critical thinking collaboration and the writing process purposive communication

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
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.10(3); 2021 Jun

Collaborative writing: Strategies and activities for writing productively together

Lorelei lingard.

Department of Medicine, Centre for Education Research & Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section, we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

Scientific writing is rarely a solo act. It’s not that the researcher doesn’t sit the same lonely vigil as the novelist, hunched over her laptop at the kitchen table in a winter dawn, hoping for inspiration. Sure she does. But, unlike the novelist, the research writer is rarely the sole architect of the text she’s creating. She is sitting alone at that table, but she is not writing alone. She writes on behalf of a team of collaborators, although she might wonder with the faintest tinge of resentment whether they are still in their warm beds as she sits in the pale morning light. Her sense of isolation is temporary though. It will dissipate at the precise moment when five email messages ping into her inbox, each one offering its unique feedback and edits on her circulated draft.

Writing collaboratively can be the best of times and the worst of times. At best, it is richly rewarding. Collaborators brainstorm the vision of the piece together; they enhance the story by thoughtfully questioning one another’s ideas; they craft the text iteratively, weaving a subtle tapestry of argument. At worst, it is deeply frustrating. Collaborators exchange ideas that don’t cohere; they compete to pull the story in pet directions that both complicate and dilute it; they manufacture a stitched-together, Frankenstein of a text. Leading a collaborative writing effort, therefore, is a tricky business. And while many resources exist to help structure and support collaborative research [ 1 , 2 ], most pay little attention to the activity of collaborative writing, beyond issues of authorship candidacy.

Upcoming Writer’s Craft instalments will help you cultivate productive, satisfying writing relationships within your research team. In this piece, we make explicit the strategies and activities involved when a group of researchers writes together, so that your research team can identify them and discuss how they will unfold in a particular project.

Strategies for collaborative writing

Collaborative writing is “an iterative and social process that involves a team focused on a common objective that negotiates, coordinates, and communicates during the creation of a common document” [ 3 ]. Collaborative writing can follow many different strategies [ 4 ], but five are most common [ 2 ]. These are one-for-all writing, each-in-sequence writing, all-in-parallel writing, all-in-reaction writing and multi-mode writing. Each offers a different approach to coordinating the work of writing in a group, and each is suited to different collaborative contexts.

“One-for-all writing” occurs when one person writes on behalf of the team. This strategy is appropriate when the writing task is simple and the stakes are low. For instance, many collaborative teams have a single author write an analytical memo describing the group’s discussion at a research meeting. One-for-all writing offers stylistic consistency and efficiency, but can limit consensus building or revision unless these are explicitly built into document cycles. Therefore, it is best used by groups with a shared understanding of the writing task. Alternately, it can serve as an efficient, low-stakes way of producing a first rough draft that the team understands will undergo multiple iterations using a range of other writing strategies. Writing a first draft is, of course, never ‘simple’, but when the agreed goal is ‘to get something on the page for us to work on together’, one-for-all writing can work well.

“Each-in-sequence” writing occurs when one person starts the writing, completes their task and passes it on to the next person to complete theirs. This strategy is useful for groups working asynchronously who cannot meet often and document-sharing platforms play a central role in its successful realization [ 5 ]. Many teams will use it in the early stages of drafting a grant application, for instance, because it allows for straightforward coordination of distributed work. The sequence may be purposeful: for example, the lead author will draft the introduction, then the research assistant will draft the methods, then a third team member will draft the results, at which point the piece will return to the lead author to draft the discussion. In practice, however, the sequence is often more random: writers get to their sections when they can. Each-in-sequence writing introduces a number of challenges, including minimal social interaction, one-person bottlenecks, lack of coherence because differing ideas are not reconciled or writers invalidate one another’s work, and haphazard version control. Together, these can result in poor overall coherence of the document. Teams can address these challenges by early meetings to clearly articulate the writing tasks and discuss areas of potential overlap or conflict. Also critical is agreement on the paper’s main story and how it will thread through all sections, as well as a shared approach to writing style basics such as first or third person narration, and active or passive voice construction. Coherence is also improved by assigning a lead writer who oversees the sequence and takes responsibility for integration. However, this writer must have the authority to successfully fulfill this role.

“All-in-parallel” writing involves dividing the writing work into discrete units and writers working simultaneously rather than in sequence. This strategy works well in situations where the writing task is easily divided and individual sections are not mutually dependent. Because it tends to offer more process efficiency and writer autonomy than each-in-sequence writing, all-in-parallel writing can produce rapid, high volume output. The strategy is most effective when divisions of labour are not arbitrary but planned according to each writer’s core expertise. For instance, the methodologist on a research team might write the first draft of the methods section, while a team member versed in the substantive domain of the work writes the literature review. The main challenge of all-in-parallel writing is that writers are blind to each other’s work while writing, which can produce redundant or contradictory material. To mitigate this, parallel writing requires careful pre-planning, including an outline of how the parts relate to one another, a shared vision of the audience and purpose of the document, and process to reconcile stylistic differences.

When researchers create a document together in real time, adjusting to each other’s changes and additions without explicit preplanning and coordination, they are using the strategy of “all-in-reaction” writing. Imagine, for example, that you write the first draft of a paper’s Problem/Gap/Hook and send it to your co-authors simultaneously for review and response. They may make edits simultaneously, their edits may contradict or concur with you or with one another, and they may be carefully considered or spontaneous and impulsive. An advantage of the all-in-reaction collaborative writing strategy is that it can support consensus through fluid and creative expression of all writers. It can also provoke debates and enable new, unexpected meanings to emerge. Its main disadvantages include limited coordination, the potential for chaotic development of the piece, and difficulties with version control due to simultaneity of writing. And, for more novice or less powerful writers on the team, it can produce a turbulent, threatening experience. Therefore, all-in-reaction writing works best in small, non-hierarchical groups where all members feel safe to express their opinions. When these conditions are met, it can be a powerful strategy for interdisciplinary groups to create new meanings beyond the borders of conventional disciplinary thinking.

Many research teams use a combination of these strategies over the course of a writing project, called “multi-mode writing”. For instance, a graduate student may produce the first draft of their research manuscript (one-for-all), which is then reviewed sequentially by team members, either as their calendars allow (each-in-random sequence) or in a preplanned order (each-in-purposeful-sequence). Revisions are then produced by the graduate student (one-for-all), and each team member reviews closely one section of the revision according to their expertise (all-in-parallel). The abstract may be written (often hours before the conference submission deadline) on Google Docs or by flurry of emails, with all team members simultaneously helping to whittle the word count and prioritize the key messages (all-in-reaction). Ensuring that all writers are capable users of the technologies supporting the collaborative process is critical.

These five strategies offer a framework for thinking critically about your own collaborative writing practices. Ask yourself these questions:

• What strategies does our team employ?
• Are our strategies purposeful, selected according to the nature of the team and the needs of the project, or are they accidental?
• Do we explicitly discuss how we will coordinate the work, or do we tacitly enact the same strategy each time?
• Are we using each strategy in ways that maximize its affordances and minimize its challenges?
• Are we using technology appropriately to support our collaborative activities?

Being purposeful and explicit about your collaborative writing strategy can help your team to maximize its unique affordances and minimize its challenges.

Activities of collaborative writing

Collaborative writing involves more than just writing . Writing researchers have identified seven core activities: brainstorming, conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, reviewing, revising and editing [ 2 ].

In brainstorming, the writing group creates a list of potential ideas for the paper. Through conversation and text, they consider how to best represent the findings, what they might say about those findings in relation to the research question, what storylines would make for a compelling Discussion [ 6 ], and what conversations the piece might join in the literature. Brainstorming may start while data collection and analysis are still underway, particularly in qualitative research using theoretical sampling methods.

The activity of conceptualizing involves coalescing and prioritizing brainstorming ideas to articulate the central story of the paper. Some ideas will be set aside as insufficiently mature or irrelevant to the study’s main purpose; others will be pursued in ongoing analyses and reading of related theoretical and empirical literatures. When a study will yield more than one story, the process of conceptualizing must also consider the order and audiences of multiple manuscripts: which story should be told first? To whom?

Once the story is conceptualized, outlining is the process of detailing how it will unfold throughout the sections of the research manuscript genre. What needs to go in the introduction and what would be an unnecessary detour? What degree of detail should the methods include? Which results will be included and in what order? How will the discussion develop the ideas from the introduction? Outlining is an activity that can lend itself more readily to solo than to collaborative work. However, even if one writer takes the lead on outlining, the process should be visible to other members of the group. Talking through the outline in rough as a team, and then reviewing the outline created by the lead author, is one way to maximize both efficiency and input at this stage of the writing process.

In drafting, the outlined sections are flushed out into full sentences, paragraphs and arguments. Create a realistic schedule for this activity; an outline can seem like it lays the whole paper out, but the devil is in the details. Will the literature review be organized chronologically or by points of view in the current scholarly conversation? How much theoretical framing should appear in the introduction? How elaborate should the methods be, and what is the appropriate balance of description and justification? How will main results be illustrated, and which data should appear in tables, figures or quoted excerpts? How will the storyline develop in the discussion, beyond summary of results and limitations? In fact, when you acknowledge the complexity of the writing that goes into even a rough first draft, it probably makes more sense to draft sections in blocks. Consider pairing methods and results, and introduction and discussion, for instance, as these represent, respectively, the study and the story [ 7 ].

Reviewing, revising and editing usually occur in cycles. In reviewing, all members read draft material and provide feedback orally, by email, or in the text itself as track changes or comment boxes. Ideally, reviewing is a directed activity, in which members of the group are asked to focus on particular issues at specific points in the writing process. Revising involves the consideration, prioritization and integration of feedback from group members into the draft. Cycles of reviewing and revising will take place until the text is substantively complete, logically coherent, and rhetorically effective. Editing involves micro-level revisions for style, grammar and flow, which may take place either as individual sections mature or when the entire document is judged complete. Editing at this level may be an activity best undertaken by one writer on the team, in order that the paper does not read as though it was written by several individuals.

These collaborative writing activities are dynamic and iterative. Sometimes the storyline needs revisiting after a particularly substantive round of reviewing. Reviewing may shift into revising. Or editing may take place on some completed sections while other sections are still being reviewed. Because of this, successful collaboration requires cultivating a shared understanding of which activity is being undertaken at any given time. Are you finished brainstorming, you’ve agreed on a conceptualization and you’re now ready to outline the paper? If one writer thinks so, but another is still in brainstorming mode, this can impede progress. Are some writers providing review feedback at the level of micro-editing, while others are grappling with the conceptualization of the story as it is emerging in the draft? Is reviewing of a one-for-all draft turning into all-in-reaction revising? Having a language to talk about the different activities involved in collaborative writing can help to identify and resolve such disparate orientations to the work. And keep in mind that these activities are not ‘neutral’; they occur in the context of interpersonal dynamics on a research team. Collaborators mark, claim, defend and redraw intellectual territory as they work through the various activities associated with the writing [ 8 ]. Being attentive to enactment of territoriality throughout the writing process can help you focus on, rather than deflect, points of tension. Because within these may reside the team’s best opportunities to produce incisive, boundary-pushing thinking.

