback Feedback Duron et al. (2006); Islas Torres et al. (2010)
Drama Creative drama Uzunöz and Demirhan (2017)

Note: Own source.

Questioning/Asking oneself; Evaluating; Taking a position/Taking Decisions; and Acting/Compromising (Bezanilla et al., 2018).
Consequently, the 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 and their concept of critical thinking. Thus,
the main focus of this study is on methodologies and specifically on the following research questions:

1 Which are the methodologies, techniques, and activities used by university teachers 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?
3 Is there any relation between the methodologies considered most effective by teachers and the concept they have of critical

4
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

thinking?

4. Methodological approach

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

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 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

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 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 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), 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).

4.3. Procedure

As already mentioned, 326 teachers from public and private universities in both Spain and Latin America were invited to par-
ticipate 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 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.

5. Results

5.1. Methodologies used to develop critical thinking

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 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 as-
sessment, follow-up, and feedback; questioning; methodologies for evaluation, interpretation, and justification; research; lectures;
and other methodologies (among others, workshops, seminars, flipped classroom, dramatization and/or role playing) (Table 2).
The methodologies that are used most by teachers to teach critical thinking are oral and written 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 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 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 significant difference between the use of lectures and the use of oral and written reflection and argumentation for the
development of critical thinking.

5
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

Table 2
Methodologies used.
Methodology Frequency

Oral and written reflection and argumentation 270 (20.93%)

Reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources (written, graphics, audio-visuals, etc.) 266 (20.62%)
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%)
Assessment, follow-up, and feedback 66 (5.11%)
Questioning 62 (4.80%)
Evaluation, interpretation, and justification 51 (3.95%)
Research 49 (3.79%)
Other methodologies (flipped classroom, role playing, etc.) 43 (3.33%)
Lectures 21 (1.62%)
Total 1290 (100%)

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 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 3:
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
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 synthesis of resources.
As before, a Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out to know whether there were significant differences 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 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 teachers

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 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 4.
The results showed that almost all the methodologies had significant values between k = .146 (p = 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, 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 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.

Table 3
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, etc.) 152 (22.72%)
Case studies 93 (13.90%)
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%)
Assessment, follow-up, and feedback 9 (1.34%)
Lectures 8 (1.19%)
Total 669 (100%)

6
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

Table 4
Concordance between the use of methodologies and which are considered more effective.
Methodology K Sig.

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
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

5.4. Relationship between methodologies considered the most effective and teachers’ concept of critical thinking

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): 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 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
above. These results are shown in Table 5.
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 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 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 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

Table 5
Frequencies and column percentages between categories of the concept of critical thinking and perception of effectiveness of methodologies.
CATEGORIES - CONCEPT OF CRITICAL THINKING

AO RA QAO EV TPTD AC TOTAL

Oral and written reflection and argumentation. 39 (22.2%) 40 (27.2%) 20 (26.3%) 26 (19.8%) 27 (23.1%) 4 (18.2%) 156 (23.3%)
Reading, analysis, and synthesis of resources 35 (19.9%) 25 (17.0%) 13 (17.1%) 55 (42.0%) 19 (16.2%) 5 (22.7%) 152 (22.7%)
Case studies 28 (15.9%) 24 (16.3%) 7 (9.2%) 14 (10.7%) 17 (14.5%) 3 (13.6%) 93 (13.9%)
Connection with the real world 13 (7.4%) 7 (4.8%) 5 (6.6%) 5 (3.8%) 6 (5.1%) 4 (18.2%) 40 (6.0%)
Collaborative or cooperative learning 6 (3.4%) 5 (3.4%) 4 (5.3%) 4 (3.1%) 7 (6.0%) 2 (9.1%) 28 (4.2%)
Problem and project based learning 13 (7.4%) 10 (6.8%) 6 (7.9%) 5 (3.8%) 14 (12.0%) 2 (9.1%) 50 (7.5%)
Assessment, follow-up, and feedback 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (2.6%) 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (1.3%)
Questioning 15 (8.5%) 11 (7.5%) 10 (13.2%) 4 (3.1%) 9 (7.7%) 1 (4.5%) 50 (7.5%)
Evaluation, interpretation, and justification 6 (3.4%) 6 (4.1%) 3 (3.9%) 2 (1.5%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 19 (2.8%)
Research 5 (2.8%) 4 (2.7%) 4 (5.3%) 5 (3.8%) 3 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 21 (3.1%)
Other methodologies (flipped classroom, role-playing, 12 (6.8%) 12 (8.2%) 2 (2.6%) 7 (5.3) 9 (7.7%) 1 (4.5%) 43 (6.4%)
etc.)
Lectures 3 (1.7%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (1.2%)
TOTAL 176 (100%) 147 (100%) 76 (100%) 131 (100%) 117 (100%) 22 (100%) 669 (100%)

Note. AO: Analyzing / Organizing; QAO: Questioning / Asking Oneself; EV: Evaluating; TPTD: Taking position / Taking decisions; AC: Acting /
Compromising.

