You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Intelligence
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

22 May 2025

Determining Factors for the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

,
,
,
,
and
1
PhD Program, Doctorado en Educación y Estudios Sociales, Tecnológico de Antioquia Institución Universitaria, Medellín 050034, Colombia
2
Psychology Program, Tecnológico de Antioquia Institución Universitaria, Medellín 050034, Colombia
3
Social Work Program, Tecnológico de Antioquia Institución Universitaria, Medellín 050034, Colombia
4
Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Forenses, Tecnológico de Antioquia Institución Universitaria, Medellín 050034, Colombia
J. Intell.2025, 13(6), 59;https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13060059
This article belongs to the Special Issue The Formation and Evaluation of Critical and Creative Thinking for Good Personal, Academic and Professional Performance in These New Times
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study arises from the growing need to train professionals capable of confronting and analyzing the overabundance of information in an increasingly complex world, where critical thinking is seen as an indispensable skill for informed decision making and problem solving. To this end, a systematic narrative review methodology was applied to the scientific literature, compiling data from various international databases. The results reveal that physiological factors (memory, attention, nutrition and physical activity), psychological factors (cognitive biases, fear of ambiguity, and metacognition), sociocultural factors (diversity, inequality, and cultural norms), technological factors (digitalization, use of AI, and digital literacy), and educational factors (active pedagogical strategies and collaborative work) play a determining role in the development of critical thinking in higher education. The discussion emphasizes the complex interaction between these factors and underscores the need for holistic approaches that strengthen both cognitive competencies and emotional well-being. In conclusion, we recommend designing comprehensive training interventions that consider the identified factors, promoting inclusive and reflective environments, aimed at developing critical, autonomous graduates capable of facing contemporary challenges.

1. Introduction

Critical thinking has established itself as an essential component of higher education, particularly in contexts where the overabundance of information demands skills of discernment and rigorous assessment (; ; ). Various authors agree that this competency involves the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information, questioning assumptions and contrasting multiple perspectives in order to make informed judgments (; ; ; ; ).
Despite its recognized importance, the scientific literature highlights multiple challenges to its development. These include the predominance of traditional pedagogical methodologies, the lack of attention paid to metacognitive skills, and gaps in teacher training, as factors that limit students’ reflective potential (; ; ; ). Furthermore, cultural differences and variations in available technological resources can significantly influence students’ ability to question assumptions and deeply analyze the information they receive (; ; ). Similarly, recent studies point to the importance of motivation, autonomy, and a willingness to collaborate as key elements that can enhance or, conversely, hinder the acquisition of critical skills (; ; ).
In parallel, the increasing digitalization of higher education institutions has highlighted the need to integrate technological tools not only as a means of accessing information but also as a means of developing reflective thinking processes, since their instrumental use can lead to superficial learning practices (; ; ). Meanwhile, research on pedagogical strategies confirms the importance of participatory and collaborative methodologies, such as problem-based learning or project-based learning, to encourage the confrontation of ideas and the evaluation of arguments, which are intrinsic dimensions of critical thinking (; ; ). However, these initiatives require an institutional environment that values inquiry and debate, as well as teachers prepared to guide and provide feedback on complex reasoning processes (; ; ; ).
Along these lines, the measurement of critical thinking is also a source of debate for determining a skill’s level of development. Recent research shows that scores on the most commonly used tests share a substantial portion of variance with general cognitive abilities, especially fluid intelligence described in the tri-stratum model (, ; ). Furthermore, existing instruments are based on heterogeneous theoretical frameworks, reasoning skills, dispositions, and problem solving, which lead to poorly comparable results and limit the accumulation of convergent evidence. It has also been argued that many items rely on declarative knowledge or vocabulary, introducing cultural and linguistic variance that contaminates the scores obtained (). These moderate-high correlations persist even when controlling for executive functions, suggesting partial redundancy between the constructs of CT and general cognitive ability (). These findings underscore the need for more rigorous assessment strategies that isolate the unique contribution of CP and strengthen its convergent and discriminant validity in future studies ().
Based on this problem, the objective of this study was to analyze the factors that positively or negatively influence the development of critical thinking in higher education students, considering both individual variables—motivation, metacognitive skills, and cognitive autonomy—and contextual elements, such as teaching practices, institutional culture, and technological resources, that shape the educational environment. The aim is to provide a framework that guides the essential elements in the design of more effective interventions and training programs for critical thinking, promoting the development of graduates with the ability to reason reflectively in increasingly complex contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

This research conducted a systematic, narrative review of scientific literature (; ). The phases developed the research question, the determination of the criteria to be investigated, bibliographical search in indexed journals, screening, and finally, the analysis and writing of the subject in question (). The objective of the study was to analyze the factors that positively or negatively influence the development of critical thinking in higher education students. This information will allow for the optimization of educational processes by implementing strategies or programs that efficiently promote critical thinking (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Flowchart for research selection. During the identification phase, international databases were consulted, allowing us to retrieve 177 records corresponding to studies published between 2020–2025. Of these, 110 were written in English (62%) and 67 in Spanish (38%). In the screening phase, automatic and manual filters were applied. First, 36 duplicate records (20.3%) were eliminated, which refers to studies repeated in the different databases, obtaining 141 unique references. Titles, abstracts, and article content were then reviewed; in this stage, 58 incomplete records were discarded (corresponding to no access to the full text or with insufficient methodological data), equivalent to 41.1% of the articles evaluated. Finally, 83 studies met the minimum quality criteria and were entered into the data matrix, forming the basis for the eligibility and qualitative synthesis phases.
While this review focuses on the factors that determine the development of critical thinking (CT), it recognizes the existence of a larger body of work devoted to other generic cognitive skills, for example, academic communication, decision making, and creativity, which have also been the subject of recent syntheses (). The literature compares these competencies under the umbrella of “generic skills”, emphasizing that each has specific training trajectories and pedagogical strategies (). In contrast, this analysis delimits CT as a central construct because (a) it exhibits a consensus on its cross-cutting relevance, and (b) it presents its own methodological controversies, especially regarding measurement, which require a focused approach.
However, to distinguish this review from larger studies, two criteria were adopted. First, we included only research that explicitly analyzes CT and reports its links with physiological, psychological, sociocultural, technological, and educational variables, excluding works that address generic skills in an aggregated manner. Second, we contrasted the findings with contemporary models of transversal competency development, which made it possible to identify points of convergence, for example, the role of cognitive self-regulation and areas where CT displays differential patterns, such as its dependence on formal argumentation tasks and evidence evaluation (; ). This provides a specialized synthesis that, while engaging with the broader skills agenda in higher education, delves into the methodological and conceptual challenges inherent to critical thinking.

2.1. Phase 1 Study Criteria

-
Research question: What are the factors that influence the development of critical thinking in higher education students?
-
Design: Qualitative, quantitative or mixed studies were collected.
-
Categories: studies on physiological, cognitive, psychological, athletic, educational, emotional, technological, social, and cultural factors that influence the development of critical thinking in higher education.
-
Search fields used: all text (all text), title (title), subject headings (subject terms). First, the exact search was used with quotation marks. Subsequently, the Boolean “and” and “or” were used to refine the search. The Boolean “not” was also used to exclude unrelated or contextual searches.
-
Participants: higher education students.
-
Language: studies written in Spanish and English.
-
Time range: studies carried out between 2020–2025.
-
Exclusion: Incomplete documents (without access to the full text or with insufficient methodological data) or those applied to child, adolescent, or disabled student populations were not taken into consideration.
-
Electronic databases: Proquest, Cengage, Scopus, EBSCOhost, Redalyc, Dialnet, Cengage Learning, ERIC, Springer, WOS, Elsevier, JURN, Teseo, World Wide Science, ASSIA, Google Scholar, Doaj, Gale Powers, and APA PsycInfo.

2.2. Phase 2 Instruments

Data logging. The information was structured in an Excel database, linking the following categories in a matrix: year, source, location, language, reference, study title, design, study category, associated subcategory, abstract, problem, objective, theoretical references, type of methodology, methodology, design, results, and conclusions. Consequently, a flowchart based on the prism method was constructed, synthesizing the collected information.

2.3. Phase 3 Data Analysis

In this final stage of the methodological design, content analysis was used. Thus, the main analysis process was qualitative coding through the identification of units of meaning, the creation of categories, and their classification ().

3. Results

The results of the quantitative synthesis of the 83 studies included are presented below. Overall, the quantitative synthesis of the literature reveals an uneven landscape in the attention that different studies pay to each determining dimension of critical thinking in higher education. See Table 1. Of the total of 83 studies in the sample, 28 (33.7%) focus on psychological factors, confirming the priority that current research gives to processes such as metacognition, motivation, and attentional control. These are followed in magnitude by works that address educational variables (18 studies; 21.7%) and technological variables (17 studies; 20.5%), indicating that the quality of teaching methodologies and digital mediation are considered key levers for strengthening critical thinking at the university level. Sociocultural factors, represented by 13 studies (15.7%), appear in the background, highlighting the influence of access to resources, cultural diversity, and the participatory dynamics of the environment. Finally, only seven studies (8.4%) explore physiological variables, such as sleep, nutrition or physical activity, which reveals a still nascent area and suggests the need to more strongly integrate the dimension of physical well-being in future explanatory models.
Table 1. Results and emerging categories of the selected studies.
For a detailed view of the findings, five separate tables are included below (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6); each one compiles studies corresponding to one of the identified factors (physiological, psychological, sociocultural, technological, and educational), specifying the author, year, and title of the study.
Table 2. Studies on physiological factors that influence critical thinking.
Table 3. Studies on psychological factors related to the development of critical thinking.
Table 4. Studies on sociocultural factors in strengthening critical thinking.
Table 5. Studies on technological factors and their influence on critical thinking.
Table 6. Studies on educational factors and pedagogical strategies for critical thinking.

Key Observations

Predominance of internal factors: More than a third of the evidence focuses on psychological variables, reflecting the centrality assigned to cognitive-affective processes (metacognition, motivation, attentional control) in explaining critical thinking (CT).
Importance of the pedagogical dimension: Educational and technological factors account for 42% of the studies, highlighting that the design of learning experiences and digital mediation are strategic levers for enhancing CT in universities.
Less attention paid to physiological factors: Only 8% of the studies address basic variables, such as sleep, nutrition, or physical activity, despite growing evidence that they influence cognitive self-regulation; a niche for future research is identified here.
Ecosystemic view: The presence of sociocultural factors (15.7%) indicates that the context—access to resources, diversity, and democratic culture—modulates the effectiveness of pedagogical and technological interventions, suggesting the need for integrated approaches.
Thematic balance with respect to the total number of studies reviewed (n = 83): the percentage distribution confirms that, although research interest is relatively balanced between educational/technological and psychological dimensions, there are underexplored areas (physiological) that could enrich holistic models on the development of CT.
The study’s results reveal a complex interrelationship between multiple factors that, together, determine the development of critical thinking in higher education. First, physiological factors, such as sleep quality, nutrition, and physical activity, are shown to be fundamental for sustaining information processing and retention, establishing the cognitive foundation necessary to address complex problems. Psychological factors are also found, showing that the presence of cognitive biases and fear of ambiguity can limit analytical capacity, while metacognition acts as a tool to counteract these limitations, promoting a more objective evaluation of information.
On the other hand, sociocultural factors highlight the importance of the context in which students develop, since diversity, inequalities, and cultural norms shape environments that can either foster or restrict the development of critical skills. Similarly, technological advances, measured through digitalization, the use of artificial intelligence, and digital literacy, offer new opportunities and challenges, depending on their integration into the educational process. Thus, educational factors, evidenced in the implementation of active pedagogical strategies and the promotion of collaborative work, are positioned as key elements for transforming the interaction of all these factors into meaningful learning, capable of producing critical, autonomous graduates prepared to face contemporary challenges.
Therefore, the relevance of the findings lies in the confirmation that the development of critical thinking is a multifactorial process in which each dimension—physiological, psychological, sociocultural, technological, and educational—contributes in an indispensable way to the comprehensive development of the student. This holistic approach not only allows for the identification of specific areas of intervention but also guides the design of innovative pedagogical strategies that strengthen both cognitive competencies and emotional well-being, making it crucial for the preparation of professionals capable of navigating and transforming complex environments.

4. Discussion

The systematic review conducted identified key factors that influence the development of critical thinking in higher education. The following section addresses the most relevant findings. This provides a clearer view of how different variables can enhance or hinder students’ ability to rigorously reflect on and evaluate information, laying the foundation for a more comprehensive understanding of this educational process.

4.1. Physiological Factors

The development of critical thinking in higher education students is profoundly influenced by a series of interrelated physiological factors, including sleep quality, nutrition, and physical activity. These elements form a complex network that directly impacts the cognitive abilities necessary to thoughtfully address complex problems and make informed decisions (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Physiological factors that determine the development of critical thinking in higher education students.
Sleep disturbances, excess, restriction, and, even more crucially, poor quality of sleep, impair key cognitive processes for critical thinking among college students by decreasing sustained attention, weakening working memory, and dysregulating emotional responses (; ). This triple disruption generates a cycle in which daytime sleepiness and fatigue increase mental workload, elevate stress, and induce low-grade systemic inflammation, thus deepening difficulties in decision making and diminishing academic performance. Therefore, safeguarding both the duration and quality of rest is emerging as a decisive factor in preserving cognitive resilience and sustaining higher-order reasoning in higher education (; ).
On the other hand, a proper and balanced diet, especially rich in omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants, strengthens basic cognitive functions, such as memory, concentration, and problem solving, thus promoting analytical and critical thinking skills (; ). Nutritional deficiencies can reduce cognitive capacity, affecting mental clarity and limiting the ability to perform critical analysis (). Another factor is regular physical activity, which improves the brain’s executive functions, such as inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility, which are essential elements for effective critical thinking (; ).
In this regard, the design of effective pedagogical strategies must comprehensively consider these physiological factors, not only to enhance academic skills but also to foster emotional and cognitive well-being, which is essential for developing individuals capable of successfully facing critical and complex challenges in the future. Additionally, the authors of this study consider it relevant to mention that the search strategy also included terms related to alcohol and drug use, hydration status, chronic diseases, and genetic indicators. However, no studies within the last 5 years were located that evaluated their specific impact on critical thinking in higher education students, so they did not meet the inclusion criteria. This reveals an empirical gap, where the absence of research directly linking these factors with the development of critical thinking constitutes a priority for future studies.

4.2. Psychological Factors

Through the studies analyzed, it was possible to infer that the development of critical thinking is conditioned by various psychological factors (; ; ) (Figure 3). First, attention control allows us to focus on relevant information and filter out distractions, increasing the effectiveness of critical analysis (). Although the relationship between attention and critical thinking can be complex, the ability to maintain focus is crucial for developing deep understanding and performing rigorous evaluations of information (; ).
Figure 3. Psychological factors that determine the development of critical thinking in higher education students.
In this sense, the practice of sustained attention strengthens the connection with academic content, increasing students’ reflective and analytical capacities when faced with complex problems, thus facilitating more informed decision making (). Additionally, working memory facilitates the efficient retention and manipulation of information during complex cognitive tasks, allowing for the simultaneous integration of multiple knowledge elements, which is essential for critical problem solving ().
Additionally, a series of recent studies highlights the impact of cognitive biases, including confirmation bias, which leads students to prioritize information consistent with their prior beliefs, thus limiting their capacity for objective and balanced analysis. This inclination toward pre-existing confirmation not only affects the objectivity of judgment but also hinders the critical evaluation of contradictory evidence, a crucial aspect in advanced academic contexts (; ).
Closely related to the above, the fear of ambiguity is another significant psychological factor identified by various researchers. Students from educational environments predominantly focused on certain and concrete answers have a lower tolerance for ambiguous situations, which are inherent to critical thinking activities (; ). This discomfort with uncertainty can generate psychological resistance to academic tasks that demand complex analysis and tolerance for contradiction or ambivalence ().
On the other hand, framing effects, how information is presented or formulated, play a central role in the activation of critical thinking processes. It has been observed that different modes of presentation can distort or favor students’ rational evaluation, impacting their academic decisions and analytical skills (; ). This phenomenon indicates that the quality of critical thinking depends not only on individual competencies but also on contextual factors that regulate the interpretation and processing of information ().
In parallel, metacognition consistently emerges as an essential determinant in promoting critical thinking. Recent studies underline that the conscious application of metacognitive strategies, such as continuous self-assessment and reflective questioning, facilitates better monitoring and regulation of cognitive processes in university students (; ; ; ). Furthermore, pedagogical methods, such as problem-based learning (PBL) and structured discussions, reinforce metacognitive capacity, allowing students to identify gaps in their understanding, systematically evaluate evidence, and actively refine their reasoning processes (; ).
The influence of personal attitudes and beliefs toward critical thinking has also been widely highlighted in contemporary research. In particular, a willingness to engage in cognitive reflection and a value for evidence-based reasoning are significantly correlated with improved critical thinking skills and higher academic achievement (; ). Educational interventions aimed at promoting positive attitudes toward critical thinking, especially those focused on how to think rather than what to think, demonstrate effective results in terms of developing analytical skills, tolerance for ambiguity, and cognitive flexibility (; ; ).
From an emotional dimension, anxiety emerges as a relevant physiological factor, since high levels of generalized anxiety can significantly reduce academic self-efficacy and hinder the development of critical thinking by limiting deep and reflective participation in complex learning processes (; ). Excessive worry in higher education students can hinder critical thinking capacity by generating a constant state of alert that overloads working memory and reduces cognitive flexibility (). This emotional overstimulation makes it difficult to objectively evaluate information and formulate reasoned judgments, since students tend to focus on potential threats rather than analyzing data in a reflective and systematic manner ().
Likewise, psychological well-being is emerging as an increasingly relevant factor in the context of critical thinking. Recent research shows that dimensions of well-being, such as self-acceptance, control over one’s environment, and a clearly defined purpose, correlate positively with a more open and resilient disposition toward critical thinking (; ; ). Intrinsic motivation is also key, as it fosters active and reflective learning, increasing students’ willingness to confront deep and complex cognitive challenges (; ). In contrast, sustained emotional stress and a lack of motivation negatively affect the depth and quality of the intellectual engagement required to critically analyze complex concepts and problems (; ).
Additionally, mastery of logic and problem-solving tasks completes the picture of key psychological factors that foster critical thinking in the university setting. Specific training in logic increases students’ analytical skills, allowing them to effectively distinguish valid from invalid arguments and adequately evaluate the evidence presented (; ). Frequent participation in tasks that pose unconventional challenges fosters the ability to differentiate relevant from irrelevant information, thereby strengthening the skills associated with critical thinking ().

4.3. Sociocultural Factors

The interaction between the social environment, the educational context, and cultural diversity creates a complex framework in which critical thinking is not only encouraged but also conditioned by prevailing structures (; ) (Figure 4). While formal education is an essential vehicle for its development, the influence of teaching systems, institutional regulations, and pedagogical practices cannot be understood in isolation, as they depend on how society values questioning, analysis, and intellectual autonomy (; ).
Figure 4. Sociocultural factors that determine the development of critical thinking in higher education students.
A central aspect that emerges from the studies is the relationship between socioeconomic status and opportunities to develop critical thinking (). The availability of resources, access to trained teachers, and the opportunity to participate in enriching educational experiences create a scenario where students from advantaged backgrounds tend to show a greater willingness to engage in argumentation and critical analysis (; ). However, this relationship is not deterministic, as other factors, such as the learning culture in the classroom, can counteract or enhance these conditions. An educational environment that encourages active participation and uncertainty-based learning can compensate for economic inequalities and provide spaces where students develop more complex reasoning strategies (; ).
In this sense, cultural diversity in the classroom emerges as an ambivalent factor. On the one hand, exposure to multiple perspectives enriches students’ ability to evaluate different points of view and formulate stronger arguments (; ). However, diversity also introduces challenges, especially when cultural differences generate communication barriers or when pedagogical strategies are not designed to equitably integrate all the voices present in the classroom. In contexts where homogenization of discourses prevails, the capacity for critical thinking can be restricted, limiting the transformative potential that cultural diversity could bring to higher education (; ).
Another relevant aspect is the relationship between critical thinking and the cultural norms that regulate social interaction. In societies where questioning authority is discouraged or where education prioritizes memorization over reflection, students may encounter obstacles in developing advanced analytical skills (; ). The tension between the hierarchical structure of certain educational models and the need to foster critical thinking is evident in disciplines such as law, where educational systems that incorporate argumentation and critical analysis into the curriculum offer a more conducive framework for its development. However, when cultural norms favor obedience and passive learning, the possibilities of fostering a critical mindset are significantly limited ().
Consequently, the interaction between economic, cultural, and educational factors demonstrates that critical thinking does not develop in a vacuum, but rather in a complex ecosystem where higher education plays a crucial, but not exclusive, role. Educational systems that promote flexible learning environments, active methodologies, and an argument-based approach can counteract certain limitations imposed by socioeconomic or cultural factors. However, when education is treated as a commodified product or when power structures limit the ability to question and generate new ideas, the possibilities of consolidating critical thinking are restricted. In this context, it is imperative that pedagogical strategies not only address the teaching of critical thinking as a set of isolated skills, but also consider the social conditions that influence its development (; ).

4.4. Technological Factors

Digital tools have been shown to enhance students’ analytical and reflective abilities by providing access to diverse sources of information and facilitating interaction with multiple perspectives (Figure 5). The role of digitalization in educational processes introduces a novel dimension to the analysis of critical thinking (). The growing reliance on technological tools can expand opportunities for accessing knowledge and strengthening certain cognitive abilities, but it can also generate dynamics of information dependence that reduce students’ ability to analyze independently (; ).
Figure 5. Technological factors that determine the development of critical thinking in higher education students.
In this context, this positive impact is not without challenges, as overexposure to unverified information and dependence on automated technologies can hinder the capacity for independent reasoning and informed decision making (; ). Furthermore, interaction with memory technologies modifies reasoning processes, which can enhance or restrict the development of critical thinking, depending on the use made of these resources (). In this sense, the digitalization of education should not be interpreted solely as a step forward, but as a phenomenon that redefines the conditions under which students exercise their critical thinking.
The use of technological innovations in higher education has shown an improvement in the effectiveness of critical thinking, increasing students’ professional preparation and strengthening their ability to critically evaluate information (). However, massive access to digital information also generates tensions, since the proliferation of misinformation can hinder the formation of informed judgments and encourage uncritical consumption of content (; ; ). In this context, digital literacy becomes a key factor, since its adequate implementation not only mitigates the risks associated with misinformation but also optimizes academic performance by allowing a more reflective use of digital resources (; ).
The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on critical thinking is mixed. On the one hand, AI tools can improve data analysis, problem solving, and decision making by automating complex processes and providing immediate feedback (; ). However, overreliance on these systems can reduce active engagement in learning, leading to a decrease in students’ willingness to question and reflect autonomously. Furthermore, the reliability and accuracy of AI models raise ethical and epistemological concerns that impact the development of critical skills, as students may internalize information without a rigorous assessment process (; ).
Likewise, digital learning platforms have shown a varied impact on the development of critical thinking. While they facilitate access to interactive educational materials and foster student engagement, their influence on academic performance is not directly related to an improvement in critical thinking skills. This suggests that the use of technology in the classroom, without an appropriate pedagogical approach, may not be sufficient to substantially enhance critical thinking (; ). In this sense, the integration of mobile applications, educational games, and e-learning platforms can promote collaborative environments that stimulate critical thinking, provided there is an orientation that encourages reflection and intellectual autonomy in students ().
Based on the above, the impact of digitalization on higher education highlights the need for pedagogical strategies that balance access to technology with the strengthening of metacognitive skills. While the appropriate use of digital tools can enrich teaching and civic participation by developing analytical and evaluation skills, their application without adequate pedagogical mediation can lead to technological dependence that weakens students’ critical thinking skills (). In this way, technology is not an end in itself, but a means that, when used strategically, can transform education and strengthen the development of critical citizens in a digitalized society (; ).

4.5. Educational Factors

The development of critical thinking (CT) in higher education students has been the subject of detailed analysis in various research studies, which point to the essential role of active pedagogy methodologies in the development of critical skills (; ) (Figure 6). These investigations agree that the use of strategies, such as problem-based learning (PBL), case studies, and inquiry-based learning (IBL), is essential to foster CT, since these methodologies allow students to face complex situations that require in-depth analysis, reasoning and argumentation, thus favoring the development of advanced cognitive skills (; ). Furthermore, these strategies promote active student participation in the learning process, allowing them to question, reflect and construct their own arguments, which is essential for critical thinking (; ; ; ; ).
Figure 6. Educational factors that determine the development of critical thinking in higher education students.
A constant in the reviewed studies is the importance of collaborative work as a key factor for the development of CT. Interaction between peers in debate and discussion spaces not only encourages deep reflection but also enriches students’ ability to question and analyze different perspectives on the same topic, a process that is closely linked to the improvement of thinking (; ). Furthermore, the use of pedagogical techniques such as teamwork, debate, and joint reflection allows students to develop argumentation, analysis, and problem-solving skills, skills that are fundamental components of CT (; ; ).
A prominent aspect of several studies is the influence of teaching methodology in fostering critical thinking. The predominant use of traditional teaching methods, based on lectures, limits students’ opportunities to practice and develop critical thinking skills (; ). In contrast, methods that encourage active participation and reflection, such as the use of paradoxes or the promotion of debate, prove to be more effective in stimulating problem-solving skills and informed decision making (; ). Research indicates that teachers, although aware of the importance of critical thinking, must rethink their teaching strategies to provide spaces where students can question, analyze, and reflect more deeply on the topics covered (; ).
The use of digital technologies in the classroom is another factor that has been shown to have a positive impact on the development of critical thinking. The incorporation of interactive tools and digital platforms fosters more flexible and dynamic learning, allowing students to access information, reflect on it, and make decisions based on critical analysis (). Interactive learning not only improves students’ digital competence but also enhances their ability to critically evaluate and reflect on different sources of information. In this way, technologies act as a catalyst for the development of CT by offering new forms of interaction and reflection ().
Furthermore, the use of recreational activities has emerged as a crucial factor in fostering critical thinking. Various studies have shown that game dynamics, such as role-playing games or group problem-solving activities, are extremely effective in developing logical reasoning, decision-making, and critical analysis skills (). These recreational activities not only encourage creativity and free thinking but also promote active participation and dynamic learning, essential elements for the development of CT. The interaction and analysis that occur in the recreational context facilitate the construction of new knowledge and the development of advanced cognitive skills (; ).
The use of explicit pedagogical approaches to integrate critical thinking into the curriculum has proven to be an important factor in its development. An explicit approach to critical thinking involves intentional and systematic teaching of critical skills, in which students are guided through structured processes of reflection, analysis, and argumentation. This type of teaching not only improves academic performance but also strengthens students’ cognitive skills and critical dispositions. Research has found that an explicit focus on critical thinking significantly improves students’ skills, helping them develop fundamental competencies for addressing complex problems in diverse areas of knowledge (; ).

5. Conclusions

The study shows that the development of critical thinking in higher education students is a multifactorial process, in which physiological, psychological, sociocultural, technological, and educational dimensions converge interdependently. The ability to process complex information and make informed decisions is based on elements such as working memory and attention control, which allow for the retention and manipulation of relevant data. However, these cognitive functions are modulated by emotional and physical factors, such as adequate nutrition, physical activity, and the practice of sustained attention, which together strengthen academic performance. Furthermore, high levels of anxiety can diminish self-efficacy, hindering the reflective approach to complex problems and generating a negative cycle in the disposition for critical analysis.
Similarly, psychological determinants, including cognitive biases and fear of ambiguity, shape students’ predisposition toward self-assessment and metacognitive regulation. The conscious application of metacognitive strategies is essential to counteract these biases, allowing for more objective reflection and critical evaluation of information, which translates into better academic performance. In parallel, sociocultural factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, cultural diversity, and applied educational practices, generate contexts that can enhance or limit the development of critical skills, underscoring the importance of promoting inclusive and participatory environments.
Digitalization and the use of technologies in education emerge as a dual component, offering valuable resources for accessing information and collaborative interaction, but also posing challenges related to information dependence and the spread of misinformation. Digital literacy and adequate pedagogical mediation are essential to guide students toward reflective and autonomous use of technological tools. Similarly, the implementation of innovative pedagogical methodologies, such as problem-based learning, case studies, and collaborative work, allows not only for the strengthening of advanced cognitive skills but also for the explicit integration of critical thinking into the curriculum.
In conclusion, the research highlights the need to adopt a holistic approach to the design of educational programs or strategies, one that harmoniously and synergistically integrates the various factors that influence the development of critical thinking. It is recommended to develop programs that, in addition to enhancing cognitive skills, address emotional well-being and strengthen students’ metacognitive capacity, thereby developing critical, autonomous, and resilient individuals capable of analyzing, questioning, and transforming their environment in an informed and reflective manner.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.L.J.G. and A.J.Á.M.; methodology, C.A.P.F. and R.K.S.A.; software, D.H.B.O.; validation, A.E.P.T. and R.K.S.A.; formal analysis, D.L.J.G. and A.J.Á.M.; investigation, C.A.P.F. and A.E.P.T.; resources, A.E.P.T. and D.H.B.O.; data curation, A.J.Á.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.L.J.G. and A.J.Á.M.; writing—review and editing, C.A.P.F. and R.K.S.A.; visualization, D.H.B.O.; supervision, A.J.Á.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Tecnológico de Antioquia IU, grant number Acta N°1 of 26 January 2023, 206001364, and the APC was funded by the researchers.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abanto-Ramirez, Carlos D., Josué E. Turpo-Chaparro, Abel Apaza, and Javier Linkolk López-Gonzales. 2024. Disposition to critical thinking, anxiety due to COVID-19 and academic self-efficacy in university students. Frontiers in Education 9: 1125889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aboukhousa, Heba, Waheeb AlKamali, and Belkacem Eljattari. 2024. Bridging Cultures for Global Environmental Sustainability: Empowering Change through Higher Education and Beyond. Journal of Ecohumanism 3: 3076–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abujreiban, Tahani. 2023. Impact of Using Some Active Learning Strategies in a Curricula and Teaching Methods Course on the Learning Motivation Level and the Development of Critical Thinking Skills Among the Students of the Faculty of Arts at Al-Zaytoonah University. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice 23: 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Afzal, Ayesha, Farrukh Kamran, and Afshan Naseem. 2023. The role of teachers in fostering critical thinking skills at the university level. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 4: 202–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alsaleh, Nada J. 2020. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 19: 21–39. [Google Scholar]
  6. Al-Zou’bi, Reem Mohammed. 2021. The impact of media and information literacy on acquiring the critical thinking skill by the educational faculty’s students. Thinking Skills and Creativity 39: 100782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Amin, Ryan Iskandar, Aida Safiyah Abdul Aziz, Matthew Ernest Paul, Ahmad Firdhaus Arham, Nur Hasyareeda Hassan, Nurwina Akmal Anuar, Mohd Suzeren Md. Jamil, Norinsan Kamil Othman, Mohd Fadhli Shah Khaidzir, Azlan Abdul Rahim, and et al. 2024. Debating as an Academic Tool: Fostering Holistic and Critical Thinking in Higher Education. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development 13: 1722–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Antonova, Svetlana, Tatyana Pletyago, and Anna Ostapenko. 2021. Fostering Critical Thinking Skills in European and Asian Higher Education Institutions. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices 10: 138–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Arhip, Georgel. 2022. The effects of mindfulness on critical thinking dispositions: Implications for mindful learning. Buletin de Psihiatrie Integrativa 95: 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aston, Kathryn Jane. 2024. ‘Why is this hard, to have critical thinking?’ Exploring the factors affecting critical thinking with international higher education students. Active Learning in Higher Education 25: 537–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Babashamasi, Parastoo, Nooreen Binti Noordin, and Sedigheh Shakib Kotamjani. 2022. The effect of teaching metacognitive reading strategies on the critical thinking skills of undergraduate students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 11: 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berberena, Tabea, and Maria Wirzberger. 2021. Unveiling unconscious biases and stereotypes in students: The necessity of self-reflection in Higher Education. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2021), Virtual, July 26–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bhuttah, Tariq Mehmood, Qian Xusheng, Muhammad Naseem Abid, and Sonia Sharma. 2024. Enhancing student critical thinking and learning outcomes through innovative pedagogical approaches in higher education: The mediating role of inclusive leadership. Scientific Reports 14: 24362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Campo, Lucia, Hector Galindo-Domínguez, Maria-Jose Bezanilla, Donna Fernández-Nogueira, and Manuel Poblete. 2023. Methodologies for fostering critical thinking skills from university students’ points of view. Education Sciences 13: 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carroll, John B. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Issue 1. [Google Scholar]
  16. Carroll, John B. 2005. The Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. Edited by D. P. Flanagan and P. L. Harrison. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chemagosi, Mary Jebii. 2024. Student Well-Being in Higher Education Institutions. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Crone, Vincent C. A., and Merel van Goch. 2024. Critical Thinking in the Humanities: An Exploration of Student Perspectives. Teaching and Learning Inquiry 12: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cumandá, Miranda López Ximena, Anita Dalila Espín Miniguano, and Thalía Isabel García Flores. 2022. Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico a través de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación en el nivel académico superior. Revista Publicando 9: 72–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Darcie, Isabela, Robert Gray, and Marie Vander Kloet. 2024. Sustaining critical minds: How classroom learning cultures shape student thinking dispositions and practices. Active Learning in Higher Education. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dissen, Anthony. 2023. A critical issue: Assessing the critical thinking skills and dispositions of undergraduate health science students. Discover Education 2: 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ekerer, Ceylan, Gonca Ince, and Mehmet Fahrettin Över. 2024. The effect of structured brain gym and brisk walking training on the executive functions of university students: A single-blinded randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ennis, Robert. 1991. Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy 14: 5–24. [Google Scholar]
  24. Escobar Domínguez, María Gisela. 2024. Práctica pedagógica del pensamiento crítico desde la psicología cultural. Sophia, Colección de Filosofía de La Educación 36: 301–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Facione, Peter A. 2011. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment 1: 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fitriani, Rizka, and Anti Prodjosantoso. 2024. The Role of Technology in the Development of Critical Thinking: Systematic Literature Review. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA 10: 778–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Foote, Kenneth, and Chris McMorran. 2024. Using technology to promote critical thinking. In Thriving in an Academic Career. London: Routledge, pp. 190–203. [Google Scholar]
  28. Garces, Belen Monserrath, Segundo Víctor Hernández-Del Salto, Luzmila Amelia Torres-Chiliquinga, and Humberto Ramiro Morales-Zuñiga. 2024. Habilidades lúdicas y su incidencia en el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. 593 Digital Publisher CEIT 9: 112–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Garcés-Suarez, Emma Fernanda. 2024. El fortalecimiento del pensamiento crítico y las estrategias metacognitivas en estudiantes universitarios. Episteme Koinonía. Revista Electrónica de Ciencias de La Educación, Humanidades, Artes y Bellas Artes 7: 150–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gonzalez-Mohino, Miguel, Maria Angeles Rodriguez-Domenech, Ana Isabel Callejas-Albiñana, and Ana Castillo-Canalejo. 2023. Empowering critical thinking: The role of digital tools in citizen participation. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 12: 258–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Goriot, Claire, Harm J. A. Biemans, and Judith T. M. Gulikers. 2024. Learning trajectories for developing generic skills in higher education: A review study on design choices and helping and hindering factors. Pedagogische Studiën 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guamanga, Miguel H., Carlos Saiz, Silvia F. Rivas, and Patricia Morales Bueno. 2025. Critical Thinking and Metacognition: Pathways to Empathy and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Intelligence 13: 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Guirao-Goris, Silamani J. Adolf. 2015. Utilidad y tipos de revisión de literatura. Ene 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Halpern, Diane F., and Dana S. Dunn. 2021. Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence 9: 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Huaire-Inacio, Edson Jorge, Liliana Isabel Castillo-Vento, and Quispe-Aroni Hugo Andrés. 2023. Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Filosofía 40: 229–41. [Google Scholar]
  36. Huamán, Genoveva Rosario Landeo. 2022. Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico de los estudiantes a partir del aprendizaje basado en problemas: Una revisión sistemática. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 3: 132–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huamán-Tapia, Elbert, Robinson B. Almanza-Cabe, Liset Z. Sairitupa-Sanchez, Sandra B. Morales-García, Oriana Rivera-Lozada, Alcides Flores-Paredes, and Wilter C. Morales-García. 2023. Critical thinking, generalized anxiety in satisfaction with studies: The mediating role of academic self-efficacy in medical students. Behavioral Sciences 13: 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hyseni Duraku, Zamira, Holly Davis, Aliriza Arënliu, Fitim Uka, and Vigan Behluli. 2024. Overcoming mental health challenges in higher education: A narrative review. Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1466060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jasmadi, Jasmadi, Saddam Saddam, and Lasri Lasri. 2024. Critical thinking: An analytical study on the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage on students at Al Washliyah Darussalam University, Banda Aceh. Sekumpul: Journal of Multidisciplinary Education Sciences 2: 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jia, Tianye. 2024. A Study of the Causes and Effects of Anxiety among Students in Higher Education. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences 45: 111–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jones, Jennifer Amanda, Tracy A. Irani, and Jihee Song. 2023. Critical Thinking in Nonprofit Management Education: Is an Explicit Emphasis Related to Greater Skill Development? Journal of Nonprofit Education & Leadership 13: 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kazemian, Mohammad, Lalu Ari Irawan, and Haerazi Haerazi. 2021. Developing Metacognitive Writing Strategy to Enhance Writing Skills Viewed from Prospective Teachers’ Critical Thinking Skills. Journal of Language and Literature Studies 1: 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kerruish, Erika. 2025. Critical thinking in higher education: Taking Stiegler’s counsel on the digital milieu. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 33: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  44. Koseni, Merlina, Enkelejda Cenaj, Ramiola Kalemi, and Mimoza Ikonomi. 2025. The influence of the social environment on the development of critical thinking skills in young people: A study in the city of Durres, Albania. International Journal of Education and Practice 13: 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, Yuanyuan. 2024. Investigation on the Integration of Higher Education Logic Instruction and Cognitive Development. Journal of Higher Education Teaching 1: 137–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, Xing, Xiao Han, Tengfei Wang, and Xuezhu Ren. 2024. An account of the relationship between critical thinking and fluid intelligence in considering executive functions. Thinking Skills and Creativity 52: 101538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, Yong, and Attila Pásztor. 2023. Survey on the influential demographic factors of Chinese undergraduate students’ critical thinking disposition: Evidence from plausible values. Thinking Skills and Creativity 50: 101397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lopez-González, Hibai, Luciana Sosa, Lydia Sánchez, and Adrien Faure-Carvallo. 2023. Educación mediática e informacional y pensamiento crítico: Una revisión sistemática. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 81: 19. [Google Scholar]
  49. López-Ruiz, Carolina, Roxana Flores-Flores, Ana Galindo-Quispe, and Yolanda Huayta-Franco. 2021. Pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de educación superior: Una revisión sistemática. Revista Innova Educación 3: 374–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lugo, Josefrank Pernalete, Ysaelen Odor Rossel, and José Rosales Veitía. 2022. El pensamiento crítico en el contexto universitario: Una vertiente del aprendizaje basado en problemas. Warisata-Revista de Educación 4: 34–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mango-Quispe, Pedro, Gerber Pérez-Postigo, and Osbaldo Turpo-Gebera. 2024. Alfabetización mediática y pensamiento crítico en la formación inicial de docentes. European Public & Social Innovation Review 9: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  52. Marín Ube, Sara Elena, Jhair Vladimir Jiménez Aldaz, Luis Enrique Cortez Alvarado, and Boris René Morales Fischer. 2025. Estrategias didácticas para fomentar el pensamiento crítico en el desarrollo de competencias comunicacionales: Una revisión sistemática de literatura con el Método SALSA. Revista Científica UISRAEL 12: 203–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mehta, Kosha J. 2022. Effect of sleep and mood on academic performance—At interface of physiology, psychology, and education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9: 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mejía-Manzano, Luis Alberto, Gabriela Sirkis, Juan-Carlos Rojas, Katherina Gallardo, Patricia Vázquez-Villegas, Claudia Camacho-Zuñiga, Jorge Membrillo-Hernández, and Patricia Caratozzolo. 2022. Embracing Thinking Diversity in Higher Education to Achieve a Lifelong Learning Culture. Education Sciences 12: 913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mora-Ramírez, Rafael Félix. 2023. Uso de las paradojas como recursos didácticos que desarrollan el pensamiento crítico en los estudiantes. Sophía 35: 249–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Moya Gómez, Brenda Jazmin. 2024. El juego como estrategia lúdica en el proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje. Revista Neuronum 10: 275–94. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nguyen, Andy, Mario Kremantzis, Aniekan Essien, Ilias Petrounias, and Samira Hosseini. 2024. Enhancing student engagement through artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the basics, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 21: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Novoa Seminario, Militza, and Mario Luciano Sandoval Rosas. 2023. Estrategias para fortalecer el pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de educación superior. Un estudio de revisión. Prohominum. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 5: 134–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nuritdinov, Navruz. 2024. Socio-Cultural Factors of the Effective use of Critical Thinking in the Development of Modern Legal Knowledge. Pubmedia Social Sciences and Humanities 2: 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and Rebecca Frels. 2016. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  61. Padmanabhan, Sindu. 2024. Innovative Ways to Boost Well-Being Among Students in Higher Education. In Mental Health Crisis in Higher Education. Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 247–59. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pedorych, A. V. 2024. The study of logic as a condition for the development of critical thinking of higher education students. Scientific Herald of Sivershchyna. Series: Education. Social and Behavioural Sciences 1: 231–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pedraja-Rejas, Liliana, Camila Muñoz-Fritis, Emilio Rodríguez-Ponce, and David Laroze. 2024. Mobile Learning and Its Effect on Learning Outcomes and Critical Thinking: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences 14: 9105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pereira, Ana Carolina Dias, Alice Silva Valentini, Luiza Toller Silva de Noronha, Julia Bernardes Rattis Batista, and Camilla Tavares Valadares da Silva. 2024. How sleep disorders can affect the intellectual development of college students. Anais New Science Publishers, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pincay Parrales, Maria Leonela. 2022. Incidencia de la clase invertida en el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. Revista Cognosis 7: 113–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pupkis, Algirdas, and Tomas Saulius. 2023. Education of critical thinking of university students. Humanities Studies 92: 112–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rane-Szostak, Donna, and Julie Fisher Robertson. 1996. Issues in measuring critical thinking: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Nursing Education 35: 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rarita, Mihail. 2023. An evaluation of the perceptions of socio-humanities students on the skills of critical thinking. Revista Românească Pentru Educaţie Multidimensională 15: 388–407. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ravikumar, Srilalitha, Somsubhra Saha, K. Sudha, R. Vinoth, Siva R. Subramanian, and V. Sathya. 2025. Advancing STEAM Education: Integrative Approaches, Challenges, and Future Directions. In Transformative Approaches to STEAM Integration in Modern Education. Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 33–52. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rivas, Silva F., Carloz Saiz, and Carlos Ossa. 2022. Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 913219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Robison, Matthew K., and Gene A. Brewer. 2022. Individual differences in working memory capacity, attention control, fluid intelligence, and pupillary measures of arousal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 48: 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Robison, Metthew K., and Lauren D. Garner. 2024. Pupillary correlates of individual differences in n-back task performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 86: 799–807. [Google Scholar]
  73. Saiz, Carlos, and Silvia F. Rivas. 2023. Critical thinking, formation, and change. Journal of Intelligence 11: 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sánchez Gonzales, Gladys Maricela, and Mercedes María Nagamine Miyashiro. 2021. Uso de metodologías activas para el desarrollo de pensamiento crítico. Ucv-Scientia 13: 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sánchez-Meca, Julio. 2022. Revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis en Educación: Un tutorial. RiiTE Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación En Tecnología Educativa, 5–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shukla, M. M., and Babli Kumari. 2024. Exploring cultural and contextual factors impacting critical thinking skills among higher secondary students. International Journal of Literacy and Education 4: 195–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sidra Ilyas, Alia Asmat, Muhammad Iqbal Naeem, and Haleema Khatoon. 2024. Am i over-sleeper? oversleeping and cognitive functioning among university students. The Mind-Journal of Psychology 2: 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Simonovic, Boban, Katia Vione, Dean Fido, Edward Stupple, James Martin, and Richard Clarke. 2022. The Impact of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Cognitive Reflection on the Development of Critical Thinking Skills in Online Students. Online Learning 26: 254–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Singla, Abhishek, Charu Wadhwa, Vinima Gambhir, Simranjeet Nanda, Vinay Kumar Sadolalu Boregowda, Anvesha Garg, and Vidhya Lakshmi. 2024. Study on Analysing the Student Perspectives on Cultural and Social Diversity in Education. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 982–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Smith, Guy, and John Peloghitis. 2020. Critical Thinking and Debiasing: Experimentation in an Academic Writing Course. JALT Postconference Publication 2019: 443–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Song, Hao, and Lianghui Cai. 2024. Interactive learning environment as a source of critical thinking skills for college students. BMC Medical Education 24: 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Suárez, Diana Paola Montealegre, Piedad Rocío Lerma Castaño, and Cesar Augusto Mazuera Quiceno. 2020. Influencia del estado nutricional, nivel de actividad física y condición física en el rendimiento académico de estudiantes universitarios. Acción Motriz 24: 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  83. Sutherland, Abigail, and Sara Incera. 2021. Critical Reading: What Do Faculty Think Students Should Do? Journal of College Reading and Learning 51: 267–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Thornhill-Miller, Branden, Anaelle Camarda, Maxence Mercier, Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Tiffany Morisseau, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, Florent Vinchon, Stephanie El Hayek, Myriam Augereau-Landais, Florence Mourey, and et al. 2023. Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence 11: 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tsopra, Rosy, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, Caroline Charlier, Florence Campeotto, Cedric Lemogne, Philippe Ruszniewski, Benoît Vivien, and Anita Burgun. 2023. Putting undergraduate medical students in AI-CDSS designers’ shoes: An innovative teaching method to develop digital health critical thinking. International Journal of Medical Informatics 171: 104980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tuononen, Tarja, Heidi Hyytinen, Katri Kleemola, Telle Hailikari, Iina Männikkö, and Auli Toom. 2022. Systematic review of learning generic skills in higher education—Enhancing and impeding factors. Frontiers in Education 7: 885917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Valavičienė, Natalija, Daiva Penkauskienė, Jolanta Pivorienė, Asta Railienė, Odeta Merfeldaitė, Justinas Sadauskas, Violeta Jegelevičienė, and Valdonė Indrašienė. 2020. Critical thinking embeddedness in higher education programmes. Journal of Education Culture and Society 11: 121–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Van, Le Ha, Chong Su Li, and Roselind Wan. 2022. Critical reading in higher education: A systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity 44: 101028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Van Damme, Dirk, Doris Zahner, Olivia Cortellini, Teresa Dawber, and Kelly Rotholz. 2023. Assessing and developing critical-thinking skills in higher education. European Journal of Education 58: 369–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Van den Berg, Geesje, and Elize du Plessis. 2023. ChatGPT and generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education. Education Sciences 13: 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vera, Fernando. 2023. Integración de la Inteligencia Artificial en la Educación superior: Desafíos y oportunidades. Transformar 4: 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  92. Vélez, María Fernanda Ayón, María Jaritza Espinoza Macías, Nora Mercedes López Villafuerte, and Laura Karina Hidalgo Parrales. 2024. Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico mediante el uso de tic en la formación de lenguaje y comunicación en la educación superior. Conocimiento Global 9: 123–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Villarruel-Diaz, Jhemmy, and César A. Portocarrero-Gutiérrez. 2021. Estrategias metodológicas y pensamiento crítico en la educación superior. Santiago 156: 171. [Google Scholar]
  94. Walker, Susan K., and Samantha LeBoeuf. 2022. Relationships in teaching for critical thinking dispositions and skills. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’22), Valencia, Spain, June 17; pp. 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  95. Wang, Yinghua. 2024. An interactive online educational environment to reduce anxiety, improve emotional well-being, and critical thinking for college students. Acta Psychologica 248: 104347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wassenaar, Thomas M., Wilby Williamson, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Helen Dawes, Nia Roberts, Charlie Foster, and Claire E. Sexton. 2020. A critical evaluation of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic physical activity on academic achievement, cognition and the brain in children and adolescents: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 17: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zhao, Chong, and Edward K. Vogel. 2025. Individual differences in working memory and attentional control continue to predict memory performance despite extensive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 154: 1268–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Working Smarter: Work-Related Emotional Intelligence and the Family-Work Interface
Previous
Generative AI in Game Design: Enhancing Creativity or Constraining Innovation?
Next