Depending on the writing project, these seven activities will receive variable emphasis and attention. Some results clearly dictate the storyline, making brainstorming less necessary. Some conceptualizations are sufficiently detailed that outlining can be more perfunctory. Some writers edit as they go, making the editing process less extensive at the end. The value of identifying these activities is to reflect on your own processes: does your writing team tend to skip some of these steps, such as outlining, and to what effect? Do some members of your writing team engage in some activities, such as reviewing, but not in others? Not every writer on a team will engage centrally in every activity. But some degree of participation in all of these writing activities yields more satisfying and efficient collaboration. For instance, team members not involved in the brainstorming and conceptualizing activities may inappropriately reintroduce through their reviewing and revising of drafts a storyline that the team had agreed to reserve for another paper. When such tensions in the writing emerge purposefully among collaborators engaged in all activities, they represent important moments for reviewing earlier decisions and perhaps reconceptualizing the piece. However, when they emerge incidentally because some collaborators are unaware of earlier activities, they can be a source of frustration and inefficiency.

For your research collaboration to culminate in successful collaborative writing, you need to be able to break “writing” into its constituent activities and agree on strategies to coordinate them. This Writer’s Craft instalment offers a vocabulary to support you in this work.

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Critical Thinking and Effective Communication: Enhancing Interpersonal Skills for Success

In today’s fast-paced world, effective communication and critical thinking have become increasingly important skills for both personal and professional success. Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze situations, gather information, and make sound judgments, while effective communication involves not only conveying ideas clearly but also actively listening and responding to others. These two crucial abilities are intertwined, as critical thinking often mediates information processing, leading to a more comprehensive understanding and ultimately enhancing communication.

The importance of critical thinking and effective communication cannot be overstated, as they are essential in various aspects of life, including problem-solving, decision-making, and relationship-building. Additionally, these skills are indispensable in the workplace, as they contribute to overall productivity and foster a positive and collaborative environment. Developing and nurturing critical thinking and effective communication abilities can significantly improve both personal and professional experiences, leading to increased success in various realms of life.

Key Takeaways

• Critical thinking and effective communication are essential skills for personal and professional success.
• These abilities play a vital role in various aspects of life, including problem-solving, decision-making, and relationship-building.
• Developing and honing critical thinking and communication skills can lead to increased productivity and a more positive, collaborative environment.

Critical Thinking Fundamentals

Skill and knowledge.

Critical thinking is an essential cognitive skill that individuals should cultivate in order to master effective communication. It is the ability to think clearly and rationally, understand the logical connections between ideas, identify and construct arguments, and evaluate information to make better decisions in personal and professional life [1] . A well-developed foundation of knowledge is crucial for critical thinkers, as it enables them to analyze situations, evaluate arguments, and draw, inferences from the information they process.

Analysis and Evidence

A key component of critical thinking is the ability to analyze information, which involves breaking down complex problems or arguments into manageable parts to understand their underlying structure [2] . Analyzing evidence is essential in order to ascertain the validity and credibility of the information, which leads to better decision-making. Critical thinkers must consider factors like the source’s credibility, the existence of potential biases, and any relevant areas of expertise before forming judgments.

Clarity of Thought

Clarity of thought is an integral element of critical thinking and effective communication. Being able to articulate ideas clearly and concisely is crucial for efficient communication [3] . Critical thinkers are skilled at organizing their thoughts and communicating them in a structured manner, which is vital for ensuring the transmission of accurate and relevant information.

In summary, mastering critical thinking fundamentals, including skill and knowledge, analysis of evidence, and clarity of thought, is essential for effective communication. Cultivating these abilities will enable individuals to better navigate their personal and professional lives, fostering stronger, more efficient connections with others.

Importance of Critical Thinking

Workplace and leadership.

Critical thinking is a vital skill for individuals in the workplace, particularly for those in leadership roles. It contributes to effective communication, enabling individuals to articulate their thoughts clearly and understand the perspectives of others. Furthermore, critical thinking allows leaders to make informed decisions by evaluating available information and considering potential consequences. Developing this skill can also empower team members to solve complex problems by exploring alternative solutions and applying rational thinking.

Decisions and Problem-Solving

In both personal and professional contexts, decision-making and problem-solving are crucial aspects of daily life. Critical thinking enables individuals to analyze situations, identify possible options, and weigh the pros and cons of each choice. By employing critical thinking skills, individuals can arrive at well-informed decisions that lead to better outcomes. Moreover, applying these skills can help to identify the root cause of a problem and devise innovative solutions, thereby contributing to overall success and growth.

Confidence and Emotions

Critical thinking plays a significant role in managing one’s emotions and cultivating self-confidence. By engaging in rational and objective thinking, individuals can develop a clearer understanding of their own beliefs and values. This awareness can lead to increased self-assurance and the ability to effectively articulate one’s thoughts and opinions. Additionally, critical thinking can help individuals navigate emotionally-charged situations by promoting logical analysis and appropriate emotional responses. Ultimately, honing critical thinking skills can establish a strong foundation for effective communication and emotional intelligence.

Effective Communication

Effective communication is essential in building strong relationships and achieving desired outcomes. It involves the exchange of thoughts, opinions, and information so that the intended message is received and understood with clarity and purpose. This section will focus on three key aspects of effective communication: Verbal Communication, Nonverbal Communication, and Visual Communication.

Verbal Communication

Verbal communication is the use of spoken or written words to convey messages. It is vital to choose the right words, tone, and structure when engaging in verbal communication. Some elements to consider for effective verbal communication include:

• Being clear and concise: Focus on the main points and avoid unnecessary information.
• Active listening: Give full attention to the speaker and ask questions for clarification.
• Appropriate language: Use language that is easily understood by the audience.
• Emotional intelligence: Understand and manage emotions during communication.

Nonverbal Communication

Nonverbal communication involves gestures, body language, facial expressions, and other visual cues that complement verbal messages. It plays a crucial role in conveying emotions and intentions, and can often have a significant impact on the effectiveness of communication. Some key aspects of nonverbal communication are:

• Eye contact: Maintaining eye contact shows that you are attentive and engaged.
• Posture: Good posture indicates confidence and credibility.
• Gestures and facial expressions: Use appropriate gestures and facial expressions to support your message.
• Proximity: Maintain a comfortable distance from your audience to establish rapport.

Visual Communication

Visual communication involves the use of visual aids such as images, graphs, charts, and diagrams to support or enhance verbal messages. It can help to make complex information more understandable and engaging. To maximize the effectiveness of visual communication, consider the following tips:

• Relevance: Ensure that the visual aids are relevant to the message and audience.
• Simplicity: Keep the design and content simple for easy comprehension.
• Consistency: Use a consistent style, format, and color scheme throughout the presentation.
• Accessibility: Make sure that the visual aids are visible and clear to all audience members.

In conclusion, understanding and implementing verbal, nonverbal, and visual communication skills are essential for effective communication. By combining these elements, individuals can establish strong connections, and successfully relay their messages to others.

Critical Thinking Skills in Communication

Listening and analyzing.

Developing strong listening and analyzing skills is crucial for critical thinking in communication. This involves actively paying attention to what others are saying and sifting through the information to identify key points. Taking a step back to analyze and evaluate messages helps ensure a clear understanding of the topic.

By improving your listening and analyzing abilities, you become more aware of how people communicate their thoughts and ideas. Active listening helps you dig deeper and discover the underlying connections between concepts. This skill enhances your ability to grasp the core meaning and identify any ambiguities or inconsistencies.

Biases and Perspective

Recognizing biases and considering different perspectives are essential components of critical thinking in communication. Everyone has preconceived notions and beliefs that can influence their understanding of information. By being aware of your biases and actively questioning them, you can strengthen your ability to communicate more effectively.

Considering other people’s perspectives allows you to view an issue from multiple angles, eventually leading to a more thorough understanding. Approaching communications with an open and receptive mind gives you a greater ability to relate and empathize with others, which in turn enhances the overall effectiveness of communication.

Problem-Solving and Questions

Critical thinking is intrinsically linked to problem-solving and asking questions. By incorporating these skills into the communication process, you become more adept at identifying issues, formulating solutions, and adapting the way you communicate to different situations.

Asking well-crafted questions helps you uncover valuable insights and points of view that may be hidden or not immediately apparent. Inquiring minds foster a more dynamic and interactive communication; promoting continuous learning, growth, and development.

Ultimately, enhancing your critical thinking skills in communication leads to better understanding, stronger connections, and more effective communication. By combining active listening, awareness of biases and perspectives, and problem-solving through questioning, you can significantly improve your ability to navigate even the most complex communications with confidence and clarity.

Improving Critical Thinking and Communication

Methods and techniques.

One approach to improve critical thinking and communication is by incorporating various methods and techniques into your daily practice. Some of these methods include:

• Asking open-ended questions
• Analyzing information from multiple perspectives
• Employing logical reasoning

By honing these skills, individuals can better navigate the complexities of modern life and develop more effective communication capabilities.

Problem-Solving Skills

Developing problem-solving skills is also essential for enhancing critical thinking and communication. This involves adopting a systematic framework that helps in identifying, analyzing, and addressing problems. A typical problem-solving framework includes:

• Identifying the problem
• Gathering relevant information
• Evaluating possible solutions
• Choosing the best solution
• Implementing the chosen solution
• Assessing the outcome and adjusting accordingly

By mastering this framework, individuals can tackle problems more effectively and communicate their solutions with clarity and confidence.

Staying on Point and Focused

Staying on point and focused is a critical aspect of effective communication. To ensure that your message is concise and clear, it is crucial to:

• Determine the main purpose of your communication
• Consider the needs and expectations of your audience
• Use precise language to convey your thoughts

By maintaining focus throughout your communication, you can improve your ability to think critically and communicate more effectively.

In summary, enhancing one’s critical thinking and communication skills involves adopting various techniques, honing problem-solving skills, and staying focused during communication. By incorporating these practices into daily life, individuals can become more confident, knowledgeable, and capable communicators.

Teaching and Training Critical Thinking

Content and curriculum.

Implementing critical thinking in educational settings requires a well-designed curriculum that challenges learners to think deeply on various topics. To foster critical thinking, the content should comprise of complex problems, real-life situations, and thought-provoking questions. By using this type of content , educators can enable students to analyze, evaluate, and create their own understandings, ultimately improving their ability to communicate effectively.

Instructors and Teachers

The role of instructors and teachers in promoting critical thinking cannot be underestimated. They should be trained and equipped with strategies to stimulate thinking, provoke curiosity, and encourage students to question assumptions. Additionally, they must create a learning environment that supports the development of critical thinking by being patient, open-minded, and accepting of diverse perspectives.

Engaging Conversations

Conversations play a significant role in the development of critical thinking and effective communication skills. Instructors should facilitate engaging discussions, prompt students to explain their reasoning, and ask open-ended questions that promote deeper analysis. By doing so, learners will be able to refine their ideas, understand various viewpoints, and build their argumentation skills, leading to more effective communication overall.

Critical thinking and effective communication are two interrelated skills that significantly contribute to personal and professional success. Through the application of critical thinking , individuals can create well-structured, clear, and impactful messages.

• Clarity of Thought : Critical thinking helps in organizing thoughts logically and coherently. When engaging in communication, this clarity provides a strong foundation for conveying ideas and opinions.
• Active Listening : A crucial aspect of effective communication involves actively listening to the messages from others. This allows for better understanding and consideration of multiple perspectives, strengthening the critical thinking process.
• Concise and Precise Language : Utilizing appropriate language and avoiding unnecessary jargon ensures that the message is easily understood by the target audience.

Individuals who excel in both critical thinking and communication are better equipped to navigate complex situations and collaborate with others to achieve common goals. By continuously honing these skills, one can improve their decision-making abilities and enhance their relationships, both personally and professionally. In a world where effective communication is paramount, mastering critical thinking is essential to ensuring one’s thoughts and ideas are received and understood by others.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the essential aspects of critical thinking.

Critical thinking involves the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in order to make sound decisions and solve problems. Essential aspects of critical thinking include asking better questions , identifying and challenging assumptions, understanding different perspectives, and recognizing biases.

How do communication skills impact problem-solving?

Effective communication skills are crucial in problem-solving, as they facilitate the exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives. Clear and concise communication helps ensure that all team members understand the problem, the proposed solutions, and their roles in the process. Additionally, strong listening skills enable better comprehension of others’ viewpoints and foster collaboration.

How does language influence critical thinking?

Language plays a key role in critical thinking, as it shapes the way we interpret and express information. The choice of words, phrases, and structures can either clarify or obscure meaning. A well-structured communication promotes a better understanding of complex ideas, making it easier for individuals to think critically and apply the concepts to problem-solving.

What strategies can enhance communication in critical thinking?

To enhance communication during critical thinking, individuals should be clear and concise in expressing their thoughts, listen actively to others’ perspectives, and use critical thinking skills to analyze and evaluate the information provided. Encouraging open dialogue, asking probing questions, and being receptive to feedback can also foster a conducive environment for critical thinking.

What are the benefits of critical thinking in communication?

Critical thinking enhances communication by promoting clarity, objectivity, and logical reasoning. When we engage in critical thinking, we question assumptions, consider multiple viewpoints, and evaluate the strength of arguments. As a result, our communication becomes more thoughtful, persuasive, and effective at conveying the intended message .

How do critical thinking skills contribute to effective communication?

Critical thinking skills contribute to effective communication by ensuring that individuals are able to analyze, comprehend, and interpret the information being shared. This allows for more nuanced understanding of complex ideas and helps to present arguments logically and coherently. Additionally, critical thinking skills can aid in identifying any underlying biases or assumptions in the communicated information, thus enhancing overall clarity and effectiveness.

You may also like

Great Courses vs Coursera

There are hundreds of online educational platforms. Some are tiny, servicing small niches, and others try to educate pretty much everybody under […]

Common Critical Thinking Fallacies

Critical thinking is the process of reaching a decision or judgment by analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning with facts and data presented. However, […]

How to Overcome Procrastination

About 65% of people surveyed see themselves as procrastinators. A good third of this number profess to be chronic procrastinators. When you […]

Divergent Thinking Tools: Unleashing Your Creative Potential

Divergent thinking is an essential component of creativity and problem-solving. It involves generating a wide range of ideas and potential solutions in […]

15.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically About How People and Language Interact

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify and implement genre conventions of case studies for structure, paragraphing, voice, and mechanics.
• Articulate how genre conventions are shaped by purpose, culture, and expectation.
• Participate successfully in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.
• Give and act on productive feedback to works in progress.

Having learned about case studies and how they help advance research and knowledge, you are ready to do an informal one of your own. You will conduct an informal case study profile by selecting a topic to research, observing a setting and a participant (or participants), and using specified research methods. If applicable, see The Research Process: How to Create Sources for more information about selecting a research topic. You will then analyze the results of your study to determine its significance.

As indicated in Tracing a Broad Issue in the Individual , many universities and professional organizations will provide guidance on how to adhere to ethical standards when conducting a case study. Your instructor will be your best resource for answers to questions you have about your college’s policies on conducting research and whether and how they apply to the research you intend to do. Remember, however, that for any research you do involving human subjects, you must obtain participants’ written permission to be included in your study.

Summary of Assignment

Conduct an informal case study of a classmate, friend, or family member to gain insight into the participant’s use of language, specifically the ways in which their culture(s) and language(s) interact. Try to find a willing participant who is either bilingual or fluent in, familiar with, or an occasional user of a language other than English. You can focus your case study on the ways in which your participant changes their language according to context, how their use of language is different when they interact with family and friends as opposed to in academic or professional contexts, or how using one language affects the other. Be sure to consult your instructor about the school’s policy on student participation in studies, and obtain written permission from the participant before you begin. If you do not know anyone who speaks another language, consider these topics:

• Body language that accompanies linguistic communication
• Language shifts according to medium (text, phone call, email, in person)
• In-person vs. written communication
• Comparison of language use between two participants from different cultures or age groups

After you decide on your topic, formulate a research question that asks precisely what you want to learn from your study. Next, you will need to plan your case study by drafting questions for interviews and conducting observations at determined times and places. Then, using the information you collect from your interviews and observations, you will offer an interpretation about the participant’s use of language that might be helpful to your college’s instructors and administrators. Present your findings in a report of around 1,000 to 1,200 words.

Another Lens. Complete the same case study, and share your findings in a presentation that is 7 to 10 minutes in length. See Scripting for the Public Forum: Writing to Speak for more information about scripting for a public forum. For this version of the assignment, record your interviews on video or use a voice recorder. Play clips of your interviews in your presentation to illustrate the participant’s use of language. Organize the presentation into clear, distinct sections with subtitles. Instead of long, dense paragraphs, use short bullet points to state your main points. Use visuals to communicate abstract ideas or data. Make sure your presentation flows logically and that you use appropriate transitions to maintain coherence. To indicate clear demarcations between sections, use headings and subheadings, as in the Annotated Sample Reading . In your presentation, include all of the typical sections of a written case study:

• Background/Context. Give an overview of previous research on the topic.
• Methods. Provide a detailed description of the methods you used to collect the data. Include a description of the participant and the observation environment.
• Results. Provide the data collected: answers to interview or survey questions, your observations, and any other pertinent information.
• Analysis. Interpret the data, and discuss any limitations of the case study.

See the resources below for some helpful presenting tips.

• 6 Tips to Calm Your Nerves before Speaking
• Like, Eliminate Ums and Ahs, Right?
• Do You Write the Way You Speak? (You Should!)
• Do You Write the Way You Speak? (You Should!) Part 2

Quick Launch: Research Question and Data Collection

Within your selected topic, begin to brainstorm possible research questions, keeping in mind the following characteristics:

• Open Ended. A good research question has multiple possible answers, all equally plausible. Avoid a yes-or-no question or one with an obvious answer.
• Debatable. The research question should spark reasonable debate around the best answer or solution. If you think you know the answer to the research question or if you doubt that people can be open-minded about a range of answers, it is not a good research question.
• Answerable. You should be able to answer your research question by using the evidence you gather. You should be able to consult existing source material on the topic.
• Consequential. The outcome of the debate around your research question should be of consequence. In other words, what you or others choose to do going forward should matter and affect others.

You probably will revise the wording of your research question quite a bit before it aligns with the characteristics listed. Spend time thinking about your research question, and revise it as necessary to prepare to conduct your case study. See Table 15.1 for examples of how to revise research questions in various fields of study.

Once you select a topic and research question, you can begin looking for background information.

Data Collection

Before starting your actual research, get a sense of the body of knowledge around your topic. Remember, case studies are about advancing research in a particular field. For a case study to effectively advance knowledge, it must show awareness of the research already done in the field. A literature review section, which includes previous research and background about the topic, is typically included in a case study. Browsing trade publications and academic journals can help you get a sense of existing research. Looking for articles frequently referred to in other articles is a good way to locate important research, as researchers typically cite significant studies. Look at important, groundbreaking research in addition to recently published work. The information you gather from existing literature may be either qualitative or quantitative. See The Research Process: Where to Look for Existing Sources for more information about conducting research.

After you have established your research question, you can begin your actual study. Start by planning how you will collect your primary source data. First, review the literature in the field if you have not yet done so. Next, draft questions to ask your case study participant. The strongest case studies provide a unique perspective that is applicable to your specific audience—in this case, students, teachers, and administrators at your college. Keep in mind that not every college is the same. Some colleges, such as “open admissions” community colleges, admit all who apply, whereas other colleges accept only 5 percent or fewer of their applicants. Interview questions are likely to be different depending on the individual characteristics of your college. To learn more about your college and its student population, search for information on the college website. Look for sections that have titles such as “About Us,” “About Our Students,” “College Facts” / “Factbook,” and so on.

Brainstorm a list of characteristics that make your college and its students unique. Figure 15.6 shows how a student at Midlands Technical College began data collection for a case study on language use.

Create Interview Questions

Using your research and brainstorming ideas, draft a series of 10 to 15 questions you plan to ask your case study participant. Remember that these questions should be open-ended (no yes-or-no questions) and give the participant an opportunity to speak freely and extemporaneously. There are no right or wrong answers. With these questions, keep your purpose in mind: to gather information that will be helpful to students, teachers, and administrators about how a student at Midlands (or another school) uses language. Here are some sample questions:

• What are your hobbies, or what do you do for entertainment? (This question should elicit responses that provide insight into the student’s leisure activities and the groups they identify with.)
• What new language uses did you have to develop when you became a college student?
• If you have a job in addition to being a student, what are some ways you use language to do that job?
• How do you communicate with friends and family? (Text messages? Apps such as Snapchat? Phone calls?)
• When do you send long texts?
• How long do you usually wait for a response before sending a new message?
• How long do you usually wait before responding to a message?
• When do you use standard English?
• When and for what purposes do you use emoji?
• How do you communicate using voice or video chat (Zoom, video games, iMessage, etc.)?
• With whom do you communicate, and in what contexts?
• How do you adjust your use of language in these situations?