7
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

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 consider that one of the most effective methodologies were those in
connection with the real world and case studies.

6. Discussion and conclusions

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
resources; secondly, methodologies which are considered active methodologies, as for example, case studies, collaborative and co-
operative learning, connection with the real world, and problem and project based learning are used; and thirdly, other meth-
odologies which are used to a lesser extent are: assessment, follow-up, and feedback, questioning, evaluation, interpretation, and
justification, 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 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 perceived by tea-
chers, are lectures; assessment, follow-up, and feedback, which some authors believe as important (Duron et al., 2006); evaluation,
interpretation, and justification; research; collaborative or cooperative learning; connection with the real world and other meth-
odologies, 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 says (see Table 1). Studies, such as those of Makhene (2017); Olivares
Olivares and 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 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, 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 meth-
odologies 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 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 sequence of teaching and learning experiences and activities, from teacher and student, which will 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 methodologies that can enhance the development of this com-
petency in the formation of university students. This is an important issue since not all teachers may understand the methodologies
they 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 competency for the personal and professional growth of university students.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the university teachers from Spain and Latin America who have taken part in this research.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-profit sectors.

8
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

References

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 and 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.
Crenshaw, P., Hale, E., & Harper, S. (2011). Producing intellectual labor in the classroom: The utilization of a critical thinking model to help students take command of
their thinking. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(7), 13–26.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education – A systematic literature review. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004.
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 argument mapping. In C. P. Horvath, & J. M. Forte (Eds.). Critical
thinking (pp. 97–122). New York: Nova Science.
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 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52.
Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5–24.
Espíndola Castro, J. L. (1996). Métodos para fomentar el pensamiento crítico. Reingeniería Educativa. Retrieved fromMéxico: ANUIES. https://www.uv.mx/dgdaie/files/
2012/11/CPP-DC-Espindola-Metodos-para-fomentar.pdf.
Facione, P. A. (2007). Pensamiento Crítico:¿Qué es y por qué es importante? Retrieved fromInsight Assessmenthttp://eduteka.icesi.edu.co/pdfdir/
PensamientoCriticoFacione.pdf.
Facione, P. A. (2013). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Retrieved fromInsight Assessmenthttps://www.nyack.edu/files/CT_What_Why_2013.pdf.
Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2014/03/www.deefinkandassociates.
com_GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf.
Franco, A. R., Costa, P. S., Butler, H. A., & Almeida, L. S. (2017). Assessment of undergraduates’ 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.
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 fromhttp://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. The 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 fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria_Alcantar/publication/317587791.
Laiton Poveda, I. (2010). Formación de pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de primeros semestres 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 Creativity, 22, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.004.
Loes, C.h, & Pascarella, E. (2017). Collaborative learning and critical thinking: Testing the link. 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.
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.
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.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
Moeti, B., Mgawi, R., & Mealosi, W. (2017). Critical thinking among post-graduate diploma in education students in higher education: Reality of fuss? Journal of
Education and Learning, 6(2), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n2p13.
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 fromhttp://careerservices.wayne.edu/pdfs/2018-nace-job-outlook-survey.pdf.
Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Retrieved fromEducational Leadershiphttp://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), 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.
Olivares, S., Saiz, C., & Rivas, S. F. (2013). Motivar para pensar críticamente. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 367–394.

9
M.J. Bezanilla, et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 33 (2019) 100584

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. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i4.8432.
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., et al. (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 for critical awareness and institutional support (WCER working paper No.
2016-4). Retrieved fromhttps://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.
Torres, I. C. (2004). Una Mirada pedagógica a la escritura de un ensayo argumentativo. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 19, 97–105.
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 reportRetrieved fromhttp://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2012_Bucharest/79/5/
Bologna_Process_Implementation_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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.018.
Villarini, A. R. (2003). Teoría y pedagogía del pensamiento crítico. Perspectivas psicológicas, 3–4(4), 35–42.
Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3), 263–367.
Wilson, K. (2015). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 256–265. https://
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.

10