Scientific Thinking Promotes the Development of Critical Thinking in Primary Education

Abstract

Incorporating scientific and critical thinking in early childhood education is essential for developing individuals with strong thinking skills. This study assesses the impact of promoting scientific thinking on the development of critical thinking among fifth-graders in central Mexico. We hypothesize that involving students in scientific thinking tasks would further enhance essential thinking skills. The methodology involved longitudinal quasi-experimental design that included a pre-test and post-test, along with a comparison (control) group. Critical thinking was measured using a test that was applied at the start and end of our study to assess four thinking skills: classification, problem-solving, decision-making and logical reasoning. The control group was taught using a standardized methodology, while the experimental group was taught about the structure of the scientific method using a template with characters that guided each step: observation, question, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusions. Students from the critical and scientific thinking experimental group had higher scores on the post-assessment than those of the control group, suggesting that learning through scientific thinking tasks improved their critical thinking skills. Boys’ critical thinking scores were higher than girls’ in both groups, while scientific thinking scores were not associated with gender. We demonstrated that critical thinking improves when children incorporate scientific thinking into their learning abilities.

1. Introduction

Scientific knowledge is represented by a series of interdisciplinary contents that have been approached from different perspectives such as history, technology, and science itself (Vásquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2020). The primary purpose of scientific knowledge is to develop and verify scientific and social explanations that engage with the scientific community (Vásquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2020). To this end, scientific studies follow a set of procedures in order to generate novel information, concepts, and theories that explain a phenomenon of interest in a replicable manner (Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso, 2019). However, scientific knowledge is not exclusive to academics that perform science research. In teaching and teacher learning, continual development of scientific models aims to form reflective individuals with critical thinking skills (Vázquez & Manassero, 2016). The scientific method is a structured framework that helps exercise critical thinking. Scientific thinking involves observing carefully, asking questions, making predictions, testing ideas, looking at evidence and drawing conclusions (Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso, 2019). All these skills affect cognitive and learning development (Howe, 1996). During childhood, the brain is developing (Howe, 1996; Anastasiou et al., 2015). This is a crucial period for forming mental habits that last a lifetime. Teaching children to think critically and scientifically helps them become more thoughtful, independent, and capable learners. From early ages of development, the scientific method teaches us to formulate hypotheses, collect and analyze data, and reflect on the results (Howe, 1996; Anastasiou et al., 2015). This process encourages objective evaluation and constant revision of conclusions, promoting an open mindset (Proulx, 2004).

Science education is crucial for developing critical thinking skills because it encourages students to analyze, evaluate evidence, and formulate hypotheses. Critical thinking is widely recognized as a fundamental goal of science education (Facione, 2000). Research conducted by Zohar and Dori (Zohar & Dori, 2003) indicates that when students practice scientific thinking, they also enhance their critical thinking abilities. Students often face challenges in applying scientific reasoning in everyday contexts (Guarrella et al., 2022) Using the scientific method in the classroom helps students learn to question, analyze data, and draw informed conclusions (Vieira et al., 2011). Engaging in science learning during early childhood fosters positive attitudes toward science, establishing a foundation for more structured scientific education in later academic stages (Oppermann et al., 2018). This approach is closely tied to the development of critical thinking skills, as both involve questioning assumptions and assessing the credibility of sources (Shamboul, 2022). The incorporation of scientific and critical thinking in early childhood education is vital for developing individuals with strong reasoning skills, enabling them to make informed decisions and address complex problems with creativity and rigor. In elementary education, the development of skills such as classification, problem-solving, decision-making, and logical reasoning is crucial for cognitive development and lays the foundation for lifelong learning (Rubin & Linturi, 2001). Using the scientific method in teaching elementary education can promote these skills, which are closely linked to the scientific procedure such as observation, question, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusions (Windschitl et al., 2008). For example, classification refers to the ability to group objects, ideas, or information based on characteristics. This skill is fundamental in understanding how the world is organized and making sense of new information. Problem-solving is the process of identifying a problem, considering possible solutions, and choosing an appropriate course of action. It involves critical thinking and creativity. Decision-making is understood as the skill to make choices based on available information, and it is closely linked to critical thinking and the ability to evaluate alternatives. Children in elementary education are still developing their decision-making skills, and they can be taught to engage more effectively with the development of the ability to evaluate alternatives. Finally, logical reasoning refers to the ability to think in a structured, rational manner, drawing valid conclusions from available information, which is the priority objective of the scientific method (Cohen et al., 1998).