Remember to use the brainstorming and research you did previously to draft appropriate questions for your case study participant. Also, try to find ways to encourage the participant to provide as many details as they can and to identify an appropriate setting in which you can observe them using language.

Interview the person you have chosen to study. Record their responses on paper or on a digital voice recorder. If using a digital recorder, briefly note anything you want to review later in writing. If you find an opportunity to elicit further information or follow up, do so. You may find it helpful to print the bulleted list of questions and write the participant’s answers directly on the page.

Field Observation

The next step is to observe. If you haven’t already done so, decide on a setting in which to observe the participant. You might observe in person and/or use a messaging app or video chat to observe them using language at work, with their friends and family, or in some other setting. The setting should be one in which you can get a good idea of how the participant uses language naturally in that context. For example, you would not want to observe a student playing a video game if they aren’t a gamer. Here are some suggestions about what to note as you observe. Be sure to take detailed notes during your observation. Consider printing this page as well and writing observation notes on it. See The Research Process: How to Create Sources to learn more about field research.

• What are some common words or phrases used?
• In what ways does the participant replace or substitute certain words with emoji, slang, acronyms, and the like?
• When does the participant’s voice indicate shifts in volume, tone, or vocabulary? If you are observing texts or writing, how does the participant communicate tone?
• What specific words and phrases does the participant use? That is, what words and phrases might not be understood by you or others but are understood by the participant and the people with whom they are communicating?

Analysis of Data

After collecting data, analyze your findings and write your report. First, look closely at the data you have collected, and decide what the information is telling you about how the participant uses language. You should have data gathered from both qualitative and quantitative research. If you need more of either one, interview or observe the participant again, or conduct more background research. Practice identifying qualitative and quantitative data.

Writing the Introduction: Background, Context, and Methods

In the introduction, provide background and context for the case study. To begin, write a detailed description of the study you have conducted and what you sought to learn from it. Also include the details of your literature review and the methods you used to collect data (interviews, observations, and so on). The example below is an introduction to the Midlands Technical College student’s case study on how students use language:

Background and Context

student sample text Midlands Technical College is a two-year public college in Columbia, South Carolina. Over the course of two weeks, I observed two students to better understand their uses of language. A generational shift in the average college student population is occurring, with millennials graduating and making up less of the college student population. At the same time, Gen Z’s numbers on college campuses continue to grow. Studying how college students use language can provide valuable insights into how to communicate effectively with this population. end student sample text

Methods and Participant

student sample text I gathered my data using three methods. In the first method, I researched literature about both Midlands Technical College’s student population and communication habits and attitudes among Gen Z students, and I looked into some case studies about the use of emoji. For the second method, I created a group chat consisting of me and two students enrolled in the same section of an introductory psychology course. We used this group chat to discuss the course, assignments, due dates, etc. For the third method, I created a survey of 10 questions asking the students to think about and reflect on how they use language at home versus at school. I then interviewed the students to record their answers. Using this data, I was able to analyze how students use language among their peers versus how they use language around their family. end student sample text

Body: Presentation of Data

The next step in writing your case study is to present your data and analysis. How you set up your body paragraphs is up to you or your instructor. Like the sample study about Leborgne, most case studies are organized into sections and subsections, each devoted to an aspect of the study. You have already written an introduction in which you presented the scope of your study, the participant, the field of research, and other pertinent background information. Now you can continue by organizing each element that you studied into its own section, or you can choose another way of setting it up. For example, your overall structure might look like the structure in Table 15.2 , using your own criteria and as many sections as you need. If you choose another structure, create a similar organizer to help you keep focused as you write.

Provide detailed descriptions of what you observed and the results of your research. Include qualitative data based on your observations as well as quantitative data based on measurable results. Be sure to acknowledge what you do not know or were unable to observe. The following example illustrates a typical body paragraph describing a student’s use of capitalization and punctuation in text messages.

student sample text Mateo’s use of capitalization and punctuation appeared to change depending on the mood he wanted to convey. For example, “what time do u think prof chang will let us go today”—a casual message about class on Tuesday—lacked capitalization and punctuation (“What time do you think Prof. Chang will let us go today?”). On Thursday, Mateo sent a more formal message regarding the need for the group to study for an upcoming exam: “Guys, we need to settle on a time and place—Oscar’s or Dawson Library—to study.” It’s not clear whether Mateo’s use of capitalization and punctuation is connected to his social group or other factors, as I had limited ability to observe the use of capitalization and punctuation by the study participants. However, this question is worth exploring in more detail. end student sample text

Using Visuals

One way in which an oral presentation of a case study will differ from a written case study is the number of visuals provided. Presenters are expected to use visuals when sharing data and illustrating points. However, writers also use visuals to help communicate abstract ideas. In addition to images, four main types of graphics are used to present data:

When selecting visuals, ensure that they are clear and related to the topic. A visual’s purpose is to illustrate a point that is too long or complex to express in words. Visuals should have a clear purpose and be clearly labeled. Your audience should be able to interpret and see the point of the visual without explanation. Include visuals to support your work, not simply because you are expected to include them.

Conclusion: What It All Means

Once you collect all your data, analyze it further and collectively to form your conclusions. Take a close look again at your interview responses and observation notes. What did the participant say in the interview that led to insights about their use of language? Try to identify any words or phrases that tell you something about the participants. See Analytical Report: Writing from Facts for more information about analyzing data. How does the data from your interviews and observations reveal something that might lead to a generalization about how students use language?

Arriving at conclusions can be tricky. Base your conclusion on observations of consistent behavior rather than reaching a broad conclusion based on limited evidence. Your conclusion should be something you notice that challenges your previous understanding or assumptions. For example, younger people appear to avoid the “laughing with crying eyes” emoji because it has been so overused that it now seems insincere. Young people are often the driving force behind new uses of language. To replace the “insincere” laughing-with-crying-eyes emoji, many young people turned to the skull emoji to indicate “I’m dead” (from laughing).

Your conclusion should present your theories. Based on the evidence you gathered, what are some generalizations you can make about how students use language? What did you observe that provides opportunity for further study? The example conclusion from a case study on emoji below presents a theory on how students use them.

student sample text Overall, I observed that students tend to be more informal when communicating to other students in the same age group. These students used emoji to communicate thoughts and feelings that differed from the more literal and more widely understood meaning of the emoji. I believe that students of this generation want to use language in a way that separates them from their older siblings, parents, and teachers. Thus, their use of emoji reflects that desire as they seek to change the meanings of some emoji. Whether this trend continues as students age is up for debate and presents an opportunity to further understanding of language use within this group. end student sample text

Peer Review: Conferencing Electronically

After you finish your draft, receiving feedback from a peer will help you identify the strengths and weaknesses in your case study. Writers sometimes find it hard to view their work from the perspective of their audience. Therefore, peer feedback will help you focus on your writing in ways that are not obvious to you. Similarly, when you review your peer’s work, react to their draft as a serious and conscientious reader. What suggestions can you offer to make this case study more informative or something you would want to read?

Technology has facilitated giving and receiving feedback. You are probably familiar with getting feedback during in-class peer reviews and conferences, but if you haven’t done so already, consider electronic peer reviews. Conferencing electronically offers several advantages:

• Convenience. You don’t have to be in the same room with your conferencing partner to give each other feedback. Within a reasonable time frame, you can review your partner’s writing at a time that is convenient for you.
• Time. You have more time to think about your reactions to, and your feedback on, your conferencing partner’s writing than you would in person.
• Permanence. The feedback you give and receive is stored digitally and easy to access.
• Shareability. Electronic feedback is easier to reproduce and share with others, such as an instructor or a tutor.

Multiple technologies exist to help you conference electronically.

• Cloud Storage. Cloud storage providers such as Microsoft’s OneDrive and Google Drive store files on the Internet. You can access these sites from any device. Sharing, too, is easier because changes to the document are saved automatically. Therefore, every time you or someone else accesses the document, they are viewing the latest version.
• Word Processors. Microsoft Word and Google Docs have review features such as comment boxes and Track Changes as well as the capacity to suggest, accept, and reject changes.
• Collaboration Platforms. Slack, Google Hangouts, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams allow you to create a space where you can communicate with people in a shared online workspace. Features of collaboration platforms include file sharing and storage, chat, video conferencing, and task organizing.

When you are assigned a partner, open their draft and begin reviewing it. The following tutorial will explain how to use the review features of Microsoft Word. Other Microsoft Office and non-Office products (Google Docs and Apple’s Pages) offer similar commenting and markup features.

• Open the document you want to review, and click the Review tab above the tools ribbon.
• Read the draft as you normally would, looking for areas to comment on. Note the places where you can provide positive comments as well as possible places for revision.
• To add a comment, highlight the word, sentence, or phrase to which you want to add a comment.
• Click New Comment in the tools ribbon to create a comment box in the margin.
• Type your comment in the box.
• Click anywhere outside the box to save the comment.
• To delete a comment, click inside the comment box, and then click Delete next to or beneath New Comment in the tools ribbon.

Specific Comments

Provide specific comments when reviewing your peer’s draft. Vague, general comments such as “revise this” don’t explain the reason for revision or how to revise. When conferencing electronically, specificity is even more important because what you write might be the only feedback your peer receives, unless you conference over video chat.

Comments can generally be categorized as vague, somewhat helpful, and specific and clear.

• Vague comments might offer praise that doesn’t point to anything specific about the writing, or they might offer criticism without providing a suggested revision or explaining why something should be revised. For example, a comment such as “Revise this sentence” is not helpful. Although it specifically identifies the sentence as needing revision, it doesn’t indicate why or suggest how to revise.
• Somewhat helpful comments are still general, but they comment on something specific about the writing. They may also suggest some direction for a revision. For example, a comment such as “Revise this question so that it’s more debatable” identifies the aspect that needs revision and briefly explains why. However, it does not provide further details about why the question is not debatable or how to revise it.
• Specific and clear comments identify precisely why the writing is good or needs revision. They also suggest a specific revision or revision strategy the writer can use. For example, “I think this question could be more debatable. ‘Do college students struggle with time management skills?’ is a yes-or-no question and would not lead to a strong argument either way. A better question could be ‘How does lack of time management skills affect college students as a whole?’ or ‘What should be done about students’ lack of time management skills?’”

Revising: Accepting and Rejecting Suggestions

After your partner finishes reviewing your draft, you will need to accept or reject their suggested changes. Use the image below to locate the tools in Word you will need to use. You can accept or reject edits to the wording, edits to the formatting, and comments in the margins.

Edits made directly to your document will appear in red (for added text) or red text with a strikethrough (for deleted text).

