Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education (TECH-EDU 2018), June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece. Read more at: http://bit.ly/techedu1

1. Enhancing college students’ critical
thinking skills in cooperative groups
HELENA SILVA
JOSÉ LOPES
CAROLINE DOMINGUEZ.
UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS-OS-MONTES AND ALTO DOURO, PORTUGAL

2. Context

3. CT concept
“Critical thinking generally leads to well-informed, more reasoned decision
making processes and is considered vital to the success of a democratic society”
Pascarella, Wang, Trolian, & Blaich (2013)
“Critical thinking includes the capacity for interpretation, analysis, evaluation,
inference, explanation and self-regulation “ Facione (1990)

4. Paradoxe
Despite critical thinking importance (World Economic Forum, 2015), although
significant percentages of college students successfully complete
requirements for graduation, they do not progress, as expected, in the
development of their critical thinking skills (Arum & Roksa, 2011)
=> Teaching/Learning strategies desadequate?

5. Cooperative learning and critical thinking
Learning strategy which stimulates students, to collectively (in small groups), in an organized way, to
perform some tasks, confront (and negotiate) their ideas for the sake of a common goal :
- Analyse information
- Synthesise
- Negotiate to reach an agreement (divergent ideas discussed)
(Brown, 2001; Johnson & Johnson, 1999, Laal & Ghodsi, 2012; Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2014)
Features of cooperative groups : positive interdependence, individual and collective responsibility;
stimulating interaction (preferencially face to face); social skills; process of group evaluation, common
objectives, coordinated activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

6. Benefits of Cooperative learning
Discussion, interaction => CT development
Exley (1998) e Paul e Elder (2001)
Social skills

7. Cooperative learning, higher education and CT: a gap
to be filled
- A promising and effective instructional approach Tinto (1997)
- Little evidence drawn from experimental research supporting that
cooperative learning influences positively college students’ cognitive
development in general and critical-thinking skills in particular.
Goodman (2011); Loes (2009); Notar & Padgett (2010)

8. Is there any statistically significant difference between the development of
college students’ critical thinking skills using a cooperative learning approach and
using a traditional lecture-based approach?
Research question

9. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Design
A nonequivalent control group pretest–posttest design was used in this quasi-
experimental study.
Participants
41 students from two classes of a public university from the North of Portugal
divided in two groups of the 3rd year college, one undergraduate course in
Psychology (control group with 22 students) and the other in Basic Education
(experimental group with 19 students). Regarding gender, 87.8% were females and
ages ranged between 19 and 37 (M= 20.8; SD= 3.18).

10. Measures
Critical Thinking Test (CTT) ( Lopes, Silva, & Morais, 2017) Ex and Post test
The respondent is asked to answer in a written way a set of six questions, which refer to different
cognitive tasks, requiring for their appreciation and resolution, the use of a critical thinking skills,
taking in consideration the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (2001) and Facione’s critical thinking skills
classification (1990):
(i) interpretation
(ii) analysis
(iii) explanation
(iv) evaluation
(v) synthesis
(vi) production/creation
The test total score ranges from 0 to 25 points

11. Procedure
A 13-weeks period of experimental instruction (in a total of 13 lessons, lasting
120 minutes each) focusing on learning critical thinking took place in the
experimental group.
For the control group, the lessons were explained using a more traditional
lecture-based approach in which the preponderant role was assigned to the
teacher.
Both, the experimental group and the control group took the pretest in the first
week and completed the posttest (same test as the pretest) in week 13.

12. Methodology
Result
s
Pre-test/Post-
test (Lopes, Silva, &
Morais, 2017)
13 lessons,
lasting 120
minutes each
19 E students:
cooperative
learning
22 C : lectured
based
Intervention

13. Intervention
1) The teacher organized heterogeneous groups of four or five students;
2) He assigned roles to the different members of the group. The roles were rotating and were
adjusted to the activities goals;
3) In the 13 lessons, the students in cooperative groups
3.a.) analyzed pedagogical scenarios, which entailed problem solving and
3.b.) read and analyzed papers on teaching-learning methods in which they had to develop
the respective concept maps;
4) Works were exchanged between groups in order to give and receive feedback (peer
feedback);
5) The teacher gave feedback to the work of each group after peer feedback;
6) Students improved the work carried out, incorporating feedback from colleagues (peer
feedback) and teacher’s;
7) A final oral presentation was carried out by each group to the whole class;
8) A reflection on the functioning of the group (group process), strengths, weaknesses, and
improvement strategies was made.

14. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Groups
Critical
Thinking
Test
N Mean SD
Mean
differences
Effect size
(Cohen d)
Experimental
Pre-test
19
11.37 2.95
t(18) = -6.54, p
< .001
d= 1.66
Post-test 16.53 3.27
Control
Pre-test
22
13.68 2.95
t(21) = 1.86, p=
0.76
d= -0.5
Post-test 12.05 3.54
COMPARISON OF SCORE MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, MEAN DIFFERENCES, EFFECT SIZE FROM
THE CRITICAL THINKING PRE TO POST-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

15. Experimental Group (n= 19)
Questio
n
CT skill
M
pre-test
SD
M
post-test
SD
M
difference
1 Interpreta
tion
1.26 1.04 1.74 .73 .48
2a Analysis 2.11 .31 2.16 .5 .05
2b Analysis 1.05 .4 1.63 .59 .58
3 Explanati
on
1.26 .99 2.42 .96 1.16
4 Evaluatio
n
.68 .47 1,42 .69 .74
5 Synthesis 1.32 1.1 2.47 .96 1.15
6 Fluency 1.53 .69 1.42 .69 -.11
6 Flexibility .95 .4 1.95 .78 1
6 Originality 1.16 .76 1.95 .8 .79
Score CTT 11.37 2.95 16.53 3.27 5.16
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TEST FOR PRE-TEST AND
POST-TEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS
Control group (n= 22)
M
pre-test
SD
M
post-test
SD
M
difference
1.09 1.06 1.36 1 .27
2.05 .375 2.23 .42 .18
.86 .71 1.05 .89 .19
1.59 .66 1.81 .95 .22
1.05 .66 .95 .65 -.1
1.23 1.11 1.64 1.32 .41
1.45 .67 .82 .5 -.63
1.77 .42 .77 .42 -1
2.27 .55 1.55 .91 -.72
13.68 2.95 12.05 3.54 -1.63

16. CONCLUSIONS
Greater improvements in critical thinking skills among the students of the
intervention group suggesting clearly that the effects of cooperative learning are
very positive.
The skills with more significant raise in the experimental group: explanation,
synthesis and flexibility (production/creation skills)
Explanation: improvement due to the features of the classroom activities involved as
well as the active student participation, meaningful interaction with material, and
student-to-student verbal interaction.

17. The practical implications
Professors may be able to increase student critical thinking skills by
including cooperative learning approaches.
They will thus enhance an important part of students’ education
contributing for their effective integration into society and the
workplace as “better” thinking future citizens.

18. Future investigation
The impact of the cooperative learning approach throughout the academic
course, comparing the gains in critical thinking between students who learn with
cooperative approaches and others who do not.
Effects of cooperative learning on the development of critical thinking
dispositions versus a more traditional pedagogical approach

19. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the ‘Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education
Curricula - CRITHINKEDU’ project, with the reference number 2016-1- PT01-KA203-022808,
funded by the European Commission/EACEA, through the ERASMUS+ Programme and also by
National Funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the project
UID/CED/00194/2013.