critical thinking learning outcome

Essential Learning Outcomes: Critical/Creative Thinking

• Civic Responsibility
• Critical/Creative Thinking
• Cultural Sensitivity
• Information Literacy
• Oral Communication
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Written Communication
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Description

Guide to Critical/Creative Thinking

Intended Learning Outcome:

Analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in order to consider problems/ideas and transform them in innovative or imaginative ways (See below for definitions)

Assessment may include but is not limited to the following criteria and intended outcomes:

Analyze problems/ideas critically and/or creatively

• Formulates appropriate questions to consider problems/issues
• Evaluates costs and benefits of a solution
• Identifies possible solutions to problems or resolution to issues
• Applies innovative and imaginative approaches to problems/ideas

Synthesize information/ideas into a coherent whole

• Seeks and compares information that leads to informed decisions/opinions
• Applies fact and opinion appropriately
• Expands upon ideas to foster new lines of inquiry
• Synthesizes ideas into a coherent whole

Evaluate synthesized information in order to transform problems/ideas in innovative or imaginative ways

• Applies synthesized information to inform effective decisions
• Experiments with creating a novel idea, question, or product
• Uses new approaches and takes appropriate risks without going beyond the guidelines of the assignment
• Evaluates and reflects on the decision through a process that takes into account the complexities of an issue

From Association of American Colleges & Universities, LEAP outcomes and VALUE rubrics:   Critical thinking  is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.

Creative thinking  is both the capacity to combine or synthesize existing ideas, images, or expertise in original ways and the experience of thinking, reacting, and working in an imaginative way characterized by a high degree of innovation, divergent thinking, and risk taking.

Elements, excerpts, and ideas borrowed with permission form Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and tools for Using Rubrics , edited by Terrel L. Rhodes. Copyright 2010 by the Association of American Colleges and Universities.

How to Align - Critical/Creative Thinking

• Critical/Creative Thinking ELO Tutorial

Critical/Creative Thinking Rubric

Analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in order to consider problems/ideas and transform them into innovative or imaginative ways.

Elements, excerpts, and ideas borrowed with permission form  Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and tools for Using Rubrics , edited by Terrel L. Rhodes. Copyright 2010 by the Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Sample Assignments

• Cleveland Museum of Art tour (Just Mercy) Assignment contributed by Chris Wolken, Matt Lafferty, Luke Schuleter and Sara Clark.
• Disaster Analysis This assignment was created by faculty at Durham College in Canada The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate students’ ability to think critically about how natural disasters are portrayed in the media.
• Laboratory Report-Critical Thinking Assignment contributed by Anne Distler.
• (Re)Imaginings assignment ENG 1020 Assignment contributed by Sara Fuller.
• Sustainability Project-Part 1 Waste Journal Assignment contributed by Anne Distler.
• Sustainability Project-Part 2 Research Assignment contributed by Anne Distler.
• Sustainability Project-Part 3 Waste Journal Continuation Assignment contributed by Anne Distler.
• Sustainability Project-Part 4 Reflection Assignment contributed by Anne Distler.
• Reconstructed Landscapes (VCPH) Assignment contributed by Jonathan Wayne
• Book Cover Design (VCIL)) Assignment contributed by George Kopec

Ask a Librarian

• << Previous: Civic Responsibility
• Next: Cultural Sensitivity >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 12:20 PM
• URL: https://libguides.tri-c.edu/Essential

CTL Guide to the Critical Thinking Hub Area

This guide reviews the importance of critical thinking in academia and today’s workforce, explains the learning outcomes for the CRT Hub area, and provides guidance for designing CRT courses and assignments.

Introduction

The ability to think critically is the fundamental characteristic of an educated person. It is required for just, civil society and governance, prized by employers, and essential for the growth of wisdom. Critical thinking is what most people name first when asked about the essential components of a college education. From identifying and questioning assumptions, to weighing evidence before accepting an opinion or drawing a conclusion— all BU students will actively learn the habits of mind that characterize critical thinking, develop the self-discipline it requires, and practice it often, in varied contexts, across their education.

Learning Outcomes

Courses and cocurricular activities in this area must have all outcomes.

• Students will both gain critical thinking skills and be able to specify the components of critical thinking appropriate to a discipline or family of disciplines. These may include habits of distinguishing deductive from inductive modes of inference, methods of adjudicating disputes, recognizing common logical fallacies and cognitive biases, translating ordinary language into formal argument, distinguishing empirical claims about matters of fact from normative or evaluative judgments, and/or recognizing the ways in which emotional responses or cultural assumptions can affect reasoning processes.
• Drawing on skills developed in class, students will be able to critically evaluate, analyze, and generate arguments, bodies of evidence, and/or claims, including their own.

If you are proposing a CRT course or if you want to learn more about these outcomes, please see this  Interpretive Document . Interpretive Documents, written by the   General Education Committee , are designed to answer questions faculty have raised about Hub policies, practices, and learning outcomes as a part of the course approval process. To learn more about the proposal process,  start here .

Area Specific Resources

• Richard Paul , Center for Critical Thinking ( criticalthinking.org ).  Includes sample lessons, syllabi, teaching suggestions, and interdisciplinary resources and examples.
• John Bean ’s Engaging Ideas – The Professor’s Guide to integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active learning in the Classroom  is an invaluable resource for developing classroom activities and assignments that promote critical thinking and the scaffolding of writing.

Assignment Ideas

Weekly writing assignments.

These assignments are question-driven, thematic, and require students to integrate disciplinary and critical thinking literature to evaluate the validity of arguments in case studies, as well as the connections among method, theory, and practice in the case studies. Here, students are asked to utilize a chosen critical thinking framework throughout their written responses. These assignments can evolve during the semester by prompting students to address increasing complex case studies and arguments while also evaluating their own opinions using evidence from the readings. Along the way, students have ample opportunities for self-reflection, peer feedback, and coaching by the instructor.

Argument mapping

A visual technique that allows students to analyze persuasive prose. This technique allows students to evaluate arguments–that is, distinguish valid from invalid arguments, and evaluate the soundness of different arguments. Advanced usage can help students organize and navigate complex information, encourage clearly articulated reasoning, and promote quick and effective communication. To learn more, please explore the following resources:

• Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative course on this topic provides an excellent i ntroduction to exploring and understanding arguments. The course explains what the parts of an argument are, how to break arguments into their component parts, and how to create diagrams to show how those parts relate to each other.
• Philmaps.com provides a handout  that introduces the concept of argument mapping to students, and also includes a number of sample activities that faculty can use to introduce students to argument mapping.
• Mindmup’s Argument Visualization platform is an online mind map tool easily leveraged for creating argument maps.

Research proposal and final research paper

Demonstrates students’ ability to identify, distinguish, and assess normative, ideological, and evaluative claims and judgments about the selected research topic. Leading up to the final project, students learn to distinguish empirical claims about their topic from normative, ideological, and evaluative claims and judgments. Throughout the semester, students have the opportunity to practice their ability to evaluate the validity of arguments, including their own beliefs about the topic. Formative and summative assessments are provided to students at regular intervals and during each stage of the project.

Facilitating discussion that Presses Students for Accuracy and Expanded Reasoning . This resource is part of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education “Instructional Moves” video series.

Additional sample assignments and assessments can be found throughout the selected Resources section located above.

Course Design Questions

As you are integrating critical thinking into your course, here are a few questions that you might consider:

• What framework/vocabulary/process do you use to teach the key elements of critical thinking in your course?
• What assigned readings or other materials do you use to teach critical thinking specifically?
• Do students have opportunities throughout the semester to apply and practice these skills and receive feedback?
• What graded assignments evaluate how well students can both identify the key elements of critical thinking and demonstrate their ability to evaluate the validity of arguments (including their own)?

You may also be interested in:

Ctl guide to teamwork/collaboration, ctl guide to writing intensive (win) hub courses, ctl guide to the individual in community hub area, ctl guide to digital/multimedia expression, research & information literacy hub guide, oral & signed communication hub guide, creativity & innovation hub guide, faculty guide to assessment options in remote & hybrid classes part 1: overview of exams & assignments.

Portland Community College | Portland, Oregon

Core outcomes.

• Core Outcomes: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

Think Critically and Imaginatively

• Engage the imagination to explore new possibilities.
• Formulate and articulate ideas.
• Recognize explicit and tacit assumptions and their consequences.
• Weigh connections and relationships.
• Distinguish relevant from non-relevant data, fact from opinion.
• Identify, evaluate and synthesize information (obtained through library, world-wide web, and other sources as appropriate) in a collaborative environment.
• Reason toward a conclusion or application.
• Understand the contributions and applications of associative, intuitive and metaphoric modes of reasoning to argument and analysis.
• Analyze and draw inferences from numerical models.
• Determine the extent of information needed.
• Access the needed information effectively and efficiently.
• Evaluate information and its sources critically.
• Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base.
• Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally.

Problem-Solve

• Identify and define central and secondary problems.
• Research and analyze data relevant to issues from a variety of media.
• Select and use appropriate concepts and methods from a variety of disciplines to solve problems effectively and creatively.
• Form associations between disparate facts and methods, which may be cross-disciplinary.
• Identify and use appropriate technology to research, solve, and present solutions to problems.
• Understand the roles of collaboration, risk-taking, multi-disciplinary awareness, and the imagination in achieving creative responses to problems.
• Make a decision and take actions based on analysis.
• Interpret and express quantitative ideas effectively in written, visual, aural, and oral form.
• Interpret and use written, quantitative, and visual text effectively in presentation of solutions to problems.
• AB: Auto Collision Repair Technology
• ABE: Adult Basic Education
• AD: Addiction Studies
• AM: Automotive Service Technology
• AMT: Aviation Maintenance Technology
• APR: Apprenticeship
• ARCH: Architectural Design and Drafting
• ASL: American Sign Language
• ATH: Anthropology
• AVS: Aviation Science
• BA: Business Administration
• BCT: Building Construction Technology
• BI: Biology
• BIT: Bioscience Technology
• CADD: Computer Aided Design and Drafting
• CAS/OS: Computer Applications & Web Technologies
• CG: Counseling and Guidance
• CH: Chemistry
• CHLA: Chicano/ Latino Studies
• CHN: Chinese
• CIS: Computer Information Systems
• CJA: Criminal Justice
• CMET: Civil and Mechanical Engineering Technology
• COMM: Communication Studies
• Core Outcomes: Communication
• Core Outcomes: Community and Environmental Responsibility
• Core Outcomes: Cultural Awareness
• Core Outcomes: Professional Competence
• Core Outcomes: Self-Reflection
• CS: Computer Science
• CTT: Computed Tomography
• DA: Dental Assisting
• DE: Developmental Education – Reading & Writing
• DE: Developmental Education – Reading and Writing
• DH: Dental Hygiene
• DS: Diesel Service Technology
• DST: Dealer Service Technology
• DT: Dental Lab Technology
• DT: Dental Technology
• EC: Economics
• ECE/HEC/HUS: Child and Family Studies
• ED: Paraeducator and Library Assistant
• EET: Electronic Engineering Technology
• ELT: Electrical Trades
• EMS: Emergency Medical Services
• ENGR: Engineering
• ESOL: English for Speakers of Other Languages
• ESR: Environmental Studies
• Exercise Science (formerly FT: Fitness Technology)
• FMT: Facilities Maintenance Technology
• FN: Foods and Nutrition
• FOT: Fiber Optics Technology
• FP: Fire Protection Technology
• GD: Graphic Design
• GEO: Geography
• GER: German
• GGS: Geology and General Science
• GRN: Gerontology
• HE: Health Education
• HIM: Health Information Management
• HR: Culinary Assistant Program
• HST: History
• ID: Interior Design
• INSP: Building Inspection Technology
• Integrated Studies
• ITP: Sign Language Interpretation
• J: Journalism
• JPN: Japanese
• LAT: Landscape Technology
• LIB: Library
• Literature (ENG)
• MA: Medical Assisting
• MCH: Machine Manufacturing Technology
• MLT: Medical Laboratory Technology
• MM: Multimedia
• MP: Medical Professions
• MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• MSD: Management/Supervisory Development
• MT: Microelectronic Technology
• MTH: Mathematics
• MUC: Music & Sonic Arts (formerly Professional Music)
• NRS: Nursing
• OMT: Ophthalmic Medical Technology
• OST: Occupational Skills Training
• PCC Core Outcomes/Course Mapping Matrix
• PE: Physical Education
• PHL: Philosophy
• PHY: Physics
• PL: Paralegal
• PS: Political Science
• PSY: Psychology
• Race, Indigenous Nations, and Gender (RING)
• RAD: Radiography
• RE: Real Estate
• RUS: Russian
• SC: Skill Center
• SOC: Sociology
• SPA: Spanish
• TA: Theatre Arts
• TE: Facilities Maintenance
• VP: Video Production
• VT: Veterinary Technology
• WLD: Welding Technology
• Writing/Composition
• WS: Women’s and Gender Studies

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Eight Instructional Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking

• Share article

(This is the first post in a three-part series.)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom?

This three-part series will explore what critical thinking is, if it can be specifically taught and, if so, how can teachers do so in their classrooms.

Today’s guests are Dara Laws Savage, Patrick Brown, Meg Riordan, Ph.D., and Dr. PJ Caposey. Dara, Patrick, and Meg were also guests on my 10-minute BAM! Radio Show . You can also find a list of, and links to, previous shows here.

You might also be interested in The Best Resources On Teaching & Learning Critical Thinking In The Classroom .

Current Events

Dara Laws Savage is an English teacher at the Early College High School at Delaware State University, where she serves as a teacher and instructional coach and lead mentor. Dara has been teaching for 25 years (career preparation, English, photography, yearbook, newspaper, and graphic design) and has presented nationally on project-based learning and technology integration:

There is so much going on right now and there is an overload of information for us to process. Did you ever stop to think how our students are processing current events? They see news feeds, hear news reports, and scan photos and posts, but are they truly thinking about what they are hearing and seeing?

I tell my students that my job is not to give them answers but to teach them how to think about what they read and hear. So what is critical thinking and how can we integrate it into the classroom? There are just as many definitions of critical thinking as there are people trying to define it. However, the Critical Think Consortium focuses on the tools to create a thinking-based classroom rather than a definition: “Shape the climate to support thinking, create opportunities for thinking, build capacity to think, provide guidance to inform thinking.” Using these four criteria and pairing them with current events, teachers easily create learning spaces that thrive on thinking and keep students engaged.

One successful technique I use is the FIRE Write. Students are given a quote, a paragraph, an excerpt, or a photo from the headlines. Students are asked to F ocus and respond to the selection for three minutes. Next, students are asked to I dentify a phrase or section of the photo and write for two minutes. Third, students are asked to R eframe their response around a specific word, phrase, or section within their previous selection. Finally, students E xchange their thoughts with a classmate. Within the exchange, students also talk about how the selection connects to what we are covering in class.

There was a controversial Pepsi ad in 2017 involving Kylie Jenner and a protest with a police presence. The imagery in the photo was strikingly similar to a photo that went viral with a young lady standing opposite a police line. Using that image from a current event engaged my students and gave them the opportunity to critically think about events of the time.

Here are the two photos and a student response:

F - Focus on both photos and respond for three minutes

In the first picture, you see a strong and courageous black female, bravely standing in front of two officers in protest. She is risking her life to do so. Iesha Evans is simply proving to the world she does NOT mean less because she is black … and yet officers are there to stop her. She did not step down. In the picture below, you see Kendall Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi. Maybe this wouldn’t be a big deal, except this was Pepsi’s weak, pathetic, and outrageous excuse of a commercial that belittles the whole movement of people fighting for their lives.

I - Identify a word or phrase, underline it, then write about it for two minutes

A white, privileged female in place of a fighting black woman was asking for trouble. A struggle we are continuously fighting every day, and they make a mockery of it. “I know what will work! Here Mr. Police Officer! Drink some Pepsi!” As if. Pepsi made a fool of themselves, and now their already dwindling fan base continues to ever shrink smaller.

R - Reframe your thoughts by choosing a different word, then write about that for one minute

You don’t know privilege until it’s gone. You don’t know privilege while it’s there—but you can and will be made accountable and aware. Don’t use it for evil. You are not stupid. Use it to do something. Kendall could’ve NOT done the commercial. Kendall could’ve released another commercial standing behind a black woman. Anything!

Exchange - Remember to discuss how this connects to our school song project and our previous discussions?

This connects two ways - 1) We want to convey a strong message. Be powerful. Show who we are. And Pepsi definitely tried. … Which leads to the second connection. 2) Not mess up and offend anyone, as had the one alma mater had been linked to black minstrels. We want to be amazing, but we have to be smart and careful and make sure we include everyone who goes to our school and everyone who may go to our school.

As a final step, students read and annotate the full article and compare it to their initial response.

Using current events and critical-thinking strategies like FIRE writing helps create a learning space where thinking is the goal rather than a score on a multiple-choice assessment. Critical-thinking skills can cross over to any of students’ other courses and into life outside the classroom. After all, we as teachers want to help the whole student be successful, and critical thinking is an important part of navigating life after they leave our classrooms.

‘Before-Explore-Explain’

Patrick Brown is the executive director of STEM and CTE for the Fort Zumwalt school district in Missouri and an experienced educator and author :

Planning for critical thinking focuses on teaching the most crucial science concepts, practices, and logical-thinking skills as well as the best use of instructional time. One way to ensure that lessons maintain a focus on critical thinking is to focus on the instructional sequence used to teach.

Explore-before-explain teaching is all about promoting critical thinking for learners to better prepare students for the reality of their world. What having an explore-before-explain mindset means is that in our planning, we prioritize giving students firsthand experiences with data, allow students to construct evidence-based claims that focus on conceptual understanding, and challenge students to discuss and think about the why behind phenomena.

Just think of the critical thinking that has to occur for students to construct a scientific claim. 1) They need the opportunity to collect data, analyze it, and determine how to make sense of what the data may mean. 2) With data in hand, students can begin thinking about the validity and reliability of their experience and information collected. 3) They can consider what differences, if any, they might have if they completed the investigation again. 4) They can scrutinize outlying data points for they may be an artifact of a true difference that merits further exploration of a misstep in the procedure, measuring device, or measurement. All of these intellectual activities help them form more robust understanding and are evidence of their critical thinking.

In explore-before-explain teaching, all of these hard critical-thinking tasks come before teacher explanations of content. Whether we use discovery experiences, problem-based learning, and or inquiry-based activities, strategies that are geared toward helping students construct understanding promote critical thinking because students learn content by doing the practices valued in the field to generate knowledge.