• To accept or reject changes in a Word document, open the document and click the Review tab above the tools ribbon.
• To ensure that changes you make to the document will not be saved as edits, go to the tools ribbon, and toggle Track Changes to off.
• To open a panel that displays all changes, click Reviewing or Reviewing Pane in the tools ribbon.
• To navigate to a specific revision, click the revision in this panel.
• To navigate consecutively through changes, click the Previous and Next buttons beside the Accept and Reject options in the tools ribbon.
• To accept a revision, click Accept in the tools ribbon.
• To reject a revision, click Reject in the tools ribbon.
• The arrows below or beside the Accept and Reject buttons open drop-down menus that give you the option either to accept or reject a change and then move to the next revision or to accept or reject all changes at once. Be careful not to accept or reject all changes without addressing each one individually.
• When you finish, be sure you have accepted or rejected all of the edits and deleted all comments so that they don’t appear in the final draft.
• Check that no red text remains in the paper and that no comments remain in the right margin.
• When you are finished, be sure to save your changes.

Sharing Your Work

Seek out a student conference or publication to present your case study. Many colleges host events and conferences to showcase student work. Your teacher or advisor can probably direct you toward opportunities to present your work at your college or in the community.

For example, the University of Central Oklahoma hosts the annual Language and Linguistics Student Conference , which is open to all undergraduate and graduate students. Presenting at a student conference is a great opportunity not only to share your work but also to network and gain experience that will make you stand out when applying to other schools, for scholarships, and for jobs.

In addition, a number of academic journals publish student research. For instance, Spectrum , sponsored by the University of Alberta , is a student-run interdisciplinary journal that showcases students’ work. See more undergraduate publishing opportunities provided by the Council on Undergraduate Research .

If you publish or present your case study, remember to adhere to ethical standards. As explained in Tracing a Broad Issue in the Individual , many universities and professional organizations will provide guidance on what standards to follow when conducting a case study. Be sure to review these guidelines with the organization sponsoring the conference or publication.

Another option for sharing is to gather the case studies done by all class members and, with the approval of your instructor, go through them to ascertain what, if any, trends emerge. If you and your classmates think these studies might be useful to college administrators, consider sending them, along with a detailed cover letter, to the Office of Admissions, the Dean of Students, or another appropriate administrative office.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/15-5-writing-process-thinking-critically-about-how-people-and-language-interact

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

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

The Writing Process

In this module, we will begin our discussion of the methods of academic writing by looking at how the writing process works, with particular attention paid to the various elements of the college essay format. Return here as you need for tips on all aspects of the college essay writing experience. Remember, an essay is an attempt to understand something more deeply. When we write an essay, we are opening ourselves up to the full spectrum of human knowledge and wisdom while simultaneously reaching for new understandings of the truth and its relevance to our lives. It is a sacred, scientific, and self-empowering process. One that we continue to perfect as long as we are alive and curious. While no essay can be reduced to a simple series of steps or formulas, we will see that the essay format does provide a coherent template, an ancient and powerful structure, through which we can engage the world of ideas and communicate our discoveries in meaningful and academically productive ways. Remember this is a  process . There is an old saying, “writing is rewriting.” We never so much arrive at a perfect piece of writing as we edge closer to engaging the spectacular and complex world around us with increasing clarity of thought and vision. And, hopefully, a sharpened sense of the importance of inquiry, evaluation and synthesis as vital steps on any path towards understanding.

Writing the college essay is a matter of answering a series of questions, of following a sequence of steps towards creating a coherent written document that explores a topic for greater insight and understanding. It is a rhetorical technology meant to focus the writer’s inquisitive and curious mind towards an engaging, rational and academically sound discussion.  Initially, we will explore the basic elements of this very specific, yet adaptive, writing process:

• Thesis driven
• Primary pattern of development
• Coherent, unified paragraphs
• Strong, clear introductions and conclusions
• Proper use of relevant, authoritative sources
• Properly formatted (MLA format)

NOTE: Please refer back to this page throughout the term for help with crafting the specific elements of your assignments. There are many other websites, nonprofits and academic institutions who have published readily available materials on the academic writing process. Students and faculty should feel free to explore the options available to them and employ the ones that resonate the most. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab ( OWL ) , for instance, is one of the oldest and most reputable college writing websites available to anyone with an internet connection. The point is not to follow one specific “Golden Road” to success in college writing but, rather, to become aware of the purpose and relevant structures of the model and apply them to your own critical and creative thinking processes in ways that make your assignments more productive, engaging and fun. This will translate to your reader, improve the substance of your writing, and inevitably elevate your grades along the way.

Here you can find most, if not all, of the technical material you will need to write competent, engaging college-level essays. But the content of your writing will be determined by the particular class or assignment and the special areas of interest that make you the person you are and contribute to personal and transformative nature of your education. As needed, this ebook will be updated with new materials and relevant links as the author continues to curate the collection.

Thesis-Driven Essays

• A strong thesis does not just state your topic but your perspective or feeling on the topic as well. And it does so in a single, focused sentence.
• A strong, clear thesis tells the reader clearly what the essay is all about and engages them in the big idea of the entire essay.
• Consult the “Thesis Statements” handout or follow this link to the OWL thesis statements discussion.

BEST:  A thesis is strongest when the writer uses both the specific topic, and their educated opinion on it, together for writing a detailed and clear main point.

• Thesis statements are usually found at the end of the introduction. Seasoned authors may play with this structure, but it is often better to learn the form before deviating from it.
• Thesis statements are almost always a single sentence long, two tops.
• Thesis statements often reveal the primary pattern of development of the essay.
• Watch this video on writing a “Killer” Thesis Statement
• Watch this video on writing an effective Academic Thesis Statement.

Primary Pattern Of Development

• Many college essays follow a primary pattern of development for laying out their ideas and expressing their primary thesis.
• A pattern of development is the way the essay is organized, from one paragraph to the next, in order to present it’s main point and support for it.
• Your reader will be experiencing your essay in time. That is, they will read it starting in paragraph one and then two, three, four, five, six… This may seem obvious but we need to consider how the reader will experience the essay in time and in relation to our thesis statement. Thus, we will need to organize the essay into a coherent pattern which allows the reader to easily follow our logic through the essay and fully relate it back to our central theme(s).
• Some essays use a combination of patterns to communicate their ideas but usually a primary pattern is established to present the overall structure of the essay.

BEST: Patterns of development work best when they are used consistently and in conjunction with the structure and theme of the primary thesis statement.

• Narration & Description
• Exemplification
• Cause & Effect
• Comparison & Contrast
• There are several more variations of patterns of development but these are the most common and the ones we will be exploring this term.
• Consult this handout on the basic understanding and uses of the primary patterns of development .
• Consult this handout on the patterns of development discussed as the modes of essay writing .

Coherent, Unified Paragraphs

• Strong essays are built with solid, coherent and unified paragraphs. They should be digestible units of thought that have similar structure to the essay itself: a topic sentence, a body of support, and a concluding or transitional statement to help the reader move through the essay with clarity and focus towards your big idea.
• Body paragraphs need to be arranged according to your primary pattern of development.

BEST: When the writer uses paragraphs to present a single, coherent and well-developed thought in support of their overall thesis.

• A body paragraph is a developed single thought that is laid out according to a certain, logical structure.
• A strong, clear topic sentence that states the main idea of the paragraph (which will likely be a sub-point that is helping you to develop and explore your thesis).
• A strong, clear body paragraph will include several (two-four) sentences of development and support of your topic sentence: including quotes, summaries and paraphrases of relevant sources and your substantive responses to the source material.
• A strong paragraph will have a closing sentence of summary and transition into the next paragraph.
• Consult this handout on how to construct coherent, engaging and unified paragraphs: Constructing Paragraphs or click on this link to the OWL Website.
• Watch this video on Writing Effective Paragraphs.

Strong, Clear Introductions and Conclusions

• The beginning and the ending of any communication event, studies show, provide the best opportunities to speak to any audience when their attention is the highest and most focused on the communication. Something about our species pays special attention to the way things start and the way they end. We should use this to our advantage as writers.
• Consult the “Beginnings & Endings” handout .
• The introduction should grab your reader’s attention, focus it on your general topic and move towards your specific, engaging thesis.
• The conclusion should provide a restatement of your main idea (thesis), provide a sense of finality or closure, and possibly challenge the reader with a “so what?” moment.
• In communication theory, there is a saying, “Tell them what you are going to tell them (introduction), tell them (body), then tell them what you just told them (conclusion).” While this seems a redundant structure, it is useful to be reminded of the need to build a logical and self-supporting flow into your academic writing. Clear intent and focus helps your reader concentrate on the major ideas you are trying to communicate and it helps you be disciplined and calculated in how you structure the essay to establish, highlight and support those very ideas.

BEST: When the writer uses both the introduction and the conclusion to grab and focus the reader’s attention on the main point of their essay.

• Both should clearly state the main point of the essay (thesis).
• Both should grab and focus the reader’s attention on the greater topic and larger significance of the thesis.
• Both should provide a sense of momentum for the reader to move through the essay with clarity, confidence and full awareness of the essay’s main point.
• Watch this video on writing effective introductions and conclusions .
• Here’s another video on Effective Introductions and Conclusions.

Proper Use of Relevant, Authoritative Sources

The discovery, analysis and integration of relevant source material into a research project can be referred to as a “research methodology.” This can be a daunting, frustrating and sometimes scary process. It takes a lot of discipline and courage to boldly go into the world of a given topic to check our ideas against those of authoritative, current and reliable source material. It can also expose us to the reality that most topics are far more complicated than they originally appear. This is an essential component of college writing. It is important to get our thoughts and ideas down on paper in a clear, disciplined and understandable way. But it is equally important to verify, challenge and expand those ideas by juxtaposing them with the most reliable information we can find on our chosen topic. We do not research just to verify what we already believe about a topic but to challenge our previously held ideas and, hopefully, move beyond the echo chamber of our own thoughts into a meaningful, substantive dialogue with others who have relevant experience and expertise on the topic. Doing this will help us to generate a depth of knowledge that goes beyond the superficial and into the real mechanics of knowing. The result will be an essay that is engaging, grounded and integrative.

• The “essay” format itself is intended to get the writer to explore a topic by beginning with a question or idea and then going out into the world and finding relevant, authoritative sources to help develop, test and explore that idea.
• Authoritative sources do more than just back up the ideas we have. They challenge us to dive deep into the topic we are exploring to get their full complexity and broad application.
• Consult the “Evaluating Sources” handout .
• Consult this handout on how to effectively blend sources into your essay .

BEST: When the writer uses relevant, authoritative sources to enhance a dialogue with the audience and themselves around the significant issues the essay addresses. Most effective when they are blended carefully and properly into an honest and focused exploration of the topic that is lead by the writer but open to where the relevant source material can take the discussion.

