From implicit to explicit: overcoming common barriers to teaching critical thinking through an innovative online module

In higher education, critical thinking is a fundamental skill vital for academic success and future career readiness. Despite its recognized importance and expectations for proficiency, many college graduates are perceived as inadequately prepared, largely due to the implicit nature of its instruction and common barriers instructors face, such as time constraints and lack of training and resources. This study addresses both the need for explicit critical thinking instruction and instructors’ challenges by developing a discipline-independent online module for undergraduate students that can be readily integrated into existing courses. The module, piloted at Cornell University, helps students to both define critical thinking and recognize its importance, providing a foundational understanding that is applicable across disciplines. It includes reflective tasks, interactive scenarios, and videos to enhance students’ understanding and identification of how, when, and why the process of thinking critically is used during academic and non-academic situations. Assessment through pre- and post-module surveys revealed significant improvements in students’ confidence in identifying, recognizing, and utilizing critical thinking, especially among those with limited prior experience. These results demonstrate that an accessible, explicit approach to critical thinking instruction can effectively build students’ foundational understanding and confidence, offering a scalable solution to address the persistent gaps in critical thinking development across higher education.

1 Introduction

In the realm of higher education, critical thinking stands as a cornerstone skill, essential for navigating academia and preparing students for the challenges of an ever-changing world. Its significance transcends individual disciplines, underpinning the essence of scholarly inquiry and intellectual engagement.

There is a consensus that critical thinking skills and dispositions are necessary for both academic and professional success. The ability to think critically is a nearly ubiquitous learning outcome for courses, degree programs and institutions, and it tops the list of key skills sought by employers (Comer et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2020; Finley, 2023; National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), 2024). However, despite the recognized importance of critical thinking, graduates are perceived by employers as not being adequately prepared (Finley, 2023), and instructors struggle with several practical challenges to teaching critical thinking.

The ambiguity surrounding the definition of and expectations for critical thinking (Moore, 2013; Abrami et al., 2015) can be a source of confusion for both instructors and students, making it difficult to establish clear learning objectives and assessment criteria (Facione, 1990a; Behar-Horenstein and Niu, 2011; Liu and Pasztor, 2022; Heim et al., 2023). This uncertainty manifests in the classroom, where many instructors struggle to both clearly define critical thinking and articulate how it is taught or assessed within their courses (Paul et al., 1997) and can lead to inconsistencies in the instructional methods and expectations across disciplines (Tsui, 2002). If instructors themselves are struggling to define and teach critical thinking, it is unrealistic to expect that students will develop these vital skills through their instruction or on their own (Howard and Sarbaum, 2022). College students and graduates also struggle to clearly identify how or if they have learned critical thinking skills, and this lack of understanding prevents them from both recognizing their own capabilities and effectively communicating these essential skills to potential employers (Arum and Roksa, 2011; Hart Research Associates, 2015).

The lack of training and resources dedicated to critical thinking instruction can inhibit educators from integrating these essential skills into their teaching. Many instructors, while well-versed in their disciplines and explicit in their desire for their students to demonstrate critical thinking skills, report feeling unprepared to teach critical thinking effectively and lack skills and resources to include critical thinking instruction in their courses (Tsui, 2008; Stedman and Adams, 2012; Boyd et al., 2017; Haston, 2020). These challenges often lead instructors to rely on implicit methods of teaching, where skills are woven into discipline-specific courses rather than explicitly articulated (Bellaera et al., 2021).

The expectation that students will acquire critical thinking skills solely through their engagement with regular course material assumes a level of familiarity and prior knowledge that many incoming students may not possess (Huber and Kuncel, 2016). This disconnect and disparity can hinder their ability to engage successfully with the curriculum, leading to feelings of inadequacy and frustration as they struggle to meet implied expectations. Such implicit instruction, while widespread, can perpetuate inequalities, disproportionately disadvantaging students from marginalized backgrounds and exacerbating existing equity gaps within academia (Arum and Roksa, 2011; Roksa et al., 2017).

Addressing this implicit approach is essential, as research demonstrates that explicit instruction yields greater gains in critical thinking compared to embedded or implicit approaches (Abrami et al., 2008; Bangert-Drowns and Bankert, 1990; Marin and Halpern, 2011; Culver et al., 2019). This emphasis on explicit teaching is particularly crucial for first year and first-generation students, who may face additional barriers in their academic journeys (Culver et al., 2019). Such instruction not only empowers students to identify and articulate their critical thinking abilities, allowing for meaningful self-assessment and continuous improvement, but also equips them with the skills necessary to effectively communicate their competencies to potential employers and collaborators. This dual focus on internal development and external communication ensures that students are not only prepared to meet the challenges of their academic pursuits but are also positioned to succeed in their post-graduate careers.

These widespread challenges in critical thinking instruction are reflected in our own institutional context. As part of a wider project to assess the current state of critical thinking education within the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), a faculty survey was conducted to examine instructors’ perceptions and experiences regarding teaching critical thinking in their courses. Responses reflected the aforementioned challenges, the most prevalent being time constraints, instructor training or knowledge, students’ foundational knowledge and skills, defining and identifying critical thinking and how it is perceived, curriculum development, assessment, and student engagement (Sarvary and Schmidt, 2026).

To address these challenges, particularly the need for clear definition and accessible resources that support explicit instruction, we developed an online module to provide students with a foundational understanding of the importance of critical thinking and what critical thinking entails. Our objective - improving students’ confidence in describing what critical thinking entails and why it is important - is operationalized in our hypothesis (see below). Designed for seamless integration into existing courses, the module offers common language and foundational knowledge that instructors can further contextualize to their specific disciplines, and that students can use to identify expectations and opportunities to practice thinking critically. The module was piloted in introductory STEM courses at Cornell University, where we assessed student perceptions of critical thinking before and after completion.

We hypothesized that upon completing the module, students would demonstrate increased confidence in their ability to define critical thinking and articulate its importance to academic success. Specifically, we predicted that while all students would show improved confidence, those with limited prior critical thinking experience would show the greatest gains in their ability to recognize and articulate critical thinking skills and identify opportunities for their application. Additionally, we expected to observe shifts in students’ overall perceptions of critical thinking following module completion.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Module design

The module focuses on two student learning outcomes: 1. students should be able to describe what critical thinking entails, and 2. students should be able to describe why critical thinking is important for their academic success.

We addressed the fundamental challenge of defining critical thinking by synthesizing existing definitions and descriptions (Facione, 1990b; Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009; Lai, 2011; Moore, 2013; Abrami et al., 2015) into a diagnostic definition comprising 13 skills and six dispositions (Table 1). These lists were tailored to align with three of the college’s learning outcomes (CALS Undergraduate Learning Outcomes | CALS, n.d.):

“Find, access, critically evaluate and interpret information, theories and assumptions in one or more major knowledge domains to understand issues, inform decision-making, and reach defensible conclusions.”

“Apply data literacy skills to the preparation, interpretation and development of conclusions with quantitative and qualitative data.”

“Develop and apply problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity and reasoning skills to complex problems to develop and test hypotheses, and propose, critique, and evaluate solutions.”

Table 1

Table 1. Critical thinking skills and dispositions used in the diagnostic definition for the module.

The module was developed in collaboration with the media team at Cornell University’s Center for Teaching Innovation (CTI) and delivered via the learning management system Canvas (Instructure, Salt Lake City, UT). It provides both students and instructors with a functional understanding of critical thinking that serves as a foundation for deeper learning. The module’s discipline-independent approach aligns with research showing that critical thinking development is enhanced through a combination of general and discipline-specific instruction. While discipline-specific applications deepen understanding of distinctive modes of inquiry within a field (Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990a), discipline-independent instruction enables students to recognize and apply universal criteria across contexts (Halpern, 2001) and transfer skills to various real-world scenarios (Ennis, 1989). Our module provides this foundational framework, which instructors can then build upon by contextualizing critical thinking within their specific disciplines.

The module’s online, asynchronous format ensures scalable, early-semester exposure across large introductory courses while minimizing class-time demands. The design complements discipline-specific instruction and follows established principles for effective online learning (Johnson and Aragon, 2003): encouraging social interaction, avoiding information overload, providing hands-on activities, addressing individual differences, encouraging student reflection, creating a real-life context, and motivating the student. To do this, we provided information in multiple formats (short videos, ungraded quizzes, writing exercises and handouts), included opportunities to actively engage with the content as well as a real-life scenario to demonstrate application, and offered several opportunities for reflection and personal connections. Design features include: (a) initial reflection to activate prior knowledge and normalize uncertainty (aligns with LO1–LO2), (b) explicit overview of skills/dispositions, (c) interactive scenario with immediate feedback (aligns with items 3–5), (d) growth mindset messaging, (e) prompts to question ideas from instructors and peers (aligns with items 6–7), and (f) follow-up reflection/action planning.

Structured to be completed in 75 min, the module includes:

1. Initial Reflection: Students are prompted to write about their current understanding of critical thinking and its importance to academic success.

2. Introductory Video: A brief overview of the module and its content.

3. Introduction to Critical Thinking Video: Explanation of the 13 skills and six dispositions, emphasizing their development over time and with practice. Discussion and description of the importance of critical thinking in academia and beyond, how it can be applied to most every life situation, and how its use can vary in different contexts and disciplines.

4. Interactive Scenario: An interactive video presents situations within a hypothetical research scenario, with embedded multiple-choice quiz questions to identify each of the 13 critical thinking skills being used.

5. Wrap-up Video: A summary of the module content and guidance on applying critical thinking in their studies. Reinforcement of the growth mindset approach–that thinking critically develops with practice.

6. Follow-up Reflection: Students reflect on their revised understanding of critical thinking and respond to the same prompts given for the initial reflection. Students are then asked to write about one skill or disposition that they are interested in developing and how they anticipate its application in their class.

Videos include animations created using Powtoon (Powtoon Ltd.), interactive quizzes using H5P (Joubel AS) and PowerPoint slides (Microsoft Corporation). The written reflections are submitted using a Gamut (University of Michigan) workbook. Instructions are provided at the end of the module about how to download the workbook– this is then submitted to the assigning course as proof of completion.

2.2 Assessment of the module

2.2.1 Instrument construction and item mapping

Before starting the module, students completed an anonymous survey in Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) designed to measure their prior experience and assess their current understanding of critical thinking. Each participant was assigned a random ID number, which they were instructed to record for future reference. The post-module survey required students to enter this ID number, ensuring the matching of pre- and post-module responses while maintaining anonymity. The survey included an informed consent form, and participants were given the option to opt in or out of having their responses included in the analysis (reviewed and approved by Cornell University Institutional Review Board: Protocol ID #1906008897). Responses from incomplete surveys, unmatched IDs, and those opting out were excluded from the final analysis.

The pre-module survey measured students’ prior educational experience by asking them to rate their agreement with statements about learning critical thinking in high school and previous college courses (“I have learned about critical thinking in previous college courses.” and “I have learned about critical thinking in high school.”) on a 5-point scale (1 = “not at all,” 2 = “a little,” 3 = “somewhat,” 4 = “highly,” and 5 = “extremely”). The sum of both responses was used to quantify prior experience with critical thinking in our analysis.

In both the pre- and post-module surveys, students rated their confidence in their ability to successfully perform seven items using the same 5-point scale. Items 1 and 2 directly assess the two student learning outcomes, items 3–5 target core skills, and items 6 and 7 target dispositions.

1. Describing the concept of critical thinking to others.

2. Describing how critical thinking is important to learning and academic success.

3. Identifying biases in reasoning.

4. Determining the validity of an argument or line of reasoning.

5. Identifying relevant and credible sources of information.

6. Questioning an idea or concept that has been presented by your instructor.

7. Questioning an idea or concept that has been presented by your classmate.

The pre- and post-module surveys also assessed student perceptions of critical thinking by posing the question, “When you hear the term ‘Critical Thinking’, what are the first three words that come to mind?” and collecting three words via short-answer text boxes.

2.2.2 Validation

Content validity was established through structured review by undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants familiar with the student population (assisting in the Investigative Biology Laboratory course at Cornell University). Student assistants provided written and oral feedback about each question, identified unclear questions, and suggested revisions to improve the language (Vogt et al., 2004).

2.3 Implementation

The module was assigned in six introductory courses offered at Cornell University between August 5, 2022 and September 26, 2023:

• BIOEE 1610: Introductory Biology: Ecology and the Environment (Fall 2022 and Spring 2023)

• BIOMI 1100: Locker Rooms, Kitchens and Bedrooms: The Microbiology of College Life (Fall 2023)

• BIOMI 1120: Microbes, the Earth, and Everything (Spring 2023)

• BIOG 1500: Investigative Biology Laboratory (Fall 2022, Spring 2023, and Fall 2023)

• CHEM 2070: General Chemistry I (Fall 2022 and Spring 2023)

• CHEM 2090: Engineering General Chemistry (Fall 2022).

The module was assigned at the beginning of each course, usually during the first 2 weeks of the semester. A total of 2,600 students were enrolled in these courses and subsequently assigned the module – about 59% (1,536) of these students were first year students, and enrolled students represented over 50 different majors, with Biological Sciences and Human Bio, Health and Society representing the two most common majors (Supplementary Table 1). To preserve anonymity, demographics (e.g., gender, first-generation status, major) were not collected in the survey. 1,640 pre- and post-module responses were successfully matched for students who consented to have their responses included in the analyses. As students were only required to complete the module once, even if it was assigned in more than one of their courses, there were no repeated students in the data set. This discipline-independent design allows students to see how the same set of skills and dispositions can be applied across various contexts and topics.

2.4 Data analysis

2.4.1 Pre- and post-module student confidence and prior critical thinking experience

We ran a standard least squares fixed effects mixed model using restricted maximum likelihood in JMP® Pro 17 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) to analyze our results. The analysis included confidence scores as the dependent variable. Survey time (Pre-Module or Post-Module), item number (1,2,3,4,5,6,7), the prior experience score (2–10), and the possible interactions of those variables were included as the independent variables. The random ID number assigned to each student was included in the model as a random factor.

2.4.2 Pre- and post-module word selection

Words were grouped into topics and quantified using Text iQ in Qualtrics and by the authors (CSc and MS). The top 20 topics were identified in both the pre- and post-module responses and compared.

3 Results

3.1 Prior experience with critical thinking

Students reported a range of experience with learning about critical thinking in high school and in previous college courses (Figure 1). About 26% of students reported no to little experience (i.e., their experience score was ≤2) with critical thinking in high school, and about 48% of students reported no to little experience with critical thinking in previous college courses. An aggregate of high school and college scores demonstrated substantial variation in students’ prior experience with critical thinking at the time that they commenced the module (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Student agreement with the statements, “I have learned about critical thinking in high school” (HS) and “I have learned about critical thinking in previous college courses” (College). 1 = “not at all,” 2 = “a little,” 3 = “somewhat,” 4 = “highly,” 5 = “extremely” (A) and reported prior experience with critical thinking as the sum of student ratings of agreement for these two statements (e.g., 2 = “not at all” for both high school and college, and 10 = “extremely” for both high school and college; B).

3.2 Student confidence ratings

We found that each of our three independent variables and their combinations significantly impacted student confidence scores (Table 2, Figures 2 and 3). Students who reported more prior experience with critical thinking had higher confidence scores in the pre-module survey than those who reported no to little prior experience. Confidence scores increased for every student in the post-module survey, but the increase was much greater for students who had reported less prior experience with critical thinking (Figures 2 and 3). Specifically, confidence scores for our two learning outcomes–ability to describe the concept of critical thinking to others and to describe how critical thinking is important to learning and academic success (items 1 and 2, respectively) were very low for students who reported no to little prior experience with critical thinking (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 2). After completing the module, confidence for these students greatly improved (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 2). The interaction of survey time (pre-module vs. post-module) with prior experience was significant (Table 2); the slopes of the pre-module survey results as a function of prior experience were steeper than in the post-module results. This interaction was primarily driven by items 1 and 2 in the pre-module survey.

Table 2

Table 2. Standard least squares analysis results showing the effects of survey timing (pre- or post-module), prior experience with critical thinking in high school and college, and survey item on student confidence ratings, with student ID as a random factor.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Student self-rating of confidence for the module’s learning outcomes (items 1 and 2): confidence in describing the concept of critical thinking to others (LO 1; A) and describing how critical thinking is important to learning and academic success (LO 2; B) relative to their prior experience with learning about critical thinking in high school and college, before and after completing the module. Confidence was rated on a scale of 1–5 (1 = “not at all,” 2 = “a little,” 3 = “somewhat,” 4 = “highly,” 5 = “extremely”). Prior experience represents the sum of student ratings of agreement for the two statements about learning about critical thinking in previous college courses and in high school (e.g., 2 = “not at all” for both high school and college, and 10 = “extremely” for both high school and college).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Student self-rating of confidence for items 3–7 (1 = “not at all,” 2 = “a little,” 3 = “somewhat,” 4 = “highly,” 5 = “extremely”) relative to their prior experience with learning about critical thinking in high school and college, before and after completing the module. Prior experience represents the sum of student ratings of agreement for the two statements about learning about critical thinking in previous college courses and in high school (e.g., 2 = “not at all” for both high school and college, and 10 = “extremely” for both high school and college).

3.3 Pre- and post-module word selection

Ninety percent of pre-module words and 86% of post-module words were categorized into topics; the remaining 10 and 14% of words were omitted from categorization owing to single representation or significant misspelling. The top 20 pre-module topics represent 61.5% of words submitted (n = 3,024), and the top 20 post-module topics represent 70.4% of words submitted (n = 3,463). “Analysis” was the most prevalent topic both before and after the module, but several topics indicated in pre-module responses were not present in post-module responses, and vice versa (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. The 20 most referenced topics when asked, “When you hear the term ‘Critical Thinking’, what are the first three words that come to mind?” on the pre- and post-module surveys.

4 Discussion

4.1 Conclusion

Critical thinking education faces several persistent challenges, including a lack of explicit definitions, resource limitations for practicing, and assessment and self-assessment challenges (Ennis, 1989; Facione, 1990a). Our module addresses these challenges by providing a structured, scalable, and practical approach for explicitly introducing critical thinking to undergraduate students. To manage time constraints, we designed a module that students can complete independently outside of class. We tackled issues related to definition and assessment by equipping instructors with a diagnostic, functional definition of critical thinking that can be adapted to specific disciplines. Paired with reflective prompts embedded in writing assignments, this definition both aids in student evaluation and addresses curriculum design challenges. Additionally, our module addresses curriculum design and training limitations by functioning as a ready-to-adopt component that integrates seamlessly into existing courses, without requiring modifications. To enhance student engagement, the module uses multiple modalities and provides guidance for connecting critical thinking with larger contexts.

Results from our pre- and post-module surveys are consistent with meta-analytic evidence that explicit, discipline-independent instruction produces reliably larger gains than implicit or embedded approaches. Abrami et al. (2008) and subsequent reviews (e.g., Huber and Kuncel, 2016) show that brief, structured interventions focused on core critical thinking processes and metacognitive monitoring yield improvements, particularly for novices. Pre-module survey results revealed a stark contrast in confidence and understanding of critical thinking between students with limited or no prior experience and those who reported significant exposure. Students with minimal experience self-reported significantly lower levels of confidence and understanding regarding the value of critical thinking and what critical thinking entails. They also reported lower confidence regarding the examples of critical thinking skills and dispositions included in the survey. Consistent with the literature, following the completion of the online module, this gap was effectively eliminated. The post-module results suggest that all students, regardless of their prior exposure, emerged with a comparable level of confidence and understanding.

The shift in students’ selected words reveals a transformation in their understanding of critical thinking following the module. Initially, students associated critical thinking with innate cognitive qualities or difficulty, as suggested by terms like “intelligence,” “hard/difficult,” and “brain/mind.” However, the post-module responses indicate a more nuanced view, as students began emphasizing elements of open-mindedness, analytical processes, and intellectual curiosity. The increased focus on words such as “perspective,” “connection,” “bias,” “information/evidence,” and “ambiguity” suggests that students now view critical thinking as a dynamic, context-sensitive skill that involves evaluating multiple viewpoints and recognizing complexities. Notably, the substantial increase in mentions of “curiosity” (from about 6% pre-module to 23% post-module) underscores the module’s role in fostering an understanding of the engaged and inquisitive foundation of thinking critically. This pattern is consistent with established critical thinking dispositions as operationalized in CCTDI (Facione et al., 1995), suggesting our module not only clarifies processes but may also nudge dispositions toward engagement with evidence, multiple perspectives, and uncertainty.

Our results highlight the importance of structured critical thinking instruction to ensure all students gain a foundational understanding of this essential skill, equipping them for success in both academic and professional pursuits. Notably, over 25% of students in our study reported having no to little experience with learning critical thinking in high school, suggesting that many first-year college students arrive with varying levels of preparation in this area. This finding is supported by the faculty’s perception of the lack of critical thinking skills of their first-year students as they enroll in introductory gateway courses (Sarvary and Schmidt, 2026). This study demonstrates that even a simple intervention, which employs the explicit teaching of critical thinking principles and practices, can provide students with a shared foundation, enabling all learners to build confidence in recognizing and valuing critical thinking.

To our knowledge, few studies have evaluated a brief, online, discipline-independent onboarding module that targets a functional definition of critical thinking and assesses immediate changes in confidence and conceptual framing across multiple introductory STEM courses. Most prior work embeds instruction within single courses and emphasizes standardized performance tests (Facione, 1990a,b; Halpern, 2001), which limits direct comparison; accordingly, we benchmark our outcomes against meta-analytic evidence (Abrami et al., 2008; Huber and Kuncel, 2016).

Our approach prioritizes scalable onboarding and a shared vocabulary for students, assessing self-reported confidence and word associations rather than course-specific skill testing. We interpret the observed pre–post equalization as complementary evidence that explicit, discipline-independent onboarding can rapidly enhance students’ perceived readiness to engage in critical thinking.

Our findings contribute theoretically by demonstrating that a functional, discipline-independent definition paired with metacognitive prompts can rapidly reshape students’ conceptualization of critical thinking—shifting from ability-centric notions to process- and disposition-oriented framings. This aligns with transfer-oriented accounts that emphasize explicit strategy instruction and metacognitive monitoring as prerequisites for cross-context application (Halpern, 1998; Abrami et al., 2008).

Building on this foundation, students are better positioned to develop the skills and dispositions necessary for intellectual independence and success in academic and professional endeavors. Furthermore, shifting critical thinking into explicit instruction has important implications for equity in higher education: by explicitly teaching critical thinking skills and fostering their application in diverse contexts, we aim to mitigate disparities associated with implicit instruction and cultural biases and create an inclusive learning environment where all students can thrive.

4.2 Limitations and future work

Because our outcomes are self-reported, gains may reflect shifts in perceived readiness and conceptual framing rather than measurable performance, underscoring the need to triangulate with validated performance assessments in future work. We did not include a control group or randomized assignment, limiting causal inference. Future studies should evaluate durability (multi-week/month follow-ups), transfer (application in course tasks), and equity outcomes using validated performance measures (CCTST, HCTA, course-embedded assessments) and demographic data.

Data availability statement

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

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Cornell University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

CSc: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. JS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. CSp: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by The Center for Teaching Innovation at Cornell University supported the development of this module through an Innovative Teaching and Learning Award.

Acknowledgments

The Authors thank the Center for Teaching Innovation at Cornell University for supporting the development of this module through an Innovative Teaching and Learning Award. Critical Thinking Working Group members (A. Drake, J. Cohen, C. Kinsland, A. Bracy, D. Deitcher, C. Kraft, T. Silva) and CTI staff (B. Moss, K. Ionova, S. Petchenyi, Z. Butler, S. Sutanont, C. Aslan, K. Landy) contributed to module development. BIOG 1500 students provided feedback during early development and assisted with survey instrument validation. C. Kinsland, K. Hefferon, X. Xu, and R. Howarth piloted the module in their courses. S. Byrne and D. Sempler provided additional support. Two reviewers provided thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1689765/full#supplementary-material

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., and Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arum, R., and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). Critical thinking VALUE rubric. Available online at: https://www.aacu.org/initiatives/value-initiative/value-rubrics/value-rubrics-critical-thinking (Accessed September 15, 2021).

Google Scholar

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., and Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. J. Curric. Stud. 31, 285–302. doi: 10.1080/002202799183133

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., and Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED328614 (Accessed April 10, 2024).

Google Scholar

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., and Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: a review of the literature. J. College Teach. Learn. (TLC) 8, 25–41. doi: 10.19030/tlc.v8i2.3554

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bellaera, L., Weinstein-Jones, Y., Ilie, S., and Baker, S. T. (2021). Critical thinking in practice: the priorities and practices of instructors teaching in higher education. Think. Skills Creat. 41:100856. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100856

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyd, B. L., Dooley, K. E., and Kurten, J. S. (2017). Creating a faculty cadre of critical thinking fellows. NACTA J. 61, 202–207. Available online at: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=ba497154-ac02-3d89-bfab-9a993ee821b9 (Accessed January 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

CALS Undergraduate Learning Outcomes | CALS. (n.d.). Available online at: https://cals.cornell.edu/undergraduate-students/cals-student-services/academic-resources/cals-undergraduate-learning-outcomes (Accessed January 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Comer, R. D., Schweiger, T. A., and Shelton, P. (2019). Impact of students’ strengths, critical thinking skills and disposition on academic success in the first year of a PharmD program. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 83:6499. doi: 10.5688/ajpe6499,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Culver, K. C., Braxton, J., and Pascarella, E. (2019). Does teaching rigorously really enhance undergraduates’ intellectual development? The relationship of academic rigor with critical thinking skills and lifelong learning motivations. High. Educ. 78, 611–627. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00361-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ. Res. 18, 4–10. doi: 10.2307/1174885

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (1990a). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Newark: American Philosophical Association.

Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (1990b). The California critical thinking skills test -- college level technical report #1 experimental validation and content validity. Milbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Google Scholar

Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., and Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. J. Gen. Educ. 44, 1–25. Available online at: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=4b721188-b86b-3239-8fe7-9c6805dc58ff (Accessed November 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

Finley, A. P. (2023). The career ready graduate: what employers say about the difference college makes Association of American Colleges & universities. Available online at: https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Research/PDFs/AACU-2023-Employer-Report.pdf (Accessed January 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J. Gen. Educ. 50, 270–286. doi: 10.1353/jge.2001.0024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol. 53, 449–455. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. Available online at: https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Research/PDFs/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf (Accessed January 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

Haston, A. L. (2020). Critical thinking in higher education STEM: a qualitative faculty perspective. Columbus: Franklin University.

Google Scholar

Heim, A. B., Esparza, D., Holmes, N. G., and Smith, M. K. (2023). Comparing study features is easy but identifying next steps is hard: evaluating critical thinking through the biology lab inventory of critical thinking in ecology. Ecol. Evol. 13:e10071. doi: 10.1002/ece3.10071,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Howard, E., and Sarbaum, J. (2022). Addressing study skills, learning theory and critical thinking skills in principles of economics courses. Front. Educ. 7. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.770464

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huber, C. R., and Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 431–468. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Johnson, S. D., and Aragon, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2003, 31–43. doi: 10.1002/ace.117

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s research reports. 6, 40–41.

Google Scholar

Liu, Y., and Pasztor, A. (2022). Effects of problem-based learning instructional intervention on critical thinking in higher education: a meta-analysis. Think. Skills Creat. 45:101069. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101069

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marin, L. M., and Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Think. Skills Creat. 6, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a concept. Stud. High. Educ. 38, 506–522. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.586995

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) (2024). What is career readiness? Available online at: https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/ (Accessed July 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Paul, R. W., Elder, L., and Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in critical thinking: research findings and policy recommendations. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED437379 (Accessed September 18, 2024).

Google Scholar

Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P., and Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitive ability: evidence from adults and children. Intelligence 82:101487. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roksa, J., Trolian, T. L., Pascarella, E. T., Kilgo, C. A., Blaich, C., and Wise, K. S. (2017). Racial inequality in critical thinking skills: the role of academic and diversity experiences. Res. High. Educ. 58, 119–140. doi: 10.1007/s11162-016-9423-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarvary, M. A., and Schmidt, C. M. (2026). Perceptions, pedagogies, and challenges in critical thinking education. A faculty perspective. Front. Educ. in press

Google Scholar

Stedman, N. L. P., and Adams, B. L. (2012). Identifying faculty’s knowledge of critical thinking concepts and perceptions of critical thinking instruction in higher education. NACTA J. 56, 9–14. Available online at: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b2a61c3f-ff7a-31e1-9f8c-8de3647a2248 (Accessed on January 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: evidence from four institutional case studies. J. High. Educ. 73, 740–763. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0056

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsui, L. (2008). Cultivating critical thinking: insights from an elite liberal arts college. J. Gen. Educ. 56, 200–227. doi: 10.2307/27798080

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vogt, D. S., King, D. W., and King, L. A. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol. Assess. 16, 231–243. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.231

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar