relationship between critical thinking and academic writing

Academic Writing: Critical Thinking & Writing

• Academic Writing
• Planning your writing
• Structuring your assignment
• Critical Thinking & Writing
• Building an argument
• Reflective Writing
• Summarising, paraphrasing and quoting

Critical Thinking

One of the most important features of studying at university is the expectation that you will engage in thinking critically about your subject area. 

Critical thinking involves asking meaningful questions concerning the information, ideas, beliefs, and arguments that you will encounter. It requires you to approach your studies with a curious, open mind, discard preconceptions, and interrogate received knowledge and established practices.

Critical thinking is key to successfully expressing your individuality as an independent learner and thinker in an academic context. It is also a valuable life skill. 

Critical thinking enables you to:

• Evaluate information, its validity and significance in a particular context.
• Analyse and interpret evidence and data in response to a line of enquiry.
• Weigh-up alternative explanations and arguments.
• Develop your own evidence-based and well-reasoned arguments.
• Develop well-informed viewpoints.
• Formulate your own independent, justifiable ideas.
• Actively engage with the wider scholarship of your academic community.

Writing Critically

Being able to demonstrate and communicate critical thinking in your written assignments through critical writing is key to achieving academic success. 

Critical writing can be distinguished from descriptive writing which is concerned with conveying information rather than interrogating information. Understanding the difference between these two styles of academic writing and when to use them is important.

The balance between descriptive writing and critical writing will vary depending on the nature of the assignment and the level of your studies. Some level of descriptive writing is generally necessary to support critical writing. More sophisticated criticality is generally required at higher levels of study with less descriptive content. You will continue to develop your critical writing skills as you progress through your course.

Descriptive Writing and Critical Writing

• Descriptive Writing
• Critical Writing
• Examples of Critical Writing

Descriptive writing demonstrates the knowledge you have of a subject, and your knowledge of what other people say about that subject.  Descriptive writing often responds to questions framed as ‘what’ , ‘where’ , ‘who’ and ‘when’ .

Descriptive writing might include the following:

• Description of what something is or what it is about (an account, facts, observable features, details): a topic, problem, situation, or context of the subject under discussion.
• Description of where it takes place (setting and context), who is involved and when it occurs. 
• Re-statement or summary of what others say about the topic.
• Background facts and information for a discussion.

Description usually comes before critical content so that the reader can understand the topic you are critically engaging with.

Critical writing requires you to apply interpretation, analysis, and evaluation to the descriptions you have provided. Critical writing often responds to questions framed as ‘how’ or ‘why’ . Often, critical writing will require you to build an argument which is supported by evidence. 

Some indicators of critical writing are:

• Investigation of positive and negative perspectives on ideas
• Supporting ideas and arguments with evidence, which might include authoritative sources, data, statistics, research, theories, and quotations
• Balanced, unbiased appraisal of arguments and counterarguments/alternative viewpoints
• Honest recognition of the limitations of an argument and supporting evidence
• Plausible, rational, convincing, and well-reasoned conclusions 

Critical writing might include the following:

• Applying an idea or theory to different situations or relate theory to practice. Does the idea work/not work in practice? Is there a factor that makes it work/not work? For example: 'Smith's (2008) theory on teamwork is effective in the workplace because it allows a diverse group of people with different skills to work effectively'.
• Justifying why a process or policy exists. For example: 'It was necessary for the nurse to check the patient's handover notes because...'
• Proposing an alternative approach to view and act on situations. For example: 'By adopting a Freirian approach, we could view the student as a collaborator in our teaching and learning'. Or: 'If we had followed the NMC guidelines we could have made the patient feel calm and relaxed during the consultation'.
• Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of an idea/theory/policy. Why does this idea/theory/policy work? Or why does this idea not work? For example: 'Although Smith's (2008) theory on teamwork is useful for large teams, there are challenges in applying this theory to teams who work remotely'. 
• Discussion of how the idea links to other ideas in the field (synthesis). For example: 'the user experience of parks can be greatly enhanced by examining Donnelly's (2009) customer service model used in retail’.
• Discussion of how the idea compares and contrasts with other ideas/theories. For example: ‘The approach advocated by the NMC differs in comparison because of factor A and factor C’.
• Discussion of the ‘’up-to-datedness” and relevance of an idea/theory/policy (its currency). For example: 'although this approach was successful in supporting the local community, Smith's model does not accommodate the needs of a modern global economy'. 
• Evaluating an idea/theory/policy by providing evidence-informed judgment. For example: 'Therefore, May's delivery model should be discontinued as it has created significant issues for both customers and staff (Ransom, 2018)'.
• Creating new perspectives or arguments based on knowledge. For example: 'to create strong and efficient buildings, we will look to the designs provided by nature. The designs of the Sydney Opera House are based on the segments of an orange (Cook, 2019)'. 

Further Reading

• << Previous: Structuring your assignment
• Next: Building an argument >>
• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 3:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uos.ac.uk/academic-writing

➔ About the Library

➔ Meet the Team

➔ Customer Service Charter

➔ Library Policies & Regulations

➔ Privacy & Data Protection

Essential Links

➔ A-Z of eResources

➔ Frequently Asked Questions

➔Discover the Library

➔Referencing Help

➔ Print & Copy Services

➔ Service Updates

Library & Learning Services, University of Suffolk, Library Building, Long Street, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ

✉ Email Us: [email protected]

✆ Call Us: +44 (0)1473 3 38700

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3 Critical Thinking in College Writing: From the Personal to the Academic

Gita DasBender

There is something about the term “critical thinking” that makes you draw a blank every time you think about what it means. [1] It seems so fuzzy and abstract that you end up feeling uncomfortable, as though the term is thrust upon you, demanding an intellectual effort that you may not yet have. But you know it requires you to enter a realm of smart, complex ideas that others have written about and that you have to navigate, understand, and interact with just as intelligently. It’s a lot to ask for. It makes you feel like a stranger in a strange land.

As a writing teacher I am accustomed to reading and responding to difficult texts. In fact, I like grappling with texts that have interesting ideas no matter how complicated they are because I understand their value. I have learned through my years of education that what ultimately engages me, keeps me enthralled, is not just grammatically pristine, fluent writing, but writing that forces me to think beyond the page. It is writing where the writer has challenged herself and then offered up that challenge to the reader, like a baton in a relay race. The idea is to run with the baton.

You will often come across critical thinking and analysis as requirements for assignments in writing and upper-level courses in a variety of disciplines. Instructors have varying explanations of what they actually require of you, but, in general, they expect you to respond thoughtfully to texts you have read. The first thing you should remember is not to be afraid of critical thinking. It does not mean that you have to criticize the text, disagree with its premise, or attack the writer simply because you feel you must. Criticism is the process of responding to and evaluating ideas, argument, and style so that readers understand how and why you value these items.

Critical thinking is also a process that is fundamental to all disciplines. While in this essay I refer mainly to critical thinking in composition, the general principles behind critical thinking are strikingly similar in other fields and disciplines. In history, for instance, it could mean examining and analyzing primary sources in order to understand the context in which they were written. In the hard sciences, it usually involves careful reasoning, making judgments and decisions, and problem solving. While critical thinking may be subject-specific, that is to say, it can vary in method and technique depending on the discipline, most of its general principles such as rational thinking, making independent evaluations and judgments, and a healthy skepticism of what is being read, are common to all disciplines. No matter the area of study, the application of critical thinking skills leads to clear and flexible thinking and a better understanding of the subject at hand.

To be a critical thinker you not only have to have an informed opinion about the text but also a thoughtful response to it. There is no doubt that critical thinking is serious thinking, so here are some steps you can take to become a serious thinker and writer.

Attentive Reading: A Foundation for Critical Thinking

A critical thinker is always a good reader because to engage critically with a text you have to read attentively and with an open mind, absorbing new ideas and forming your own as you go along. Let us imagine you are reading an essay by Annie Dillard, a famous essayist, called “Living like Weasels.” Students are drawn to it because the idea of the essay appeals to something personally fundamental to all of us: how to live our lives. It is also a provocative essay that pulls the reader into the argument and forces a reaction, a good criterion for critical thinking.

So let’s say that in reading the essay you encounter a quote that gives you pause. In describing her encounter with a weasel in Hollins Pond, Dillard says, “I would like to learn, or remember, how to live . . . I don’t think I can learn from a wild animal how to live in particular . . . but I might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive” (220). You may not be familiar with language like this. It seems complicated, and you have to stop ever so often (perhaps after every phrase) to see if you understood what Dillard means. You may ask yourself these questions:

• What does “mindlessness” mean in this context?
• How can one “learn something of mindlessness?”
• What does Dillard mean by “purity of living in the physical senses?”
• How can one live “without bias or motive?”

These questions show that you are an attentive reader. Instead of simply glossing over this important passage, you have actually stopped to think about what the writer means and what she expects you to get from it. Here is how I read the quote and try to answer the questions above: Dillard proposes a simple and uncomplicated way of life as she looks to the animal world for inspiration. It is ironic that she admires the quality of “mindlessness” since it is our consciousness, our very capacity to think and reason, which makes us human, which makes us beings of a higher order. Yet, Dillard seems to imply that we need to live instinctually, to be guided by our senses rather than our intellect. Such a “thoughtless” approach to daily living, according to Dillard, would mean that our actions would not be tainted by our biases or motives, our prejudices. We would go back to a primal way of living, like the weasel she observes. It may take you some time to arrive at this understanding on your own, but it is important to stop, reflect, and ask questions of the text whenever you feel stumped by it. Often such questions will be helpful during class discussions and peer review sessions.

Listing Important Ideas

When reading any essay, keep track of all the important points the writer makes by jotting down a list of ideas or quotations in a notebook. This list not only allows you to remember ideas that are central to the writer’s argument, ideas that struck you in some way or the other, but it also you helps you to get a good sense of the whole reading assignment point by point. In reading Annie Dillard’s essay, we come across several points that contribute toward her proposal for better living and that help us get a better understanding of her main argument. Here is a list of some of her ideas that struck me as important:

• “The weasel lives in necessity and we live in choice, hating necessity and dying at the last ignobly in its talons” (220).
• “And I suspect that for me the way is like the weasel’s: open to time and death painlessly, noticing everything, remembering nothing, choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will” (221).
• “We can live any way we want. People take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience—even of silence—by choice. The thing is to stalk your calling in a certain skilled and supple way, to locate the most tender and live spot and plug into that pulse” (221).
• “A weasel doesn’t ‘attack’ anything; a weasel lives as he’s meant to, yielding at every moment to the perfect freedom of single necessity” (221).
• “I think it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and pure, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you” (221).

These quotations give you a cumulative sense of what Dillard is trying to get at in her essay, that is, they lay out the elements with which she builds her argument. She first explains how the weasel lives, what she learns from observing the weasel, and then prescribes a lifestyle she admires—the central concern of her essay.

Noticing Key Terms and Summarizing Important Quotes

Within the list of quotations above are key terms and phrases that are critical to your understanding of the ideal life as Dillard describes it. For instance, “mindlessness,” “instinct,” “perfect freedom of a single necessity,” “stalk your calling,” “choice,” and “fierce and pointed will” are weighty terms and phrases, heavy with meaning, that you need to spend time understanding. You also need to understand the relationship between them and the quotations in which they appear. This is how you might work on each quotation to get a sense of its meaning and then come up with a statement that takes the key terms into account and expresses a general understanding of the text:

Quote 1 : Animals (like the weasel) live in “necessity,” which means that their only goal in life is to survive. They don’t think about how they should live or what choices they should make like humans do. According to Dillard, we like to have options and resist the idea of “necessity.” We fight death—an inevitable force that we have no control over—and yet ultimately surrender to it as it is the necessary end of our lives. Quote 2 : Dillard thinks the weasel’s way of life is the best way to live. It implies a pure and simple approach to life where we do not worry about the passage of time or the approach of death. Like the weasel, we should live life in the moment, intensely experiencing everything but not dwelling on the past. We should accept our condition, what we are “given,” with a “fierce and pointed will.” Perhaps this means that we should pursue our one goal, our one passion in life, with the same single-minded determination and tenacity that we see in the weasel. Quote 3 : As humans, we can choose any lifestyle we want. The trick, however, is to go after our one goal, one passion like a stalker would after a prey. Quote 4 : While we may think that the weasel (or any animal) chooses to attack other animals, it is really only surrendering to the one thing it knows: its need to live. Dillard tells us there is “the perfect freedom” in this desire to survive because to her, the lack of options (the animal has no other option than to fight to survive) is the most liberating of all. Quote 5 : Dillard urges us to latch on to our deepest passion in life (the “one necessity”) with the tenacity of a weasel and not let go. Perhaps she’s telling us how important it is to have an unwavering focus or goal in life.

Writing a Personal Response: Looking Inward

Dillard’s ideas will have certainly provoked a response in your mind, so if you have some clear thoughts about how you feel about the essay this is the time to write them down. As you look at the quotes you have selected and your explanation of their meaning, begin to create your personal response to the essay. You may begin by using some of these strategies:

• Tell a story. Has Dillard’s essay reminded you of an experience you have had? Write a story in which you illustrate a point that Dillard makes or hint at an idea that is connected to her essay.
• Focus on an idea from Dillard’s essay that is personally important to you. Write down your thoughts about this idea in a first person narrative and explain your perspective on the issue.
• If you are uncomfortable writing a personal narrative or using “I” (you should not be), reflect on some of her ideas that seem important and meaningful in general. Why were you struck by these ideas?
• Write a short letter to Dillard in which you speak to her about the essay. You may compliment her on some of her ideas by explaining why you like them, ask her a question related to her essay and explain why that question came to you, and genuinely start up a conversation with her.

This stage in critical thinking is important for establishing your relationship with a text. What do I mean by this “relationship,” you may ask? Simply put, it has to do with how you feel about the text. Are you amazed by how true the ideas seem to be, how wise Dillard sounds? Or are you annoyed by Dillard’s let-me-tell-you-how-to-live approach and disturbed by the impractical ideas she so easily prescribes? Do you find Dillard’s voice and style thrilling and engaging or merely confusing? No matter which of the personal response options you select, your initial reaction to the text will help shape your views about it.

Making an Academic Connection: Looking Outward

First year writing courses are designed to teach a range of writing— from the personal to the academic—so that you can learn to express advanced ideas, arguments, concepts, or theories in any discipline. While the example I have been discussing pertains mainly to college writing, the method of analysis and approach to critical thinking I have demonstrated here will serve you well in a variety of disciplines. Since critical thinking and analysis are key elements of the reading and writing you will do in college, it is important to understand how they form a part of academic writing. No matter how intimidating the term “academic writing” may seem (it is, after all, associated with advanced writing and becoming an expert in a field of study), embrace it not as a temporary college requirement but as a habit of mind.

To some, academic writing often implies impersonal writing, writing that is detached, distant, and lacking in personal meaning or relevance. However, this is often not true of the academic writing you will do in a composition class. Here your presence as a writer—your thoughts, experiences, ideas, and therefore who you are—is of much significance to the writing you produce. In fact, it would not be farfetched to say that in a writing class academic writing often begins with personal writing. Let me explain. If critical thinking begins with a personal view of the text, academic writing helps you broaden that view by going beyond the personal to a more universal point of view. In other words, academic writing often has its roots in one’s private opinion or perspective about another writer’s ideas but ultimately goes beyond this opinion to the expression of larger, more abstract ideas. Your personal vision—your core beliefs and general approach to life— will help you arrive at these “larger ideas” or universal propositions that any reader can understand and be enlightened by, if not agree with. In short, academic writing is largely about taking a critical, analytical stance toward a subject in order to arrive at some compelling conclusions.

Let us now think about how you might apply your critical thinking skills to move from a personal reaction to a more formal academic response to Annie Dillard’s essay. The second stage of critical thinking involves textual analysis and requires you to do the following:

• Summarize the writer’s ideas the best you can in a brief paragraph. This provides the basis for extended analysis since it contains the central ideas of the piece, the building blocks, so to speak.
• Evaluate the most important ideas of the essay by considering their merits or flaws, their worthiness or lack of worthiness. Do not merely agree or disagree with the ideas but explore and explain why you believe they are socially, politically, philosophically, or historically important and relevant, or why you need to question, challenge, or reject them.
• Identify gaps or discrepancies in the writer’s argument. Does she contradict herself? If so, explain how this contradiction forces you to think more deeply about her ideas. Or if you are confused, explain what is confusing and why.
• Examine the strategies the writer uses to express her ideas. Look particularly at her style, voice, use of figurative language, and the way she structures her essay and organizes her ideas. Do these strategies strengthen or weaken her argument? How?
• Include a second text—an essay, a poem, lyrics of a song— whose ideas enhance your reading and analysis of the primary text. This text may help provide evidence by supporting a point you’re making, and further your argument.
• Extend the writer’s ideas, develop your own perspective, and propose new ways of thinking about the subject at hand.