Critical thinking encompasses cognitive skills that facilitate reasonable, thoughtful, and self-aware judgment and decision-making (Fisher, 2009). This approach addresses issues such as the indicators of the reliability of a source of information and how to avoid having erroneous beliefs about important issues. Therefore, it is important for teachers to comprehend the art of teaching critical thinking and how to execute it effectively. The priority goals of primary education should promote skills based on developing critical thinking through promoting scientific thinking (Osborne et al., 2003a). The main skills to be developed are collaboration, effective communication, motivation, persistence, ethics, and everything involving critical thinking such as problem-solving, creativity, innovation, argumentation, analysis, and interpretation (Fisher, 2009). Given the intersections between critical thinking and scientific thinking, our main objective was to evaluate whether scientific thinking in primary education influences the development of critical thinking in fifth grade students in central Mexico. We hypothesize that students who are encouraged to develop scientific thinking will demonstrate a greater development of critical thinking.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

Sixty-two students enrolled in fifth grade at a public urban school in Cuernavaca Morelos, central Mexico were initially included in the study. The students’ average age was 9.89 ± 0.49 SD years and all were cisgender, to the best knowledge of their teachers. This study used a longitudinal quasi-experimental design that included a pre-test and post-test, along with a comparison (control) group. Groups were assigned to control and experimental using a coin toss to ensure randomness. Two students were excluded from the analyses because they attended less than 50% of the workshop (the only exclusion criterion). The final groups each contained 16 girls (53.3%) and 14 boys (46.7%). The school is located in a working-class neighborhood where the main economic activity is commerce and most students come from low-income households. Teachers teach groups of 30 to 35 students in a small space (OdlS 2024 unpublished data). All students participated in the tests and the science program.

In both the control and experimental groups, the study included a pre-test, an intervention, and a post-test. The pre-test consisted of an assessment of critical and scientific thinking that was considered a baseline measure of the student’s performance. These skills were evaluated using two separate instruments. Both groups participated in a science workshop based on the science curriculum (Supplementary Materials) for one hour per week for 14 weeks. The science workshop was taught within the school curriculum and was a class students took throughout the school year. The times assigned to work with the control and experimental groups were assigned randomly and varied throughout the school year. In the control group, the workshop followed a standard method, in which students created their knowledge using prior information, active participation, and student induction. In the experimental group, in addition to the activities from the control workshop, the structure of the scientific method was followed using a template with characters that guided each step: observation, question, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusions (Supplementary Materials). The workshop in the experimental group was specifically designed to develop scientific thinking in fifth-grade students. Each task encourages skills such as curiosity, logical reasoning, critical analysis, and clear communication of ideas, promoting a reflective and inquisitive attitude toward the world around them. The workshop is organized into the following sections: (1) Observation: students describe in detail what they perceive using their senses. (2) Question: based on their observations, they formulate questions that can be investigated. (3) Hypothesis: they propose possible explanations that they will try to verify. (4) Experimentation: they carry out activities or research to gather evidence. (5) Conclusions: they reflect on what they learned and propose new questions for further investigation. The structure of the scientific method seeks to also promote critical thinking, which was the basis of our proposal. The scientific method allows for the critical analysis of information with rigor and proof of the results to arrive at an argument based on evidence rather than only on temporary beliefs. With this, we sought to have the students use scientific language with concepts that explain the theory without making a superficial conclusion about the facts. Finally, for the post-test in both groups, we applied the same tests of critical and scientific thinking used in the pre-test. This study adhered to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and their parents/legal guardians.

2.2. Measures

For critical thinking, the test utilized was the Thinking Challenges Test (Retos de pensamiento EdP_5P) (Vásquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2020), which assesses critical thinking skills by prompting students to answer knowledge-independent questions that require elementary thinking skills that are adapted to students’ age. In this assessment, the questions are figurative, making them easier for students to understand. They are also independent of cultural context and school knowledge. The test assesses four dimensions of critical thinking (18 items): (1) Classification (five items)—i.e., the ability to group or separate different elements according to common or differential characteristics; (2) problem-solving (seven items)—i.e., the ability to identify the best solutions; (3) decision-making (four items)—i.e., how to make choices in a particular situation; and (4) logical reasoning (two items)—i.e., simple and complex deductive ability. The cognitive demand of the test is adjusted to the student’s ability and age. The content is not dependent on school subjects and is not mediated by social, family, or academic knowledge. The Thinking Challenges Test has recently been validated with a sample of Spanish fifth-graders (Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso, n.d.), whose results indicate that it is a valid and reliable instrument with a four-factor structure. The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the Mexican sample of this study indicate an acceptable internal consistency of the overall test (McDonald W = 0.72). The basic parameters are also favorable to implement an EFA (Bartlett’s Sphericity Test p < 0.001; KMO Global Sample Adequacy = 0.70), and the eigenvalues show a dominant main factor, which justifies the use of the test total score to represent students’ overall critical thinking in this study. Further, a four-factor empirical model attains excellent goodness-of-fit parameters, such as RMSEA (=0.02), TLI (=0.98), and chi-square (χ² = 96.8; p = 0.22), thus providing confirmatory evidence of validity for the four-factor empirical structure that partially coincides with the theoretical structure of the test. On this basis and for simplicity of data computation, we used the total score of the Thinking Challenges Test and the scores of its four theoretical skills in the comparisons of this study.

The test used to assess scientific thinking was generated for this study and was validated by judges made up of elementary level science teachers and fifth grade teachers of all subject areas. The reliability of the test was subsequently evaluated in the same school where the intervention was implemented and had α = 0.70. During this phase, qualitative observations and informal interviews with children and teachers helped identify any items that were confusing, too difficult, or lacked relevance. Finally, based on the statistical findings and ongoing feedback from educators, the instrument underwent several rounds of revision. Items that showed low discriminatory power or did not load well on relevant factors were modified or removed. The scientific thinking test measured five dimensions (30 items): observation (six items), questions (six items), hypothesis (six items), experimentation (six items), and conclusion (six items). For the observation skill, students marked the differences between two images. This element is free response; there are a total of six differences between the images, translating into six items. For the questions skill, students observe an image about which five questions are posed. Three of the questions can be answered using information found in the image, while two cannot. Students are prompted to identify which questions can be answered (yes) and which cannot (no), resulting in five items. An additional item related to this skill prompted students to write a question that could be answered using the graphic elements of the image they observed. This question was evaluated by determining whether it was possible to answer it or not. In total, this skill included six items. For the hypothesis skill, a new image was presented, and students were prompted to write what they supposed had happened. This was a free response, which was assessed by determining whether it contained the necessary elements to pose a hypothesis, such as the assumption of bringing together the elements of the image and the consequence of these elements having a relationship and a logical sequence. The response received a score of six if it included all of the elements and their relationship and fewer points proportional to the number and relationship of elements included. For the experimentation skill, a text was presented that reflected a problematic situation in nature accompanied by an image, and the students were prompted to propose an experiment that would culminate in the result shown in the image. The proposal was evaluated, and six points were assigned if the experiment reflected the result of the image or a lower score if elements were missing. The final skill, conclusions, considered the students’ ability to recognize and specify the most relevant of the entire series of data shown. To do so, three free-response questions were posed about the text provided in the experimentation section. Each question considered two items, for a maximum total score of six on this skill. The items from both tests were analyzed by a single researcher who was unaware of the study’s hypothesis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Each of the critical thinking skills contained a different number of questions, so the weighted sum of the number of questions answered correctly for each skill was used as the score. Although each scientific thinking skill did have the same number of items (6), they were subject to the same scoring criteria as critical thinking to homogenize the analysis. The residual score of the skills was calculated as the difference between the final score minus the initial score (Mattes & Roheger, 2020). The residual score is a measure of change that considers the baseline, and its value is associated with the effect of the intervention (Dalecki & Willits, 1991). A residual change value greater than zero indicates that the post-test score is higher than the pre-test score, while a value close to zero suggests that the post-test and pre-test scores are similar and a negative residual would indicate a worse score on the post-test.