An Issue of Equity

Meg Riordan, Ph.D., is the chief learning officer at The Possible Project, an out-of-school program that collaborates with youth to build entrepreneurial skills and mindsets and provides pathways to careers and long-term economic prosperity. She has been in the field of education for over 25 years as a middle and high school teacher, school coach, college professor, regional director of N.Y.C. Outward Bound Schools, and director of external research with EL Education:

Although critical thinking often defies straightforward definition, most in the education field agree it consists of several components: reasoning, problem-solving, and decisionmaking, plus analysis and evaluation of information, such that multiple sides of an issue can be explored. It also includes dispositions and “the willingness to apply critical-thinking principles, rather than fall back on existing unexamined beliefs, or simply believe what you’re told by authority figures.”

Despite variation in definitions, critical thinking is nonetheless promoted as an essential outcome of students’ learning—we want to see students and adults demonstrate it across all fields, professions, and in their personal lives. Yet there is simultaneously a rationing of opportunities in schools for students of color, students from under-resourced communities, and other historically marginalized groups to deeply learn and practice critical thinking.

For example, many of our most underserved students often spend class time filling out worksheets, promoting high compliance but low engagement, inquiry, critical thinking, or creation of new ideas. At a time in our world when college and careers are critical for participation in society and the global, knowledge-based economy, far too many students struggle within classrooms and schools that reinforce low-expectations and inequity.

If educators aim to prepare all students for an ever-evolving marketplace and develop skills that will be valued no matter what tomorrow’s jobs are, then we must move critical thinking to the forefront of classroom experiences. And educators must design learning to cultivate it.

So, what does that really look like?

Unpack and define critical thinking

To understand critical thinking, educators need to first unpack and define its components. What exactly are we looking for when we speak about reasoning or exploring multiple perspectives on an issue? How does problem-solving show up in English, math, science, art, or other disciplines—and how is it assessed? At Two Rivers, an EL Education school, the faculty identified five constructs of critical thinking, defined each, and created rubrics to generate a shared picture of quality for teachers and students. The rubrics were then adapted across grade levels to indicate students’ learning progressions.

At Avenues World School, critical thinking is one of the Avenues World Elements and is an enduring outcome embedded in students’ early experiences through 12th grade. For instance, a kindergarten student may be expected to “identify cause and effect in familiar contexts,” while an 8th grader should demonstrate the ability to “seek out sufficient evidence before accepting a claim as true,” “identify bias in claims and evidence,” and “reconsider strongly held points of view in light of new evidence.”

When faculty and students embrace a common vision of what critical thinking looks and sounds like and how it is assessed, educators can then explicitly design learning experiences that call for students to employ critical-thinking skills. This kind of work must occur across all schools and programs, especially those serving large numbers of students of color. As Linda Darling-Hammond asserts , “Schools that serve large numbers of students of color are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum needed to ... help students attain the [critical-thinking] skills needed in a knowledge work economy. ”

So, what can it look like to create those kinds of learning experiences?

Designing experiences for critical thinking

After defining a shared understanding of “what” critical thinking is and “how” it shows up across multiple disciplines and grade levels, it is essential to create learning experiences that impel students to cultivate, practice, and apply these skills. There are several levers that offer pathways for teachers to promote critical thinking in lessons:

1.Choose Compelling Topics: Keep it relevant

A key Common Core State Standard asks for students to “write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” That might not sound exciting or culturally relevant. But a learning experience designed for a 12th grade humanities class engaged learners in a compelling topic— policing in America —to analyze and evaluate multiple texts (including primary sources) and share the reasoning for their perspectives through discussion and writing. Students grappled with ideas and their beliefs and employed deep critical-thinking skills to develop arguments for their claims. Embedding critical-thinking skills in curriculum that students care about and connect with can ignite powerful learning experiences.

2. Make Local Connections: Keep it real

At The Possible Project , an out-of-school-time program designed to promote entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, students in a recent summer online program (modified from in-person due to COVID-19) explored the impact of COVID-19 on their communities and local BIPOC-owned businesses. They learned interviewing skills through a partnership with Everyday Boston , conducted virtual interviews with entrepreneurs, evaluated information from their interviews and local data, and examined their previously held beliefs. They created blog posts and videos to reflect on their learning and consider how their mindsets had changed as a result of the experience. In this way, we can design powerful community-based learning and invite students into productive struggle with multiple perspectives.

3. Create Authentic Projects: Keep it rigorous

At Big Picture Learning schools, students engage in internship-based learning experiences as a central part of their schooling. Their school-based adviser and internship-based mentor support them in developing real-world projects that promote deeper learning and critical-thinking skills. Such authentic experiences teach “young people to be thinkers, to be curious, to get from curiosity to creation … and it helps students design a learning experience that answers their questions, [providing an] opportunity to communicate it to a larger audience—a major indicator of postsecondary success.” Even in a remote environment, we can design projects that ask more of students than rote memorization and that spark critical thinking.

Our call to action is this: As educators, we need to make opportunities for critical thinking available not only to the affluent or those fortunate enough to be placed in advanced courses. The tools are available, let’s use them. Let’s interrogate our current curriculum and design learning experiences that engage all students in real, relevant, and rigorous experiences that require critical thinking and prepare them for promising postsecondary pathways.

Critical Thinking & Student Engagement

Dr. PJ Caposey is an award-winning educator, keynote speaker, consultant, and author of seven books who currently serves as the superintendent of schools for the award-winning Meridian CUSD 223 in northwest Illinois. You can find PJ on most social-media platforms as MCUSDSupe:

When I start my keynote on student engagement, I invite two people up on stage and give them each five paper balls to shoot at a garbage can also conveniently placed on stage. Contestant One shoots their shot, and the audience gives approval. Four out of 5 is a heckuva score. Then just before Contestant Two shoots, I blindfold them and start moving the garbage can back and forth. I usually try to ensure that they can at least make one of their shots. Nobody is successful in this unfair environment.

I thank them and send them back to their seats and then explain that this little activity was akin to student engagement. While we all know we want student engagement, we are shooting at different targets. More importantly, for teachers, it is near impossible for them to hit a target that is moving and that they cannot see.

Within the world of education and particularly as educational leaders, we have failed to simplify what student engagement looks like, and it is impossible to define or articulate what student engagement looks like if we cannot clearly articulate what critical thinking is and looks like in a classroom. Because, simply, without critical thought, there is no engagement.

The good news here is that critical thought has been defined and placed into taxonomies for decades already. This is not something new and not something that needs to be redefined. I am a Bloom’s person, but there is nothing wrong with DOK or some of the other taxonomies, either. To be precise, I am a huge fan of Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework. I have used that as a core element of my practice for years, and it has shaped who I am as an instructional leader.

So, in order to explain critical thought, a teacher or a leader must familiarize themselves with these tried and true taxonomies. Easy, right? Yes, sort of. The issue is not understanding what critical thought is; it is the ability to integrate it into the classrooms. In order to do so, there are a four key steps every educator must take.

• Integrating critical thought/rigor into a lesson does not happen by chance, it happens by design. Planning for critical thought and engagement is much different from planning for a traditional lesson. In order to plan for kids to think critically, you have to provide a base of knowledge and excellent prompts to allow them to explore their own thinking in order to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information.
• SIDE NOTE – Bloom’s verbs are a great way to start when writing objectives, but true planning will take you deeper than this.

QUESTIONING

• If the questions and prompts given in a classroom have correct answers or if the teacher ends up answering their own questions, the lesson will lack critical thought and rigor.
• Script five questions forcing higher-order thought prior to every lesson. Experienced teachers may not feel they need this, but it helps to create an effective habit.
• If lessons are rigorous and assessments are not, students will do well on their assessments, and that may not be an accurate representation of the knowledge and skills they have mastered. If lessons are easy and assessments are rigorous, the exact opposite will happen. When deciding to increase critical thought, it must happen in all three phases of the game: planning, instruction, and assessment.

TALK TIME / CONTROL

• To increase rigor, the teacher must DO LESS. This feels counterintuitive but is accurate. Rigorous lessons involving tons of critical thought must allow for students to work on their own, collaborate with peers, and connect their ideas. This cannot happen in a silent room except for the teacher talking. In order to increase rigor, decrease talk time and become comfortable with less control. Asking questions and giving prompts that lead to no true correct answer also means less control. This is a tough ask for some teachers. Explained differently, if you assign one assignment and get 30 very similar products, you have most likely assigned a low-rigor recipe. If you assign one assignment and get multiple varied products, then the students have had a chance to think deeply, and you have successfully integrated critical thought into your classroom.

Thanks to Dara, Patrick, Meg, and PJ for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones won’t be available until February). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Teaching Commons Conference 2024

Join us for the Teaching Commons Conference 2024 –  Cultivating Connection. Friday, May 10.

Creating Learning Outcomes

Main navigation.

A learning outcome is a concise description of what students will learn and how that learning will be assessed. Having clearly articulated learning outcomes can make designing a course, assessing student learning progress, and facilitating learning activities easier and more effective. Learning outcomes can also help students regulate their learning and develop effective study strategies.

Defining the terms

Educational research uses a number of terms for this concept, including learning goals, student learning objectives, session outcomes, and more. 

In alignment with other Stanford resources, we will use learning outcomes as a general term for what students will learn and how that learning will be assessed. This includes both goals and objectives. We will use learning goals to describe general outcomes for an entire course or program. We will use learning objectives when discussing more focused outcomes for specific lessons or activities.

For example, a learning goal might be “By the end of the course, students will be able to develop coherent literary arguments.” 

Whereas a learning objective might be, “By the end of Week 5, students will be able to write a coherent thesis statement supported by at least two pieces of evidence.”

Learning outcomes benefit instructors

Learning outcomes can help instructors in a number of ways by:

• Providing a framework and rationale for making course design decisions about the sequence of topics and instruction, content selection, and so on.
• Communicating to students what they must do to make progress in learning in your course.
• Clarifying your intentions to the teaching team, course guests, and other colleagues.
• Providing a framework for transparent and equitable assessment of student learning. 
• Making outcomes concerning values and beliefs, such as dedication to discipline-specific values, more concrete and assessable.
• Making inclusion and belonging explicit and integral to the course design.

Learning outcomes benefit students 

Clearly, articulated learning outcomes can also help guide and support students in their own learning by:

• Clearly communicating the range of learning students will be expected to acquire and demonstrate.
• Helping learners concentrate on the areas that they need to develop to progress in the course.
• Helping learners monitor their own progress, reflect on the efficacy of their study strategies, and seek out support or better strategies. (See Promoting Student Metacognition for more on this topic.)

Choosing learning outcomes

When writing learning outcomes to represent the aims and practices of a course or even a discipline, consider:

• What is the big idea that you hope students will still retain from the course even years later?
• What are the most important concepts, ideas, methods, theories, approaches, and perspectives of your field that students should learn?
• What are the most important skills that students should develop and be able to apply in and after your course?
• What would students need to have mastered earlier in the course or program in order to make progress later or in subsequent courses?
• What skills and knowledge would students need if they were to pursue a career in this field or contribute to communities impacted by this field?
• What values, attitudes, and habits of mind and affect would students need if they are to pursue a career in this field or contribute to communities impacted by this field?
• How can the learning outcomes span a wide range of skills that serve students with differing levels of preparation?
• How can learning outcomes offer a range of assessment types to serve a diverse student population?

Use learning taxonomies to inform learning outcomes

Learning taxonomies describe how a learner’s understanding develops from simple to complex when learning different subjects or tasks. They are useful here for identifying any foundational skills or knowledge needed for more complex learning, and for matching observable behaviors to different types of learning.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model and includes three domains of learning: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. In this model, learning occurs hierarchically, as each skill builds on previous skills towards increasingly sophisticated learning. For example, in the cognitive domain, learning begins with remembering, then understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and lastly creating. 

Taxonomy of Significant Learning

The Taxonomy of Significant Learning is a non-hierarchical and integral model of learning. It describes learning as a meaningful, holistic, and integral network. This model has six intersecting domains: knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. 

See our resource on Learning Taxonomies and Verbs for a summary of these two learning taxonomies.

How to write learning outcomes

Writing learning outcomes can be made easier by using the ABCD approach. This strategy identifies four key elements of an effective learning outcome:

Consider the following example: Students (audience) , will be able to label and describe (behavior) , given a diagram of the eye at the end of this lesson (condition) , all seven extraocular muscles, and at least two of their actions (degree) .

Audience 

Define who will achieve the outcome. Outcomes commonly include phrases such as “After completing this course, students will be able to...” or “After completing this activity, workshop participants will be able to...”

Keeping your audience in mind as you develop your learning outcomes helps ensure that they are relevant and centered on what learners must achieve. Make sure the learning outcome is focused on the student’s behavior, not the instructor’s. If the outcome describes an instructional activity or topic, then it is too focused on the instructor’s intentions and not the students.

Try to understand your audience so that you can better align your learning goals or objectives to meet their needs. While every group of students is different, certain generalizations about their prior knowledge, goals, motivation, and so on might be made based on course prerequisites, their year-level, or majors. 

Use action verbs to describe observable behavior that demonstrates mastery of the goal or objective. Depending on the skill, knowledge, or domain of the behavior, you might select a different action verb. Particularly for learning objectives which are more specific, avoid verbs that are vague or difficult to assess, such as “understand”, “appreciate”, or “know”.

The behavior usually completes the audience phrase “students will be able to…” with a specific action verb that learners can interpret without ambiguity. We recommend beginning learning goals with a phrase that makes it clear that students are expected to actively contribute to progressing towards a learning goal. For example, “through active engagement and completion of course activities, students will be able to…”

Example action verbs

Consider the following examples of verbs from different learning domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy . Generally speaking, items listed at the top under each domain are more suitable for advanced students, and items listed at the bottom are more suitable for novice or beginning students. Using verbs and associated skills from all three domains, regardless of your discipline area, can benefit students by diversifying the learning experience. 

For the cognitive domain:

• Create, investigate, design
• Evaluate, argue, support
• Analyze, compare, examine
• Solve, operate, demonstrate
• Describe, locate, translate
• Remember, define, duplicate, list

For the psychomotor domain:

• Invent, create, manage
• Articulate, construct, solve
• Complete, calibrate, control
• Build, perform, execute
• Copy, repeat, follow

For the affective domain:

• Internalize, propose, conclude
• Organize, systematize, integrate
• Justify, share, persuade
• Respond, contribute, cooperate
• Capture, pursue, consume

Often we develop broad goals first, then break them down into specific objectives. For example, if a goal is for learners to be able to compose an essay, break it down into several objectives, such as forming a clear thesis statement, coherently ordering points, following a salient argument, gathering and quoting evidence effectively, and so on.

State the conditions, if any, under which the behavior is to be performed. Consider the following conditions:

• Equipment or tools, such as using a laboratory device or a specified software application.
• Situation or environment, such as in a clinical setting, or during a performance.
• Materials or format, such as written text, a slide presentation, or using specified materials.

The level of specificity for conditions within an objective may vary and should be appropriate to the broader goals. If the conditions are implicit or understood as part of the classroom or assessment situation, it may not be necessary to state them. 

When articulating the conditions in learning outcomes, ensure that they are sensorily and financially accessible to all students.

Degree 

Degree states the standard or criterion for acceptable performance. The degree should be related to real-world expectations: what standard should the learner meet to be judged proficient? For example:

• With 90% accuracy
• Within 10 minutes
• Suitable for submission to an edited journal
• Obtain a valid solution
• In a 100-word paragraph

The specificity of the degree will vary. You might take into consideration professional standards, what a student would need to succeed in subsequent courses in a series, or what is required by you as the instructor to accurately assess learning when determining the degree. Where the degree is easy to measure (such as pass or fail) or accuracy is not required, it may be omitted.

Characteristics of effective learning outcomes

The acronym SMART is useful for remembering the characteristics of an effective learning outcome.

• Specific : clear and distinct from others.
• Measurable : identifies observable student action.
• Attainable : suitably challenging for students in the course.
• Related : connected to other objectives and student interests.
• Time-bound : likely to be achieved and keep students on task within the given time frame.

Examples of effective learning outcomes

These examples generally follow the ABCD and SMART guidelines. 

Arts and Humanities

Learning goals.

Upon completion of this course, students will be able to apply critical terms and methodology in completing a written literary analysis of a selected literary work.

At the end of the course, students will be able to demonstrate oral competence with the French language in pronunciation, vocabulary, and language fluency in a 10 minute in-person interview with a member of the teaching team.

Learning objectives

After completing lessons 1 through 5, given images of specific works of art, students will be able to identify the artist, artistic period, and describe their historical, social, and philosophical contexts in a two-page written essay.

By the end of this course, students will be able to describe the steps in planning a research study, including identifying and formulating relevant theories, generating alternative solutions and strategies, and application to a hypothetical case in a written research proposal.

At the end of this lesson, given a diagram of the eye, students will be able to label all of the extraocular muscles and describe at least two of their actions.

Using chemical datasets gathered at the end of the first lab unit, students will be able to create plots and trend lines of that data in Excel and make quantitative predictions about future experiments.

• How to Write Learning Goals , Evaluation and Research, Student Affairs (2021).
• SMART Guidelines , Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).
• Learning Taxonomies and Verbs , Center for Teaching and Learning (2021).

• The Key is Being Metacognitive
• The Big Picture
• Learning Outcomes
• Test your Existing Knowledge
• Definitions of Critical Thinking
• Learning How to Think Critically
• Self Reflection Activity
• End of Module Survey
• Test Your Existing Knowledge
• Interpreting Information Methodically
• Using the SEE-I Method
• Interpreting Information Critically
• Argument Analysis
• Learning Activities
• Argument Mapping
• Summary of Anlyzing Arguments
• Fallacious Reasoning
• Statistical Misrepresentation
• Biased Reasoning
• Common Cognitive Biases
• Poor Research Methods - The Wakefield Study
• Summary of How Reasoning Fails
• Misinformation and Disinformation
• Media and Digital Literacy
• Information Trustworthiness
• Summary of How Misinformation is Spread

Critical Thinking Tutorial: Learning Outcomes

Why learn to think critically.

As the Critical Thinking video suggests, accepting everything at face value can lead to over-generalizations , prejudice , fallacies , and cognitive biases . At university, you will frequently be assessed on your ability to think critically, so it is crucial to develop an awareness of these pitfalls and work towards avoiding them.

  Learning Outcomes

After completing the learning activities associated with this module, you should be able to

• Define what critical thinking means
• Identify why critical thinking is foundational for learning
• Apply critical thinking skills to a personal predicament
• Engage in the process of critical reflection to consolidate your learning
• << Previous: The Big Picture
• Next: Test your Existing Knowledge >>
• Library A to Z
• Follow on Facebook
• Follow on Twitter
• Follow on YouTube
• Follow on Instagram

The University of Saskatchewan's main campus is situated on  Treaty 6 Territory and the Homeland of the Métis.

© University of Saskatchewan Disclaimer | Privacy

• Last Updated: Dec 14, 2023 3:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usask.ca/CriticalThinkingTutorial

Essential Learning Outcomes Resources

• Stockton's ELO Resources
• Adapting to Change
• Communication Skills
• Creativity and Innovation

Critical Thinking

• Ethical Reasoning
• Global Awareness
• Information Literacy and Research Skills
• Program Competence
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Teamwork and Collaboration

The ability to formulate an effective, balanced perspective on an issue or topic.

• Bezanilla, María José, et al. (2019). Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view
• Bjerkvik, Liv ; Hilli, Yvonne. (2019). Reflective writing in undergraduate clinical nursing education: A literature review
• Cooke, Lori, Stroup, Harrington. (2019). Operationalizing the concept of critical thinking for student learning outcome development
• D’alessio, Fernando A. et al. (2019). Studying the impact of critical thinking on the academic performance of executive MBA students
• Janssen, Eva M., et al. (2019). Training higher education teachers’ critical thinking and attitudes towards teaching it
• Morris, Richard, et al. (2019). Effectiveness of two methods for teaching critical thinking to communication sciences and disorders undergraduates
• Plotnikova, N. F. ; Strukov, E. N. (2019). Integration of teamwork and critical thinking skills in the process of teaching students
• Stephenson, Norda, et al. (2019). Impact of peer-led team learning and the science writing and workshop template on the critical thinking skills of first-year chemistry students
• Venugopalan, Murali. (2019). Building critical thinking skills through literature
• Yusuf, Nur Muthmainnah. (2019). Optimizing critical thinking skill through peer editing technique in teaching writing
• Zucker, Andrew. (2019). Using critical thinking to counter misinformation
• Center for Teaching Thinking (CTT)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Critical Thinking Value Rubrics (AAC&U)
• Stockton Institute for Faculty Development

• << Previous: Creativity and Innovation
• Next: Ethical Reasoning >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2023 8:31 AM
• 101 Vera King Farris Drive
• Galloway, NJ 08205-9411
• (609) 652-4346
• Find us on Google Map
• A-Z Databases
• Subject Guides
• Subject Librarians
• Opening Hours
• Ask Us & FAQ
• Study Rooms
• Library Instruction
• Streaming Video
• Course Reserves
• ELO Resources
• My Library Account
• Website Feedback
• Staff Login

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
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID ‐19 pandemic

Izadora volpato rossi.

1 Postgraduate Program in Cellular and Molecular Biology, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba Brazil, Brazil

Jordana Dinorá de Lima

Bruna sabatke, maria alice ferreira nunes, graciela evans ramirez.

2 Technological Professional Education Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba Brazil

Marcel Ivan Ramirez

3 EVAHPI ‐ Extracellular Vesicles and Host‐Parasite Interactions Research Group Laboratório de Biologia Molecular e Sistemática de Tripanossomatideos, Carlos Chagas Institute‐Fiocruz, Curitiba Brazil

Associated Data

Active teaching methodologies have been placed as a hope for changing education at different levels, transiting from passive lecture‐centered to student‐centered learning. With the health measures of social distance, the COVID‐19 pandemic forced a strong shift to remote education. With the challenge of delivering quality education through a computer screen, we validated and applied an online course model using active teaching tools for higher education. We incorporated published active‐learning strategies into an online construct, with problem‐based inquiry and design of inquiry research projects to serve as our core active learning tool. The gains related to students' science learning experiences and their attitudes toward science were assessed by applying questionnaires before, during, and after the course. The course counted on the participation of 83 students, most of them (60.8%) from postgraduate students. Our results show that engagement provided by active learning methods can improve performance both in hard and soft skills. Students' participation seems to be more relevant when activities require the interaction of information, prediction, and reasoning, such as open‐ended questions and design of research projects. Therefore, our data show that, in pandemic, active learning tools benefit students and improve their critical thinking and their motivation and positive positioning in science.

1. INTRODUCTION

Academically first‐world countries have debated how the training of students should be, from basic primary education at schools to higher education at universities. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 A major concern is how education can collaborate in the formation of citizens and professionals capable of leading technological, economic, social, cultural, and political changes. 5 , 6 , 7 Specifically, in the area of science, researchers should be trained with skills that go beyond the technical reproduction of experiments, but that employ critical thinking and that are capable of applying scientific concepts to propose solutions and generate knowledge. 8 , 9 , 10 The change of curricular programs in the STEM area (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and new proposals for educational strategies have been stimulated in different countries. 11 , 12 Lecture‐based and teacher‐centered pedagogy is undergoing a shift toward more active learning, in which students build their own understanding of a subject through learning activities. 13 , 14 The benefits of active learning seem substantial, both in cognitive learning and in the development of soft skills by students, such as leadership, problem‐solving, and autonomy. 15 , 16 , 17 In Brazil, few efforts have been made to discuss structural changes in education from basic to university. The absence of adequate working conditions encourages teachers to adopt an old‐fashioned type of education, in which passive teaching methods predominate. Although there is no state initiative that encourages the incorporation of active learning methods, some higher teaching institutions have introduced methods of problem‐solving, critical thinking, and/or problem‐based learning with inspiring success. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21

Active learning comprises approaches that focus more on developing students' skills than transmitting information and require students to perform activities that require higher‐order thinking. 13 For this, students use critical thinking, which involves analysis, reflection, evaluation, interpretation, and inference to synthesize information that is obtained through reading, observation, communication, or experience to answer a question. 22 There are several methodologies that fit the concept of active teaching, such as inquiry‐based learning, project‐based learning, and problem‐based learning. 17 , 23 , 24 Among them is, for example, project‐based learning is a model that organizes learning around projects, in which challenging questions or problems are involved that involve proposing solutions, formulating hypotheses, and investigative activities. 17

The COVID‐19 pandemic has produced a situation of health emergency, economic, and social instability that challenged the entire educational system. The intense contact and exchange of information that took place during face‐to‐face classes in normal life have been restricted to virtual spaces. Given all these sudden changes, online courses have been a viable option to prepare students at different levels (Figure  1 ). Although some groups have already reported their teaching experiences and perceptions in times of lockdown and social distance, 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 very few of them reported the impact of active learning on online courses, and rarer are the studies in postgraduate students. During the pandemic, we have seen the opportunity to validate a course model with the aim of actively encouraging students of higher education to acquire important biological concepts. We planned to create a rich, multifaceted course that integrated active learning methodologies. We incorporated active‐learning strategies that allowed transit in the course from passive lecture‐centered to active student‐centered learning. With this approach, we were interested in understanding the benefit of our course at the student formation and in answering two important questions:

• Does the course increase the cognitive and intellectual skills of the students?
• How was the impact of critical thinking methodologies on the student's attitudes toward science and soft skills?

Our interest was concentrated in analyzing whether students through the course showed more enthusiasm for the concept of research and science. Crucial elements in science such as forming and testing hypotheses, defining strategies, communicating results were evaluated to determine whether critical thinking methods could improve thinking and rational logic. In order to assess students' gains in these two aspects, we applied questionnaires to students before, during, and after the course. Here, we will comment on the results of this experience that incorporated active methodologies and student‐teacher interaction tools for remote higher education.

Passive (teacher‐centered) and active (student‐centered) learning in classroom or remote teaching models

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1. undergraduate pilot course to validate online active learning tools.

In order to validate an online course model and test some active learning tools, we have offered a course aimed primarily at undergraduates. The subject of this course was cell culture which has a wide interest and application in the biological area. Knowledge on cell culture is required for some research activities and also represents a promising alternative for replacement of animal experimentation.

In order to follow contagious preventive actions during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the course was administered remotely in a teleconference format through the Microsoft Teams platform. This platform allows the instructors to interact through video, audio, and live chat, which gives the feeling of a personal meeting from a safe distance. Before each class, there was a moment of relaxation with “icebreaker” conversations to get to know the audience. This moment helped to create a more intimate environment and also to share tensions and concerns about the pandemic.

The course had a total of 15 h, 10 h of synchronous activities and 5 h of asynchronous activities. Synchronous activities included lectures, simultaneous online quiz activities, and discussion of scientific papers. Asynchronous activities consisted of two questionnaires containing guided questions for critical reading of a scientific paper (one of the papers involving chronic diseases and the other infectious diseases). After returning this questionnaire, the papers were discussed during classes. To measure perceptions of the overall effectiveness of the course and the proposed methodologies, we asked students to complete a questionnaire at the end of the course.

2.2. Experimental undergraduate and postgraduate course

2.2.1. course design.

The experimentation course was offered as a satellite event during a symposium hosted by a Postgraduate Program at a Brazilian state university. The focus of the course was redefined from our previous basic course to contemplate strategies for the study of infectious diseases using cell culture. In order to know the profile of the enrolled students, we applied two questionnaires containing open and closed questions: one with demographic questions and previous research experience and the other about their previous experiences with active learning methodologies.

The course had a short duration (12 h total), divided between synchronous (7 h) and asynchronous activities (5 h). The synchronous activities of the course were structured as follows: (i) 2 h of key concepts to introduce the subject and situate the content and emphasis of the course; (ii) 2 h of strategies for studying the pathogen‐host cell interaction using cell culture, (iii) 1 h of presentation of an inquiry research project (IRP) with the subject chosen by the participant, (iv) 1 h of questions about concepts and strategies to solve problems (Table  1 ). The “offline” time was used to prepare the scientific IRP and participate in the questionnaires with questions related to the classes. The description of the activities developed can be found in the topic “Active learning instruments/tools” below.

Course schedule

Abbreviations: A.A.T., asynchronous activities time; S.A.T., Synchronous Activities Time.

2.2.2. Active learning instruments/tools

In order to place the student as the center of the course, we incorporated some active‐learning strategies into an online course construct. Some moments of the dynamics of the classes and the approaches used during the course are gathered in Video S 1 . We proposed some activities that required student's engagement:

The quiz was a knowledge fixation tool performed at the end of lectures. In this activity, participants answered questions related to the presented content directly through the Voxvote website ( https://www.voxvote.com/ ). Table  2 contains some examples of applied questions; the questions were corrected at the end of the time proposed by the VoxVote tool (Video S 1 , min 02:36–02:51).

Examples of questions administered during live quiz using VoxVote

We proposed to the participants to develop an IRP to stimulate the construction of knowledge and critical thinking. The IRP should contain the scientific relevance of the project, main objectives, and methodologies to achieve the proposed objectives. Along with the description of the project, participants could send a graphic design summarizing their project proposal, following a Graphical Abstract model indicated as a reference (Figure S 1 ). The IRP was sent using Google Forms. The IRP proposals were evaluated by all instructors who selected the best 10 for presentation based on criteria of coherence and conceptualization of the biological question, ampleness of the applied methodologies, and connection between the proposed strategies.

Inquiry questionnaires

Two online questionnaires were sent to all participants via email and were available for at least 48 h. Both questionnaires contained eight multiple‐choice and four open‐ended questions about biological concepts related to the course subject. The first questionnaire (Q1) was available before the beginning of the course, while the second (Q2) was available 2 days after the experimental course started. Q1 and Q2 had the same level of difficulty, with multiple‐choices (basic) and problem‐based questions (open‐ended) (see Table  3 ). Q2 was answered while the students were simultaneously participating in several activities of the hosted event.

Examples of questions applied in the inquiry questionnaires

2.2.3. Inquiry questionnaire assessment

Questionnaire responses were corrected by five evaluators. Multiple‐choice questions scores were calculated by sum of the right answers. Open‐ended questions required a more detailed evaluation process where four evaluation criteria were scored in each answer: comprehension, specificity, ampleness, and connection. All evaluators considered whether the student had understood the question (comprehension), the approaches that the student proposed to solve the problem (ampleness), the specificity of this or these approaches (specificity), and the rationale and feasibility of the strategy (connection). For comprehension evaluation only 0 (lack of comprehension) and 1 (adequately answered). The other criteria considered three levels of score: insufficient (0), good (1), and excellent (2). The maximum score was seven points for each answer. Answers zeroed in comprehension were not evaluated in the remaining criteria. Furthermore, the order of questions and answers were randomized to avoid possible bias during the assessment process. The scores were generated from the average of five evaluators. Total score was calculated by the sum of multiple‐choice questions (0%–50%) and open‐ended questions (0%–50%).

Intra‐questionnaires comparisons, that is, between questions, were assessed by ANOVA, while questionnaire differences were analyzed by unpaired t test. All analyses were performed in GraphPad Prism version 6.01.

2.2.4. Analysis of students' perception of the course

At the end of the course, students were asked to fill up their impressions and suggestions about the course in a feedback form containing multiple‐choice and open‐ended questions. Some questions were to choose the sentence which they felt more identified and in others the students evaluated sentences in a five points scale, with 0 being “nothing” and 5 being “very” (Likert scale. 32 ). Open‐ended questions were added to stimulate the students to express their opinion about the course. The open‐ended data were coded in categories considering the most cited answer for each question. Qualitative thematic content analysis was applied to quantify answers, providing support for a quantitative evaluation.

3.1. The online course can be a platform of active learning methodologies: A pilot experience

In order to validate an online course model and test some active learning tools, we have offered a course aimed primarily at undergraduates during pandemic. The wide theme Cell Culture was well received by students, attracting participants from different fields of health sciences (including biology, biomedicine, pharmacy, biotechnology, and medicine—data not shown) and with different backgrounds (3.37% bachelor degree, 56.75% undergraduate students, 18.91% mastering students, 4.72% masters, 10.13% doctoral students, graduate course 2.02% and 4.05% doctoral also participated. n  = 148. Figure S 2 A).

The great advantage of remote education is being able to bring together or to mix participants from different educational institutions and different backgrounds. Participants were from 22 different Brazilian institutions and 1 foreign institution, with public and private education (Figure S 2 B).

Although only 29% of students had worked with cell culture, the positive perception of the course was very high (Figure  2a ). Moreover, 87% of the participants evaluated the course as excellent (Figure  2b ). Active learning tools used during the course (real‐time online quiz [live], paper reading guide, etc.) was positively rated by participants (data not shown) and the participants pointed out as main strengths the didactics, teaching methodology, and the interaction between teacher and student (Figure  2c ).

The methodology tools used during the validation course were positively evaluated by the participants. (a) Course evaluation by participants. (b) Contribution in the course in learning cell culture. (c) The open‐ended question on “course strengths” was content analyzed, and the responses were classified into categories that included similar statements

Excited by the positive experience of the first course, we decided to go deeper into a course aimed at postgraduate students to understand whether active learning tools could improve their cognitive and thinking skills. With the validation and approval of the active learning approach, we decided to maintain some activities (such as the real‐time online quiz and questionnaires) and adjust some activities targeting the topic to the participants.

3.2. Experimental course: Active learning tools improve the performance of students in higher education

3.2.1. participants students profile: a representative sample of brazilian higher education.

The second experience with the online course model had a heterogeneous audience profile, including participants with different levels and from different locations. There were 83 enrolled, most of them master students (38.0%) (Figure  3a ). Undergraduate students constituted 24.1% and PhD students 19.0%. There was also the participation of PhDs, constituting a very heterogeneous public. The participants belonged to 22 Brazilian institutions from different states (Figure  3b ). Although 94% had previous research experience, only 59.4% had experience in cell culture (Figure S 3 A), either carrying out in vitro experiments (full experience) or just accompanying other people (partial experience) (Figure  3c ). The focus of the course was infectious diseases, which was the object of work of 59.5% of participants, including the biological model of bacteria (20.3%), fungi (15.2%), parasites (16.5%), and viruses (7.6%) (Figure S 3 B).

The audience of attendants to the course was heterogeneous. (a) Participants' educational background, divided between complete and incomplete. Others include “specialist” as complete and “Incomplete second degree” and “residency” as incomplete. (b) Distribution of participants' institutions in Brazilian states (highlighted in gray). (c) Students' previous experience with cell culture techniques

To obtain an overview of students' previous experience with teaching methodologies, we asked students ( n  = 60) about which method was most used during their academic experience. The majority of the respondents (76.7%) affirm that their predominant teaching approach was passive, mainly represented by traditional lectures (Figure S 4 A,B). Among graduate students, 50% answered that their classes have similar proportions between active and passive classes (Figure S 4 C). When asked in an open question about what could be improved in their education (undergraduate or graduate), 72.1% of students admitted that other teaching approaches could be employed (data not shown). Most comments pointed to the necessity of interactive classes, including solving clinical cases and practical application of knowledge. The answers pointed out that most of the students (76.7%) consider that active teaching methodologies are excellent for their learning and that participating interactively in the subjects improve their apprenticeship (Figure S 4 D).

3.2.2. Active methodologies promote improved short‐term learning outcomes

Interested in observing the development of students during the course, we used research‐based learning approaches through the application of questionnaires in a pretest (Q1) and posttest (Q2). Fifty‐four students participated in the online questionnaire activities (Figure S 5 —graduation: n  = 14; masters: n  = 25; doctoral: n  = 14; postdoctoral: n  = 3; other: n  = 1). Most of them participated in the first questionnaire (Q1: n  = 49), while a minority participated in the second one (Q2: n  = 26); finally, 20 students participated in both questionnaires.

The average scores of students in the questionnaires were higher in Q2 compared with Q1 (Figure  4a , Table S 1 ). This progress was distributed similarly through multiple‐choice (13.51%) and open‐ended questions (15.67%). On average, no student had zeroed their score in Q2, which may represent that students were more committed to the second test (Figure  4a ). The proportion of students with high performance (total score > 80%) was at least three times higher in Q2 compared with Q1 (6.1% at Q1 and 19.2% at Q2. Figure  4b ). The students showed improvement in all four criteria evaluated in the open‐ended questions from Q1 to Q2 (Suppl. Figure  6 ). When multiple‐choice and open‐ended questions were analyzed separately, Q2's superior performance was predominantly due to the scores at the multiple‐choice questions (Figure  4c ) than from the open‐ended (Figure  4d ).

Students showed a rapid evolution in their performance during the course. (a) General average score in each questionnaire (0%–100%); multiple‐choice and open‐ended questions represent 50% of the score each; (b) Proportion of students within score ranges in Q1 ( n  = 49) and Q2 ( n  = 26). (c) Students' scores average only in the multiple‐choice questions between questionnaires; (d) Students' scores average only in the open‐ended questions between questionnaires

We hypothesized that the overall improvement of open‐ended questions may be due to a lower engagement at the more difficult and exploratory questions (such as the open‐ended questions). Regarding this point we calculated the student dropout rate to each question by the rate of NA answers—that is, described as blank answers and “I don't know” type of answers. In fact, the dropout for open‐ended questions (Q1: 22% and Q2: 15%, Table  4 ) was higher than for multiple‐choice questions, which was irrelevant (Q1: 2% and Q2: 0%). Furthermore, there was a 31.8% reduction in the dropout rate in open‐ended questions from Q2 compared with Q1 (Table  4 ). This may indicate that the students felt more confident and motivated to commit intellectual effort during the performance of Q2, resulting in a better outcome.

Dropout rate among open‐ended questions in Q1 and Q2

Note : Dropout was considered for blank answers and “I don't know” type of answers. “OE” stands for open‐ended questions from 1 to 4 in each questionnaire.

3.2.3. Formulating hypotheses and proposing strategies: A scientist‐like experience through project‐based learning

The inclusion of project‐based learning strategies is effective in STEM courses, to involve students in authentic “real world” tasks. 17 , 33 During the course, students were motivated to prepare a mini scientific project to answer a biological question of their interest; applying cell culture strategies (see Materials and Methods). The elaboration of the scientific IRP represented the most demanding activity for the student and we had only 26.5% of participation (22 IRPs), most of which are master's students (Figure S 7 ). This type of activity was a challenge for the students, who feel freedom to “think outside the box” and find ways to answer their biological questions. Many students elaborate different and curious hypotheses, from which the instructors selected the 10 best IRPs based on criteria of coherence, conceptualization, applied methodologies, and connection between the proposed strategies. We were able to see some students who stood out for the quality of their IRP proposal. Interestingly, among the 10 best IRPs selected, the fourth part was written by undergraduate students (data not shown). In addition, we reserved a period of the course for the presentation of the selected IRPs to the whole class at a “symposium‐like moment,” using their graphical abstracts as support. This type of activity adds other soft skills to students, such as communication and accepting challenges, essential for future scientists. Part of the presentations of the selected students and their graphical abstract/poster as other course activities were compiled in Video S 1 (min 03:01–03:51).

3.2.4. Engagement in active‐learning activities correlates to better student performance

Active methodologies place the student as the center of learning and for this reason, their effectiveness relies heavily on the student's engagement in activities. Motivated by the various studies that show a positive correlation between student engagement and performance, 12 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 we assessed whether the most engaged students during our course had higher scores.

First, we evaluated the scores of the group of students who participated in both inquiry questionnaires (“BOTH”) separated from those who have answered only one of the questionnaires (“ONLY Q1” or “ONLY Q2”). This analysis showed that students that were engaged in both activities had higher performance in open‐ended questions, but not in multiple‐choice (Figure  5A,B ).

Highly engaged students have better performances in open‐ended questions. (a) Students' scores average in the multiple‐choice questions within each engagement subgroup; (b) Students' scores in the open‐ended questions within each engagement subgroup. (c) Venn diagram, representing the number of participants in each activity (Q1, Q2, IRP, and TOP IRP). (d) Total score (%) in Q1 and Q2 analyzed in groups classified by the level of engagement in the course activities. The questionnaire to which the average scores refer is indicated by the horizontal bars (Q1 or Q2). (e) Students average in multiple‐choice questions within each group engagement. (f) Students average in open‐ended questions within each group engagement

We hypothesized whether engagement in activities proposed during the course (questionnaires and IRP) would be related to the best performance of students. For this, we considered the following groups: students who had been selected as TOP IRP and also participated in both Q1 and Q2 (TOP IRP + Q1 + Q2, n  = 5), students who participated in Q1 and Q2 and sent IRP (but were not TOP IRP, named IRP + Q1 + Q2, n  = 6), students who only participated in the questionnaires (BOTH Q1 and Q2, n  = 9) and those who participated in only one of the questionnaires (Only Q1, n  = 23 or Only Q2, n  = 3) (Figure  5c ). Interestingly, half of the students who were selected as TOP IRP also engaged in both Q1 and Q2 ( n  = 5). The students who participated in all activities had higher score levels when compared with the other groups of engagement, mainly in the open‐ended questions analyzed separately (Figure  5d ). Among the students who participated in the IRP, the best scores were from the students who were in the top‐10 IRP (TOP IRP) (Figure  5c,d ). Our data show that the participants who answered only one of the questionnaires (Only Q1 or Only Q2) had the worst scores in the open questions and shows that involvement in more than one activity improves the student's performance (Figure  5d ). Altogether, the data show a positive trend in the relationship between engagement and performance (Figure S 8 ).

3.2.5. Active learning tools improve students' critical thinking and motivation in science

The evaluation of the course was positive by 74% of the participants ( n  = 50), who considered that the course was excellent (Figure  6a ). The open‐ended questions on “Course strengths” and “Course weaknesses” were content analyzed, and the responses were classified into categories that included similar statements (Table  5 ). Among the strengths, 70% of the students considered the didactics as a strong point, which includes the quality of the presentations, the confidence of the instructors regarding the domain of the content, the lesson plan, and the dynamics of the class. Fifty‐six percent of the participants assessed that the student–teacher interaction was a positive aspect of the classes, where the students revealed that they felt included (even remotely). Another point highlighted as strength of the classes was the teaching methodology and the subjects covered, which brought a balance between variety and depth. As negative points of the course, issues with infrastructure and technical problems (such as timetable, platform, class time, sound) and course complexity for a short time were mentioned.

Students demonstrate a positive feeling about active learning tool. (a) Percentage of responses from students on the multiple‐choice question “How do you think the course contributed to your learning?,” with possible answers “excellent,” “moderate,” and “insufficient.” (b) Percentage of responses to the multiple‐choice question “In the questionnaires, what type of question do you prefer?” with possible answers “multiple‐choice,” “open‐ended,” and “I have no preference.” (c) Percentage of students' responses to the question “How do you evaluate the problem‐based questions present in the questionnaires?” with possible answers “They were excellent,” “They were very difficult,” and “They were very simple.” (d) Percentage of responses to the question “How did you feel during the conduct of the inquiry research project?,” with possible responses being “motivated,” “comfortable,” and “apprehensive.” The percentage of responses was calculated on the number of students who answered the questionnaire ( n  = 50)

The main positive points cited by the students were didactics, teaching methodology, and instructor–student interaction

Note : content categories in the table represent any categories included by more than 6% ( n  ≥ 3) of students who responded to feedback. The open‐ended questions on “course strengths” and “course weaknesses” were content analyzed, and the responses were classified into categories that included similar statements.

The students' feelings about the course's active learning tools were assessed by the feedback form. Students were instructed to rate from 1 to 5 on how positive the online inquiry questionnaires were for their learning, being 1 “negative” and 5 “very positive.” The average score of the responses was 4.34, indicating that the questionnaires were validated by the students. Regarding the type of question contained in the questionnaires, 48% of students prefer multiple‐choice questions (Figure  6b ). This shows that at least half of students prefer questions that students prefer questions that only recall information and do not require elaborating their own reasoning. Despite the high preference for multiple‐choice questions among the participants (48%), 62% considered that discursive problem‐solving questions are a great way to make them think critically and formulate strategies for real situations that a researcher faces (Figure  6c ).

One of the proposed activities was the writing of an IRP about some biological question of their interest. The participation rate in IRPs was relatively low (26.2%), being 68.2% postgraduate students. Interestingly, 54% of the participants felt motivated during elaboration of the scientific project (Figure  6d ). In an open question, the participants affirm that the elaboration of an IRP improves its positioning in science, becoming more critical and more motivated. It is also mentioned that the IRP stimulates the acquisition of more knowledge, they are able to expand their scientific vision, simulate a real situation of researchers, and collaboration in scientific communication (data not shown).

In general, there was a demonstration of positive perception regarding active learning methodologies by most students (96%) (data not shown). The main points commented by the students regarding their perception of active methodologies were that they are more effective for lasting learning, stimulate critical thinking and improve the dynamics of the class and the student–teacher interaction.

When consulted in an open‐ended question about the skills they improved with the course, the answers were directed to three points: incorporation of knowledge, motivation about science, and gains in their skills on scientific processes. Forty‐four percent of the participants cited an improvement in their logical critical and rational thinking. A gain in knowledge of the subject was pointed out by 22% of them, and the expansion of the vision by 20% (Figure  7a ). It is also interesting to note that 94% of the participants indicate that the course was able to give a real insight into problems that scientists face in their research. When questioned how motivated they are to solve scientific problems using critical thinking after the course on a scale of 1 to 5 (1: nothing; 5: very), the average response was 4.14, with a rating of 4 and 5 by 86% of them (Figure  7b ).

Active methodologies are able to increase the incorporation of knowledge, motivation in front of science and students show gains in soft skills. (a) Answers to the open question “what are the main gains you obtained with the course?” were categorized among common themes (showing categories that comprise 6% [ n  = 3] or more of the answers). (b) Student responses to the question “how motivated are you to solve scientific problems using critical thinking after the course?” on a scale of 1 to 5 (1: Nothing; 5: Very). The percentage of responses was calculated on the number of students who answered the questionnaire ( n  = 50)

4. DISCUSSION

The constant concern with excellence in the scientific training of academics encountered a new challenge during the COVID‐19 pandemic: how to engage students in effective learning in remote education? This question was the driving force of our study, which reports a semi‐experimental online course for higher education. Our course incorporated active methodology tools that promoted the integration of students in the construction of knowledge and stimulated their critical thinking skills. For this, we proposed problem‐based learning strategies in questionnaires, elaboration of a scientific project, and online quiz in order to complete the lectures. In the last few months, there has been a huge increase in the number of studies dedicated to developing and validating active‐learning strategies in remote or hybrid education, driven by the pandemic. 28 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42

Our study was interested in evaluating mainly two types of achievement in students: (i) Cognitive and intellectual skills (learning outcomes) and (ii) Critical thinking, attitudes toward science and soft skills. For this, different activities and questionnaires were applied before, during, and after the course. Our data show that student engagement in the different active learning tools proposed is directly linked to their performance in the course. The average score of the groups that participated in all the proposed activities and stood out in the writing of the IRP was considerably higher compared with the groups with less involvement in the course when evaluating the discursive questions. In fact, other studies have already shown that active learning approaches in the classroom improve academic performance. In a long‐term study (3 years), the implementation of problem‐based learning (PBL) and learning by teaching (LbT) resulted in an increase from 5 to 6–7 in the average scores in final exams of engineering students. 43 Interactive‐engagement also shows score improvements in physics courses compared with traditional pedagogical strategies. 44

Our data show that student involvement is a key point for their learning. This is widely accepted and experienced at different levels. 45 , 46 Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions can be considered when analyzing engagement. 47 First, emotional engagement happens when students are emotionally affected and motivated by the learning environment. 48 In our courses, introductory icebreakers and friendly communication was a factor that contributed to students to feel comfortable in interacting with instructors and with each other. Second, behavioral engagement corresponds to attitudes students demonstrate in class, such as listening and paying attention to the class or the persistence and concentration in activities. 49 In this scenario, at least three forms of interaction were provided (chat, audio only, and video), in which the chat demonstrated that students were constantly connected to instructors during the presentation. Finally, cognitive engagement happens when students apply their ability to select, connect, and plan in constructing and self‐regulating the learning process. 47 , 50 Here, these movements were detected, under our point of view, in the construction of the IRP and in the responses to open‐ended questions in both questionnaires, in which students provide strategies to real problems inside and outside their fields of study. All three‐dimensions of engagement are linked together and may contribute to improvement on students' academic performance, then one should not consider them solely.

Beyond the intellectual benefit, traditionally used as teaching quality indicators, we hypothesized that student‐centered teaching methodologies would lead to a positive attitude or perception with science and thinking skills. In a self‐assessment, students reported that they had an improvement in their critical thinking, which involves judging the information with criteria and healthy skepticism. This relationship between active learning and improving critical thinking has been reported in other groups around the world. 22 , 51 , 52 Active‐learning strategies (such as collaborative work in small groups and case studies) improved students' critical thinking skills as measured by the Watson‐Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, which assesses decision‐making ability as well as predicts judgment, problem‐solving, and creativity. 53 Umbach and Wawrzynski 54 analyzed two sets of American national data and showed a positive relationship between university environments where teachers used active and collaborative learning techniques and students' gains in personal‐social development. Improving students' ability to recognize problems and apply effective strategies and solutions to fundamental challenges in the field is the basis of good scientific training. Our results show that tools of active methodology can impact the attitude of students that will be reflected in future scientists able to position themselves in the face of problems.

The improvement of the indicators added to the approval of the course by the students confirmed that the approaches were well chosen and encouraged us to write our experience in order to facilitate the implementation of active methodologies in other courses. We opted for active learning tools that could be easily applied to the virtual environment, improving the dynamics of the classes. Online questionnaires seem to be a great option for validating students' learning, and makes them reflect on the class and apply their knowledge in the answers. Because our courses aim at a scientific formation associated with the resolution of real problems, the questionnaires addressed both concept questions and interpretive/exploratory open‐ended questions. This allowed us to highlight a clear problem in Brazilian education: students are trained as “information recorders/archivers” and not as “critical thinkers,” as many students showed good levels in concept questions and poor performance in problem‐based questions. The use of open and closed questions is ideal to provide greater freedom of responses for students and to stimulate reasoning, but they also need clear criteria for their correction. In order to guarantee the impartiality of the corrections, all five instructors of the courses corrected all the questions and the scores were given by an average between evaluators.

During the course design, we were interested in getting immediate feedback on student learning in relation to the main concepts discussed. For this, at the final of everyday classes, ~10 final minutes were reserved for an online quiz. This activity was very interesting to reaffirm “take home messages,” that is, what the student cannot “get out of class” without learning and their perception about the acquired knowledge. There are several online tools for this type of quiz, and we emphasize that the most interesting ones are those that allow a real‐time assessment of the result with a percentage of “votes” in each of the questions. This allows questions to be promptly corrected and students can use that time to clear up any doubts.

During the undergraduate course, we opted for a questionnaire that represented a “critical reading guide” for scientific papers. Participation in the questionnaires was very positive, but we replaced this activity with the elaboration of a mini‐scientific project in the graduate course, since reading scientific papers is a basic/trivial activity for graduate students. The preparation of the IRP represented the most demanding activity for the student, because there he should use the knowledge of the course to answer a scientific question of his preference. This type of activity gives students freedom to “think outside the box” and search for ways to answer biological questions that interest them. With this activity, we detected—observed some students who were highlighted for their commitment to develop a project as a principal investigator. In addition, we reserved a time within the course for some students who had the IRPs selected to present for everybody. This type of activity adds other soft skills to students, such as communication and accepting challenges, which are essential for future scientists.

Although we have achieved good results as an online course model for higher education, we have encountered some limitations in our study. The course was presented in a short‐time (3 consecutive days) which hampered a robust evaluation regarding the impact of active tools in student progress. In addition, the experimental course was transmitted simultaneously with other activities of the hosted congress, which may have impacted on students' outcomes due to other demanding activities. In addition, because it is an optional course (as a satellite event), there were no ways to require student participation, nor condition performance to the approval of the course. This could have been caused, among other possible reasons, by the low responsiveness in certain activities, showing that part of the students only engages in activities when they are required for approval. Previous experiences with the theme were not considered as a differential advantage, students from different fields in health and biological sciences were analyzed together; the same happened to undergraduate students and postdoctoral fellows, for example. Finally, a point that can be seen in a positive and negative way was the heterogeneity of the class. This was interesting because it brought the most different backgrounds to the same class, however, it also made it difficult to know about the level of knowledge among students, since the same knowledge could be very basic or essential for some and very advanced or specific for others.

Interestingly, although our study was carried out during a pandemic, with a limited number of students, our data reflect the profile of Brazilian education. The students admit that most of their academic training was with passive approaches, but they are interested and willing to more interactive activities. This exposes a gap in the unequal Brazilian educational model: changes in the educational environment are strongly necessary to prepare citizens socially and personally able to participate in society in a democratic way. 55 , 56 , 57 The current model of higher education in force in Europe after the establishment of the parameters determined by the European Higher Education Area prioritizes among the student's abilities the development of an autonomous learning capacity. 58 , 59 However, the models found in traditional schools, including Brazil, prepare students equally, minimizing the idea that knowledge acquisition is motivated in cognitive, personal, and also social skills. 60

The introduction of active learning methodologies has been widely encouraged worldwide, but it requires a great effort from both teachers and students: educators need to review their lesson plans and add new tools and students need to be willing to engage in the construction of knowledge. 14 Unquestionably, the process requires dynamic instructors, with a flexible mind and willing to use the class to produce a transformation in the students to acquire knowledge through active methodologies. The course was carried out after 3 months in full lockdown. We have no elements to evaluate if the impact of our proposal could be different spending more time within the course. Certainly, with all the uncertainties of this moment in the world, our experience reaffirms the remote method of learning when using elements of critical thinking and active methodologies, with a real benefit of self‐confidence and empowerment of students to motivate themselves in their long and arduous road to be a scientist.

Above all, our experience showed that making the student the center of the class brings not only cognitive benefits (such as intellectual growth) but also in the psychosocial and personal spheres, giving students independence, improvement in their effective communication, and in their ability to accept challenges for self‐development. Our data show that active learning tools that require constant engagement benefits students and improve their critical thinking. This study also shows that if courses on various scientific topics were reformulated by adding active methodologies, it is likely that more students will obtain better intellectual baggage and positive positioning towards participation in science, forming/preparing more powerful thinkers.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No competing interest has been declared. All authors have seen and approved the manuscript. The manuscript has not been accepted or published elsewhere.

Supporting information

Appendix S1. Supporting Information.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful for the invitation from the Graduate Program in Biosciences and Pathophysiology (State University of Maringá) through Prof. Gessilda de Alcantara Nogueira de Melo to participate in the VII International Meeting of Biosciences and physiopathology. This study received support from FIOCRUZ, UFPR, CNPq, CAPES, and Programa Básico de Parasitologia AUXPE 2041/2011 (CAPES) Brazil. Marcel Ivan Ramirez is currently a fellow from CNPq‐Brazil.

Rossi IV, de Lima JD, Sabatke B, Nunes MAF, Ramirez GE, Ramirez MI. Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID‐19 pandemic . Biochem Mol Biol Educ . 2021; 49 :888–903. 10.1002/bmb.21574 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Contributor Information

Izadora Volpato Rossi, Email: moc.liamg@otaplovarodazi .

Marcel Ivan Ramirez, Email: [email protected] .

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.9: Outcome: Critical Thinking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 59273

Identify and Apply Critical Thinking Skills

Consider these thoughts about the critical thinking process, and how it applies not just to our school lives but also our personal and professional lives.

“Thinking Critically and Creatively”

Critical thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. You use them every day, and you can continue improving them.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze myriad issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information?

It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners and researchers.

—Dr. Andrew Robert Baker,  Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom

What You Will Learn to Do

• define critical thinking
• identify the role that logic plays in critical thinking
• apply critical thinking skills to problem-solving scenarios
• apply critical thinking skills to evaluation of information

Contributors and Attributions

• Outcome: Critical Thinking. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Foundations of Academic Success. Authored by : Thomas C. Priester, editor. Provided by : Open SUNY Textbooks. Located at : http://textbooks.opensuny.org/foundations-of-academic-success/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of woman thinking. Authored by : Moyan Brenn. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/8YV4K5 . License : CC BY: Attribution