• A strong essay will include enough relevant, authoritative and reliable sources to help develop and explore the topic and thesis. This level of what is “enough” will largely depend on the weight and scope of the thesis and the particulars of a given topic or assignment.
• A strong essay will comment effectively on sources by integrating them into the larger topic, making them “talk to one another” and commenting on them in ways that stay true to their original intent and blend them into the writer’s main point and primary pattern of development.
• A strong essay will include a variety of sources from various academic, professional and popular institutions to provide a wide array of perspectives on the topic and thesis under discussion.
• Consult the Library Databases  and our WR 122 Library Guide  for help in finding and using relevant, authoritative sources.
• Watch this video on Searching the Databases.
• Watch this video on Evaluating Sources.

Properly Formatted (MLA)

• Essays in Humanities classes are formatted according to Modern Language Association (MLA) format.
• Formatting can be a frustrating and time-consuming process so we will work on it in sections throughout the term. Stay calm and focused and learn how to use the tools that will assist you in proper MLA formatting.

BEST:  When an essay is properly crafted and formatted, the reader is able to clearly and easily follow the ideas and trace outside information to its original sources.

MLA involves three primary components when getting your essay into proper format:

• Formatting of the first page of your essay
• Proper use of “in-text” citations (citing sources you use in the body of the text of your essay)
• Properly formatted “Works Cited” or “Works Consulted” page.
• Consult the MLA Style Guides  nn the MHCC Library Website .
• Note that on the MLA Style Guides site there is a section called “Citation Builders” which will help put sources into proper format for you. Note also that in most newer versions of Microsoft Word there is an MLA template you can select to automatically put your document in MLA format. Lastly, sources taken from the MHCC Library databases will already be listed at the bottom of the article in MLA format. Simple copy and paste the citation from the database entry to your Works Cited page (making sure to the entry is: in proper alphabetical position, double-spaced and in proper “hanging” format”).
• Consult this handout on how to put your essay in MLA format .
• Consult this template on how to construct your first essay.
• Watch the following video on how to use MLA Format (8th Edition).
• Watch the following video on how to use MLA Format for MAC (8th Edition).
• Watch the following video on how to create the MLA Works Cited Page (8th Edition).

Please return to this page throughout the term for assistance with any of the elements of writing the successful college essay. Remember, writing is a process of self-discovery. It is a means by which we can educate ourselves about any topic and learn more about each other along the way. Embrace it, be patient, disciplined, and focused and it can help open the world to you.

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Andrew Gurevich is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

13 – Collaborative Writing

Collaborative Writing Processes

Suzan Last; Candice Neveu; Kalani Pattison; Nicole Hagstrom-Schmidt; and Matt McKinney

Collaborative projects are common in many fields and disciplines, as individuals with various realms of expertise work together to accomplish goals and create projects. Writing is a key part of communication that enables these projects to happen, but it also is often the deliverable —the final product that a team can pass on to another team, to executives and administrators, to consumers, or to the public. Working as a team to write a document usually means that each individual writes less content. However, to create a coherent document written in one voice, teams must plan carefully and revise thoughtfully.

The following section examines in more depth how writing in general, and collaborative writing specifically, is crucial to engineering. Engineering is a field that is often perceived as entailing a relatively small amount of writing. However, as you will see in this following section, such perceptions are often misinformed. The same misperceptions may also take place regarding other fields, so you should think about how this engineering-specific information might apply more widely to your discipline.

The engineering design process, at least in part, entails working collaboratively to gather, organize, manage, and distribute information. [1] This information is often carefully analyzed and used to make important decisions, so it is critical that team members collaborate effectively in managing these communications tasks.

Engineers report spending a considerable amount of their time writing, and they frequently engage in collaborative writing. A recent survey asked various professionals what portion of their work week was devoted to writing, collaborative writing, and international communications. [2] The results shown in Table 13.5 indicate that collaborative writing makes up a significant portion of overall writing tasks.

Table 13.5. Percentage of total work week that engineers and programmers report spending on communications tasks.

Research has also shown that “writing in general and [collaborative writing] in particular have been recognized to be fundamental to most professional and academic practices in engineering.” [3] Figure 13.4 [4] shows that engineers rate writing skills as extremely important to career advancement. [5]

Like any kind of teamwork, collaborative writing requires the entire team to be focused on a common objective. According to Lowry et al., an effective team “negotiates, coordinates, and communicates during the creation of a common document.” [6] The collaborative writing process is iterative and social, meaning the team works together and moves back and forth throughout the process.

Collaborative Writing Stages and Strategies

Successful collaborative writing is made easier when you understand the collaborative writing strategies you can apply, the best ways to manage a document undergoing revisions, and the different roles people can assume. Figure 13.5 [7] outlines the various activities involved at various stages of the collaborative writing process.

Collaborative writing strategies are methods a team uses to coordinate the writing of a collaborative document. There are five main strategies: single-author, sequential, parallel writing: horizontal division, parallel writing: stratified division, and reactive writing. Each strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. Effective teams working on longer term projects tend to use a combination of collaborative writing strategies for different points of the project. When planning to switch between writing strategies, it is important to make sure the team is communicating clearly regarding which strategy will be used for which task. See Table 13.6 [8] for a detailed breakdown of these strategies, their advantages, and disadvantages. Can you think of any other benefits or limitations?

Table 13.6. Collaborative writing strategies.

Document management reflects the approaches used to maintain version control of the document and describe who is responsible for it. Four main control modes (centralized, relay, independent, and shared) are listed in Table 13.7, along with their pros and cons. Can you think of any more, based on your experience?

Table 13.7. Document control modes.

Roles refer to the different duties participants might undertake, depending on the activity. In addition to whatever roles and responsibilities that individual team members performed throughout other stages of the project, the actual stages of composing and revising the document may require writing-specific roles. Table 13.8 describes several roles within a collaborative writing team. Members of small teams must fill multiple roles when prewriting, drafting, and revising a document collaboratively. Which role(s) have you had in a group project? Are there ones you always seem to do? Ones that you prefer, dislike, or would like to try?

Table 13.8. Collaborative writing roles.

This text was derived from

Last, Suzan, with contributors Candice Neveu and Monika Smith. Technical Writing Essentials: Introduction to Professional Communications in Technical Fields. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, 2019. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• Susan McCahan, Phil Anderson, Mark Kortschot, Peter E. Weiss, and Kimberly A. Woodhouse, “Introduction to Teamwork,” in Designing Engineers: An Introductory Text (Hoboken, NY: Wiley, 2015), 14. ↵
• Jason Swarts, Stacey Pigg, Jamie Larsen, Julia Helo Gonzalez, Rebecca De Haas, and Elizabeth Wagner, Communication in the Workplace: What Can NC State Students Expect? (Raleigh: North Carolina State University Professional Writing Program, 2018), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pMpVbDRWIN6HssQQQ4MeQ6U-oB-sGUrtRswD7feuRB0/edit#heading=h.n2a3udms5sd5 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . ↵
• Julio Gimenez and Juliet Thondhlana, “Collaborative Writing in Engineering: Perspectives from Research and Implications for Undergraduate Education,” European Journal of Engineering Education 37, no. 5 (2012): 471-487, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.714356 ↵
• Adapted from Jason Swarts, Stacey Pigg, Jamie Larsen, Julia Helo Gonzalez, Rebecca De Haas, and Elizabeth Wagner, Communication in the Workplace: What Can NC State Students Expect? (Raleigh: North Carolina State University Professional Writing Program, 2018), 5, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pMpVbDRWIN6HssQQQ4MeQ6U-oB-sGUrtRswD7feuRB0/edit#heading=h.n2a3udms5sd5 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . ↵
• Jason Swarts, Stacey Pigg, Jamie Larsen, Julia Helo Gonzalez, Rebecca De Haas, and Elizabeth Wagner, Communication in the Workplace: What Can NC State Students Expect? (Raleigh: North Carolina State University Professional Writing Program, 2018), 5, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pMpVbDRWIN6HssQQQ4MeQ6U-oB-sGUrtRswD7feuRB0/edit#heading=h.n2a3udms5sd5 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . ↵
• Paul Benjamin Lowry, Aaron M. Curtis, and Michelle René Lowry, “Building a Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Collaborative Writing to Improve Interdisciplinary Research and Practice,” Journal of Business Communication 41, no. 1 (2004): 66-97, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363 . ↵
• Adapted from Suzan Last and Candice Neveu, “Collaborative Writing Stages,” in “Collaborative Writing,” Technical Writing Essentials: Introduction to Professional Communications in Technical Fields . Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, 2019. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . ↵
• Adapted from Suzan Last and Candice Neveu, “Collaborative Writing Strategies,” in “Collaborative Writing,” Technical Writing Essentials: Introduction to Professional Communications in Technical Fields . Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, 2019. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License . The original authors note that this table is adapted from Paul Benjamin Lowry, Aaron Curtis, and Michelle René Lowry, “Building a Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Collaborative Writing to Improve Interdisciplinary Research and Practice,” Journal of Business Communication 41, no.1 (2004): 66-97, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363 . ↵

Final product that a team can pass on to another team, to executives and administrators, to consumers, or to the public.

Collaborative Writing Processes Copyright © 2022 by Suzan Last; Candice Neveu; Kalani Pattison; Nicole Hagstrom-Schmidt; and Matt McKinney is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

3 Using Collaborative Writing to Solve Problems

Catherine Forsa

Collaboration as a Useful Tool for Solving Writing-Related Problems

You have probably worked on several group projects at RWU. Faculty members often emphasize the importance of teamwork and the large part it will play in your career. Group projects require collaborative writing, the process by which a group of writers makes decisions, writes, discusses, and revises documents with a common goal. Many students report facing challenges with collaborative writing and group work in general, especially when group members fail to contribute equally or documents end up as a hodgepodge of different writing styles pieced together. The challenges are rooted largely in misunderstanding what collaborative writing is, how it functions, and how to participate in it. You can address these challenges by learning more about how collaborative writing works and why it is so important to practice.

Collaborative writing is a powerful tool with benefits for the writing process and for strategies to facilitate an effective process for your writing team.

Benefits of Collaborative Writing

Collaborative writing can strengthen your writing in the following ways:

You get multiple perspectives on strategies for addressing a problem. Often the problems you will be writing about are complex, so you will need to carefully consider the most effective strategies to approach them. Working with others allows you to collect and evaluate a wide variety of potential strategies, including those that you would not have thought of on your own. It helps you talk about and think through the usefulness and challenges of the strategies. In other words, collaborative writing provides a fruitful testing ground for gathering and thinking through your ideas. By consulting with others, you will likely discover new ways to approach a problem.

You get multiple perspectives on assessing how effectively the writing addresses a problem. Collaborative writing can lead to effective writing because it provides opportunities for feedback throughout the writing process. This involves built-in peer review and opportunities to test your writing to get different perspectives on its effectiveness. You may think that a sentence or a paragraph is clear while your group members find it confusing. Getting this feedback will help you not only to revise that sentence or paragraph but to look for similar patterns or issues throughout the document that require revision.