The residual scores for critical and scientific thinking were obtained separately. Two linear models were performed to compare the residual score for critical or scientific thinking separately between groups, sexes, and their interactions. We chose a linear model because it provides a robust analysis that accounts for global differences and each student’s baseline measurements. Additionally, it is a simple and interpretable test. When the interaction was not significant, it was removed from the model. Partial eta-squared (η²) was calculated as a measure of effect size. According to conventional thresholds, η² values were interpreted as negligible (≤0.01), small (≤0.06), or medium (≤0.14). When significant differences existed, post hoc contrasts were performed with Tukey’s test. In both models, the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity of variances, and no autocorrelation were tested through observation of the residuals. Post hoc contrasts were performed with the emmeans package (Lenth et al., 2018), and figures were generated using the “ggplot2” package (Wickham, 2016) in R (R Core Team, 2020).

Eleven linear models were performed to compare the residual score for critical or scientific thinking and each skill separately between groups, sexes, and their interactions. We performed these analyses for descriptive, not inferential, purposes, which are shown in

Table 1. Mean and standard error of residual scores for each critical thinking skill for girls and boys. The t ratio and p value of the respective post hoc analysis are shown. Significant differences between sexes for the specific group and skill are shown in bold.

Critical Thinking Skills	Control				Experimental
	Girls	Boys	t	P	Girls	Boys	t	P
Classification	−0.28 ± 0.31	−0.28 ± 0.33	0.00	0.09	0.08 ± 0.31	0.5 ± 0.33	−0.92	0.36
Problem-solving	−0.28 ± 0.46	−0.33 ± 0.49	0.07	0.09	−0.27 ± 0.46	0.96 ± 0.49	−1.82	0.07
Decision-making	−0.31 ± 0.25	0.18 ± 0.26	−1.33	0.18	−0.37 ± 0.25	0.59 ± 0.26	−2.65	0.01
Logical reasoning	−0.26 ± 0.16	−0.06 ± 0.17	−0.89	0.37	0.18 ± 0.16	0.16 ± 0.17	0.09	0.92
Total	−5.12 ± 3.63	−2.34 ± 3.88	−0.52	0.60	−2.94 ± 3.63	11.55 ± 3.88	−2.72	0.00

and

Table 2. Mean and standard error of residual scores for each scientific thinking skill for girls and boys. t and p refer to the t ratio and p value of the respective post hoc analysis. Significant differences between sexes for the specific group and skill are shown in bold.

Scientific Thinking Skills	Control				Experimental
	Girls	Boys	t	P	Girls	Boys	t	P
Observation	0.19 ± 0.27	−0.11 ± 0.28	0.77	0.44	0.08 ± 0.27	−0.21 ± 0.28	−0.73	0.46
Question	−0.08 ± 0.41	−0.56 ± 0.44	−0.81	0.41	0.25 ± 0.41	0.36 ± 0.44	0.17	0.85
Hypothesis	0.71 ± 0.30	−1.17 ± 0.32	−4.27	0.00	−0.01 ± 0.32	0.32 ± 0.30	−0.73	0.46
Experimentation	−0.31 ± 0.39	−0.41 ± 0.42	−0.17	0.86	0.55 ± 0.39	0.13 ± 0.42	−0.71	0.47
Conclusions	0.37 ± 0.48	−1.24 ± 0.51	−2.29	0.02	0.37 ± 0.48	0.1 ± 0.51	−0.76	0.44
Total	−0.09 ± 5.42	−12.79 ± 5.8	−1.60,	0.11	10.09 ± 5.42	1.36 ± 5.79	−1.10	0.27

. Thus, we retained the interaction, even though it was non-significant, and performed its corresponding post hoc test. We report the mean and standard error of the residual score derived from the interaction, as well as the t-ratio and p-value of the post hoc tests.

The criteria applied to accept the goodness-of-fit parameters from factor analysis are Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI > 0.90) and chi-square (p > 0.05).

3. Results

On the pre-test, the total critical thinking score in the control group was 9.81 ± 0.54 (mean ± S.E.) for girls and 6.86 ± 0.93 for boys. In the experimental group the pre-test scores were 8.44 ± 0.83 and 8.79 ±0.94, respectively. On the post-test, the total critical thinking scores in the control group were 8.81 ± 0.53 for girls and 8.50 ± 0.57 for boys, and in the experimental group, 9.00 ± 0.77 and 11.79 ± 0.87 for girls and boys, respectively. The score for each critical thinking skill on the pre- and post-tests, broken down by sex and group, is presented in Table 1, and the analysis by skill is contained in the Supplementary Materials.

The residual score for critical thinking was affected by the experimental group (F = 4.06, p = 0.04, η² = 0.06, Figure 1) and sex (F = 5.16, p = 0.02, η² = 0.08, Figure 1). The residual critical thinking score was higher in the experimental group (with 95% C.I. = −1.27–9.48, 4.11 ± 2.68) than in the control group (with 95% C.I. = −8.91–1.84, −3.53 ± 2.68; post hoc Tukey’s test, p = 0.04). At the same time, boys’ residual critical thinking score (with 95% C.I. = −0.95–10.16, 4.60 ± 2.78) was higher than girls’ (with 95% C.I. = −9.22–1.17, −4.03 ± 2.60; post hoc Tukey’s test, p = 0.02).

The total scientific thinking score on the pre-test in the control group was 16.81 ± 1.27 for girls and 12.81 ± 1.38 for boys; in the experimental group the scores were 15.69 ± 0.76 and 16.79 ±1.73 for girls and boys, respectively. On the post-test, the total scientific thinking score in the control group was 21.38 ± 1.35 for girls and 15.21 ± 1.17 for boys; in the experimental group the scores were 22.00 ± 0.90 and 21.21 ± 1.82 for girls and boys, respectively. The score for each skill of scientific thinking on the pre- and posttests in the control and experimental group, broken down by sex, is summarized in Table 2 and the analysis by skill is contained in the Supplementary Materials.

The students’ residual scientific thinking scores depended on the experimental group (F = 4.69, p = 0.03, η² = 0.07, Figure 2). The experimental group’s score (with 95% C.I. = −2.22–13.5, 5.66 ± 3.93) was higher than that of the control group (with 95% C.I. = −14.25–1.5, −6.37 ± 3.93; post hoc Tukey’s test, p = 0.03). Boys and girls had a marginal difference in scientific thinking scores, with a trend toward higher scores among girls (F = 3.70, p = 0.059).

4. Discussion

Here, we assessed whether promoting scientific thinking affects the development of critical thinking in primary education students in central Mexico. We found that students in the experimental group scored higher on the post-assessment than those in the control group for both critical and scientific thinking. This suggests that engaging in scientific thinking tasks enhanced their critical thinking skills. This research was conducted with students from a public elementary school in Cuernavaca, Morelos, in central Mexico. Cuernavaca is a place with a very low marginalization rate. The school’s infrastructure is adequate and has basic services such as drinking water, electricity, and restrooms. However, computers are not available for all students, nor do they all have internet access, reflecting a significant digital divide (SEP, 2023). We anticipated that students’ encouragement to develop scientific thinking would also lead to more significant advancements in critical thinking. In line with our hypothesis, our results show that encouraging students to develop scientific thinking leads to a significant enhancement in their critical thinking abilities. In this work, the residual scientific thinking score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, demonstrating that our intervention promoted the development of critical thinking in primary education students in Central Mexico.

Scientific thinking is essential for children’s cognitive development and their understanding of the world (Zimmerman, 2007). Encouraging scientific thinking from an early age allows children to develop curiosity, observation, questioning, and problem-solving skills (Kuhn & Dean, 2005). Scientific thinking is involved in problem-solving through experimentation and analysis. With the development of scientific thinking, children discover how to approach problems logically and systematically (Klahr & Li, 2005). Scientific thinking fosters children’s natural curiosity, prompting them to explore, investigate, and comprehend their environment (Klahr, 2005). Furthermore, conducting experiments enhances teamwork development. Some research has focused on measuring the impact of science programs on critical thinking skills. For example, Osborne et al. (2003b) showed that students who participate in inquiry-based science programs develop greater critical thinking skills compared to those who do not. Through this process, children learn to collaborate, communicate, and share ideas effectively. In another study, Salas (Salas, 2023) shows that critical thinking skills in students of elementary education ages are at intermediate levels and could be improved with the incorporation of a scientific curriculum.

Understanding the scientific method from an early age is valuable in all areas of knowledge, not just for science (Tapung et al., 2018). For example, López-Caudana et al. (2024) indicate that it is during childhood that individuals are able to solve problems through critical thinking skills. Encouraging scientific thinking in children not only contributes to their intellectual development but also prepares them to face a world full of information and challenges in a more critical and analytical way (Köksal, 2022). The development of critical thinking is vital to question, evaluate evidence, and base conclusions on arguments and not assumptions (Bailin et al., 1999). In this study, the residual critical thinking score of the experimental group was greater than that of the control group, suggesting that the science program promoted greater development of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking and scientific thinking are essential for solving complex problems, as both foster the ability to evaluate alternatives, make informed decisions, and reflect on the results obtained. Teaching science as a tool for critical thinking argues that science education can be an ideal vehicle for teaching critical thinking skills (Ennis, 1985). Students learning science regularly face situations that require them to evaluate information and question evidence, which is essential for critical thinking.

The relationship between scientific thinking and critical thinking is key to understanding how these processes contribute to holistic growth in children. Both scientific and critical thinking involve logical reasoning skills and the ability to analyze information in a structured way and evaluate the evidence before reaching conclusions (Zohar et al., 1994; Zulkipli et al., 2020). Critical and scientific thinking require children to become aware of their thought processes, known as metacognition (Magno, 2010). Children must learn to question how and why they reach certain conclusions, which is essential to improving their learning ability over time. Scientific thinking encourages more flexible critical thinking in children (de Carvalho & Yuzawa, 2001), where the child can adapt and reconsider their approaches based on evidence, rather than rigidly adhering to a prior belief. Critical and scientific thinking favor cognitive independence (Fang & Cox, 1999). Children learn to be autonomous in their decision-making, which helps them face the complexity of the world, where it is crucial to discern between valuable information and misinformation.

Gender differences in scientific thinking in children are an area of study that has generated interest, especially with respect to how scientific and critical thinking skills are developed and expressed in (cisgender) girls and boys (Halpern & LaMay, 2000). In this study, boys had higher critical thinking scores than girls in both experimental groups. Research on gender differences in science abilities indicates that there are slight variations in quantitative reasoning that favor boys. However, these differences are minimal and may not be statistically significant (Hyde & Lindberg, 2007). Studies such as those carried out by Albarracín-Vivo et al. (2024) show that boys obtain higher scores in critical thinking than girls; however, they also argue that the critical thinking of both sexes is below what is expected. In contrast to the findings of this study, Manassero-Mas & Vázquez-Alonso (2023) found in their research within the Spanish context that girls achieve higher critical thinking scores than boys. Although biological differences between the sexes do not directly determine the capacity for scientific thinking, social and cultural factors can influence how these capacities are manifested. Gender stereotypes have influenced perceptions about the scientific ability of boys and girls (Williams et al., 2004). Stereotypes suggest that boys tend to be better suited to areas related to science and mathematics, while girls would be better suited to social or artistic activities (Banaji & Hardin, 1996). These perceptions, although unfounded, can influence children’s self-perception and how they are stimulated from an early age. Boys’ and girls’ social context plays a significant role in shaping their interest in scientific activities (Crowley et al., 2001). In many contexts, boys are often encouraged to engage in games and activities that promote scientific exploration and problem-solving, such as construction games or experiments. In contrast, girls may be steered more toward social activities (Jones & Wheatley, 1990). These differences are not inherent; rather, they result from the varying ways children are raised in different cultural environments.

The differences between girls and boys found in this study may be related to social contexts. In terms of academic performance, research shows that, in general, there are no significant differences between boys and girls in terms of their scientific abilities (Reilly, 2012). Both boys and girls can develop sound scientific thinking if they are given the same educational support and opportunities. Differences in outcomes tend to reflect external influences such as culture, family, or school context more than inherent gender differences (Bhanot & Jovanovic, 2009). School programs that promote equal access to scientific education and that work to reduce gender stereotypes have proven effective in closing the gap in the participation and performance of girls and boys in scientific areas. It is crucial to promote equitable and stereotype-free education, where both girls and boys have the same opportunities and encouragement to develop their scientific thinking. Although there are great similarities between critical and scientific thinking (Kind, 2013), the constructs of both concepts maintain some differences. These differences could manifest themselves inversely by gender in the increase in the residual of scientific thinking vs. critical thinking. More studies are required to evaluate these differences in critical and scientific thinking in girls and boys. Nonetheless, our research offers promising insights into potential strategies for integrating scientific reasoning into classroom practices. It also suggests that gender differences can be minimized in a society that promotes gender equity from an early age.

4.1. Practical Implications

The results of this study highlight the significance of critical thinking and scientific thinking in developing students capable of addressing real-world problems. In Mexico, as of August 2023, the Curricular Framework and the New Mexican School curriculum (SEP, 2023) have been implemented, emphasizing critical and scientific thinking within a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach. This initiative aims to cultivate conscious and responsible citizens equipped to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. Beyond academic development, this approach fosters social commitment and empowers students to positively transform their environment based on scientific principles. Successfully integrating critical and scientific thinking in the classroom requires innovative strategies, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary connections among science, humanities, and technology. This enriches the learning process while utilizing pedagogical strategies that promote active learning, real problem-solving, and effective technology use. Our findings demonstrate to teachers the importance of adopting new strategies to nurture critical and scientific thinking through professional development. It is crucial to continue implementing this new curriculum. Training programs should focus on equipping educators with the skills needed to teach critical and scientific competencies, utilizing pedagogical tools that encourage active and collaborative student learning.

4.2. Limitations

Our study was conducted within a specific cultural context that was relatively homogeneous among the participants, which may limit the generalizability of our results. Additionally, our sample size was relatively small. Future research should aim to overcome these limitations related to sample size. Ultimately, we acknowledge that additional research is required to validate the generalizability of our assessment model for fostering critical and scientific thinking, as well as its applicability in educational settings.

4.3. Perspectives

In future studies, it is essential to consider external factors such as family dynamics, socioeconomic status, and school environment. Research is needed in different cultural environments. We also recommend that future studies include a larger and more diverse sample. We suggest that future research prioritize the development and validation of instruments that account for various linguistic differences.

5. Conclusions

Our proposal demonstrated that scientific thinking positively influences the development of critical thinking skills in primary education students in central Mexico. Our work shows clear results, but further studies are recommended to consider other social, cultural, and economic contexts. This is the first scientific study of primary education in central Mexico that demonstrates that critical thinking improves if children incorporate scientific thinking into their learning activities. However, further research is needed to delve deeper into the relationship between these thinking skills and to make greater efforts to eliminate stereotypes and cultural influences to promote these skills equally among girls and boys.