Pedagogical Approaches for Developing Critical Thinking in Science Education (1987-2025): A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis
This study analyzes 198 Scopus-indexed publications from 1987 to 2025 to map the growth and thematic trends of critical thinking pedagogy in science education, revealing a recent surge in technology-enhanced and inquiry-based approaches while highlighting a significant research gap in secondary chemistry laboratory contexts.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the world of science education, there is a long-held belief that simply memorizing facts is not enough. Students need to learn how to think. This skill, known as critical thinking, is the ability to look at evidence, weigh different explanations, and make reasoned judgments rather than just accepting what is told. It is the mental toolkit that allows a person to separate fact from fiction and to understand the "why" behind the "what." For decades, educators have tried to find the best way to teach this skill. They have moved away from lectures where a teacher speaks and students listen, turning instead toward active learning. In these classrooms, students are expected to investigate problems, work together, and use technology to explore the world around them. The big question has always been: which of these active methods actually helps students learn to think critically, and does it matter if they are studying physics, chemistry, or biology?
A recent study set out to map the landscape of this research to see where the scientific community has been looking and where it might be missing the mark. The researchers, led by Gopi Kupuchitty from the University of Technology Malaysia, did not run a new classroom experiment. Instead, they acted as cartographers, charting the territory of existing knowledge. They gathered 198 published research papers from a major academic database, covering the years 1987 to 2025. Their goal was to read the abstracts—the short summaries of each study—to see what teaching methods were being used, which science subjects were being studied, and in what settings the learning took place. They wanted to know if the research was balanced across different subjects and age groups, or if some areas were being ignored.
The map they drew revealed a field that has grown rapidly in recent years. For a long time, the number of studies remained small and scattered. However, starting around 2017, the volume of research exploded. By the time the study reached its end date in 2025, more than 80 percent of all the papers in their collection had been published in just the last six years. This surge suggests that the question of how to teach critical thinking has become a major priority for educators worldwide. The researchers found that the most common approach identified in these studies was the use of technology-enhanced learning. This includes using digital tools, simulations, and online platforms to help students learn. Following closely behind were methods like problem-based learning, where students solve real-world challenges, and inquiry-based learning, where students ask questions and investigate answers on their own. These active methods became much more visible in the literature after 2016.
However, the map also showed significant gaps in the terrain. While the research covered many areas, it was not evenly distributed. The studies focused heavily on general science and physics. In contrast, chemistry and biology were much less represented. When the researchers looked at the age of the students, they found that many studies did not specify the educational level at all. Among those that did, upper secondary education—roughly the high school years—was the most common focus. The setting of the learning was another surprise. The vast majority of the studies took place in a standard classroom. Very few studies reported on learning that happened in a laboratory or during practical, hands-on activities. In fact, the researchers found that no single study in their collection explicitly combined three specific elements: the subject of chemistry, the high school level, and a practical laboratory activity.
This absence is not a proof that such research does not exist, but rather a sign that it is not being reported in the summaries the researchers reviewed. It suggests that while scientists are eager to teach critical thinking using computers and classroom discussions, they are less likely to document how this happens when students are actually mixing chemicals or handling equipment in a lab. The study also highlighted that the research is heavily concentrated in a few countries, with Indonesia producing the largest number of papers, followed by the United States and Malaysia. International collaboration between these nations was surprisingly low, with most studies conducted by researchers within their own countries.
The findings suggest that the conversation about teaching critical thinking is vibrant and growing, but it is not yet balanced. The research community has been very successful at exploring how technology and classroom-based problem-solving can help students think. Yet, the study indicates that the practical, hands-on side of science, particularly in chemistry at the high school level, remains an underexplored frontier. The author emphasizes that their work describes what has been written about, not which method is the absolute best. They did not measure which approach made students smarter; they simply counted what was being studied. The clear implication is that if we want to understand how to teach critical thinking in a real-world science setting, we need more research that looks specifically at what happens when high school chemistry students are working in a laboratory, not just sitting at a desk. Until then, our understanding of how to build these essential thinking skills in the most practical settings remains incomplete.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.