Crafting the Essay

Once you have taken notes and developed a thorough understanding of the text, you are on your way to writing a good essay. If you were asked to write an exploratory essay, a personal response to Dillard’s essay would probably suffice. However, an academic writing assignment requires you to be more critical. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, beginning your essay with a personal anecdote often helps to establish your relationship to the text and draw the reader into your writing. It also helps to ease you into the more complex task of textual analysis. Once you begin to analyze Dillard’s ideas, go back to the list of important ideas and quotations you created as you read the essay. After a brief summary, engage with the quotations that are most important, that get to the heart of Dillard’s ideas, and explore their meaning. Textual engagement, a seemingly slippery concept, simply means that you respond directly to some of Dillard’s ideas, examine the value of Dillard’s assertions, and explain why they are worthwhile or why they should be rejected. This should help you to transition into analysis and evaluation. Also, this part of your essay will most clearly reflect your critical thinking abilities as you are expected not only to represent Dillard’s ideas but also to weigh their significance. Your observations about the various points she makes, analysis of conflicting viewpoints or contradictions, and your understanding of her general thesis should now be synthesized into a rich new idea about how we should live our lives. Conclude by explaining this fresh point of view in clear, compelling language and by rearticulating your main argument.

Modeling Good Writing

When I teach a writing class, I often show students samples of really good writing that I’ve collected over the years. I do this for two reasons: first, to show students how another freshman writer understood and responded to an assignment that they are currently working on; and second, to encourage them to succeed as well. I explain that although they may be intimidated by strong, sophisticated writing and feel pressured to perform similarly, it is always helpful to see what it takes to get an A. It also helps to follow a writer’s imagination, to learn how the mind works when confronted with a task involving critical thinking. The following sample is a response to the Annie Dillard essay. Figure 1 includes the entire student essay and my comments are inserted into the text to guide your reading.

Though this student has not included a personal narrative in his essay, his own world-vievvw is clear throughout. His personal point of view, while not expressed in first person statements, is evident from the very beginning. So we could say that a personal response to the text need not always be expressed in experiential or narrative form but may be present as reflection, as it is here. The point is that the writer has traveled through the rough terrain of critical thinking by starting out with his own ruminations on the subject, then by critically analyzing and responding to Dillard’s text, and finally by developing a strongpoint of view of his own about our responsibility as human beings. As readers we are engaged by clear, compelling writing and riveted by critical thinking that produces a movement of ideas that give the essay depth and meaning. The challenge Dillard set forth in her essay has been met and the baton passed along to us.

Building our Lives: The Blueprint Lies Within

We all may ask ourselves many questions, some serious, some less  important, in our lifetime. But at some point along the way, we all will  take a step back and look at the way we are living our lives, and wonder if we are living them correctly. Unfortunately, there is no solid blueprint for the way to live our lives. Each person is different, feeling different  emotions and reacting to different stimuli than the person next to them. Many people search for the true answer on how to live our lives, as if  there are secret instructions out there waiting to be found. But the truth is we as a species are given a gift not many other creatures can claim to have: the ability to choose to live as we want, not as we were necessarily designed to. [2] Even so, people look outside of themselves for the answers on how to live, which begs me to ask the question: what is wrong with just living as we are now, built from scratch through our choices and memories? [3]

[Annie Dillard’s essay entitled “Living Like Weasels” is an exploration into the way human beings might live, clearly stating that “We could live any way we want” (Dillard 211). Dillard’s encounter with an ordinary weasel helped her receive insight into the difference between the way human beings live their lives and the way wild animals go about theirs. As a nature writer, Dillard shows us that we can learn a lot about the true way to live by observing nature’s other creations. While we think and debate and calculate each and every move, these creatures just simply act. [4] The thing that keeps human beings from living the purest life possible, like an animal such as the weasel, is the same thing that separates us from all wild animals: our minds. Human beings are creatures of caution, creatures of undeniable fear, never fully living our lives because we are too caught up with avoiding risks. A weasel, on the other hand, is a creature of action and instinct, a creature which lives its life the way it was created to, not questioning his motives, simply striking when the time to strike is right. As Dillard states, “the weasel lives in necessity and we live in choice, hating necessity and dying at the last ignobly in its talons” (Dillard 210). [5]

It is important to note and appreciate the uniqueness of the ideas Dillard presents in this essay because in some ways they are very true. For instance, it is true that humans live lives of caution, with a certain fear that has been built up continually through the years. We are forced to agree with Dillard’s idea that we as humans “might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive” (Dillard 210). To live freely we need to live our lives with less hesitation, instead of intentionally choosing to not live to the fullest in fear of the consequences of our actions. [6] However, Dillard suggests that we should forsake our ability of thought and choice all together. The human mind is the tool that has allowed a creature with no natural weapons to become the unquestioned dominant species on this plant planet, and though it curbs the spontaneity of our lives, it is not something to be simply thrown away for a chance to live completely “free of bias or motive” (Dillard 210). [7] We are a moral, conscious species, complete with emotions and a firm conscience, and it is the power of our minds that allows us to exist as we do now: with the ability to both think and feel at the same time. It grants us the ability to choose and have choice, to be guided not only by feelings and emotions but also by morals and an understanding of consequence. [8] As such, a human being with the ability to live like a weasel has given up the very thing that makes him human. [9]

Here, the first true flaw of Dillard’s essay comes to light. While it is possible to understand and even respect Dillard’s observations, it should be noted that without thought and choice she would have never been able to construct these notions in the first place. [10] Dillard protests, “I tell you I’ve been in that weasel’s brain for sixty seconds, and he was in mine” (Dillard 210). One cannot cast oneself into the mind of another creature without the intricacy of human thought, and one would not be able to choose to live as said creature does without the power of human choice. In essence, Dillard would not have had the ability to judge the life of another creature if she were to live like a weasel. Weasels do not make judgments; they simply act and react on the basis of instinct. The “mindlessness” that Dillard speaks of would prevent her from having the option to choose her own reactions. Whereas the conscious-­‐ thinking Dillard has the ability to see this creature and take the time to stop and examine its life, the “mindless” Dillard would only have the limited options to attack or run away. This is the major fault in the logic of Dillard’s essay, as it would be impossible for her to choose to examine and compare the lives of humans and weasels without the capacity for choice. [11]

Dillard also examines a weasel’s short memory in a positive light and seems to believe that a happier life could be achieved if only we were simple-minded enough to live our lives with absolutely no regret. She claims, “I suspect that for me the way is like the weasel’s: open to time and death painlessly, noticing everything, remembering nothing, choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will” (Dillard 210). In theory, this does sound like a positive value. To be able to live freely without a hint of remembrance as to the results of our choices would be an interesting life, one may even say a care-free life. But at the same time, would we not be denying our responsibility as humans to learn from the mistakes of the past as to not replicate them in the future? [12] Human beings’ ability to remember is almost as important as our ability to choose, because [13] remembering things from the past is the only way we can truly learn from them. History is taught throughout our educational system for a very good reason: so that the generations of the future do not make the mistakes of the past. A human being who chooses to live like a weasel gives up something that once made him very human: the ability to learn from his mistakes to further better himself.

Ultimately, without the ability to choose or recall the past, mankind would be able to more readily take risks without regard for consequences. [14] Dillard views the weasel’s reaction to necessity as an unwavering willingness to take such carefree risks and chances. She states that “it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and pure, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you” (Dillard 211). Would it then be productive for us to make a wrong choice and be forced to live in it forever, when we as a people have the power to change, to remedy wrongs we’ve made in our lives? [15] What Dillard appears to be recommending is that humans not take many risks, but who is to say that the ability to avoid or escape risks is necessarily a flaw with mankind?

If we had been like the weasel, never wanting, never needing, always “choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will” (Dillard 210), our world would be a completely different place. The United States of America might not exist at this very moment if we had just taken what was given to us, and unwaveringly accepted a life as a colony of Great Britain. But as Cole clearly puts it, “A risk that you assume by actually doing something seems far more risky than a risk you take by not doing something, even though the risk of doing nothing may be greater” (Cole 145). As a unified body of people, we were able to go against that which was expected of us, evaluate the risk in doing so, and move forward with our revolution. The American people used the power of choice, and risk assessment, to make a permanent change in their lives; they used the remembrance of Britain’s unjust deeds to fuel their passion for victory. [16] We as a people chose. We remembered. We distinguished between right and wrong. These are things that a weasel can never do, because a weasel does not have a say in its own life, it only has its instincts and nothing more.

Humans are so unique in the fact that they can dictate the course of their own lives, but many people still choose to search around for the true way to live. What they do not realize is that they have to look no further than themselves. Our power, our weapon, is our ability to have thought and choice, to remember, and to make our own decisions based on our concepts of right and wrong, good and bad. These are the only tools we will ever need to construct the perfect life for ourselves from the ground up. And though it may seem like a nice notion to live a life free of regret, it is our responsibility as creatures and the appointed caretakers of this planet to utilize what was given to us and live our lives as we were meant to, not the life of any other wild animal. [17]

• Write about your experiences with critical thinking assignments. What seemed to be the most difficult? What approaches did you try to overcome the difficulty?
• Respond to the list of strategies on how to conduct textual analysis. How well do these strategies work for you? Add your own tips to the list.
• Evaluate the student essay by noting aspects of critical thinking that are evident to you. How would you grade this essay? What other qualities (or problems) do you notice?

Works Cited

Dillard, Annie. “Living like Weasels.” One Hundred Great Essays . Ed. Robert DiYanni. New York: Longman, 2002. 217–221. Print.

• This work is licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License and is subject to the Writing Spaces’ Terms of Use. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. To view the Writing Spaces’ Terms of Use, visit http://writingspaces.org/terms-of-use . ↵
• Comment : Even as the writer starts with a general introduction, he makes a claim here that is related to Dillard’s essay. ↵
• Comment : The student asks what seems like a rhetorical question but it is one he will answer in the rest of his essay. It is also a question that forces the reader to think about a key term from the text— “choices.” ↵
• Comment : Student summarizes Dillard’s essay by explaining the ideas of the essay in fresh words. ↵
• Comment : Up until this point the student has introduced Dillard’s essay and summarized some of its ideas. In the section that follows, he continues to think critically about Dillard’s ideas and argument. ↵
• Comment : This is a strong statement that captures the student’s appreciation of Dillard’s suggestion to live freely but also the ability to recognize why most people cannot live this way. This is a good example of critical thinking. ↵
• Comment : Again, the student acknowledges the importance of conscious thought. ↵
• Comment : While the student does not include a personal experience in the essay, this section gives us a sense of his personal view of life. Also note how he introduces the term “morals” here to point out the significance of the consequences of our actions. The point is that not only do we need to act but we also need to be aware of the result of our actions. ↵
• Comment : Student rejects Dillard’s ideas but only after explaining why it is important to reject them. ↵
• Comment : Student dismantles Dillard’s entire premise by telling us how the very act of writing the essay negates her argument. He has not only interpreted the essay but figured out how its premise is logically flawed. ↵
• Comment : Once again the student demonstrates why the logic of Dillard’s argument falls short when applied to her own writing. ↵
• Comment : This question represents excellent critical thinking. The student acknowledges that theoretically “remembering nothing’ may have some merits but then ponders on the larger socio-­‐political problem it presents. ↵
• Comment : The student brings two ideas together very smoothly here. ↵
• Comment : The writer sums up his argument while once again reminding us of the problem with Dillard’s ideas. ↵
• Comment : This is another thoughtful question that makes the reader think along with the writer. ↵
• Comment : The student makes a historical reference here that serves as strong evidence for his own argument. ↵
• Comment : This final paragraph sums up the writer’s perspective in a thoughtful and mature way. It moves away from Dillard’s argument and establishes the notion of human responsibility, an idea highly worth thinking about. ↵

Critical Thinking in College Writing: From the Personal to the Academic Copyright © 2011 by Gita DasBender is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

• Jason E. Dowd
• Robert J. Thompson
• Leslie A. Schiff
• Julie A. Reynolds

*Address correspondence to: Jason E. Dowd ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Search for more papers by this author

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students’ development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in writing is strongly related to inference , while other aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills. Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for critical thinking. In linking features of students’ writing to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference ) can actually improve students’ scientific reasoning in their writing.

INTRODUCTION

Critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education for all students, regardless of whether or not they intend to pursue a career in science or engineering. Consistent with the view of learning as construction of understanding and meaning ( National Research Council, 2000 ), the pedagogical practice of writing has been found to be effective not only in fostering the development of students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge ( Gerdeman et al. , 2007 ) and communication skills ( Clase et al. , 2010 ), but also scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical-thinking skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ).

Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are similar but different constructs that include various types of higher-order cognitive processes, metacognitive strategies, and dispositions involved in making meaning of information. Critical thinking is generally understood as the broader construct ( Holyoak and Morrison, 2005 ), comprising an array of cognitive processes and dispostions that are drawn upon differentially in everyday life and across domains of inquiry such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Scientific reasoning, then, may be interpreted as the subset of critical-thinking skills (cognitive and metacognitive processes and dispositions) that 1) are involved in making meaning of information in scientific domains and 2) support the epistemological commitment to scientific methodology and paradigm(s).

Although there has been an enduring focus in higher education on promoting critical thinking and reasoning as general or “transferable” skills, research evidence provides increasing support for the view that reasoning and critical thinking are also situational or domain specific ( Beyer et al. , 2013 ). Some researchers, such as Lawson (2010) , present frameworks in which science reasoning is characterized explicitly in terms of critical-thinking skills. There are, however, limited coherent frameworks and empirical evidence regarding either the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning, as it is most broadly defined, and critical-thinking skills.

The Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provides a framework for thinking about these constructs and their interrelationship in the context of the core competencies and disciplinary practice they describe ( American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ). These learning objectives aim for undergraduates to “understand the process of science, the interdisciplinary nature of the new biology and how science is closely integrated within society; be competent in communication and collaboration; have quantitative competency and a basic ability to interpret data; and have some experience with modeling, simulation and computational and systems level approaches as well as with using large databases” ( Woodin et al. , 2010 , pp. 71–72). This framework makes clear that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes; for example, “understanding the process of science” requires students to engage in (and be metacognitive about) scientific reasoning, and having the “ability to interpret data” requires critical-thinking skills. To help students better achieve these core competencies, we must better understand the interrelationships of their composite parts. Thus, the next step is to determine which specific critical-thinking skills are drawn upon when students engage in science reasoning in general and with regard to the particular scientific domain being studied. Such a determination could be applied to improve science education for both majors and nonmajors through pedagogical approaches that foster critical-thinking skills that are most relevant to science reasoning.

Writing affords one of the most effective means for making thinking visible ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and learning how to “think like” and “write like” disciplinary experts ( Meizlish et al. , 2013 ). As a result, student writing affords the opportunities to both foster and examine the interrelationship of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills within and across disciplinary contexts. The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between students’ critical-thinking skills and scientific reasoning skills as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology departments at two research universities, the University of Minnesota and Duke University.

In the following subsections, we discuss in greater detail the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical thinking, as well as the assessment of scientific reasoning in students’ thesis writing. In subsequent sections, we discuss our study design, findings, and the implications for enhancing educational practices.

Critical Thinking

The advances in cognitive science in the 21st century have increased our understanding of the mental processes involved in thinking and reasoning, as well as memory, learning, and problem solving. Critical thinking is understood to include both a cognitive dimension and a disposition dimension (e.g., reflective thinking) and is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considera­tions upon which that judgment is based” ( Facione, 1990, p. 3 ). Although various other definitions of critical thinking have been proposed, researchers have generally coalesced on this consensus: expert view ( Blattner and Frazier, 2002 ; Condon and Kelly-Riley, 2004 ; Bissell and Lemons, 2006 ; Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ) and the corresponding measures of critical-­thinking skills ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ).

Both the cognitive skills and dispositional components of critical thinking have been recognized as important to science education ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ). Empirical research demonstrates that specific pedagogical practices in science courses are effective in fostering students’ critical-thinking skills. Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) found that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in the context of a general education biology course significantly improved their overall critical-thinking skills (and their analytical and inference skills, in particular), whereas students engaged in a traditional quiz-based laboratory did not improve their critical-thinking skills. In related work, Quitadamo et al. (2008) found that a community-based inquiry experience, involving inquiry, writing, research, and analysis, was associated with improved critical thinking in a biology course for nonmajors, compared with traditionally taught sections. In both studies, students who exhibited stronger presemester critical-thinking skills exhibited stronger gains, suggesting that “students who have not been explicitly taught how to think critically may not reach the same potential as peers who have been taught these skills” ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 , p. 151).

Recently, Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight (2016) found that first-year general chemistry students who engaged in a science writing heuristic laboratory, which is an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to instruction ( Hand and Keys, 1999 ), had significantly greater gains in total critical-thinking scores than students who received traditional laboratory instruction. Each of the four components—inquiry, writing, collaboration, and reflection—have been linked to critical thinking ( Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Like the other studies, this work highlights the value of targeting critical-thinking skills and the effectiveness of an inquiry-based, writing-to-learn approach to enhance critical thinking. Across studies, authors advocate adopting critical thinking as the course framework ( Pukkila, 2004 ) and developing explicit examples of how critical thinking relates to the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ).

In these examples, the important connection between writing and critical thinking is highlighted by the fact that each intervention involves the incorporation of writing into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (either alone or in combination with other pedagogical practices). However, critical-thinking skills are not always the primary learning outcome; in some contexts, scientific reasoning is the primary outcome that is assessed.

Scientific Reasoning

Scientific reasoning is a complex process that is broadly defined as “the skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, and inference that are done in the service of conceptual change or scientific understanding” ( Zimmerman, 2007 , p. 172). Scientific reasoning is understood to include both conceptual knowledge and the cognitive processes involved with generation of hypotheses (i.e., inductive processes involved in the generation of hypotheses and the deductive processes used in the testing of hypotheses), experimentation strategies, and evidence evaluation strategies. These dimensions are interrelated, in that “experimentation and inference strategies are selected based on prior conceptual knowledge of the domain” ( Zimmerman, 2000 , p. 139). Furthermore, conceptual and procedural knowledge and cognitive process dimensions can be general and domain specific (or discipline specific).

With regard to conceptual knowledge, attention has been focused on the acquisition of core methodological concepts fundamental to scientists’ causal reasoning and metacognitive distancing (or decontextualized thinking), which is the ability to reason independently of prior knowledge or beliefs ( Greenhoot et al. , 2004 ). The latter involves what Kuhn and Dean (2004) refer to as the coordination of theory and evidence, which requires that one question existing theories (i.e., prior knowledge and beliefs), seek contradictory evidence, eliminate alternative explanations, and revise one’s prior beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. Kuhn and colleagues (2008) further elaborate that scientific thinking requires “a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world,” and “the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence” ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 , p. 435). “This approach to scientific reasoning not only highlights the skills of generating and evaluating evidence-based inferences, but also encompasses epistemological appreciation of the functions of evidence and theory” ( Ding et al. , 2016 , p. 616). Evaluating evidence-based inferences involves epistemic cognition, which Moshman (2015) defines as the subset of metacognition that is concerned with justification, truth, and associated forms of reasoning. Epistemic cognition is both general and domain specific (or discipline specific; Moshman, 2015 ).

There is empirical support for the contributions of both prior knowledge and an understanding of the epistemological foundations of science to scientific reasoning. In a study of undergraduate science students, advanced scientific reasoning was most often accompanied by accurate prior knowledge as well as sophisticated epistemological commitments; additionally, for students who had comparable levels of prior knowledge, skillful reasoning was associated with a strong epistemological commitment to the consistency of theory with evidence ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ). These findings highlight the importance of the need for instructional activities that intentionally help learners develop sophisticated epistemological commitments focused on the nature of knowledge and the role of evidence in supporting knowledge claims ( Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ).

Scientific Reasoning in Students’ Thesis Writing

Pedagogical approaches that incorporate writing have also focused on enhancing scientific reasoning. Many rubrics have been developed to assess aspects of scientific reasoning in written artifacts. For example, Timmerman and colleagues (2011) , in the course of describing their own rubric for assessing scientific reasoning, highlight several examples of scientific reasoning assessment criteria ( Haaga, 1993 ; Tariq et al. , 1998 ; Topping et al. , 2000 ; Kelly and Takao, 2002 ; Halonen et al. , 2003 ; Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ).

At both the University of Minnesota and Duke University, we have focused on the genre of the undergraduate honors thesis as the rhetorical context in which to study and improve students’ scientific reasoning and writing. We view the process of writing an undergraduate honors thesis as a form of professional development in the sciences (i.e., a way of engaging students in the practices of a community of discourse). We have found that structured courses designed to scaffold the thesis-­writing process and promote metacognition can improve writing and reasoning skills in biology, chemistry, and economics ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In the context of this prior work, we have defined scientific reasoning in writing as the emergent, underlying construct measured across distinct aspects of students’ written discussion of independent research in their undergraduate theses.

The Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol (BioTAP) was developed at Duke University as a tool for systematically guiding students and faculty through a “draft–feedback–revision” writing process, modeled after professional scientific peer-review processes ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). BioTAP includes activities and worksheets that allow students to engage in critical peer review and provides detailed descriptions, presented as rubrics, of the questions (i.e., dimensions, shown in Table 1 ) upon which such review should focus. Nine rubric dimensions focus on communication to the broader scientific community, and four rubric dimensions focus on the accuracy and appropriateness of the research. These rubric dimensions provide criteria by which the thesis is assessed, and therefore allow BioTAP to be used as an assessment tool as well as a teaching resource ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). Full details are available at www.science-writing.org/biotap.html .

In previous work, we have used BioTAP to quantitatively assess students’ undergraduate honors theses and explore the relationship between thesis-writing courses (or specific interventions within the courses) and the strength of students’ science reasoning in writing across different science disciplines: biology ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ); chemistry ( Dowd et al. , 2015b ); and economics ( Dowd et al. , 2015a ). We have focused exclusively on the nine dimensions related to reasoning and writing (questions 1–9), as the other four dimensions (questions 10–13) require topic-specific expertise and are intended to be used by the student’s thesis supervisor.

Beyond considering individual dimensions, we have investigated whether meaningful constructs underlie students’ thesis scores. We conducted exploratory factor analysis of students’ theses in biology, economics, and chemistry and found one dominant underlying factor in each discipline; we termed the factor “scientific reasoning in writing” ( Dowd et al. , 2015a , b , 2016 ). That is, each of the nine dimensions could be understood as reflecting, in different ways and to different degrees, the construct of scientific reasoning in writing. The findings indicated evidence of both general and discipline-specific components to scientific reasoning in writing that relate to epistemic beliefs and paradigms, in keeping with broader ideas about science reasoning discussed earlier. Specifically, scientific reasoning in writing is more strongly associated with formulating a compelling argument for the significance of the research in the context of current literature in biology, making meaning regarding the implications of the findings in chemistry, and providing an organizational framework for interpreting the thesis in economics. We suggested that instruction, whether occurring in writing studios or in writing courses to facilitate thesis preparation, should attend to both components.

Research Question and Study Design

The genre of thesis writing combines the pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-­McKnight, 2016 ). However, there is no empirical evidence regarding the general or domain-specific interrelationships of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills, particularly in the rhetorical context of the undergraduate thesis. The BioTAP studies discussed earlier indicate that the rubric-based assessment produces evidence of scientific reasoning in the undergraduate thesis, but it was not designed to foster or measure critical thinking. The current study was undertaken to address the research question: How are students’ critical-thinking skills related to scientific reasoning as reflected in the genre of undergraduate thesis writing in biology? Determining these interrelationships could guide efforts to enhance students’ scientific reasoning and writing skills through focusing instruction on specific critical-thinking skills as well as disciplinary conventions.

To address this research question, we focused on undergraduate thesis writers in biology courses at two institutions, Duke University and the University of Minnesota, and examined the extent to which students’ scientific reasoning in writing, assessed in the undergraduate thesis using BioTAP, corresponds to students’ critical-thinking skills, assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST; August, 2016 ).

Study Sample

The study sample was composed of students enrolled in courses designed to scaffold the thesis-writing process in the Department of Biology at Duke University and the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Both courses complement students’ individual work with research advisors. The course is required for thesis writers at the University of Minnesota and optional for writers at Duke University. Not all students are required to complete a thesis, though it is required for students to graduate with honors; at the University of Minnesota, such students are enrolled in an honors program within the college. In total, 28 students were enrolled in the course at Duke University and 44 students were enrolled in the course at the University of Minnesota. Of those students, two students did not consent to participate in the study; additionally, five students did not validly complete the CCTST (i.e., attempted fewer than 60% of items or completed the test in less than 15 minutes). Thus, our overall rate of valid participation is 90%, with 27 students from Duke University and 38 students from the University of Minnesota. We found no statistically significant differences in thesis assessment between students with valid CCTST scores and invalid CCTST scores. Therefore, we focus on the 65 students who consented to participate and for whom we have complete and valid data in most of this study. Additionally, in asking students for their consent to participate, we allowed them to choose whether to provide or decline access to academic and demographic background data. Of the 65 students who consented to participate, 52 students granted access to such data. Therefore, for additional analyses involving academic and background data, we focus on the 52 students who consented. We note that the 13 students who participated but declined to share additional data performed slightly lower on the CCTST than the 52 others (perhaps suggesting that they differ by other measures, but we cannot determine this with certainty). Among the 52 students, 60% identified as female and 10% identified as being from underrepresented ethnicities.

In both courses, students completed the CCTST online, either in class or on their own, late in the Spring 2016 semester. This is the same assessment that was used in prior studies of critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). It is “an objective measure of the core reasoning skills needed for reflective decision making concerning what to believe or what to do” ( Insight Assessment, 2016a ). In the test, students are asked to read and consider information as they answer multiple-choice questions. The questions are intended to be appropriate for all users, so there is no expectation of prior disciplinary knowledge in biology (or any other subject). Although actual test items are protected, sample items are available on the Insight Assessment website ( Insight Assessment, 2016b ). We have included one sample item in the Supplemental Material.

The CCTST is based on a consensus definition of critical thinking, measures cognitive and metacognitive skills associated with critical thinking, and has been evaluated for validity and reliability at the college level ( August, 2016 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). In addition to providing overall critical-thinking score, the CCTST assesses seven dimensions of critical thinking: analysis, interpretation, inference, evaluation, explanation, induction, and deduction. Scores on each dimension are calculated based on students’ performance on items related to that dimension. Analysis focuses on identifying assumptions, reasons, and claims and examining how they interact to form arguments. Interpretation, related to analysis, focuses on determining the precise meaning and significance of information. Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from reasons and evidence. Evaluation focuses on assessing the credibility of sources of information and claims they make. Explanation, related to evaluation, focuses on describing the evidence, assumptions, or rationale for beliefs and conclusions. Induction focuses on drawing inferences about what is probably true based on evidence. Deduction focuses on drawing conclusions about what must be true when the context completely determines the outcome. These are not independent dimensions; the fact that they are related supports their collective interpretation as critical thinking. Together, the CCTST dimensions provide a basis for evaluating students’ overall strength in using reasoning to form reflective judgments about what to believe or what to do ( August, 2016 ). Each of the seven dimensions and the overall CCTST score are measured on a scale of 0–100, where higher scores indicate superior performance. Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and below) skills.

Scientific Reasoning in Writing

At the end of the semester, students’ final, submitted undergraduate theses were assessed using BioTAP, which consists of nine rubric dimensions that focus on communication to the broader scientific community and four additional dimensions that focus on the exhibition of topic-specific expertise ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ). These dimensions, framed as questions, are displayed in Table 1 .

Student theses were assessed on questions 1–9 of BioTAP using the same procedures described in previous studies ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2015a , b ). In this study, six raters were trained in the valid, reliable use of BioTAP rubrics. Each dimension was rated on a five-point scale: 1 indicates the dimension is missing, incomplete, or below acceptable standards; 3 indicates that the dimension is adequate but not exhibiting mastery; and 5 indicates that the dimension is excellent and exhibits mastery (intermediate ratings of 2 and 4 are appropriate when different parts of the thesis make a single category challenging). After training, two raters independently assessed each thesis and then discussed their independent ratings with one another to form a consensus rating. The consensus score is not an average score, but rather an agreed-upon, discussion-based score. On a five-point scale, raters independently assessed dimensions to be within 1 point of each other 82.4% of the time before discussion and formed consensus ratings 100% of the time after discussion.

In this study, we consider both categorical (mastery/nonmastery, where a score of 5 corresponds to mastery) and numerical treatments of individual BioTAP scores to better relate the manifestation of critical thinking in BioTAP assessment to all of the prior studies. For comprehensive/cumulative measures of BioTAP, we focus on the partial sum of questions 1–5, as these questions relate to higher-order scientific reasoning (whereas questions 6–9 relate to mid- and lower-order writing mechanics [ Reynolds et al. , 2009 ]), and the factor scores (i.e., numerical representations of the extent to which each student exhibits the underlying factor), which are calculated from the factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) . We do not focus on questions 6–9 individually in statistical analyses, because we do not expect critical-thinking skills to relate to mid- and lower-order writing skills.

The final, submitted thesis reflects the student’s writing, the student’s scientific reasoning, the quality of feedback provided to the student by peers and mentors, and the student’s ability to incorporate that feedback into his or her work. Therefore, our assessment is not the same as an assessment of unpolished, unrevised samples of students’ written work. While one might imagine that such an unpolished sample may be more strongly correlated with critical-thinking skills measured by the CCTST, we argue that the complete, submitted thesis, assessed using BioTAP, is ultimately a more appropriate reflection of how students exhibit science reasoning in the scientific community.

Statistical Analyses

We took several steps to analyze the collected data. First, to provide context for subsequent interpretations, we generated descriptive statistics for the CCTST scores of the participants based on the norms for undergraduate CCTST test takers. To determine the strength of relationships among CCTST dimensions (including overall score) and the BioTAP dimensions, partial-sum score (questions 1–5), and factor score, we calculated Pearson’s correlations for each pair of measures. To examine whether falling on one side of the nonmastery/mastery threshold (as opposed to a linear scale of performance) was related to critical thinking, we grouped BioTAP dimensions into categories (mastery/nonmastery) and conducted Student’s t tests to compare the means scores of the two groups on each of the seven dimensions and overall score of the CCTST. Finally, for the strongest relationship that emerged, we included additional academic and background variables as covariates in multiple linear-regression analysis to explore questions about how much observed relationships between critical-thinking skills and science reasoning in writing might be explained by variation in these other factors.

Although BioTAP scores represent discreet, ordinal bins, the five-point scale is intended to capture an underlying continuous construct (from inadequate to exhibiting mastery). It has been argued that five categories is an appropriate cutoff for treating ordinal variables as pseudo-continuous ( Rhemtulla et al. , 2012 )—and therefore using continuous-variable statistical methods (e.g., Pearson’s correlations)—as long as the underlying assumption that ordinal scores are linearly distributed is valid. Although we have no way to statistically test this assumption, we interpret adequate scores to be approximately halfway between inadequate and mastery scores, resulting in a linear scale. In part because this assumption is subject to disagreement, we also consider and interpret a categorical (mastery/nonmastery) treatment of BioTAP variables.

We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method ( Holm, 1979 ). At the most general level, where we consider the single, comprehensive measures for BioTAP (partial-sum and factor score) and the CCTST (overall score), there is no need to correct for multiple comparisons, because the multiple, individual dimensions are collapsed into single dimensions. When we considered individual CCTST dimensions in relation to comprehensive measures for BioTAP, we accounted for seven comparisons; similarly, when we considered individual dimensions of BioTAP in relation to overall CCTST score, we accounted for five comparisons. When all seven CCTST and five BioTAP dimensions were examined individually and without prior knowledge, we accounted for 35 comparisons; such a rigorous threshold is likely to reject weak and moderate relationships, but it is appropriate if there are no specific pre-existing hypotheses. All p values are presented in tables for complete transparency, and we carefully consider the implications of our interpretation of these data in the Discussion section.

CCTST scores for students in this sample ranged from the 39th to 99th percentile of the general population of undergraduate CCTST test takers (mean percentile = 84.3, median = 85th percentile; Table 2 ); these percentiles reflect overall scores that range from moderate to superior. Scores on individual dimensions and overall scores were sufficiently normal and far enough from the ceiling of the scale to justify subsequent statistical analyses.

a Scores correspond to superior (86–100), strong (79–85), moderate (70–78), weak (63–69), or not manifested (62 and lower) skills.

The Pearson’s correlations between students’ cumulative scores on BioTAP (the factor score based on loadings published by Dowd et al. , 2016 , and the partial sum of scores on questions 1–5) and students’ overall scores on the CCTST are presented in Table 3 . We found that the partial-sum measure of BioTAP was significantly related to the overall measure of critical thinking ( r = 0.27, p = 0.03), while the BioTAP factor score was marginally related to overall CCTST ( r = 0.24, p = 0.05). When we looked at relationships between comprehensive BioTAP measures and scores for individual dimensions of the CCTST ( Table 3 ), we found significant positive correlations between the both BioTAP partial-sum and factor scores and CCTST inference ( r = 0.45, p < 0.001, and r = 0.41, p < 0.001, respectively). Although some other relationships have p values below 0.05 (e.g., the correlations between BioTAP partial-sum scores and CCTST induction and interpretation scores), they are not significant when we correct for multiple comparisons.

a In each cell, the top number is the correlation, and the bottom, italicized number is the associated p value. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

b This is the partial sum of BioTAP scores on questions 1–5.

c This is the factor score calculated from factor loadings published by Dowd et al. (2016) .

When we expanded comparisons to include all 35 potential correlations among individual BioTAP and CCTST dimensions—and, accordingly, corrected for 35 comparisons—we did not find any additional statistically significant relationships. The Pearson’s correlations between students’ scores on each dimension of BioTAP and students’ scores on each dimension of the CCTST range from −0.11 to 0.35 ( Table 3 ); although the relationship between discussion of implications (BioTAP question 5) and inference appears to be relatively large ( r = 0.35), it is not significant ( p = 0.005; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is 0.00143). We found no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions (unpublished data), regardless of whether we correct for multiple comparisons.

The results of Student’s t tests comparing scores on each dimension of the CCTST of students who exhibit mastery with those of students who do not exhibit mastery on each dimension of BioTAP are presented in Table 4 . Focusing first on the overall CCTST scores, we found that the difference between those who exhibit mastery and those who do not in discussing implications of results (BioTAP question 5) is statistically significant ( t = 2.73, p = 0.008, d = 0.71). When we expanded t tests to include all 35 comparisons—and, like above, corrected for 35 comparisons—we found a significant difference in inference scores between students who exhibit mastery on question 5 and students who do not ( t = 3.41, p = 0.0012, d = 0.88), as well as a marginally significant difference in these students’ induction scores ( t = 3.26, p = 0.0018, d = 0.84; the Holm-Bonferroni cutoff is p = 0.00147). Cohen’s d effect sizes, which reveal the strength of the differences for statistically significant relationships, range from 0.71 to 0.88.

a In each cell, the top number is the t statistic for each comparison, and the middle, italicized number is the associated p value. The bottom number is the effect size. Correlations that are statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons are shown in bold.

Finally, we more closely examined the strongest relationship that we observed, which was between the CCTST dimension of inference and the BioTAP partial-sum composite score (shown in Table 3 ), using multiple regression analysis ( Table 5 ). Focusing on the 52 students for whom we have background information, we looked at the simple relationship between BioTAP and inference (model 1), a robust background model including multiple covariates that one might expect to explain some part of the variation in BioTAP (model 2), and a combined model including all variables (model 3). As model 3 shows, the covariates explain very little variation in BioTAP scores, and the relationship between inference and BioTAP persists even in the presence of all of the covariates.

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which the various components of scientific reasoning—manifested in writing in the genre of undergraduate thesis and assessed using BioTAP—draw on general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using CCTST) and to consider the implications for educational practices. Although science reasoning involves critical-thinking skills, it also relates to conceptual knowledge and the epistemological foundations of science disciplines ( Kuhn et al. , 2008 ). Moreover, science reasoning in writing , captured in students’ undergraduate theses, reflects habits, conventions, and the incorporation of feedback that may alter evidence of individuals’ critical-thinking skills. Our findings, however, provide empirical evidence that cumulative measures of science reasoning in writing are nonetheless related to students’ overall critical-thinking skills ( Table 3 ). The particularly significant roles of inference skills ( Table 3 ) and the discussion of implications of results (BioTAP question 5; Table 4 ) provide a basis for more specific ideas about how these constructs relate to one another and what educational interventions may have the most success in fostering these skills.

Our results build on previous findings. The genre of thesis writing combines pedagogies of writing and inquiry found to foster scientific reasoning ( Reynolds et al. , 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ; Stephenson and Sadler-McKnight, 2016 ). Quitadamo and Kurtz (2007) reported that students who engaged in a laboratory writing component in a general education biology course significantly improved their inference and analysis skills, and Quitadamo and colleagues (2008) found that participation in a community-based inquiry biology course (that included a writing component) was associated with significant gains in students’ inference and evaluation skills. The shared focus on inference is noteworthy, because these prior studies actually differ from the current study; the former considered critical-­thinking skills as the primary learning outcome of writing-­focused interventions, whereas the latter focused on emergent links between two learning outcomes (science reasoning in writing and critical thinking). In other words, inference skills are impacted by writing as well as manifested in writing.

Inference focuses on drawing conclusions from argument and evidence. According to the consensus definition of critical thinking, the specific skill of inference includes several processes: querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. All of these activities are central to the independent research at the core of writing an undergraduate thesis. Indeed, a critical part of what we call “science reasoning in writing” might be characterized as a measure of students’ ability to infer and make meaning of information and findings. Because the cumulative BioTAP measures distill underlying similarities and, to an extent, suppress unique aspects of individual dimensions, we argue that it is appropriate to relate inference to scientific reasoning in writing . Even when we control for other potentially relevant background characteristics, the relationship is strong ( Table 5 ).

In taking the complementary view and focusing on BioTAP, when we compared students who exhibit mastery with those who do not, we found that the specific dimension of “discussing the implications of results” (question 5) differentiates students’ performance on several critical-thinking skills. To achieve mastery on this dimension, students must make connections between their results and other published studies and discuss the future directions of the research; in short, they must demonstrate an understanding of the bigger picture. The specific relationship between question 5 and inference is the strongest observed among all individual comparisons. Altogether, perhaps more than any other BioTAP dimension, this aspect of students’ writing provides a clear view of the role of students’ critical-thinking skills (particularly inference and, marginally, induction) in science reasoning.

While inference and discussion of implications emerge as particularly strongly related dimensions in this work, we note that the strongest contribution to “science reasoning in writing in biology,” as determined through exploratory factor analysis, is “argument for the significance of research” (BioTAP question 2, not question 5; Dowd et al. , 2016 ). Question 2 is not clearly related to critical-thinking skills. These findings are not contradictory, but rather suggest that the epistemological and disciplinary-specific aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing through BioTAP are not completely aligned with aspects related to critical thinking. In other words, science reasoning in writing is not simply a proxy for those critical-thinking skills that play a role in science reasoning.

In a similar vein, the content-related, epistemological aspects of science reasoning, as well as the conventions associated with writing the undergraduate thesis (including feedback from peers and revision), may explain the lack of significant relationships between some science reasoning dimensions and some critical-thinking skills that might otherwise seem counterintuitive (e.g., BioTAP question 2, which relates to making an argument, and the critical-thinking skill of argument). It is possible that an individual’s critical-thinking skills may explain some variation in a particular BioTAP dimension, but other aspects of science reasoning and practice exert much stronger influence. Although these relationships do not emerge in our analyses, the lack of significant correlation does not mean that there is definitively no correlation. Correcting for multiple comparisons suppresses type 1 error at the expense of exacerbating type 2 error, which, combined with the limited sample size, constrains statistical power and makes weak relationships more difficult to detect. Ultimately, though, the relationships that do emerge highlight places where individuals’ distinct critical-thinking skills emerge most coherently in thesis assessment, which is why we are particularly interested in unpacking those relationships.

We recognize that, because only honors students submit theses at these institutions, this study sample is composed of a selective subset of the larger population of biology majors. Although this is an inherent limitation of focusing on thesis writing, links between our findings and results of other studies (with different populations) suggest that observed relationships may occur more broadly. The goal of improved science reasoning and critical thinking is shared among all biology majors, particularly those engaged in capstone research experiences. So while the implications of this work most directly apply to honors thesis writers, we provisionally suggest that all students could benefit from further study of them.

There are several important implications of this study for science education practices. Students’ inference skills relate to the understanding and effective application of scientific content. The fact that we find no statistically significant relationships between BioTAP questions 6–9 and CCTST dimensions suggests that such mid- to lower-order elements of BioTAP ( Reynolds et al. , 2009 ), which tend to be more structural in nature, do not focus on aspects of the finished thesis that draw strongly on critical thinking. In keeping with prior analyses ( Reynolds and Thompson, 2011 ; Dowd et al. , 2016 ), these findings further reinforce the notion that disciplinary instructors, who are most capable of teaching and assessing scientific reasoning and perhaps least interested in the more mechanical aspects of writing, may nonetheless be best suited to effectively model and assess students’ writing.

The goal of the thesis writing course at both Duke University and the University of Minnesota is not merely to improve thesis scores but to move students’ writing into the category of mastery across BioTAP dimensions. Recognizing that students with differing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference) are more or less likely to achieve mastery in the undergraduate thesis (particularly in discussing implications [question 5]) is important for developing and testing targeted pedagogical interventions to improve learning outcomes for all students.

The competencies characterized by the Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education Initiative provide a general framework for recognizing that science reasoning and critical-thinking skills play key roles in major learning outcomes of science education. Our findings highlight places where science reasoning–related competencies (like “understanding the process of science”) connect to critical-thinking skills and places where critical thinking–related competencies might be manifested in scientific products (such as the ability to discuss implications in scientific writing). We encourage broader efforts to build empirical connections between competencies and pedagogical practices to further improve science education.

One specific implication of this work for science education is to focus on providing opportunities for students to develop their critical-thinking skills (particularly inference). Of course, as this correlational study is not designed to test causality, we do not claim that enhancing students’ inference skills will improve science reasoning in writing. However, as prior work shows that science writing activities influence students’ inference skills ( Quitadamo and Kurtz, 2007 ; Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ), there is reason to test such a hypothesis. Nevertheless, the focus must extend beyond inference as an isolated skill; rather, it is important to relate inference to the foundations of the scientific method ( Miri et al. , 2007 ) in terms of the epistemological appreciation of the functions and coordination of evidence ( Kuhn and Dean, 2004 ; Zeineddin and Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ; Ding et al. , 2016 ) and disciplinary paradigms of truth and justification ( Moshman, 2015 ).

Although this study is limited to the domain of biology at two institutions with a relatively small number of students, the findings represent a foundational step in the direction of achieving success with more integrated learning outcomes. Hopefully, it will spur greater interest in empirically grounding discussions of the constructs of scientific reasoning and critical-thinking skills.

This study contributes to the efforts to improve science education, for both majors and nonmajors, through an empirically driven analysis of the relationships between scientific reasoning reflected in the genre of thesis writing and critical-thinking skills. This work is rooted in the usefulness of BioTAP as a method 1) to facilitate communication and learning and 2) to assess disciplinary-specific and general dimensions of science reasoning. The findings support the important role of the critical-thinking skill of inference in scientific reasoning in writing, while also highlighting ways in which other aspects of science reasoning (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical thinking. Future research into the impact of interventions focused on specific critical-thinking skills (i.e., inference) for improved science reasoning in writing will build on this work and its implications for science education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the contributions of Kelaine Haas and Alexander Motten to the implementation and collection of data. We also thank Mine Çetinkaya-­Rundel for her insights regarding our statistical analyses. This research was funded by National Science Foundation award DUE-1525602.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science . ( 2011 ). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf . Google Scholar
• August, D. ( 2016 ). California Critical Thinking Skills Test user manual and resource guide . San Jose: Insight Assessment/California Academic Press. Google Scholar
• Beyer, C. H., Taylor, E., & Gillmore, G. M. ( 2013 ). Inside the undergraduate teaching experience: The University of Washington’s growth in faculty teaching study . Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
• Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. ( 2006 ). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom . BioScience , 56 (1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 . Google Scholar
• Blattner, N. H., & Frazier, C. L. ( 2002 ). Developing a performance-based assessment of students’ critical thinking skills . Assessing Writing , 8 (1), 47–64. Google Scholar
• Clase, K. L., Gundlach, E., & Pelaez, N. J. ( 2010 ). Calibrated peer review for computer-assisted learning of biological research competencies . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 38 (5), 290–295. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. ( 2004 ). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities . Assessing Writing , 9 (1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003 . Google Scholar
• Ding, L., Wei, X., & Liu, X. ( 2016 ). Variations in university students’ scientific reasoning skills across majors, years, and types of institutions . Research in Science Education , 46 (5), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9473-y . Google Scholar
• Dowd, J. E., Connolly, M. P., Thompson, R. J.Jr., & Reynolds, J. A. ( 2015a ). Improved reasoning in undergraduate writing through structured workshops . Journal of Economic Education , 46 (1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.978924 . Google Scholar
• Dowd, J. E., Roy, C. P., Thompson, R. J.Jr., & Reynolds, J. A. ( 2015b ). “On course” for supporting expanded participation and improving scientific reasoning in undergraduate thesis writing . Journal of Chemical Education , 92 (1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500298r . Google Scholar
• Dowd, J. E., Thompson, R. J.Jr., & Reynolds, J. A. ( 2016 ). Quantitative genre analysis of undergraduate theses: Uncovering different ways of writing and thinking in science disciplines . WAC Journal , 27 , 36–51. Google Scholar
• Facione, P. A. ( 1990 ). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://philpapers.org/archive/FACCTA.pdf . Google Scholar
• Gerdeman, R. D., Russell, A. A., Worden, K. J., Gerdeman, R. D., Russell, A. A., & Worden, K. J. ( 2007 ). Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course . Journal of College Science Teaching , 36 (5), 46–52. Google Scholar
• Greenhoot, A. F., Semb, G., Colombo, J., & Schreiber, T. ( 2004 ). Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 18 (2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.959 . Google Scholar
• Haaga, D. A. F. ( 1993 ). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology courses . Teaching of Psychology , 20 (1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_5 . Google Scholar
• Halonen, J. S., Bosack, T., Clay, S., McCarthy, M., Dunn, D. S., Hill, G. W., … Whitlock, K. ( 2003 ). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology . Teaching of Psychology , 30 (3), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_01 . Google Scholar
• Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. ( 1999 ). Inquiry investigation . Science Teacher , 66 (4), 27–29. Google Scholar
• Holm, S. ( 1979 ). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 6 (2), 65–70. Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. ( 2005 ). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning . New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Insight Assessment . ( 2016a ). California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST . Google Scholar
• Insight Assessment . ( 2016b ). Sample thinking skills questions. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Teaching-Training-and-Learning-Tools/node_1487 . Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. ( 2002 ). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing . Science Education , 86 (3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024 . Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Dean, D.Jr. ( 2004 ). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference . Journal of Cognition and Development , 5 (2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0502_5 . Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. ( 2008 ). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? . Cognitive Development , 23 (4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006 . Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. E. ( 2010 ). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery . Science Education , 94 (2), 336–364. https://doi.org/­10.1002/sce.20357 . Google Scholar
• Meizlish, D., LaVaque-Manty, D., Silver, N., & Kaplan, M. ( 2013 ). Think like/write like: Metacognitive strategies to foster students’ development as disciplinary thinkers and writers . In Thompson, R. J. (Ed.), Changing the conversation about higher education (pp. 53–73). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar
• Miri, B., David, B.-C., & Uri, Z. ( 2007 ). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking . Research in Science Education , 37 (4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2 . Google Scholar
• Moshman, D. ( 2015 ). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth . New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
• National Research Council . ( 2000 ). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Expanded ed.. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Pukkila, P. J. ( 2004 ). Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes . Genetics , 166 (1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.166.1.11 . Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. ( 2008 ). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 (3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Quitadamo, I. J., & Kurtz, M. J. ( 2007 ). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 6 (2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. A., Smith, R., Moskovitz, C., & Sayle, A. ( 2009 ). BioTAP: A systematic approach to teaching scientific writing and evaluating undergraduate theses . BioScience , 59 (10), 896–903. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.11 . Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J. ( 2012 ). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. A., & Thompson, R. J. ( 2011 ). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 (2), 209–215. https://doi.org/­10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. ( 2012 ). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions . Psychological Methods , 17 (3), 354–373. https://doi.org/­10.1037/a0029315 . Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Stephenson, N. S., & Sadler-McKnight, N. P. ( 2016 ). Developing critical thinking skills using the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory . Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 17 (1), 72–79. https://doi.org/­10.1039/C5RP00102A . Google Scholar
• Tariq, V. N., Stefani, L. A. J., Butcher, A. C., & Heylings, D. J. A. ( 1998 ). Developing a new approach to the assessment of project work . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 23 (3), 221–240. https://doi.org/­10.1080/0260293980230301 . Google Scholar
• Timmerman, B. E. C., Strickland, D. C., Johnson, R. L., & Payne, J. R. ( 2011 ). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 36 (5), 509–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/­02602930903540991 . Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. ( 2000 ). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 25 (2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428 . Google Scholar
• Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. ( 2007 ). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers . Higher Education Research and Development , 26 (4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609 . Google Scholar
• Woodin, T., Carter, V. C., & Fletcher, L. ( 2010 ). Vision and Change in Biology Undergraduate Education: A Call for Action—Initial responses . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 (2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044 . Link ,  Google Scholar
• Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. ( 2010 ). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 (9), 1064–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20368 . Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, C. ( 2000 ). The development of scientific reasoning skills . Developmental Review , 20 (1), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497 . Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, C. ( 2007 ). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school . Developmental Review , 27 (2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 . Google Scholar
• Redesign a biology introduction course to promote life consciousness 14 May 2024 | Cogent Education, Vol. 11, No. 1
• Gender, Equity, and Science Writing: Examining Differences in Undergraduate Life Science Majors’ Attitudes toward Writing Lab Reports 6 March 2024 | Education Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3
• Designing a framework to improve critical reflection writing in teacher education using action research 24 February 2022 | Educational Action Research, Vol. 32, No. 1
• Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education  5 September 2023 | Science & Education, Vol. 11
• Students Need More than Content Knowledge To Counter Vaccine Hesitancy 22 Aug 2023 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 24, No. 2
• Critical thinking during science investigations: what do practicing teachers value and observe? 16 March 2023 | Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 29, No. 6
• Effect of Web-Based Collaborative Learning Method with Scratch on Critical Thinking Skills of 5th Grade Students 30 March 2023 | Participatory Educational Research, Vol. 10, No. 2
• Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?—A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany 22 March 2023 | Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 3
• A Systematic Review on Inquiry-Based Writing Instruction in Tertiary Settings 30 November 2022 | Written Communication, Vol. 40, No. 1
• An empirical analysis of the relationship between nature of science and critical thinking through science definitions and thinking skills 8 December 2022 | SN Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 12
• TEACHING OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS BY SCIENCE TEACHERS IN JAPANESE PRIMARY SCHOOLS 25 October 2022 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5
• A Team-Based Activity to Support Knowledge Transfer and Experimental Design Skills of Undergraduate Science Students 4 May 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21
• Curriculum Design of College Students’ English Critical Ability in the Internet Age 18 Mar 2022 | Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Vol. 2022
• Exploring the structure of students’ scientific higher order thinking in science education 1 Mar 2022 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 43
• 2022 | The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Vol. 31, No. 4
• Conspiratorial Beliefs and Cognitive Styles: An Integrated Look on Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning in Relation to (Dis)trust in Conspiracy Theories 12 October 2021 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12
• Professional Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Expectations of Pre-Service Teachers Regarding Scientific Reasoning and Diagnostics 11 October 2021 | Education Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 10
• Developing textbook based on scientific approach, critical thinking, and science process skills 1 Mar 2021 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1839, No. 1
• Using Models of Cognitive Development to Design College Learning Experiences 18 Jan 2021
• 2021 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 42
• Assessing students’ prior knowledge on critical thinking skills in the biology classroom: Has it already been good? 1 Jan 2021
• Critical Thinking Level among Medical Sciences Students in Iran 28 Dec 2020 | Education Research International, Vol. 2020
• Teaching during a pandemic: Using high‐impact writing assignments to balance rigor, engagement, flexibility, and workload 12 October 2020 | Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 22
• Mini-Review - Teaching Writing in the Undergraduate Neuroscience Curriculum: Its Importance and Best Practices 1 Oct 2020 | Neuroscience Letters, Vol. 737
• Developing critical thinking skills assessment for pre-service elementary school teacher about the basic concept of science: validity and reliability 1 Jun 2020 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1567, No. 2
• Challenging endocrinology students with a critical-thinking workbook 1 Mar 2020 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 44, No. 1
• Jason E. Dowd ,
• Robert J. Thompson ,
• Leslie Schiff ,
• Kelaine Haas ,
• Christine Hohmann ,
• Chris Roy ,
• Warren Meck ,
• John Bruno , and
• Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor
• Kari L. Nelson ,
• Claudia M. Rauter , and
• Christine E. Cutucache
• Elisabeth Schussler, Monitoring Editor

Submitted: 17 March 2017 Revised: 19 October 2017 Accepted: 20 October 2017

© 2018 J. E. Dowd et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2018 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

• Library Catalogue

Critical thinking for critical writing

On this page, non-critical vs. critical reading, modes of critical analysis, steps to writing critically, implications for writing.

Critical writing depends on critical thinking. Your writing will involve reflection on written texts: that is, critical reading.

Your critical reading of a text and thinking about a text enables you to use it to make your own arguments. As a critical thinker and writer, you make judgments and interpretations of the ideas, arguments, and claims of others presented in the texts you read.

The key is this: don’t read looking only or primarily for information . Instead, read to determine ways of thinking about the subject matter.

Non-critical   reading is focused on learning the information provided by a source. In this mode, a reader focuses on understanding the information, ideas, and opinions stated within the text. 

Sometimes non-critical reading is a part of our day-to-day lives. For example, we may consult a weather report to help us decide whether or not we need to pack an umbrella when we leave the house. Often, we don't need to be critical readers to get the information we need about the weather. However, if the weather report states that it will be a "sunny, cloudless day" and we can see that it is pouring outside our window, we will likely bring our critical reading abilities back into play! 

How to read critically

1. Determine the central claims or purpose of the text (its thesis). A critical reading attempts to identify and assess how these central claims are developed and argued.

2. Begin to make some judgments about context .

• What audience is the text written for?
• Who is it in dialogue with?
• In what historical context is it written?

3. Distinguish the kinds of reasoning the text employs.

• What concepts are defined and used?
• Does the text appeal to a theory or theories?
• Is any specific methodology laid out?
• If there is an appeal to a particular concept, theory, or method, how is that concept, theory, or method then used to organize and interpret the data?
• How has the author analyzed (broken down) the material?

4. Examine the evidence (the supporting facts, examples, etc.) the text employs. Supporting evidence is indispensable to an argument, so consider the kinds of evidence used: Statistical? Literary? Historical? From what sources is the evidence taken? Are these sources primary or secondary?

5. Critical reading may involve evaluation . Your reading of a text is already critical if it accounts for and makes a series of judgments about how a text is argued. Some assignments may also require you to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an argument.

Why to read critically

Critical reading is an important step for many academic assignments. Critically engaging with the work of others is often a first step in developing our own arguments, interpretations, and analysis. 

Critical reading often involves re-reading a text multiple times, putting our focus on different aspects of the text. The first time we read a text, we may be focused on getting an overall sense of the information the author is presenting - in other words, simply understanding what they are trying to say. On subsequent readings, however, we can focus on how the author presents that information, the kinds of evidence they provide to support their arguments (and how convincing we find that evidence), the connection between their evidence and their conclusions, etc. etc. 

Example:  A non-critical thinker/reader might read a history book to learn the facts of the situation or to discover an accepted interpretation of those events.

A critical thinker/reader might read the same work to appreciate how a particular perspective on the events and a particular selection of facts can lead to a particular understanding. A critical thinker/reader will likely also think about the perspectives of that event that are NOT being considered or presented in the text. 

What a text says  – restatement . Talks about the same topic as the original text. What a text does – description . Focuses on aspects of the discussion itself. What a text means – interpretation . Analyzes the text and asserts a meaning for the text as a whole.

TIP: An interpretation includes references to the content (the specific actions referred to), the language (the specific terms used), and the structure (such as the relationship between characters).

1. Take a critical stance:  recognize that every text, author, and argument comes from a perspective and is subject to interpretation and analysis.

2. Pay close attention : read texts not just for  what they say  but also for  how they say it . Notice examples, evidence, word choice, structure, etc. Consider the "fit" between the information a text provides and the way it provides that information. 

3. Think big picture : read texts in their context. This can sometimes also involve doing some research about your sources to learn more about the author, the time in which the text was written, the sources that funded the research, etc. 

4. Bring yourself in : critical writing also involves developing your own understandings, interpretations, analysis, and arguments in response to the texts you are reading. Sometimes this is accomplished by considering the connections/points of divergence between several texts you are reading. It can also involve bringing in your own perspectives and experiences to support or challenge evidence, examples, and/or conclusions. 

Writing critically involves:

• Providing appropriate and sufficient arguments and examples
• Choosing terms that are precise, appropriate, and persuasive
• Making clear the transitions from one thought to another to ensure the overall logic of the presentation
• Editing for content, structure, and language

An increased awareness of the impact of choices of content, language, and structure can help you as a writer to develop habits of rewriting and revision.

Reference: this resource was adapted from Dan Kurland's Critical Reading, at its Core, Plain and Simple

• DOI: 10.18488/journal.1.2020.102.118.128
• Corpus ID: 211732309

Exploring the Connection between Critical Thinking Skills and Academic Writing

• Noor Hanim Rahmat , Norhartini Aripin , +2 authors Zulaikha Khairuddin
• Published 1 February 2020
• International journal of Asian social science

Figures from this paper

11 Citations

Developing critical writing skills in foreign language teaching of general secondary educational institutions, investigating cognitive presence in learning academic writing online, move analysis and critical thinking perception on third semester students’ review text, knowledge transforming in writing: an analysis of read-to-write process, critical thinking and creativity in steam-based collaborative learning on renewable energy issues, feeling nature in writing: environmental education in the efl writing course, the effects of over-reliance on ai dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review, exploring cohesions in efl academic writing: a state of the art on the study of cohesions, improving critical thinking skills of geography students with spatial-problem based learning (spbl), meningkatkan literasi dengan pelatihan penulisan artikel ilmiah dan artikel ilmiah populer berupa esai dan opini di sma muhammadiyah pituruh, 15 references, teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education, deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: implications for leadership, thinking about thinking in writing.

• Highly Influential

Critical thinking in the language classroom: Teacher beliefs and methods

The significance of critical thinking ability in terms of education, development of critical thinking skills through writing tasks: challenges facing maritime english students at aqaba college, albalqa applied university, jordan, categories of critical thinking in information managent. a study of critical thinking in decision making processes, using critical thinking teaching methods to increase student success: an action research project., a manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (mslq)., a cognitive process theory of writing, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Exploring critical thinking in academic and professional writing

DOI link for Exploring critical thinking in academic and professional writing

Click here to navigate to parent product.

The critical thinking generates multiple expectations and definitions ­arising from the fact that there is no single philosophical or scientific tradition that informs either its definition or its teaching. Academic writing textbooks that give advice about essays place emphasis on the need to develop an overall argument or case through the presentation and development of a thesis statement and the use of critical/evaluative thinking in the development of the argumentation. In academic writing, they involve a small range of coherence relations, specifically those that involve different types of causality and concessive contrast; embedded within these are frequently metadiscourse devices, particularly hedging and attitude markers. The chapter analyses each critical statement to identify the generic elements that it employed to construct its evaluation. The social genre/cognitive genre model is used to analyse texts manually using a combination of induction and deduction.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.
• 3 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
• 4 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.
• PMID: 29326103
• PMCID: PMC6007780
• DOI: 10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052

Developing critical-thinking and scientific reasoning skills are core learning objectives of science education, but little empirical evidence exists regarding the interrelationships between these constructs. Writing effectively fosters students' development of these constructs, and it offers a unique window into studying how they relate. In this study of undergraduate thesis writing in biology at two universities, we examine how scientific reasoning exhibited in writing (assessed using the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol) relates to general and specific critical-thinking skills (assessed using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test), and we consider implications for instruction. We find that scientific reasoning in writing is strongly related to inference , while other aspects of science reasoning that emerge in writing (epistemological considerations, writing conventions, etc.) are not significantly related to critical-thinking skills. Science reasoning in writing is not merely a proxy for critical thinking. In linking features of students' writing to their critical-thinking skills, this study 1) provides a bridge to prior work suggesting that engagement in science writing enhances critical thinking and 2) serves as a foundational step for subsequently determining whether instruction focused explicitly on developing critical-thinking skills (particularly inference ) can actually improve students' scientific reasoning in their writing.

© 2018 J. E. Dowd et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2018 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Student Learning Dispositions: Multidimensional Profiles Highlight Important Differences among Undergraduate STEM Honors Thesis Writers. Dowd JE, Thompson RJ Jr, Schiff L, Haas K, Hohmann C, Roy C, Meck W, Bruno J, Reynolds JA. Dowd JE, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019 Jun;18(2):ar28. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-07-0141. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019. PMID: 31150321 Free PMC article.
• Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review. Reynolds JA, Thompson RJ Jr. Reynolds JA, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011 Summer;10(2):209-15. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011. PMID: 21633069 Free PMC article.
• Fostering critical thinking and collaborative learning skills among medical students through a research protocol writing activity in the curriculum. Sahoo S, Mohammed CA. Sahoo S, et al. Korean J Med Educ. 2018 Jun;30(2):109-118. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2018.86. Epub 2018 May 30. Korean J Med Educ. 2018. PMID: 29860777 Free PMC article.
• Reflective writing in dental education to improve critical thinking and learning: A systematic review. Woldt JL, Nenad MW. Woldt JL, et al. J Dent Educ. 2021 Jun;85(6):778-785. doi: 10.1002/jdd.12561. Epub 2021 Feb 11. J Dent Educ. 2021. PMID: 33576055 Review.
• The importance of academic literacy for undergraduate nursing students and its relationship to future professional clinical practice: A systematic review. Jefferies D, McNally S, Roberts K, Wallace A, Stunden A, D'Souza S, Glew P. Jefferies D, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Jan;60:84-91. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.09.020. Epub 2017 Oct 5. Nurse Educ Today. 2018. PMID: 29055236 Review.
• Students Need More than Content Knowledge To Counter Vaccine Hesitancy. Lee SW, Tran S. Lee SW, et al. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2023 Jul 13;24(2):e00047-23. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00047-23. eCollection 2023 Aug. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2023. PMID: 37614892 Free PMC article.
• Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?-A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany. Welter VDE, Emmerichs-Knapp L, Krell M. Welter VDE, et al. Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Mar 22;13(3):279. doi: 10.3390/bs13030279. Behav Sci (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36975304 Free PMC article.
• How to Develop a Grant Writing Course for Undergraduate Students. Oxford JT, Smith DB, Yarnell T, Jorcyk CL. Oxford JT, et al. Curr Protoc. 2023 Mar;3(3):e728. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.728. Curr Protoc. 2023. PMID: 36971686 Free PMC article.
• A Team-Based Activity to Support Knowledge Transfer and Experimental Design Skills of Undergraduate Science Students. D'Ambrosio LM. D'Ambrosio LM. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2022 May 4;23(2):e00013-22. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00013-22. eCollection 2022 Aug. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2022. PMID: 36061325 Free PMC article.
• Conspiratorial Beliefs and Cognitive Styles: An Integrated Look on Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning in Relation to (Dis)trust in Conspiracy Theories. Gjoneska B. Gjoneska B. Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 12;12:736838. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736838. eCollection 2021. Front Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34712182 Free PMC article.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: Retrieved September 26, 2017, from https://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf .
• August D. (2016). California Critical Thinking Skills Test user manual and resource guide. San Jose: Insight Assessment/California Academic Press.
• Beyer C. H., Taylor E., Gillmore G. M. (2013). Inside the undergraduate teaching experience: The University of Washington’s growth in faculty teaching study. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Bissell A. N., Lemons P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. BioScience, (1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 . - DOI
• Blattner N. H., Frazier C. L. (2002). Developing a performance-based assessment of students’ critical thinking skills. Assessing Writing, (1), 47–64.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

The Relationship between Critical Thinking and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study

• Ali Orhan Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1234-3919

Author Biography

Ali orhan, zonguldak bülent ecevit university.

Turkey [email protected] 0000-0003-1234-3919

Abbasi, A. & Izadpanah, S. (2018). The relationship between critical thinking, its subscales and academic achievement of English language course: The predictability of educational success based on critical thinking. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 91-105.

Afshar, H. S., Movassagh, H. & Arbabi, H. R. (2017). The interrelationship among critical thinking, writing an argumentative essay in an L2 and their subskills. The Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 419-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1320420

Afshar, H. S. & Movassagh, H. (2017). On the relationship among critical thinking, language learning strategy use and university achievement of Iranian English as a foreign language majors. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 382-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.914238

Akbarilakeh, M., Naderi, A. & Arbabisarjou, A. (2018). Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence Skills and Relationship with Students’ Academic Achievement. Prensa Medica Argentina, 104(2), 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/lpma.1000280

Altuntaş, E. Ç., Yılmaz, M. & Turan, S. L. (2017). An investigation on critical thinking tendencies of pre-service biology teachers. Ege Journal of Education, 19(1), 34-45. doi: 10.12984/egeefd.306019.

Amiri, F. (2018). The relationship between critical thinking, epistemological beliefs, and learning strategies with the students’ academic performance. Journal of Educational and Psychological Research, 15(58), 572-587.

Amuso, J. O. (2020). Verbal ability and critical thinking skills as determinants of students’ academic achievement in secondary school physics. International Journal of Educational Research and Policy Making, 3(1), 395-405.

Aydoğdu, İ. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between critical thinking perceptions and academic successes of primary school 4th grade students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University.

Bagheri, N. (2018). Critical thinking and autonomy in speaking ability: A case study. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 6(5), 73-83.

Bağcı, K. (2019). Relationship between critical thinking skills of secondary school students and their achievement in fine arts (Unpublished master thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.

Basmaz, I. (2017). Determination of critical thinking disposition in the context of reading comprehension, student, family and home environment variables [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara University.

Bingöl, P. (2019). The effect of project based learning on academic success and critical thinking in social studies teaching [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Atatürk University.

Ceylan, D. (2020). The predictive power of learning strategies and critical thinking tendencies on high school students' academic achievement [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Yeditepe University.

Esmaeel, N. M. & Zahra, Z. (2015). The relationship between critical thinking ability and listening comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(3), 47-59.

Fields, J. B. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of a critical thinking program to academic success of community college students [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Trident University International.

Ghanizadeh, A. (2016). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74, 101–114.

Ghorbandordinejad, F. & Nourizade, F. (2015). Examination of the relationship between critical thinking disposition and English learning achievement as mediated by emotional intelligence. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences, 22(4), 83-95.

Hesham, H. A. H. (2015). Metacognition, critical thinking, gender as predictors of achievement of 10th graders in science, technology, engineering and mathematic school (STEM). Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 4(3), 42-48.

Kanbay, Y., Işık, E., Aslan, Ö. Tektaş, P. & Kılıç, N. (2017). Critical thinking skill and academic achievement development in nursing students: Four-year longitudinal study. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 2(12), 1-10.

Karagöl, İ. & Bekmezci, S. (2015). Investigating academic achievements and critical thinking dispositions of teacher candidates. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 86-92.

Karimi, M. N., Hashemi, M. R. & Sarbazfard, M. (2015). Emotional intelligence and critical thinking ability as correlates of EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 75-94.

Khaing, P. P. & Thein, N. N. (2018). A study of the correlation between students’ critical thinking skills and their mathematics achievement at the middle school level. Journal of the Myanmar Academy Academy of Arts and Science, 16(9A), 333-361.

Kıran, M. S. (2019). The relationship between the level of critical thinking skills and the level of reading comprehension success of 4th grade students in elementary school [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İnönü University.

Kutluca, A. Y., Yılmaz, A. & İbiş, E. (2018). Examination of teacher candidates’ critical thinking attitudes in terms of various variables. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(6), 2045-2055. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2309

León, J., Núñez, J. L., Ruiz-Alfonso, Z. & Bordón, B. (2015). Music academic performance: Effect of intrinsic motivation and critical thinking. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 20(2), 377-391.

Moslemi, Z., Ghomi, M. & Mohammadi, S. D. (2016). The relationship between critical thinking skills with mental health and academic achievement of Qom University of medical sciences students. Journal of Medical Education Development, 9(23), 90-101.

Mousazadeh, S., Momennasab, M., Bakhtiari, T. & Reisi, M. (2016). Nursing students' disposition toward critical thinking and its relationship with their academic performance. Journal of Nursing Education, 5(4), 20-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.21859/jne-05043

Musa, M. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between critical thinking levels and academic achievement levels of students in faculty of sports science. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(7), 370-376.

Mutlu, F., Polat, E., İlçin, M. & Kalkan, T. (2016). An investigation of critical thinking dispositions of physical education and sports school students’ in terms of some variables (Example: Niğde province). Journal of Sport Sciences Researches, 1(1), 27-36.

Nordin, N. (2015). Critical thinking as a predictor of students’ academic achievement: A study on Islamic studies students at Pahang Islamic College, Sultan Ahmad Shan, Kuantan. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 1, 46-56.

Öz, M. (2020). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach with using multimodal representations on students’ academic achievement and critical thinking in science education [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Kastamonu University.

Phakakat, S. & Sovajassatakul, T. (2020). Effects of copper model in blended service learning for the enhancement of undergraduate academic achievements and critical thinking. TEM Journal, 9(2), 814‐819.

Pienaar, J. (2019). Academic performance and cognitive critical thinking skills of certificate in theory of accounting students at Nelson Mandela University [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Nelson Mandela University.

Pozhhan, P., Goodarzi, K. & Roozbehani, M. (2019). Investigating the relationship between critical thinking and academic achievement in male students of the Islamic Azad University of Ahvaz Branch. International Journal of Philosophy and Social-Psychological Sciences, 5(3), 9-17.

Putra, H. M. (2019). An investigation link between critical thinking and reading comprehension: A case of A Madrasah in Lubuk Linggau, South Sumatera. Journal of Islamic Education, 24(1), 211-221.

Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P. & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence, 82, 1-10.

Schwanz, K. A. & McIlreavy, M. (2015). Academic performance of introductory psychology students: The importance of critical thinking. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3(2), 25-31.

Shahzadi, U., Nimmi & Khan, I. (2020). Exploring the relationship between critical thinking skills and academic achievement. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 3(1), 236-242.

Shirazi, F. & Heidari, S. (2019). The relationship between critical thinking skills and learning styles and academic achievement of nursing students. The Journal of Nursing Research, 27(4), 1-7.

Sisay, Y. (2019a). Preparatory school learners’ level of critical thinking proficiency and its correlation with their academic achievement in Ethiopia: The missing ingredient. English Language, Literature & Culture, 4(2), 32-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20190402.11

Sisay, Y. (2019b). Upper primary learners’ level of critical thinking skill and its effect on students’ English language achievement in relation with sex. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education Journal, 2(4), 54-63.

Şahin Kölemen, C. & Erişen, Y. (2017). An investigation on the relationship between problem solving and critical thinking skill, and academic achievement of vocational and technical high school students. Turkey Education Journal, 2(2), 42-60.

Tafazzoli, M., Rashidi Fakari, F., Ramazanzadeh, M. & Sarli, A. (2015) The relationship between critical thinking dispositions and academic achievement in Iranian Midwifery Students. Nurse Practice Today, 2(3), 88-93.

Usta, M. (2019). Examination of reading-understanding levels and critical thinking skills of primary school teachers and primary school 4th grade students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.

Wan, Z. H. & Cheng, M. H. M. (2019). Classroom learning environment, critical thinking and achievement in an interdisciplinary subject: A study of Hong Kong secondary school graduates. Educational Studies, 45(3), 285-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1446331

Yavuz, M. M. (2019). The research of the connection between critical thinking level and social studies academic achievement of secondary school students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University.

Yüksekbilgili, B. (2019). Analyzing 4th grade students’ critical thinking abilities and math success level [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gaziantep University.

Additional Files

How to cite.

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Ali Orhan, Do Epistemological Beliefs Predict Critical Thinking Dispositions?: A Cross-sectional Study with Turkish High School Students , Psycho-Educational Research Reviews: Vol. 11 No. 2 (2022): Psycho-Educational Research Reviews

           PUBLISHER

Make a Submission

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

ITHENTICATE

flag counter

Current Issue

Another Chinese doping controversy pops up in Olympics swimming meet

NYC turns to AI-powered scanners to keep guns out of subway system

266 dead, 10,000 arrested: Students announce 'March for Justice' on July 31

Indonesian president moves office to new capital

Development of critical thinking through academic writing.

Today the world has become a global village. Where knowledge is very easy to find and in this modern world being able to think differently from others has also become important. Thinking differently from others requires us to think critically. In a world full of educated people who have so much knowledge of everything, how would your idea be able to stand? This would be only possible if you would have the skill of critical thinking and the best way to develop this skill is through academic writing. In this article, experts at Do Write My Essay will point out what critical thinking is, its importance in academic writing, and how you can develop it through academic writing.

What is Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a skill set that enables people to think outside the box, which means to think differently from other people in every situation. It enables people to first examine the situation, and then evaluate it. See every aspect of the situation, whether it's positive or negative. Critical thinking is a skill that takes time to develop but, when it is developed your way of thinking changes. Your ideas and your opinions become different from others. You see the world from a completely different angle and the decisions you make are better than the ones you were making before developing critical thinking. 

Importance of Critical Thinking In Academic Writing

Academic writing is the base of critical thinking and is the best way to develop it. It makes the students think differently and enables them to generate their own ideas. The ideas, which are based on complete research. Critical thinking in academic writing makes the student analyze every possible solution of their problem and then write the best one. When students start thinking like this at their school level, they will start developing critical thinking. And when they will come into their professional lives, their mindset will be completely different from others. If they need assistance, they can always turn to a paper writing service for guidance.

How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills Through Academic Writing:

Critical thinking has become essential nowadays. So there is a need to develop it. And developing it through academic writing is the best way. 

• Select a topic

Firstly, you will have to select a topic on which you want to write. A unique topic that will make you think critically and help you develop this skill.

• Do research on that topic

You have to analyze that topic and you will have to see every aspect. Everything that can be included in that topic. Go through every possible website to gather information on that topic and make sure that the information you gathered is correct and reliable.

• Focus your mind

Now that you have gone through every aspect of the title, you have to focus your mind on one aspect only. That aspect will be your main focus and all of your content will evolve around that aspect. 

• Create an Outline

Now, you have to streamline your thoughts which will structure your context and help you create a clear and understanding outline of your topic. In such a way, it covers every aspect of the topic and conveys your message easily. Your content will be in a flow and your audience will not get distracted. 

• Analyze the information

Analyze the information that you have gathered, according to your outline. You will have to break down the information of your research and give it a structure. In such a way, that your audience doesn't get bored with your content. 

• Think Critically

It's the main and most essential part of academic writing because this part will help you develop your critical thinking skills. You will have to see every perspective of the topic you are writing on. Keeping in mind the information that you have gathered and the outline you have created. It may take a while for the first time but with practice, you will develop this skill. 

• Write Correctly and Precisely

It's time to give your thinking a body. You will have to be correct and precise while writing. So that your audience doesn't get bored when reading your content and your message is conveyed to them clearly. 

• Proofread your Writing

Proofread your writing for clarity. Check for grammatical mistakes and ensure that your writing is free of errors. This will help you increase the quality of your writing and its impact on the audience. 

Critical thinking is a process that takes time to develop. But when it does, you will see everything from a completely different angle. You will start creating your own thoughts and insights. You will try to see every aspect of the situation. Your content will become original and you will face no problem in writing on any topic. This skill will help you to think outside the box and become successful in your life. 

Source: World News Wire

World News Wire 30th July 2024, 21:17 GMT+10

Read This Next

Big News Network

• Big News Network News Agency
• Midwest Radio Network
• Mainstream Media

BIG NEWS NETWORK.COM

• Contact & Support
• Terms & Conditions

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

• News Releases

Copyright © 1998-2024 Big News Network All rights reserved. ISSN : 2616-6917

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Mediating Role of Critical Thinking Abilities in the Relationship Between English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Writing Performance and Their Language Learning Strategies

Maryam esmaeil nejad.

1 Department of English Language Education, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch, Zanjan, Iran

Siros Izadpanah

2 Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch, Zanjan, Iran

Ehsan Namaziandost

3 Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch, Shahrekord, Iran

Behzad Rahbar

4 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Recent developments in the field of education have led to a renewed interest in the mediating role of critical thinking abilities (CTA) in the relationship between language learning strategies and the intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was run to homogenize the participants, and 100 intermediate learners out of 235 were selected. Then, two valid questionnaires of Ricketts’ Critical Thinking Disposition and Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning were administered. Having administered the questionnaires, the researchers asked the participants to sit for a writing test. The data collected from the questionnaires and as well as the scores of their writing performances were analyzed through SPSS (25.00). The results showed a significant relationship between (a) learning strategies and learners’ writing performances, (b) the sub-sets of learning strategies and learners’ writing performances, and (c) CTA and learners’ learning strategies. However, CTA did not play a mediating role in the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and writing performance. Based on the results of the study, one might also conclude that strategies seemed to play a more important role in the performance of learners especially their writing performances. Therefore, this study had useful contributions for students, teachers, and curriculum designers. Findings of this research could assist teachers to be aware of learners’ strategies in learning writing and help their students to be responsive to using learning strategies in their learning process and create a satisfactory learning context for using learning strategies. Therefore, learners were able to become independent and feel responsibility for their own learning. Secondly, curriculum developers could take advantage of the findings to include learning strategies training into the curriculum. As a result, students were able to use strategies in their learning process more easily and finally, the results might pave the way for improving the research findings.

Introduction

This study examined the relationships between writing performance and language learning strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, social, affective, memory-related, and compensation). It also intended to determine the relationship between intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ critical thinking abilities and their writing performances. There are some factors which could affect language learning strategies by learners. According to some researchers’ different variables such as age, gender, language proficiency, motivation, anxiety, aptitude, and cultural background affect using language learning strategies by students (e.g., Berridge, 2018 ; Esteves et al., 2021 ). However, a quick review of the global literature shows that little attention is given to the role of critical thinking in learners’ choice of learning strategies as well as their writing performances.

Recent developments in the field of critical thinking abilities have also led to a renewed interest in EFL learners’ writing performance ( Renatovna and Renatovna, 2021 ). It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the role of critical thinking abilities ( Warsah et al., 2021 ). Recently, the focus of the teacher-oriented viewpoint has changed to a learner-centered perspective ( Reshadi and Aidinlou, 2012 ; Al Sharadgah, 2014 ; Yaralı and Aytar, 2021 ). Learners are now in charge of their learning more than ever. In other words, more learners take more responsibility to make the best use of language learning strategies (LLSs) and be conscious of their own individual needs ( Teng, 2020 ; Parra et al., 2021 ). New learning strategies are introduced to the learners to develop their personable attainments in the language learning process ( Sutiani et al., 2021 ).

Learning strategies are made up of mental processes – thoughts or behaviors – that help learners understand, learn, or sustain new information ( Panahandeh and Esfandiar, 2014 ; Jiang et al., 2021 ). The concept of learning strategies plays a crucial role in the study of second or foreign language learning. Even though many studies have been done to implement learning strategies, the idea of learning strategies is still obscure. Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) , Rajaee Pitenoee et al. (2017) , and Chang et al. (2021) assert that the opinion behind learning strategies has not been critically examined because the concepts and definitions have been inconsistent so far. Critical thinking abilities play a significant role in language learning and teaching. Choosing critical thinking abilities, among other skills and strategies, is to help students do writing performance difficulties and teachers who try to help do their students’ writing performances.

In addition, few studies have been carried on to compare the learning strategies of cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective, memory-related strategies with writing performances. Besides, no studies, to the best knowledge of the researchers, had ever embarked on investigating the mediating role of critical thinking abilities in the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance and their learning strategies. A quick review of the global literature shows that little attention is given to the role of critical thinking abilities in learners’ choice of learning strategies and their writing performances.

In a nutshell, this study aimed to evaluate the mediating role of critical thinking abilities in the relationship between EFL learners’ writing performance and their language learning strategies.

Review of Literature

Learning strategies and writing performance.

Learning strategies are defined as “proceedings or stages used by a learner to comfort the attainment, storage, detection or use of information” ( Rigney, 1978 cited in Aslan, 2009 , p. 45). O’Malley and Chamot (1990) defined learning strategies as the particular thoughts or compartments that everybody uses to understand, learn, or maintain new information. On the other hand, Chamot (2004) , Bagheri (2015) , and Zarrinabadi et al. (2021) claim that learning strategies are the purposive thoughts and behavior that students take to earn a learning goal. More importantly, successful learners have their unique techniques to learn. Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975) have been the first scholars who analyze the idea of successful language learning. This idea makes us more curious to discover more about the nature of the learning and learning process. Consequently, the majority of the research performed until now has been focusing on the detection, explanation, and categorization of learning strategies ( Pradhan and Das, 2021 ; Tran and Tran, 2021 ).

The relationship between language learning strategies (LLS) and writing performance (WP) has been the subject of much research over the last 20 years ( Goudarzi et al., 2015 ; Wale and Bogale, 2021 ). According to Green and Oxford (1995) , the picture is not crystal clear because a lot of research has focused on overall strategy use only and not considered individual strategy use or variations. In a study done by Saricoban and Saricaoglu (2008) in Turkey, it was found that compensation strategies had a positive correlation with academic achievement (p. 172) while affective strategies were negatively correlated. Students who used affective strategies were less successful than others. Griffiths (2004) , in a study at a private language school in Auckland, found that “there was a significant relationship between strategy use and language proficiency” (p. 82). The study showed that the “Advanced students reported a higher average frequency of use of each strategy than did elementary students” (p. 78). These studies imply that we can raise levels of proficiency by teaching these strategies. These studies may not have shown a clear causality in any direction between language proficiency and strategy use; however, it can be logically concluded that there are significant relationships between the two.

According to Oxford (1990) , learning strategies are categorized into direct and indirect strategies. Also, each category is divided into subcategories which are placed under the labels. Learners directly use direct strategies in the learning process to produce the target language. These strategies include memory strategies which are responsible for retrieving and storing information, cognitive strategies which learners use to process new information; and learners use compensation strategies to compensate for lack of enough knowledge in the target language ( Goudarzi et al., 2015 ; García-Sánchez and García-Martín, 2021 ; Zarrinabadi et al., 2021 ). As Oxford (1990) states, these strategies assist students to be more independent, identify their learning strengths and weaknesses, and be self-reliant in their language learning process. Therefore, learning strategies help learners to become competent in using a language. Based on Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) , strategies are techniques or behaviors used unconsciously by learners to improve their understanding and use the target language. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) proposed a very comprehensive classification of learning strategies. Their tri-faceted classification is as follows:

• 1. Metacognitive strategies: It includes supervisory processes in planning for learning, supervising one’s understanding and production, and assessing to what extent individuals have achieved a learning goal.
• 2. Cognitive strategies: Mentally speaking, manipulating the materials to be learned through interaction by visualizing mental pictures or connecting the material with the previously known items. Physically speaking, categorizing the things to be learned meaningfully or summarizing the essential items to be known.
• 3. Social-affective strategies: Learner’s interact with others to look for help in learning, such as posing questions for cooperation or using some affective to control learning.

Critical Thinking Abilities and Writing Performance

In modern society, even in everyday life, people frequently need to deal with complicated public and political issues, make decisions, and solve problems ( Bagheri, 2015 ; Zarrinabadi et al., 2021 ). To do this efficiently and effectively, citizens must evaluate critically what they see, hear, and read. Although a massive amount of printed material is available in all areas in the age of “information explosion,” it is still easy to feel overwhelmed. But the information piled up on people’s desks and in their minds is of no use due to the enormous amount of it. Thus, they need to read selectively and sort out the bits and pieces that are interesting and useful for them. To do so, strong critical reading and critical thinking skills are indispensable ( Morgan and Shermis, 1994 ).

Writing is a complex process that needs much effort to be completed. Numerous researchers believe that writing is a skill that requires learning and practicing ( Fathi et al., 2019 ; Neimaoui, 2019 ; Wale and Bogale, 2021 ). Also, Langan (1987) , Reid (1993) , and El-Freihat and Al-Shbeil (2021) , note that writing is a craft skill that can be taught and learned. For effective writing in EFL classrooms, ELT practitioners ( Badger and White, 2000 ; Paltridge, 2004 ; Rahayu, 2021 ) suggest three following approaches: product, process, and genre. According to Zamel (1983) , Liu and Hansen (2002) , and Indah (2017) , the process approach focuses on the composing process, whereby writers express their notions as they attempt to transfer the meaning. According to Gabrielatos (2002) and Hall (2017) , a product approach is a traditional approach, in which students are motivated to copy a model text while the genre approach is the newcomer and an outcome of the communicative language teaching approach. The readers are at the center of this approach since its readership must successfully accept it.

The word “writing” means the text in written form in the process of thinking, constructing, and coding language into such text ( Tabibian and Heidari-Shahreza, 2016 ; Irzawati et al., 2021 ; Namaziandost et al., 2021 ). Since writing is one of the skills in first and second language learning, all skills have a relationship. As an instance, Harmer (1991) , Rahimi and Karbalaei (2016) , Taghinezhad et al. (2018) , and Yan (2018) believe that one skill cannot be carried out without the other, and it is impossible to communicate without listening, and people seldom write without reading.

The relation between writing and thinking is that writing is thinking if one cannot think clearly, one cannot write clearly. Writing develops thinking skills. It improves the thinking process and contributes to the development of thinking skills because an individual has to clearly state ideas and lay out arguments in such a way as to cultivate higher order of thinking. Regarding the relationship between both, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (1956 in Errihani, 2012 ; Jiang et al., 2021 ; Wale and Bogale, 2021 ) is suggestive in the context of English as a Foreign Language as it contends that cognitive activity is determined by language. The cognitive activity can be reflected in written text and later be understood well by the audience determined by the strength of the language ( Díaz Larenas et al., 2017 ; Rahayu, 2021 ). Consequently, the primary concern of second language (L2) writers is primarily on linguistics, as noted by Errihani (2012) . Therefore, critical thinking ability reflects their linguistic skill represented by their writing, which reflects the background knowledge.

The Relationship Between Critical Thinking Abilities and Learning Strategies

Literature on the relationship between critical thinking and language learning strategies is not much. However, a number of studies have been conducted so far. In a survey conducted by Nikoopour et al. (2011) , they surveyed the relationship between CTA and the use of LLS by Iranian language learners. Their findings reveal a significant correlation between direct and indirect LLS such as cognitive, meta-cognitive, and social with critical thinking. At the same time, no relationship was discovered between CTA and memory, compensation, and affective strategies. In another study by Ku (2009) , they aimed to examine the role of meta-cognitive strategies in critical thinking. Based on the findings, “good critical thinkers” are more active in meta-cognitive activities.

Although critical thinking ability is not directly measurable and is not easy to teach, there is always a chance to enhance these strategies through deliberate teaching ( Willingham, 2007 ; Nikoopour et al., 2011 ; Mosley et al., 2016 ). Learning strategies can develop and improve it ( Loving and Wilson, 2000 ; Seymour et al., 2003 ). The teacher is responsible for its development ( Choy and Cheah, 2009 ). Willingham (2007) stated that one of the fundamental purposes of education is to enable students to think critically, but this goal is incompetently met. As the 21st century is the age of information technology, critical thinking abilities are a crucial requirement to select and evaluate the reliability of the information ( Grabau, 2007 ). Asian students lack the required skill as it is not commonly emphasized in schools ( Egege and Kutieleh, 2004 ; Djiwandono, 2013 ). Learning activities have been used to develop the critical thinking skills of the learners for years. Literature suggests cooperative learning is very fruitful for developing students’ social skills, language acquisition, and academic achievement and fostering critical thinking skills ( Ghaith, 2003 ; Sadeghi, 2012 ). Students who learn through strategies have a chance to develop their thinking. Students’ face-to-face interaction promotes critical thinking abilities ( Fahim and Eslamdoost, 2014 ). Group discussions effectively stimulate and develop ideas, which is the first requirement of critical thinking abilities ( Devi et al., 2015 ). The student’s critical thinking abilities can be enhanced through cooperative learning. In collaborative learning, students have a chance to group discussion, evaluate and synthesize the information, and consider the solution as students are responsible for their learning. Cooperative learning promotes interaction among students, which helps develop critical thinking abilities ( Devi et al., 2015 ; Mahmoodi and Dehghannezhad, 2015 ).

This study examined the relationships between writing performance and language learning strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, social, affective, memory-related, and compensation). This study also intended to determine the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ critical thinking abilities and their writing performances. Based on the analysis, one might also conclude that strategies seemed to play a more important role in learners’ performance, especially their writing performances. Therefore, this study had valuable contributions for students, teachers, and curriculum designers.

All in all, reviewing the literature so far indicates that the impact of CTA on language skills and sub-skills has not received as much attention as warranted. Moreover, rare studies, if any, have been done in this regard Iranian context. Thus, to cover these gaps, the researchers aim to explore if CTA has any role in the relationship between language learning strategies and the intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance. To this purpose, the following research questions were proposed:

• 1. Is there any significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their writing performances?
• 2. Is there any significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ cognitive strategy (CS), metacognitive strategy (MS), social strategy (SS), affective strategy (AS), compensation strategy (CS), memory-related strategy (MS), and their writing performances?
• 3. Is there any significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ critical thinking abilities and writing performances?
• 4. Is there any significant relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their critical thinking?
• 5. Does critical thinking ability play a mediating role in the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and writing performances?

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The participants of this study were 235 male and female Iranian EFL learners at different language institutes in Zanjan, Iran who were selected based on the convenience sampling method. Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was run to make the participants homogeneous, and 100 learners were selected as the final participants. According to the OPT, 37 people had advanced level scores and 98 people had elementary level scores who were excluded from the study. That is, low- and high-level average scores based on the OPT were summarized and included in the study [Mean (SD) = 37.5 ± 9.15]. The selected participants were all EFL intermediate learners at language institutes ranging from 18 to 35 years of age. More details about the participants can be seen in Table 1 .

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Instruments

In line with the purposes of this research, three instruments were used:

• (1) OPT: To meet the purposes mentioned above, at first, a language skill test version 2, including 60 items matching cloze passages and multiple-choice questions were managed to sure the concord of the learners. The test items most focused on grammar and vocabulary. The participants were given 30 min to answer. Those learners whose scores fell between 30 and 39 were considered intermediate ones.
• (2) Critical Thinking Dispositions Questionnaire ( Ricketts, 2003 ) : Used to measure the intermediate EFL learners’ critical thinking disposition. The questionnaire contained 33 statements on the Likert 5-point scale. The minimum mean and maximum scores that could be achieved were 33, 99, and 145. Three sub-components of the questionnaire are creativity with 11 sentences, sophistication with nine statements, and dedication with 13 statements. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the invention, sophistication, and commitment subcomponents are 0.64, 0.53, and 0.82, respectively. The reliability coefficient of the instrument was stated to be approximately 0.76 by PakMehr et al. (2010) .
• (3) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Questionnaire ( Oxford, 1990 ) : The following inventory included in this analysis was the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire used to classify LLS students. The SILL questionnaire was developed by Oxford (1990) and was used without alteration in this research. It comprised 50 items that included six types of LLSs: recall strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. The questionnaire was a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 ( Never or almost never true of me ), 2 ( Usually not true of me ), 3 ( somewhat true of me ), 2 ( usually true of me ), and 5 ( always or almost always true of me ).

Writing Performance

In order to measure the writing performance of the participants, they were asked to sit for a writing exam in the class. An argumentative topic titled “Using a computer every day can have more negative than positive effects on your children. Do you agree or disagree?” was introduced to the intermediate learners to compose a well-formed essay.

There were many different types of rubrics in the literature for assessing writings. One of the appropriate scales for rating the writing of learners was Cooper’s (1997) scale. This rubric includes different criteria for assessing learning writing performance. Cooper’s (1997) checklist is shown below:

Rating scales covered “Task Achievement,” “Coherence and Cohesion,” “Lexical Resource,” and “Grammatical Range and Accuracy.”

In the holistic grading method, as illustrated in Figure 1 , the reader assigns a single score from 0 to 6 (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6) to an essay based on overall writing quality.

Cooper’s classification of writing rating scale. 6, outstanding; 5, very good; 4, good; 3, adequate; 2, less than adequate; 1, poor; 0, no substantive response.

Each essay was scored based on the four scales of “Task Achievement,” “Coherence and Cohesion,” “Lexical Resource,” and “Grammatical Range,” and “Accuracy.” In the end, the average of the five scales showed the last score given to any essay by each rater. Subsequently, the average score given by the two raters represented the writer’s final score.

In order to obtain fair answers to the study questions alluded to above, the following steps have been taken. First, the OPT was spread among EFL students from different institutes in Zanjan to assess the participants’ homogeneity and choose advanced language learners. One hundred participants receiving scores from 30 to 39 were selected as the final sample. Second, the Critical Thinking Dispositions Questionnaire (CTDQ) ( Ricketts, 2003 ) was distributed among the intermediate EFL learners. The CTDQ questionnaire included 33 Likert items. Moreover, the Approach Inventory questionnaire ( Oxford, 1990 ) for language learning was administered to the selected intermediate learners. It was a 50-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never applies to me) to 5 (always or almost always applies to me).

Afterward, the participants were asked to sit for an essay writing test. An argumentative topic entitled “Using a computer every day can have more negative than positive effects on your children. Do you agree or disagree?” was introduced to the intermediate earners to compose a well-formed essay on. Two raters scored all the essays based on Cooper’s (1997) rubric scale. The average score given by the two raters accounted for the learners’ final writing score. In the end, the scores of their writing performances and the data gathered from the SILL and Critical Thinking Disposition questionnaires were put into SPSS version 25 to be calculated.

The study was an ex-post-facto design since there were no treatments at all. Having collected the results, the researchers recorded the scores in computer files for statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. After homogenizing the students as intermediate, to measure the relationship between the variables (SILL and SILL components and writing performance), since the normality was met, seven Pearson correlation tests were conducted. In addition, another Pearson correlation test was run to find if there was a significant relationship between critical thinking abilities and writing performance. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation test was conducted to measure the relationship between learning strategies and intermediate EFL learners’ critical thinking abilities as a whole. Finally, to figure out whether critical thinking abilities would play a mediating role in the relationship between learning strategies and writing performance, the Sobel test was used.

This study aimed at investigating the mediating role of critical thinking abilities in the relationship between learning strategies, including cognitive, meta-cognitive, memory-related, compensation, social, and affective strategies, and intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance. First of all, it was necessary to check the normality distribution. Thus, a One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test was run.

Based on the statistics in Table 2 , all the p -values are higher than 0.05 ( p > 0.05), it, thus, can be concluded that all the variables benefit from a normal distribution. Accordingly, the researchers are allowed to utilize parametric analysis of the data. The research questions of this study are answered in this part. The related descriptive analysis of all variables will be discussed before defining the inferential analysis:

Normality tests: One-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

As Table 3 shows, regarding the number of participants ( N = 100), the mean and the SD of writing performance are 4.22 and 3.27, respectively. The means for critical thinking abilities and learning strategies are 112.56 and 195.20, respectively.

Descriptive statistics of the research variables.

First of all, regarding the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their writing performances, the results of Pearson correlation displayed in Table 4 [ r (98) = 0.865, p < 0.05 representing a large effect size] it can be concluded that there was a significant relationship between learning strategies and writing performance.

Pearson correlation: Learning strategies with writing performances.

Moreover, considering the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ CS, MS, SS, AS, CS, MS, and their writing performances, a Pearson correlation was run, which shows that there was a significant relationship between EFL learners’ CS, MS, SS, AS, CS, MS, and their writing performance ( p < 0.05) ( Table 5 ).

Pearson correlation: CS, MS, SS, AS, CS, and MS with writing performances.

In addition, to check the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ critical thinking abilities and their writing performances, the Pearson correlation analysis in Table 6 [ r (98) = 0.843, p < 0.05] indicates that the relationship between critical thinking abilities and writing performance was significant.

Pearson correlation: CTA with writing performances.

Furthermore, regarding the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their critical thinking abilities, Pearson correlation results show a significant relationship ( p < 0.05) ( Table 7 ).

Pearson correlation: CTA with learning strategies.

Lastly, considering the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their writing performances, the following conceptual model was used to illustrate the direct impact of learning strategies on writing performance.

As it is shown, the direct impact of learning strategies on writing performance is 0.847, with the SD of 0.05. Regarding the fact that p < 0.05, it is believed that direct impact is significant. The conceptual model below shows the mediating role of critical thinking abilities in the relationship between learning strategies and writing performance:

As depicted above, the impact of the mediating role of CTA on writing performance was 0.035, with the SD of 0.024. Since p > 0.05, it is concluded that the impact of CTA on writing performance is not significant. As also illustrated above, the impact of learning strategies on CTA is 6.057, with the SD of 0.209. Because p < 0.05, it is concluded that the impact of learning strategies on CT is significant. Besides, the impact of learning strategies on writing performance, with the mediating role of CTA, is 0.638, SD = 0.152. Regarding the p -value, which is less than 0.05 ( p < 0.05), it is concluded that the impact of learning strategies on writing performance, with the mediating role of CTA, is not significant because the Z value of the Sobel test is 1.46 and p > 0.14. Thus, CTA does not play a mediating role in the relationship between learning strategies and writing performance.

As stated earlier, this study made an effort to find answers to all research questions concerning the relationship between the three variables CTA, learning strategies, and writing efficiency. Reasonable methods have been used to obtain the answers needed for each question. The study found that high CTA students outperformed low CTA students. Cognitive and metacognitive techniques are not independent; they operate together as learners undertake the process of writing.

Both learning strategies and CTA played an essential role in students’ writing performance. CTA is highly related to writing performance, and it was proved those with high CTA did better in their writing performance, especially when the subject was a bit controversial. Furthermore, it was shown that utilizing learning strategies would improve learners’ writing performance. In other words, the more use of strategies, the better scores in writing performance.

As seen before, the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their writing performance was significant. In addition, the relationships between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies subsets, including cognitive, metacognitive, affective, social, memory-related, and compensation strategies, and their writing strategies were all significant, meaning all the six subsets were significantly correlated with writing performances. The result of this study is in line with the studies done by Chamot (2004) , Berridge (2018) , Al-Jarrah et al. (2019) , Teng (2020) , Chang et al. (2021) , and Parra et al. (2021) in that metacognitive strategies together with its subsets of planning, organizing, and evaluating strategies are related to EFL learners’ writing performances. Besides, this study also confirmed the findings of Pradhan and Das (2021) and Tran and Tran (2021) that there was a positive correlation between English academic achievement and metacognition. In harmony with Teng (2020) and Jiang et al. (2021) , metacognitive strategies could yield the highest mean scores of EFL learners’ writing performances.

In congruence with the finding of Yan (2018) , García-Sánchez and García-Martín (2021) , and Parra et al. (2021) , this study showed a positive correlation between cognitive and metacognitive strategies of learners with their writing performances. Compatible with the findings of Díaz Larenas et al. (2017) and Rahayu (2021) , this study also showed that metacognitive and cognitive strategies would benefit EFL learners’ writing performance.

As Díaz Rodríguez (2014) asserts, this study also illustrated that cognitive and metacognitive strategies are not independent from one another; they work together while the learner is performing the task of writing. Following Rajaee Pitenoee et al.’s (2017) outcome, cognitive and metacognitive strategies would affect Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance. Meanwhile, in line with Azizi et al. (2017) , this study also confirmed that metacognitive strategies would contribute to higher proficiency in writing. In addition, as Tabrizi and Rajaee (2016) and Tran and Tran (2021) put forward, this study also concluded that cognitive and metacognitive writing strategies would help learners improve their writing. Besides, in agreement with Panahandeh and Esfandiar (2014) , this study showed that metacognitive strategies were positively correlated with writing performance.

However, as opposed to Rahimi and Karbalaei (2016) , who did not find any relationship between the use of metacognitive strategies and writing performance of EFL Iranian learners, this study concluded that metacognitive strategies were highly correlated with writing performance. Compatible with the findings of Goudarzi et al. (2015) and Wale and Bogale (2021) , the results of this study depicted that metacognitive awareness strategies highly affect achievement scores, and there was a significant correlation between metacognitive awareness strategies and their task performance.

Concerning the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ CTA and their writing performance’, it was revealed that intermediate EFL learners’ critical thinking abilities were significantly correlated with writing version. As Neimaoui (2019) , Renatovna and Renatovna (2021) , and Saenab et al. (2021) claim, this study justified that critical thinking ability plays a significant role in EFL learners’ writing performances. Furthermore, consistent with the finding of Hall (2017) and Warsah et al. (2021) , this study concluded that critical thinking abilities could lead to an improvement in EFL learners’ writing performances. Moreover, in agreement with Indah (2017) and Yaralı and Aytar (2021) , this study also stated that EFL learners’ writing performance was influenced by critical thinking. Furthermore, in line with Al Sharadgah (2014) , this study also depicted that those benefiting from a high level of critical thinking abilities would show a more remarkable improvement in their writing. In line with Taghinezhad et al. (2018) , this study proved that critical thinking abilities would improve students’ writing performance. This study also corroborated Golpour’s (2014) finding that critical thinking abilities would play a crucial part in learners’ writing performance. In other words, high critical thinkers were better in writing compared to low critical thinkers.

Considering the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their critical thinking, it was shown that these two variables were significantly correlated. This study is in line with Bagheri (2015) and Zarrinabadi et al. (2021) , who reported a significant relationship between CTA and language learning strategies. Besides, this study also confirmed Nikoopour et al. (2011) . They surveyed the relationship between CTA and the use of language learning strategies by Iranian language learners. Their findings revealed a significant correlation between cognitive, meta-cognitive, and social strategies with critical thinking. However, as opposed to the results of this study, no relationship was discovered between CTA and memory, compensation, and affective strategies. Besides, congruent with the findings of Ku and Ho (2010) , this study found “good critical thinkers” are more active in meta-cognitive activities. Furthermore, this study proved Mahmoodi and Dehghannezhad’s (2015) findings that there was a significant and positive correlation between CTA and language learning strategies.

Regarding the mediating role of critical thinking abilities in the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their writing performances’, based on the statistical analysis, it was affirmed that CTA did not play a mediating role in the relationship between intermediate EFL learners’ learning strategies and their writing performances. As opposed to the researcher’s expectations, and as opposed to the fact that CTA was correlated with both learning strategies and writing performance, this study did not prove that CTA plays a significant role in the relationship between the other two variables. In other words, and surprisingly speaking, CTA does not guarantee the learners’ improvement in their writing performance.

In the present research, an effort was made to examine the importance of CTA to learners in general and their writing output in particular. As stated earlier, this analysis concluded that there was a significant association between CTA and the writing achievement of EFL intermediate learners. In addition, there was a significant association between learning methods and writing achievements. Furthermore, there was a significant association between the six subgroups of learning strategies and writing results. It was concluded that all the sub-sets of cognitive, metacognitive, memory-related, social, affective, and compensation strategies were highly correlated with writing performance, meaning the use of these strategies would lead to a better performance in the task of writing. In addition, as opposed to what the researcher had envisaged, it was proved that although CTA had correlations with both writing performance and learning strategies, it did not play a mediating role in the relationship between learning strategies and writing performance of intermediate EFL learners.

The present study’s findings have shown that more concentration should be placed on critical thinking abilities to enhance students’ academic writing performance. Based on the outcomes of the study, it could be concluded that students benefiting from a very high level of CTA did better in their performances than those lacking such a high degree. The findings of this study demonstrate that the students could be more prosperous in their performances if they learn to think critically and if they are aware of the strategies. This attitude can be helpful for all Iranian English students who wish to be competent in perfect performances, especially in their writing performances.

The construction of CTA and learning methods has given rise to looking at teaching, training, and evaluation differently. Taking into account students’ needs, desires, and abilities, CTA pedagogy provides resources for authentic learning. The findings of this study depict that the students could be more successful writers if they boost their CTA and their learning strategy use. This can help all Iranian English students who long to be proficient in perfect performances in their writing tasks. In addition, educators can forecast effective language behaviors by defining CTA learner profiles at various stages of growth. Teachers must also understand that different CTA-level learners vary in their learning. Teachers might benefit from the study’s findings to realize their students’ levels of CTA, and their use of learning strategies would help them develop a sense of competence while being prepared for a performance. CTA is a vital tool that would alleviate writing performance and operate as a practical way to improve the quality of language learning.

In the first place, the results of this study can help teachers know learners’ plans in learning writing and assist their students in being responsive to use learning plans in their learning steps and creating a good learning context for using learning plans. Thus, students can become self-sufficient and accept responsibility for their learning. Secondly, curriculum developers may take advantage of the findings to include learning strategies training into the curriculum. As a result, students can use strategies in their learning process more efficiently. The current study can also assist in solving the problems of EFL teachers and learners in enhancing the level of cognitive and meta-cognitive abilities. The results may apprise educators that assisting learners in increasing their level of analysis and monitoring in learning is vital in learning.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Al Sharadgah T. A. (2014). Developing critical thinking skills through writing in an internet-based environment. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 4 169–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jarrah T. M., Mansor N., Talafhah R. H., Al-Jarrah J. M., Al-Shorman F. M. (2019). Teaching EFL beginners metacognitive writing strategies through Tamer-Aien writing module. Int. J. English Res. 5 4–11. 10.5539/elt.v11n10p162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aslan O. (2009). The Role Of Gender And Language Learning Strategies In Learning English (Master Dissertation). Available online at: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12611098/index.pdf (accessed May, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Azizi M., Nemati A., Estahbanati N. (2017). Meta-cognitive awareness of writing strategy uses among Iranian EFL learners and its impact on their writing performance. Int. J. English Lang. Transl. Stud. 5 42–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Badger R., White G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT J. 54 153–160. 10.1093/elt/54.2.153 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bagheri M. (2015). “ Keep it accurate and diverse: enhancing action recognition performance by ensemble learning ,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops , Boston, MA, 22–29. 10.1109/CVPRW.2015.7301332 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berridge K. C. (2018). Evolving concepts of emotion and motivation. Front. Psychol. 9 : 1647 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01647 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chamot A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electron. J. Foreign Lang. Teach. 1 14–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang C., Colón-Berlingeri M., Mavis B., Laird-Fick H. S., Parker C., Solomon D. (2021). Medical student progress examination performance and its relationship with metacognition, critical thinking, and self-regulated learning strategies. Acad. Med. 96 278–284. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003766 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choy S. C., Cheah P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students & its influence on higher education. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 20 198–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper C. (1997). “ Holistic evaluation of writing ,” in Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging , eds Cooper C., Odell L. (Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; ), 3–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devi A. P., Musthafa B., Gustine G. G. G. (2015). Using cooperative learning in teaching critical thinking in reading. English Rev. 4 1–14. 10.25134/erjee.v4i1.310 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz Larenas C., Ramos Leiva L., Ortiz Navarrete M. (2017). Rhetorical, metacognitive, and cognitive strategies in teacher candidates’ essay writing. Profile Issues Teach. Prof. Dev. 19 87–100. 10.15446/profile.v19n2.60231 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz Rodríguez A. (2014). Retórica De La Escritura Académica: Pensamiento Crítico Y Discursivo [Academic Writing Rhetoric: Critical And Discursive Thought]. Medellín, CO: Universidad de Antioquia. [ Google Scholar ]
• Djiwandono P. I. (2013). Critical thinking skills for language students. TEFLIN J. 24 32–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörnyei Z., Skehan P. (2003). “ Individual difference in L2 learning ,” in The Handbook Of Second Language Acquisition , eds Doughty C. J., Long M. H. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; ), 589–630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Egege Y. S., Kutieleh S. (2004). “ Critical thinking & international students: a marriage of necessity ,” in Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Rim Conference First Year in Higher Education 2004 Conference: Dealing with Diversity , Melbourne, VIC. [ Google Scholar ]
• El-Freihat S., Al-Shbeil A. (2021). Effect of child literature based integrative instructional program on promoting 7th graders writing skills: an empirical study. Int. J. Instr. 14 197–216. 10.29333/iji.2021.14212a [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Errihani M. (2012). Critical thinking and the language factor: the case for the English language learner. Arab World English J. 3 4–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esteves C. S., Oliveira C. R. D., Argimon I. I. D. L. (2021). Social distancing: prevalence of depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms among Brazilian students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Public Health 8 : 589966 . 10.3389/fpubh.2020.589966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahim M., Eslamdoost S. (2014). Critical thinking: frameworks & models for teaching. English Lang. Teach. 7 141–151. 10.5539/elt.v7n7p141 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fathi J., Ahmadnejad M., Yousofi N. (2019). Effects of blog-mediated writing instruction on L2 writing motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation: a mixed methods study. J. Res. Appl. Linguist. 10 159–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabrielatos C. (2002). “ Inference procedures and implications for ELT ,” in Research Methodology: Discourse in Teaching a Foreign Language , ed. Millrood R. P. (Tambov: Tambov State University Press; ), 30–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Sánchez J. N., García-Martín J. (2021). Cognitive strategies and textual genres in the teaching and evaluation of advanced reading comprehension (ARC). Front. Psychol. 12 : 723281 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.723281 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghaith G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, & feelings of school alienation. Biling. Res. J. 27 451–475. 10.1080/15235882.2003.10162603 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golpour F. (2014). Critical thinking and EFL learners’ performance on different writing modes. J. Pan Pacific Assoc. Appl. Linguist. 18 103–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goudarzi E., Ghonsooly B., Taghipour Z. (2015). Politeness strategies in English business letters: a comparative study of native and non-native speakers of English. Psychol. Lang. Commun. 19 44–57. 10.1515/plc-2015-0004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabau L. J. (2007). Effective teaching & learning strategies for critical thinking to foster cognitive development & transformational learning. Effect. Teach. Learn. 5 123–156. [ Google Scholar ]
• Green J., Oxford R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Q. 29 261–297. 10.2307/3587625 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffiths C. (2004). Language Learning Strategies: Theory and Research. Occasional Paper No. 1. St Helens Auckland: School of Foundation Studies, Auckland Institute of Studies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall S. K. (2017). “ Practice makes perfect: developing critical thinking and effective writing skills in undergraduate science students ,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Higher Education Advances, HEAd’17 , Valencia. 10.4995/HEAD17.2017.5512 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harmer J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Indah R. (2017). Critical thinking, writing performance and topic familiarity of Indonesian EFL learners. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 8 229–236. 10.17507/jltr.0802.04 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Irzawati I., Hasibuan A. R., Giovanni V. (2021). Portrait of Efl Learners’writings: errors, challenges and solutions. Esteem J. English Educ. Study Programme 4 10–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang L., Zhang S., Li X., Luo F. (2021). How grit influences high school students’ academic performance and the mediation effect of academic self-efficacy and cognitive learning strategies. Curr. Psychol. 1 112–136. 10.1007/s12144-020-01306-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: urging for measurements using multi-response format. Think. Skills Creat. Elsevier 4 70–76. 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku K. Y., Ho I. T. (2010). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 48 54–58. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langan J. (1987). College Writing Skills. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu J., Hansen J. (2002). Peer Response In Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press:. 10.3998/mpub.8952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loving G. L., Wilson J. S. (2000). Infusing critical thinking into the nursing curriculum through faculty development. Nurse Educ. 25 70–75. 10.1097/00006223-200003000-00008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmoodi M. H., Dehghannezhad M. (2015). The effect of teaching critical thinking skills on the language learning strategy use of efl learners across different EQ levels. J. English Lang. Teach. Learn. 16 55–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan M., Shermis M. (1994). Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearing House on Reading and Communication Skills. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mosley P., Ardito G., Scollins L. (2016). Robotic cooperative learning promotes student STEM interest. Am. J. Eng. Educ. 7 117–128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Namaziandost E., Razmi M. H., Tilwani S. A., Pourhosein Gilakjani A. (2021). The impact of authentic materials on reading comprehension, motivation, and anxiety among Iranian male EFL learners. Read. Writ. Q. 38 1–18. 10.1080/10573569.2021.1892001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neimaoui N. (2019). Improving EFL learners’ critical thinking skills in argumentative writing. English Lang. Teach. 12 98–109. 10.5539/elt.v12n1p98 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikoopour J., Amini Farsani M., Nasiri M. (2011). On the relationship between critical thinking and language learning strategies among Iranian EFL learners. J. Technol. Educ. 5 195–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Malley J. M., Chamot A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies In Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524490 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oxford R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oxford R. L., Burry-Stock J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System 23 1–23. 10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• PakMehr H., Jafari Sani H., Saeedi Rezvani M., Kareshki H. (2010). “ The quality of teaching in higher education: education or research? ,” in The First National Conference of Education in Iran , Vol. 2 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Paltridge B. (2004). Approaches To Teaching Second Language Writing. 17th Educational Conference Adelaide 2004. Available online at: http://www.Englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference04/proceedings/pdf/Paltridge.pdf [Accessed September 20, 2010]. [ Google Scholar ]
• Panahandeh E., Esfandiar lS. (2014). The effect of planning and monitoring as metacognitive strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative writing accuracy. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 98 1409–1416. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.559 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parra Y. J. F., Barriga A. M., Díaz R. A. L., Cuesta J. A. G. (2021). Teacher education and critical thinking: systematizing theoretical perspectives and formative experiences in Latin America. Rev. Invest. Educ. 39 149–167. 10.6018/rie.416271 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pradhan S., Das P. (2021). Influence of metacognition on academic achievement and learning style of undergraduate students in Tezpur University. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 10 381–391. 10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.381 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahayu R. A. P. (2021). Effect of collaborative writing combined with blog online learning on Indonesian efl learners’ writing skill across motivation. SALEE 2 87–98. 10.35961/salee.v2i01.219 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahimi F., Karbalaei A. (2016). The role of metacognitive strategies training on developing writing skill among Iranian EFL learners. J. Curr. Res. Sci. 1 327–341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rajaee Pitenoee M., Modaberi A., Movafegh Ardestani E. (2017). The effect of cognitive and metacognitive writing strategies on content of the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ writing. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 8 594–600. 10.17507/jltr.0803.19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. [ Google Scholar ]
• Renatovna A. G., Renatovna A. S. (2021). Pedagogical and psychological conditions of preparing students for social relations on the basis of the development of critical thinking. Psychol. Educ. J. 58 4889–4902. 10.17762/pae.v58i2.2886 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reshadi E., Aidinlou N. (2012). Investigating the relationship between writing meta-cognitive awareness and use of cohesive ties in Iranian EFL context. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2 4699–4705. 10.5539/ijel.v2n5p18 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ricketts J. C. (2003). The Efficiency Of Leadership Development Critical Thinking Dispositions, And Student Academic Performance On The Critical Thinking Skills Of Selected Youth Leaders. Ph.D. thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rigney J. W. (1978). “ Learning strategies: a theoretical perspective ,” in Learning Strategies , ed. O’Neil H. F., Jr. (New York, NY: Academic Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Q. 9 41–51. 10.1186/s12909-020-02297-w [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadeghi M. R. (2012). The effects of cooperative learning on critical thinking in an academic context. J. Psychol. Educ. Res. 20 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saenab S., Zubaidah S., Mahanal S., Lestari S. R. (2021). ReCODE to Re-Code: an instructional model to accelerate students’ critical thinking skills. Educ. Sci. 11 2–29. 10.3390/educsci11010002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saricoban A., Saricaoglu A. (2008). The effect of the relationship between learning and teaching strategies on academic achievement. Nov. R. 2 162–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour B., Kinn S., Sutherland N. (2003). Valuing both critical & creative thinking in clinical practice: narrowing the research-practice gap? J. Adv. Nurs. 42 288–296. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02618.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Can. Modern Lang. Rev. 31 304–318. 10.3138/cmlr.31.4.304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutiani A., Situmorang M., Silalahi A. (2021). Implementation of an inquiry learning model with science literacy to improve student critical thinking skills. Int. J. Instr. 14 117–138. 10.1186/s12913-017-2741-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabibian M., Heidari-Shahreza M. A. (2016). The effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy uses on Iranian EFL learners’ receptive skills. J. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Res. 3 67–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabrizi A. R., Rajaee M. (2016). The effect of metacognitive and cognitive writing strategies on Iranian elementary learners’ writing achievement. Int. J. Learn. Dev. 6 216–229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taghinezhad A., Riasati M. J., Rassaei E., Behjat F. (2018). The impact of teaching critical thinking on students’ writing performance and their critical thinking dispositions. BRAIN Broad Res. Artif. Intell. Neurosci. 9 64–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng F. (2020). Tertiary-level students’ English writing performance and metacognitive awareness: a group metacognitive support perspective. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 64 551–568. 10.1080/00313831.2019.1595712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tran T. Q., Tran T. N. P. (2021). Vietnamese EFL high school students’ use of self-regulated language learning strategies for project-based learning. Int. J. Instr. 14 17–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wale B. D., Bogale Y. N. (2021). Using inquiry-based writing instruction to develop students’ academic writing skills. Asian Pacific J. Second Foreign Lang. Educ. 6 1–16. 10.1002/bmb.21563 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warsah I., Morganna R., Uyun M. (2021). The impact of collaborative learning on learners’ critical thinking skills. Int. J. Instr. 14 443–460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Am. Educ. 2 8–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yan L. (2018). A review on writing anxiety and metacognitive strategy in the process of EFL writing. Adv. Econ. Bus. Manag. Res. 75 11–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yaralı K. T., Aytar F. A. G. (2021). The effectiveness of storyline-based education program on critical thinking skills of preschool children. Egitim Bilim 46 77–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zamel V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Q. 17 165–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarrinabadi N., Rezazadeh M., Chehrazi A. (2021). The links between grammar learning strategies and language mindsets among L2 and L3 learners: examining the role of and gender. Int. J. Multiling. 1 49–71. [ Google Scholar ]

The ASCD Whole Child Approach to Education

.css-1ebprri{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;} .css-16w6vyg{margin:0;font-family:'poppins',sans-serif;font-weight:400;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.43;font-size:1rem;font-weight:400;line-height:1.625rem;letter-spacing:0.2px;} connect the dots to your students' success. .

What is the Whole Child Framework™?

Promote long-term development and success.

ASCD's Whole Child approach transitions from a focus on narrowly defined academic achievement to one that promotes the long-term development and success of all children.

Support for Schools and Communities

Through this approach, ASCD supports educators, families, community members, and policymakers as they move from a vision about educating the whole child to sustainable, collaborative actions.

Learn more about The Whole Child Framework™

The five tenets, change the conversation about education in your school and community. move beyond a definition of success measured only by academic achievement. examine how well your school is serving students through the whole child tenets..

Enter schools healthy and learn about and practice a healthy lifestyle.

Learn in a physically and emotionally safe environment for students and adults.

Actively engage in learning and connect to the school and broader community.

Access personalized learning and be supported by qualified, caring adults.

Be challenged academically for career pursuits to be critical thinkers in a global environment.

Resources for the Whole Child

Ascd whole child school improvement tool™.

ASCD's online needs assessment tool is based on the ASCD Whole Child approach to education. Receive a report that details results highlighting key areas where your school is doing well and other areas that need additional support.

Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child

The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model combines and builds on elements of the traditional coordinated school health approach and the Whole Child framework.

Move from Vision to Action

Bring the ascd whole child approach to your school or district..

All educators want to improve the work they do for students, their families, and the community.

Whether it's instruction, school climate, leadership, family engagement, or any of the other issues schools face daily, all educators need tools to help them improve their actions and methods.

Move from a vision for educating the whole child to action that supports students' success.

Transform your state, school, or district through the proven ASCD Whole Child approach.

Analysis of the contribution of critical thinking and psychological well-being to academic performance

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Universidad de Salamanca

• University of Minho

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Miguel H Guamanga
• Fabián A González

• Carolina Nogueira
• Margarita Alcaide Risoto
• Lisie Karen Meier

• Christopher P. Dwyer

• SCAND J PSYCHOL

• Carles Alsinet

• Dana S. Dunn
• Dirk van Dierendonck
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up