You have the opportunity for meaningful conversations about your writing. Collaborative writing can help you become a stronger writer. You can talk through your writing process, allowing you to reflect on your strengths. Teammates may tell you what aspects of writing you excel at. Maybe they recognize that you are great at transitioning between ideas or making sentences more concise. That knowledge can help inspire your confidence. And you can support your teammates as they strengthen this skill. Similarly if you are struggling with an area, such as using concrete language, teammates may be able to help you consider revision strategies and explain the concept so that you can grasp it more effectively.

Strategies for Managing Effective Collaborative Writing

Collaborative writing is more than chopping up a document and assigning each section to a different teammate to write. This could lead to a document without a cohesive argument, voice, and style. It could also lead to unequal contributions and a timeline that does not allow for meaningful revision. This is not effective collaborative writing.

Instead, think about collaborative writing as an ongoing dialogue about the document wherein all members provide meaningful contributions to the major decisions. This dialogue requires all team members to put in meaningful effort and to be respectful of others’ time and ideas. There are many approaches to writing collaboratively, especially at the beginning of the process, when the group makes major decisions about the document’s argument, evidence, and organization. Below are some strategies to consider when writing collaboratively.

Communicate and make decisions early and often . As a team, decide on a plan for your work. Initial team meetings can include conversations about the role for each team member. Such roles can include the

• team organizer, who works with other members to set deadlines and track progress on the document;
• team editor, who ensures that all members are working to produce a cohesive, consistent document; and
• team communicator, who ensures that all members have access to documents and can communicate about the document in a timely manner.

These roles may change as the writing process continues, but having such roles can help the team make decisions together.

Make a commitment and stick with it. A key part of successful collaboration is acknowledging your role in the team; you are not an individual writer but rather a contributor to a team. This requires each member to respect the others. Think about how you can contribute to the team’s success. Such a shift may be difficult since so much of our early education is focused on individual success and grades. You may work best at the last minute under pressure, but writing collaboratively, your team members need to see your writing and hear your ideas early and often so they can help shape them. In joining a group, you made a commitment to work as a group—stick with this commitment even when it becomes challenging for you. It is helpful to continually ask yourself such questions as:

• What would my teammates say about my contributions so far?
• Where have I been a strong contributor? How can I continue to do that?
• Where have I been falling short in my contributions? How can I change that?

This process of self-reflection ensures that you are a productive, respectful team member.

Participate in group meetings . Meetings are essential to successful collaboration, especially in person where you can all look at the same document and talk out ideas. Once you schedule a meeting (or regular meetings, like every Monday at 5:00), commit to it. Team members should take detailed notes to keep track of deadlines, decisions, and plans. Team members should also decide on how, and how often, the team will communicate. A collaborative platform like Google Docs is useful to track changes and comments. If you cannot all find a time to meet on campus, consider using Facetime or other video chatting technologies so that all members can join the meeting. While email can be a useful way to address small decisions, it does not provide the same opportunity to have purposeful conversations where group members ask each other questions, offer suggestions, and build on others’ points.

Use technology effectively . Technologies such as Google Docs can be useful in showing all team members all parts of the document. However, this technology can limit the number of times that students meet or talk in person, so make sure to prioritize time to get together to share updates, raise questions, talk through major challenges, set timelines, and provide feedback. Text messaging may be quick and easy, but it can become confusing and inhibit having meaningful conversations; it can also exclude others. Instead, decide on—and stick with—a consistent way to facilitate an ongoing conversation, and do not underestimate the power of talking to each other. For instance, a group of at least seven writers collaborated on this book over one year, and we met in person every week to maintain a cohesive plan for it. Always maintain a respectful tone that seeks to add constructively to the group’s momentum.

Make a style guide . Since ensuring consistency throughout a collaboratively written document can be a challenge, consider using a style guide or reference guide on formatting, organization, and related areas. For example, this guide can outline the format for headings, subheadings, spacing, fonts, and other design decisions or models for citing evidence.

Seek advice when appropriate . While you should address disagreements respectfully, remember that instructors are valuable resources who can help support your team’s success. Consider seeking out an instructor’s advice about effective communication or means of communicating with a team member who may not be maintaining their commitment to the group.

Thinking Rhetorically: Writing for Professional and Public Audiences Copyright © 2020 by Catherine Forsa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Writing to Think: Critical Thinking and the Writing Process

“Writing is thinking on paper.” (Zinsser, 1976, p. vii)

Google the term “critical thinking.” How many hits are there? On the day this tutorial was completed, Google found about 65,100,000 results in 0.56 seconds. That’s an impressive number, and it grows more impressively large every day. That’s because the nation’s educators, business leaders, and political representatives worry about the level of critical thinking skills among today’s students and workers.

What is Critical Thinking?

Simply put, critical thinking is sound thinking. Critical thinkers work to delve beneath the surface of sweeping generalizations, biases, clichés, and other quick observations that characterize ineffective thinking. They are willing to consider points of view different from their own, seek and study evidence and examples, root out sloppy and illogical argument, discern fact from opinion, embrace reason over emotion or preference, and change their minds when confronted with compelling reasons to do so. In sum, critical thinkers are flexible thinkers equipped to become active and effective spouses, parents, friends, consumers, employees, citizens, and leaders. Every area of life, in other words, can be positively affected by strong critical thinking.

Released in January 2011, an important study of college students over four years concluded that by graduation “large numbers [of American undergraduates] didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education” (Rimer, 2011, para. 1). The University designs curriculum, creates support programs, and hires faculty to help ensure you won’t be one of the students “[showing]no significant gains in . . . ‘higher order’ thinking skills” (Rimer, 2011, para. 4). One way the University works to help you build those skills is through writing projects.

Writing and Critical Thinking

Say the word “writing” and most people think of a completed publication. But say the word “writing” to writers, and they will likely think of the process of composing. Most writers would agree with novelist E. M. Forster, who wrote, “How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” (Forster, 1927, p. 99). Experienced writers know that the act of writing stimulates thinking.

Inexperienced and experienced writers have very different understandings of composition. Novice writers often make the mistake of believing they have to know what they’re going to write before they can begin writing. They often compose a thesis statement before asking questions or conducting research. In the course of their reading, they might even disregard material that counters their pre-formed ideas. This is not writing; it is recording.

In contrast, experienced writers begin with questions and work to discover many different answers before settling on those that are most convincing. They know that the act of putting words on paper or a computer screen helps them invent thought and content. Rather than trying to express what they already think, they express what the act of writing leads them to think as they put down words. More often than not, in other words, experienced writers write their way into ideas, which they then develop, revise, and refine as they go.

What has this notion of writing to do with critical thinking? Everything.

Consider the steps of the writing process: prewriting, outlining, drafting, revising, editing, seeking feedback, and publishing. These steps are not followed in a determined or strict order; instead, the effective writer knows that as they write, it may be necessary to return to an earlier step. In other words, in the process of revision, a writer may realize that the order of ideas is unclear. A new outline may help that writer re-order details. As they write, the writer considers and reconsiders the effectiveness of the work.

The writing process, then, is not just a mirror image of the thinking process: it is the thinking process. Confronted with a topic, an effective critical thinker/writer

• asks questions
• seeks answers
• evaluates evidence
• questions assumptions
• tests hypotheses
• makes inferences
• employs logic
• draws conclusions
• predicts readers’ responses
• creates order
• drafts content
• seeks others’ responses
• weighs feedback
• criticizes their own work
• revises content and structure
• seeks clarity and coherence

Example of Composition as Critical Thinking

“Good writing is fueled by unanswerable questions” (Lane, 1993, p. 15).

Imagine that you have been asked to write about a hero or heroine from history. You must explain what challenges that individual faced and how they conquered them. Now imagine that you decide to write about Rosa Parks and her role in the modern Civil Rights movement. Take a moment and survey what you already know. She refused to get up out of her seat on a bus so a White man could sit in it. She was arrested. As a result, Blacks in Montgomery protested, influencing the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up leadership of the cause, and ultimately a movement was born.

Is that really all there is to Rosa Parks’s story? What questions might a thoughtful writer ask? Here a few:

• Why did Rosa Parks refuse to get up on that particular day?
• Was hers a spontaneous or planned act of defiance?
• Did she work? Where? Doing what?
• Had any other Black person refused to get up for a White person?
• What happened to that individual or those individuals?
• Why hadn’t that person or those persons received the publicity Parks did?
• Was Parks active in Civil Rights before that day?
• How did she learn about civil disobedience?

Even just these few questions could lead to potentially rich information.

Factual information would not be enough, however, to satisfy an assignment that asks for an interpretation of that information. The writer’s job for the assignment is to convince the reader that Parks was a heroine; in this way the writer must make an argument and support it. The writer must establish standards of heroic behavior. More questions arise:

• What is heroic action?
• What are the characteristics of someone who is heroic?
• What do heroes value and believe?
• What are the consequences of a hero’s actions?
• Why do they matter?

Now the writer has even more research and more thinking to do.

By the time they have raised questions and answered them, raised more questions and answered them, and so on, they are ready to begin writing. But even then, new ideas will arise in the course of planning and drafting, inevitably leading the writer to more research and thought, to more composition and refinement.

Ultimately, every step of the way over the course of composing a project, the writer is engaged in critical thinking because the effective writer examines the work as they develop it.

Why Writing to Think Matters

Writing practice builds critical thinking, which empowers people to “take charge of [their] own minds” so they “can take charge of [their] own lives . . . and improve them, bringing them under [their] self command and direction” (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2020, para. 12). Writing is a way of coming to know and understand the self and the changing world, enabling individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves, others, and society at large. Your knowledge alone – of law, medicine, business, or education, for example – will not be enough to meet future challenges. You will be tested by new unexpected circumstances, and when they arise, the open-mindedness, flexibility, reasoning, discipline, and discernment you have learned through writing practice will help you meet those challenges successfully.

Forster, E.M. (1927).  Aspects of the novel . Harcourt, Brace & Company.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2020, June 17).  Our concept and definition of critical thinking . https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-of-critical-thinking/411

Lane, B. (1993).  After the end: Teaching and learning creative revision . Heinemann.

Rimer, S. (2011, January 18).  Study: Many college students not learning to think critically . The Hechinger Report. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24608056.html

Zinsser, W. (1976).  On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction . HarperCollins.

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive email notifications of new posts.

Email Address

• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments
• COLLEGE WRITING
• USING SOURCES & APA STYLE
• EFFECTIVE WRITING PODCASTS
• LEARNING FOR SUCCESS
• PLAGIARISM INFORMATION
• FACULTY RESOURCES
• Student Webinar Calendar
• Academic Success Center
• Writing Center
• About the ASC Tutors
• DIVERSITY TRAINING
• PG Peer Tutors
• PG Student Access

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

• College Writing
• Using Sources & APA Style
• Learning for Success
• Effective Writing Podcasts
• Plagiarism Information
• Faculty Resources
• Tutor Training

Twitter feed

Collaborative Writing: Strategies and Activities

• First Online: 27 April 2021

Cite this chapter

• Lorelei Lingard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-3355 10 &
• Christopher Watling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-795X 10  

Part of the book series: Innovation and Change in Professional Education ((ICPE,volume 19))

2329 Accesses

Scientific writing is rarely a solo act. Most of us write in teams, and we’ve all had collaborative writing experiences that were richly rewarding -- and some that were deeply frustrating. The rewarding experiences involve much more than just circulating drafts to co-authors for periodic feedback. This chapter describes and illustrates five common strategies and seven core activities of collaborative writing. Together, these provide writers with shared language for talking about how they wish to organize the work and critical questions to ask when things get off track.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bennett, L.M., Gadlin, H., & Levine-Finley, S. (2010). Team science and collaboration: A field guide . National Institutes of Health. https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/crs/research-initiatives/team-science-field-guide/collaboration-team-science-guide.pdf . Accessed 19 Sept 2020.

Berndt, A. E. (2011). Developing collaborative research agreements. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 37 (5), 497–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2011.04.010 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Google Scholar  

Larsen-Ledet, I., & Korsgaard, H. (2019). Territorial functioning in collaborative writing: Fragmented exchanges and common outcomes. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28 , 391–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09359-8 .

Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. The Journal of Business Communication, 41 (1), 66–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, ON, Canada

Lorelei Lingard & Christopher Watling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Lingard, L., Watling, C. (2021). Collaborative Writing: Strategies and Activities. In: Story, Not Study: 30 Brief Lessons to Inspire Health Researchers as Writers. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_24

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_24

Published : 27 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-71362-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-71363-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Using Collaborative Reasoning to Support Critical Thinking

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Designed as a starting point to build trust and respect, as well as to encourage and support conversations that evoke emotion and change, this lesson will invite students to participate in small group Collaborative Reasoning about issues of social justice and diversity. Students will read articles and answer questions that spur them to think critically about issues and discuss with others, using evidence and experiences to support their personal beliefs. Each group will create an online Persuasion Map to share whole class.

Featured Resources

• Sample Collaborative Reasoning Participation Guidelines and Conversational Moves : Use this handout to prepare for supporting students in the crucial Collaborative Reasoning aspects of participation and discussion language.
• Sample Think-Aloud Statements and Questions for Amazing Grace :  This handout provides guidance on modeling thinking during and after reading Amazing Grace.

From Theory to Practice

Zhang & Doughtery Stahl (2011) state that “Collaborative Reasoning (CR) effectively provides a forum for extended meaningful communication and promotes language development and thinking skills of all students” (257). Collaborative Reasoning is peer-led with students managing their own discussions and having control over what they say within small groups, which increases personal engagement. The purpose of using this model is for students to “cooperatively search for resolutions and develop thoughtful opinions about the topic” (257). Collaborative Reasoning works well with all kinds of students, no matter their gender, race, socioeconomic status, or other domains of diversity.

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).

Materials and Technology

• Five Smithsonian TweenTribune Junior articles (to be displayed on computers and/or tablets or printed out as class sets of each article)
• Computer and/or tablets with Internet access
• Small sheets of papers that list the title of each article chosen (one per student)
• Sticky notes
• Writing utensils
• SmartBoard or other means of projection
• Ten anchor chart papers and markers (for co-created guidelines, co-created conversational moves, each of the five article titles and some extra on hand in case some groups need to divide)
• Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman
• Sample Collaborative Reasoning Participation Guidelines and Conversational Moves
• Sample Think-Aloud Statements and Questions for  Amazing Grace

This free website by Smithsonian offers current events articles on various topics and complexity levels for students K-12, with specific areas titled TweenTribune Junior for elementary students.  Each article contains text, photos, and a critical thinking challenge question for students to reflect on and respond to. These questions vary based on the articles chosen for the lesson.  For example, an article on the site titled “Life is sweet, but we’re eating too much sugar” and the critical thinking challenge question is "What may make it difficult for the world to cut down on sugar?"

Preparation

• Title two anchor chart papers: one with “Guidelines” and the other with “Conversational Moves.”  Consult the  Sample Collaborative Reasoning Participation Guidelines and Conversational Moves handout and consider how to facilitate the co-construction of charts.
• Locate a copy of Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman.  Use the  Sample Think-Aloud Statements and Questions for  Amazing Grace to prepare for the think-aloud and discussion.
• Explore the  Smithsonian TweenTribune Junior website and choose five articles that your students would be interested in based on your knowledge of them and the community.
• Make class set copies of every article set up enough computers and/or tablets so students can read the article online.
• Display the anchor charts for the guidelines and conversational moves in a place that students will be able to access it easily throughout this lesson.
• Write the title of each article on a separate anchor chart. Place these around the room to give adequate space for each group discussion time.
• Gather several sticky notes and place in designated article areas.
• Have enough computers and/or tablets set up in the room for each group. Log onto the  Persuasion Map Student Interactive and familiarize yourself with the tool.

Student Objectives

Students will

• respond individually and reflect critically to an article with a social justice theme.
• use the Collaborative Reasoning model to discuss in small groups.
• develop and consolidate group opinions using an online tool.
• present opinions in a whole group setting.

Session One

• staying on topic
• respecting other beliefs and viewpoints through not interrupting or arguing
• making an effort to look at both sides of the issue (for and against)
• giving all members of the group opportunities to participate and share
• Open the discussion up to the students. Help prompt students by asking a question such as “When you are having a conversation with one of your peers, what is important to you?”

Create together a list of conversational moves , phrases that the students can refer to if they need support in responding to a member of their group or for delving deeper in the conversation. These can include, but are not limited to

• “I agree/disagree with you because…”
• “I can connect to… because…”
• “I was confused when…”
• “I wonder why…”
• “I would like to add that…”

Read Amazing Grace aloud, modeling using a think-aloud strategy with your reactions and feelings to the text and illustrations for the first half of the book. Some ideas for thinking to share include

• I bet that was fun to watch Grace act out all of those stories!
• She is so creative!
• That’s too bad that Mom and Nana don’t want to act out with her.
• I wonder how that made Grace feel with her classmates said she couldn’t be Peter Pan because she was a girl and she was black.

As you continue to read the rest of the story, open the discussion up to the students, reminding them of the  guidelines and conversational moves that were created together. This is a time to start building an environment of trust and respect so students will begin feeling comfortable to share aloud. If students need some prompting, some sample questions include

• How would that make you feel if your classmates told you that you couldn’t do something that you wanted to do?
• Why do you think her Nana is taking her to that play?
• Do you believe that Grace can be anyone she wants to be?
• What do you think changed her classmates’ minds?

When finished, give the students time to think silently about their reactions and feelings.

Have the students turn and talk with a partner, referring to the guidelines and conversational moves for support.

Have students share with the full class their thoughts about the text.

Session Two

Explain to the students that in this session they will be continue their practice with the Collaborative Reasoning model centering around five different articles and a critical thinking challenge question that encourages them to think more deeply about a particular social justice or diversity topic.

Display the five titles of the articles that you have chosen from TweenTribune Junior on the SmartBoard.

Pass out the small papers to the students and have them spend a couple of minutes deciding which article title they feel most passionate about and/or interested in.

Once all of the students have circled an article title, explain the process, writing some key instructions on an anchor chart for students to refer to while they collaborate:

• When they form their groups, students will read the article individually (either with paper copies or on a computer/tablet), reflect on the critical thinking challenge question at the bottom of the article.
• Then they should use sticky notes to record their thinking, remembering to try to use evidence from the article and their own experiences to support. While students fill out their sticky notes, they can place them on the anchor charts at their set location in the room.
• When all group members have had enough time to each read and reflect, they may begin discussing the article, the critical thinking question, and their beliefs with evidence and experience to support, with their group members. They may create new sticky notes during this time as well.
• Point out the different article areas in the room and direct the students to travel to the article they chose. Since the students are self-selecting, there may be uneven numbers of students within a group. If many (say, more than 5) students choose the same article, divide the students into multiple groups. If there is only one student that chose an article, discuss with the student that since he or she had passion for the article, he or she can still have a copy, read it, and talk about it with you later.
• During this time, walk from group to group to listen in on the conversations that the groups are having with each other. Notice if they are sharing their experiences and pulling information from the article in as well. Are they using the guidelines and conversational moves to dive deeper in their conversations? Provide support and redirection as necessary.

Session Three

• Explain to the students that in this session they will be using their discussions and sticky notes from the previous session to map out their ideas in a fun, interactive way. They will informally present these maps to their classmates.

Display the Persuasion Map on the SmartBoard or other projector. Model how to complete the map by typing in the parts (thesis, reasons, examples for each reason, and conclusion) based on the text Amazing Grace that the class read in Session One. Encourage students to help fill the map out based on what was shared during that time or any new ideas that have come to their minds. The beginning of the map may look like this:

Title: Amazing Grace

Goal or Thesis: Grace can be Peter Pan in the play if she wants to.

Reason: Grace has many experiences with acting.

Example: Her mom and nana tell stories and she acts out the parts, no matter who or what the characters are. She was a spider in one story.

• Return students to their discussion groups from the previous session by the anchor chart with their sticky notes.

Each group should then begin creating their Persuasion Map . It is possible that students within the same group will have differing ideas for the thesis. Consider having extra computers for students to complete one for each side simultaneously, or when students complete one persuasion map, they can create another.

• Students should save their work at the end of the session.

Session Four

• Allow each group to group to take turns sharing a summary of their article, critical thinking question, and their Persuasion Map with the whole class on the SmartBoard or other projector.
• The members of the group can encourage other students in the class to interact with their Persuasion Map as well with their own thoughts and beliefs on the topic.
• This same Collaborative Reasoning model can be used with other texts such as picture books, other articles, or students’ choices of what is happening in their own lives, the community, or the world.
• After hearing other groups' presentations, invite students to read one or more of the other articles and share how their thinking is similar to or different from their classmates.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• Students will be informally assessed through walking around and observing students while they are in their Collaborative Reasoning groups, as well as with the students’ sticky notes on the anchor charts and their Persuasion Map .
• Were these article topics appropriate for these students?
• Did the students display interest and passion through their discussions?
• Were there other topics or issues that would lead to other discussions?
• Were students able to each have a voice and share their beliefs about the topic?
• Were students able to balance their belief support through both evidence and experience?
• Lesson Plans
• Strategy Guides

Add new comment

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

9 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

What colour are your eyes? Teaching the genetics of eye colour & colour vision. Edridge Green Lecture RCOphth Annual Congress Glasgow May 2019

David A. Mackey

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, … Antonio Ariza-Montes

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Lisa Messeri & M. J. Crockett

Introduction

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis.

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies