the researcher demonstrates analytical and critical thinking

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Mind by Design

Critical thinking vs analytical thinking: The differences and similarities

The ability to think clearly and make informed decisions is paramount to life. This article delves deep into the realms of analytical thinking and critical thinking, shedding light on their differences and how they complement each other. By understanding these thinking styles, you’ll be better equipped to tackle complex problems, evaluate information, and make well-informed decisions. Let’s dive in!

Introduction to Analytical and Critical Thinking

Analytical and critical thinking are two skills essential for solving problems and making decisions in various aspects of life. While both involve the use of logic and reasoning, they differ in their approach and outcomes. Analytical thinking involves breaking down complex information into smaller parts, while critical thinking involves taking a holistic view and evaluating information from different angles. Analytical thinking involves the ability to dissect a problem or situation into its individual components and examining each part separately. It requires careful observation and the ability to identify patterns and relationships. This type of thinking is essential for tasks such as data analysis, problem-solving, and troubleshooting.

Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves the ability to assess information objectively, evaluate its credibility, and make logical judgments. It involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and considering different perspectives. Critical thinking is crucial for making informed decisions, weighing pros and cons, and avoiding biases and fallacies.

Both analytical and critical thinking complement each other and are necessary for effective problem-solving and decision-making. Analytical thinking provides a structured and systematic approach to understanding complex problems , while critical thinking helps evaluate different options and make sound judgments.

Developing analytical and critical thinking skills can greatly benefit individuals in various aspects of life. In academia, these skills are necessary for understanding and interpreting complex subjects, conducting research, and writing analytical essays. In the workplace, analytical and critical thinking skills are highly valued by employers as they enable employees to solve problems efficiently and make informed decisions. In daily life, these skills are essential for evaluating information, distinguishing between fact and opinion, and making rational choices.

There are various ways to improve analytical and critical thinking skills. Engaging in activities that require logical reasoning, such as puzzles, brain teasers, and mathematical problems, can help develop analytical thinking abilities. Reading diverse sources of information, questioning assumptions, and actively seeking different perspectives can enhance critical thinking skills . Additionally, engaging in debates, discussions, and problem-solving exercises can promote both analytical and critical thinking.

Analytical and critical thinking skills are essential for problem-solving and decision-making in various aspects of life. They involve breaking down complex information and evaluating it from different angles. Developing these skills can lead to more effective problem-solving, informed decision-making, and overall improved cognitive abilities. 

Traits of an Analytical Thinker

An analytical thinker is one who is adept at breaking down complex problems into smaller parts. This type of thinking is linear and involves analyzing cause and effect relationships. Analytical thinking uses logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion, often relying on data and facts. Some key traits of an analytical thinker include:

• The ability to dissect complex information into smaller pieces.
• A knack for recognizing patterns and relationships.
• A methodical approach to problem-solving.

What Does It Mean to Think Critically?

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a type of higher-order thinking that requires a more holistic approach. Critical thinkers are often skeptical, questioning the validity of information before accepting it. They are adept at evaluating information from various sources and are not easily swayed by outside information. Key aspects of critical thinking include :

• The ability to form an opinion based on evidence.
• Considering multiple perspectives before making a decision.
• Recognizing biases and challenging one’s own assumptions.

Analytical Thinking vs Critical Thinking: The Major Differences

While both analytical and critical thinking are essential for solving problems, they differ in several key ways:

• Approach : Analytical thinking is more linear and focuses on breaking down complex information into smaller parts. Critical thinking, however, is holistic and looks at the bigger picture.
• Use of Information : Analytical thinkers rely heavily on facts and data, while critical thinkers use facts in conjunction with other pieces of information and perspectives.
• Outcome : Analytical thinking often leads to a single logical conclusion, whereas critical thinking might result in multiple potential solutions or outcomes.

The Processes: Analytical Thinking Process vs Critical Thinking Process

Both styles of thinking have distinct processes:

• Analytical Thinking Process : Starts with gathering data, followed by breaking down complex problems, analyzing the cause and effect relationships, and finally drawing a conclusion.
• Critical Thinking Process : Begins with gathering diverse pieces of information, evaluating their validity, considering various perspectives, and finally forming an opinion or decision.

Using Analytical and Critical Thinking in Real Life Scenarios

In real-life scenarios, these thinking styles can be applied in various ways. For instance, when faced with a business decision, an analytical thinker might focus on the numbers and statistics, while a critical thinker might consider the potential impact on employees, company culture, and external stakeholders.

Analytical thinking can be particularly useful when analyzing financial data and making data-driven decisions. For example, a business owner might use analytical thinking to analyze the company’s financial statements and determine the profitability and financial health of the business. They might examine key financial ratios, such as return on investment or gross profit margin, to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of various business operations.

On the other hand, critical thinking can be applied when evaluating different options and considering the potential consequences of each option. For example, when considering a potential business expansion, a critical thinker may explore the potential impact on existing employees, the company’s culture, and the external stakeholders. They may assess the potential risks and benefits of the expansion, considering factors such as increased competition, resource allocation, and market demand.

Analytical and critical thinking can also be applied in personal decision-making. For example, when considering a major life decision such as buying a house or changing careers, analytical thinking can help weigh the financial implications, such as the monthly mortgage payments or future earning potential. Critical thinking can help evaluate the potential impact on personal goals, values, and overall satisfaction.

In everyday life, analytical thinking can be useful when evaluating product options or making purchasing decisions. For example, comparing different phone models based on features, specifications, and customer reviews can help individuals make an informed choice. Critical thinking can be applied when assessing the potential consequences of a decision, such as considering the long-term environmental impact of a product or the ethical practices of a particular company.

Both analytical and critical thinking are valuable skills in problem-solving. They can help individuals identify the root causes of a problem, analyze potential solutions, and evaluate their effectiveness. Whether it’s troubleshooting a technical issue, resolving a conflict, or devising strategies to improve personal or professional performance, these thinking styles can be instrumental in finding effective solutions. 

Analytical and Critical Thinking in Problem-Solving

Problem-solving requires a combination of both analytical and critical thinking. Analytical thinking helps break the problem into manageable parts, while critical thinking helps in evaluating potential solutions and considering their implications.

The Importance of Combining Both Thinking Styles

While both styles are powerful on their own, combining analytical and critical thinking skills can lead to more robust solutions. This combination allows for a thorough analysis of a problem while also considering the broader implications and potential consequences of a decision.

Mistakes to Avoid: Misconceptions about Analytical and Critical Thinking

Many assume that analytical thinking and critical thinking are one and the same, but this is a misconception. It’s important to recognize their distinct differences and strengths. Another common mistake is over-relying on one style and neglecting the other, leading to potential oversights in decision-making.

Key Takeaways: The Future of Analytical and Critical Thinking

In summary, here are the most important things to remember:

• Distinct yet Complementary : While analytical and critical thinking have distinct processes and outcomes, they are complementary and can be used together for more effective decision-making.
• Real-world Applications : Both styles are essential in various aspects of life, from business decisions to personal choices.
• Continuous Learning : As the world becomes more complex, honing both analytical and critical thinking skills will be crucial for success.

Embrace both styles of thinking and watch as your decision-making skills, problem-solving abilities, and overall understanding of complex situations improve dramatically.

Q: What is the difference between critical thinking and analytical thinking?

A: Critical thinking and analytical thinking are similar thinking skills, but there are some differences between the two. Critical thinking involves gathering information, evaluating and interpreting it, and then making a judgment or decision based on that information. Analytical thinking, on the other hand, focuses more on breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and coming up with solutions based on this analysis. So while both skills involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking, critical thinking is more focused on making judgments and decisions, whereas analytical thinking is more focused on problem-solving and analysis.

Q: How do I use critical thinking in everyday life?

A: Critical thinking is a valuable skill that can be applied in various aspects of everyday life. To use critical thinking, you need to approach situations and problems with an open and questioning mind. This involves challenging your own assumptions and beliefs, gathering and evaluating information from different sources, considering alternative perspectives, and making informed decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. By using critical thinking, you can enhance your problem-solving skills, improve your decision-making abilities , and think more creatively and independently.

Q: How do I use analytical thinking in my professional life?

A: Analytical thinking is an important skill in many professional fields. To use analytical thinking, you need to be able to break down complex problems or tasks into smaller parts, analyze the relationships between these parts, and come up with logical and well-reasoned solutions. This involves gathering and evaluating relevant data, identifying patterns or trends, and using logical reasoning to draw conclusions. By using analytical thinking, you can improve your problem-solving and decision-making abilities, demonstrate a logical and organized approach to your work, and effectively communicate your analysis and solutions to others.

Q: Can critical thinking and analytical thinking be used together?

A: Yes, critical thinking and analytical thinking are complementary skills that can be used together. Both skills involve a systematic and logical approach to thinking, and they can reinforce each other in problem-solving and decision-making processes. Critical thinking provides the framework for evaluating and interpreting information, while analytical thinking provides the tools for breaking down complex problems and finding solutions. By using both skills together, you can enhance your ability to think critically and analytically, make more informed decisions, and solve problems more effectively.

Q: What are the differences between analytical reasoning and critical thinking?

A: Analytical reasoning and critical thinking are related skills that involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking. However, there are some differences between the two. Analytical reasoning is more focused on the process of breaking down complex problems or arguments, identifying logical relationships between different elements, and drawing conclusions based on this analysis. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a broader skill that involves evaluating and interpreting information, questioning assumptions and biases, and making judgments or decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. While analytical reasoning is an important part of critical thinking, critical thinking encompasses a wider range of cognitive processes and skills.

Q: How can I develop and improve my analytical thinking skills?

A: To develop and improve your analytical thinking skills, you can engage in activities that stimulate your logical and problem-solving abilities. This may involve practicing with puzzles and brainteasers, analyzing case studies or real-life scenarios, participating in debates or discussions, learning and applying different analytical frameworks or models, and seeking feedback on your analytical thinking from others. Additionally, you can also cultivate your analytical thinking skills by staying curious, asking thoughtful questions, and continuously seeking new knowledge and perspectives. With practice and perseverance, you can enhance your analytical thinking abilities and become a more effective problem solver and decision maker.

Q: How can I become a critical thinker?

A: Becoming a critical thinker requires a conscious effort to develop and refine your thinking skills. Here are some steps you can take to become a critical thinker : 1. Cultivate intellectual humility and open-mindedness: Be willing to consider alternative viewpoints and challenge your own assumptions and beliefs. 2. Develop strong analytical and reasoning skills: Learn to gather and evaluate evidence, identify logical fallacies, and draw logical and well-supported conclusions. 3. Practice active listening and effective communication: Listen attentively to others’ perspectives, ask thoughtful questions, and communicate your own ideas clearly and persuasively. 4. Seek out diverse sources of information: Expose yourself to different perspectives and viewpoints to broaden your understanding and avoid bias. 5. Reflect and evaluate your own thinking: Regularly reflect on your own thinking processes, identify any biases or logical gaps, and work on improving your critical thinking skills.

Q: What role does critical thinking play in problem-solving?

A: Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in problem-solving. It helps you approach problems with a logical and systematic mindset, evaluate potential solutions, and make informed decisions. Critical thinking allows you to gather and analyze relevant information, identify patterns or trends, consider different perspectives or alternatives, weigh the pros and cons, and choose the most effective solution. By using critical thinking in problem-solving, you can enhance your ability to find creative and innovative solutions, overcome obstacles, and make well-informed decisions that are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

Q: Why is critical thinking important?

A: Critical thinking is important because it enables you to think independently, make informed decisions, solve problems effectively, and evaluate information and arguments critically. In a rapidly changing and complex world, critical thinking allows you to navigate through information overload, identify biases or misinformation, and make sense of a wide range of conflicting information. It also helps you develop a deep understanding of concepts and ideas, construct well-reasoned arguments, and communicate your thoughts effectively. In both personal and professional contexts, critical thinking is a valuable skill that empowers you to be a more effective and successful individual.

Q: How does analytical thinking contribute to problem-solving?

A: Analytical thinking is a key component of problem-solving. It involves breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and identifying patterns or trends. Analytical thinking helps you understand the underlying causes of problems, explore different possible solutions, and evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness. By using analytical thinking, you can approach problems in a structured and systematic way, make well-informed decisions, and find creative and innovative solutions. Analytical thinking provides a solid foundation for problem-solving, enabling you to effectively address challenges and find solutions in various domains.

Similar Posts

10 Reasons a Growth Mindset Is Key to Success in Athletes

A growth mindset and its benefits are often cited in popular psychology and business literature. But what does that mean for athletes? Contrary to the belief that some people are born with a natural advantage, success starts with the understanding that anyone can improve and grow. This post will detail 10 reasons why a growth…

The Science behind Growth Mindset

Carol Dweck and her colleagues developed an interest in the students’ perspectives on failing over a period of more than three decades. They observed that some kids were able to recover from even the most minor of setbacks, while other pupils appeared to be completely crushed by even the most minor of setbacks. Dr. Carol…

How to Own Your Own Mind in 5 Simple Ways

We’ve all been there. You meet someone new and they start talking, you listen – then before you know it they have expressed a strong opinion on a topic that matters to you that contradicts what you believe. And as much as your initial reaction might be anger, after some consideration, you find yourself agreeing…

Change your words or change your mindset: What comes first?

For many people, change starts with changing the words you use. But for others, it’s about changing the mindset that certain kinds of language are speaking to them. It is a long-standing joke that many people like to tell that all you need to change your life is a new word in your lexicon. Such…

You Are Not Your Thoughts, but Your Thoughts Will Affect Your Mindset

It’s an interesting predicament. Your thoughts are such as powerful part of who you are. The reality is that you are not your thoughts (Freud was right, no?). It’s not that your thoughts aren’t real, it’s that you are not the thoughts. They exist in your mind. But they don’t necessarily reflect how you feel…

13 Amazing Developmental Growth Mindset Activities

Developing a growth mindset can sometimes be tough if you have been living with a fixed mindset. As the saying goes “A fish is the last to discover the water”, so is the same with discovering you have been living with the wrong mindset! The growth mindset is important to adopt in your personal development…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

4 Ways to Improve Your Analytical Skills

• 07 Jan 2021

Data is ubiquitous. It’s collected at every purchase made, flight taken, ad clicked, and social media post liked—which means it’s never been more crucial to understand how to analyze it.

“Never before has so much data about so many different things been collected and stored every second of every day,” says Harvard Business School Professor Jan Hammond in the online course Business Analytics .

The volume of data you encounter can be overwhelming and raise several questions: Can I trust the data’s source? Is it structured in a way that makes sense? What story does it tell, and what actions does it prompt?

Data literacy and analytical skills can enable you to answer these questions and not only make sense of raw data, but use it to drive impactful change at your organization.

Here’s a look at what it means to be data literate and four ways to improve your analytical skills.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Data Literacy?

Data literacy is the ability to analyze, interpret, and question data. A dataset is made up of numerous data points that, when viewed together, tell a story.

Before conducting an analysis, it’s important to ensure your data’s quality and structure is in accordance with your organization’s needs.

“In order to transform data into actionable information, you first need to evaluate its quality,” says Professor Dustin Tingley in the Harvard Online course Data Science Principles . “But evaluating the quality of your data is just the first step. You’ll also need to structure your data. Without structure, it’s nearly impossible to extract any information.”

When you’re able to look at quality data, structure it, and analyze it, trends emerge. The next step is to reflect on your analysis and take action.

Tingley shares several questions to ask yourself once you’ve analyzed your dataset: “Did all the steps I took make sense? If so, how should I respond to my analysis? If not, what should I go back and improve?”

For example, you may track users who click a button to download an e-book from your website.

After ensuring your data’s quality and structuring it in a way that makes sense, you begin your analysis and find that a user’s age is positively correlated with their likelihood to click. What story does this trend tell? What does it say about your users, product offering, and business strategy?

To answer these questions, you need strong analytical skills, which you can develop in several ways.

Related: Business Analytics: What It Is & Why It’s Important

How to Improve Your Analytical Skills

Analysis is an important skill to have in any industry because it enables you to support decisions with data, learn more about your customers, and predict future trends.

Key analytical skills for business include:

• Visualizing data
• Determining the relationship between two or more variables
• Forming and testing hypotheses
• Performing regressions using statistical programs, such as Microsoft Excel
• Deriving actionable conclusions from data analysis

If you want to provide meaningful conclusions and data-based recommendations to your team, here are four ways to bolster your analytical skills.

Related: How to Learn Business Analytics Without A Business Background

1. Consider Opposing Viewpoints

While engaging with opposing viewpoints can help you expand your perspective, combat bias, and show your fellow employees their opinions are valued, it can also be a useful way to practice analytical skills.

When analyzing data, it’s crucial to consider all possible interpretations and avoid getting stuck in one way of thinking.

For instance, revisit the example of tracking users who click a button on your site to download an e-book. The data shows that the user’s age is positively correlated with their likelihood to click the button; as age increases, downloads increase, too. At first glance, you may interpret this trend to mean that a user chooses to download the e-book because of their age.

This conclusion, however, doesn’t take into consideration the vast number of variables that change with age. For instance, perhaps the real reason your older users are more likely to download the e-book is their higher level of responsibility at work, higher average income, or higher likelihood of being parents.

This example illustrates the need to consider multiple interpretations of data, and specifically shows the difference between correlation (the trending of two or more variables in the same direction) and causation (when a trend in one variable causes a trend to occur in one or more other variables).

“Data science is built on a foundation of critical thinking,” Tingley says in Data Science Principles . “From the first step of determining the quality of a data source to determining the accuracy of an algorithm, critical thinking is at the heart of every decision data scientists—and those who work with them—make.”

To practice this skill, challenge yourself to question your assumptions and ask others for their opinions. The more you actively engage with different viewpoints, the less likely you are to get stuck in a one-track mindset when analyzing data.

2. Play Games or Brain Teasers

If you’re looking to sharpen your skills on a daily basis, there are many simple, enjoyable ways to do so.

Games, puzzles, and stories that require visualizing relationships between variables, examining situations from multiple angles, and drawing conclusions from known data points can help you build the skills necessary to analyze data.

Some fun ways to practice analytical thinking include:

• Crossword puzzles
• Mystery novels
• Logic puzzles
• Strategic board games or card games

These options can supplement your analytics coursework and on-the-job experience. Some of them also allow you to spend time with friends or family. Try engaging with one each day to hone your analytical mindset.

Related: 3 Examples of Business Analytics in Action

3. Take an Online Analytics Course

Whether you want to learn the basics, brush up on your skills, or expand your knowledge, taking an analytics course is an effective way to improve. A course can enable you to focus on the content you want to learn, engage with the material presented by a professional in the field, and network and interact with others in the data analytics space.

For a beginner, courses like Harvard Online's Data Science Principles can provide a foundation in the language of data. A more advanced course, like Harvard Online's Data Science for Business , may be a fit if you’re looking to explore specific facets of analytics, such as forecasting and machine learning. If you’re interested in hands-on applications of analytical formulas, a course like HBS Online's Business Analytics could be right for you. The key is to understand what skills you hope to gain, then find a course that best fits your needs.

If you’re balancing a full-time job with your analytics education, an online format may be a good choice . It offers the flexibility to engage with course content whenever and wherever is most convenient for you.

An online course may also present the opportunity to network and build relationships with other professionals devoted to strengthening their analytical skills. A community of like-minded learners can prove to be an invaluable resource as you learn and advance your career.

Related: Is An Online Business Analytics Course Worth It?

4. Engage With Data

Once you have a solid understanding of data science concepts and formulas, the next step is to practice. Like any skill, analytical skills improve the more you use them.

Mock datasets—which you can find online or create yourself—present a low-risk option for putting your skills to the test. Import the data into Microsoft Excel, then explore: make mistakes, try that formula you’re unsure of, and ask big questions of your dataset. By testing out different analyses, you can gain confidence in your knowledge.

Once you’re comfortable, engage with your organization’s data. Because these datasets have inherent meaning to your business's financial health, growth, and strategic direction, analyzing them can produce evidence and insights that support your decisions and drive change at your organization.

Investing in Your Data Literacy

As data continues to be one of businesses’ most valuable resources, taking the time and effort to build and bolster your analytical skill set is vital.

“Much more data are going to be available; we’re only seeing the beginning now,” Hammond says in a previous article . “If you don’t use the data, you’re going to fall behind. People that have those capabilities—as well as an understanding of business contexts—are going to be the ones that will add the most value and have the greatest impact.”

Are you interested in furthering your data literacy? Download our Beginner’s Guide to Data & Analytics to learn how you can leverage the power of data for professional and organizational success.

About the Author

The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking

• Review Article
• Published: 12 October 2014
• Volume 26 , pages 477–493, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• James P. Byrnes 1 &
• Kevin N. Dunbar 2  

3390 Accesses

53 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this article, we attempt to provide an overview of the features of the abilities, aptitudes, and frames of minds that are attributed to critical thinking and provide the broad outlines of the development of critical-analytic thinking (CAT) abilities. In addition, we evaluate the potential viability of three main hypotheses regarding the reasons for developmental trends in CAT and address problems of achieving the ideal of a critical-analytic thinker at all age levels. The first hypothesis is that standard instruction in disciplines such as the sciences and social sciences, couch findings, and theories as matters of choice rather than as inferences is being more warranted than others. The second hypothesis is that there are developmental constraints on the expression of CAT that would limit the efficacy of instruction seeking to promote increased appreciation for inferential warrants and the idea of progress in disciplines. These constraints could be tied to the acquisition of knowledge, development of expertise, and brain development. The third hypothesis pertains to motivational reasons for not exerting the time and effort required to engage in CAT. We conclude by proposing a research agenda to investigate these hypotheses, as the first step in understanding the kinds of interventions that might be needed to increase the level of CAT expressed in high school and college graduates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

Stage Theory of Cognitive Development—Jean Piaget

Carl Rogers: A Person-Centered Approach

Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically-analytically about critical-analytic thinking: an introduction. Educational Psychology Review.

American Nursing Association. (2010). Nursing: scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.). MD: Silver Spring.

Google Scholar  

Baltes, B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: a metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55 , 122–136.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413–432). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baum, L. A., Danovich, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Children’s sensitivity to circular explanations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100 , 146–155.

Berliner, D. C. (1993). The 100-year journey of educational psychology: from interest, to disdain, to respect for practice. In T. K. Fagan & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Exploring applied psychology: origins and critical analyses (pp. 37–78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meaning of words . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Byrnes (2008). Cognitive development in instructional contexts (3rd ed.). Needham Hts: Allyn & Bacon.

Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24 , 389–401.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5 , 121–152.

Dewey, J. D. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Boston: D. C. Heath.

Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 , 335–341.

Dumas, D., Alexander, P., Baker, L.M., Jablansky, S., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Clinical relations: how relational reasoning supports medical education and practice. Educational Psychology. First published online May 8.

Dunbar, K. (2002). Science as category: implications of InVivo science for theories of cognitive development, scientific discovery, and the nature of science. In S. Stich & P. Carruthers (Eds.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 154–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dunbar, K., Fugelsang, J., & Stein, C. (2007). Do naive theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 193–206). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701–718). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Ericsson, K. A. (2013). Exceptional memory and expert performance: from Simon and Chase’s theory of expertise to skilled memory and beyond. In J. J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: the impact of William G. Chase (pp. 201–228). New York: Psychology Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Dual process theories of deductive reasoning: facts and fallacies. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 115–133). New York: Oxford University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (223–241), 263–271.

Fugelsang, J.A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2005). Brain-based mechanisms underlying complex causal thinking. Neuropsychologia, 43 , 1204–1213.

Glaser, E. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: J. J. Little and Ives Company.

Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2012). Mental function as genetic expression: emerging insights from cognitive neurogenetics. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 90–114). New York: Oxford University Press.

Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Harris, P. J. (2002). What do children learn from testimony? In P. Carruthers, S. P. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 316–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.

Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8 , 407–424.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Farran, E. K. (2012). Theoretical and empirical directions within a neuroconstructivist framework. In E. K. Farran & A. Karmiloff-Smith (Eds.), Neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan: a neuroconstructivist approach (pp. 363–372). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mulvey, K. L., Hitti, A., & Killen, M. (2013). Morality, intentionality, and exclusion: how children navigate the social world. In M. Banaji & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: a developmental perspective (pp. 377–384). New York: Oxford University Press.

Klaczinski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92 , 1–24.

Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability and epistemological beliefs: adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15 , 400–416.

Kuhl, P. K. (2006). A new view of language acquisition. In H. Luria, D, M, Seymour & T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: readings and applications for teachers (pp. 29–42). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 , 16–26.

Kuhn, D. (2011). What people may do versus can do. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 343 , 83.

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ reasoning. Psychological Science, 22 , 545–552.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23 , 512–529.

Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260–276). New York: Oxford University Press.

Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Walking on the borders: a measure of epistemic cognition in history. Journal of Experimental Education, 77 , 187–213.

Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26 , 177–191.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34 , 57–111.

Mills, C. M. (2012). Knowing when to doubt: developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49 , 404–418.

Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and language: the challenge of generic skills and disciplinary discourse . New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). Enhancing students’ performance in traditional education: implications from the expert–performance approach and deliberate practice. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 257–293). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 , 192–233.

Schraw, G., & Gutierrez, A. (2012). Assessment of thinking skills. In M. F. Shaughnessy (Ed.), Critical thinking and higher order thinking: a current perspective (pp. 191–203). Hauppague: Nova Science Publishers.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 433–455). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 , 672–695.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 , 259–264.

Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., Birney, D. P., Naples, A., Stemler, S. E., Newman, T., Otterbach, R., Parish, C., Randi, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). Testing the theory of successful intelligence in teaching grade 4 language arts, mathematics, and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 , 881–899.

Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning, and academic achievement. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook. Volume 1: theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 327–366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331 (6022), 1279–1285.

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Rational thinking and cognitive sophistication: development, cognitive abilities, and thinking dispositions. Developmental Psychology, 50 , 1037–1048.

Thompson, V., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18 , 278–310.

Willingham, W. T. (2008). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109 , 21–29.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. (Anscombe, G.E.M., trans.) . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93 , 109–130.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

James P. Byrnes

Department of Human Development, Measurement and Statistics, College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

Kevin N. Dunbar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James P. Byrnes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Byrnes, J.P., Dunbar, K.N. The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking. Educ Psychol Rev 26 , 477–493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Download citation

Published : 12 October 2014

Issue Date : December 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical thinking
• Analytic thinking
• Rationality
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

UCL Careers

Analytical and Critical Thinking Skills

The power to apply logical thinking, break down complex problems into manageable components objectively, and make a reasoned judgement by evaluating information.

Explore your understanding

Applying analytical and critical thinking to a task is about being able to look at a situation and examining it carefully.  Paying attention to detail, remaining focused and having determination are all key elements to apply to this process.

During the recruitment process, industry case study scenarios are sometimes used to test your analytical skills. Employers are looking to see that you are able to critically look at data, evaluate the information you have and produce proposals for suggested actions.

Find and develop your skill

How can you improve your analytical and critical thinking skills at UCL? 

Travel to hone your analytical and critical thinking skills

Travel via UCL Go Abroad programmes which encompass an enriching selection of worldwide opportunities tailored to support UCL students to perform at their full potential and further develop their analytical and critical thinking skills through meeting a wide range of people. Attend an event to learn more about the global opportunities available both short term and longer term as part of your degree.

Learn how to apply analytical and critical thinking

Take part in a skills session delivered by employers to learn more about developing your analytical and critical thinking . You could also try coming to a Mock Assessment Centre where you can practice applying logic and evaluating information as part of a group task. 

Employer-led skills sessions

Use LinkedIn Learning to grow your skillset

LinkedIn Learning has a huge range of video courses supporting learning in software, creative and business skills – all free to UCL staff and currently enrolled students.  Access LinkedIn learning content on how you can build your analytical and thinking skills.

Access LinkedIn Learning

Join a club or society Join a club or society that challenges your critical thinking, such as the Consulting Society, Law for All, the International Relations Society, or even come up with your own proposal if you identify a gap. 

Clubs and societies directory

Develop your analytical and critical thinking skills as a researcher

Access courses related to analytical & critical skills such as Introductions to science, philosophy, and key concepts to develop your skills within this area. The UCL Doc Skills Programme is open to all postgraduate research students at UCL. You’ll find more information on all the courses available on our website . 

UCL Doctoral Skills Development Programme You will also be able to browse the  scheduled events for researchers  and  those for doctoral students .  Research students can also  access courses mapped to the Researcher Development Framework (RDF)  and  one-to-one advice, practice interviews and workshops tailored to researchers.

Prepare your examples

Ask yourself:

Do you have a group project that you are working on? Was there any type of evaluation involved? Think about a piece of research, report or dissertation you completed? What analysis and evaluation processes did you use and why?

Can you describe how you have developed your analytical and critical thinking skills whilst at UCL?

Next steps:

Course projects are also a great way to develop your skills. Need some support on how to apply analytical and critical thinking? Visit our 'Psychometric and aptitude tests' page to see the different examples of problem solving and situational judgement tests.

Practice psychometric and aptitude tests

Get support on how to structure answers on analytical and critical thinking as part of an interview. Visit our Interview Skills page. 

How to demonstrate your skills in an interview

Here you can find out more about how to structure your answer and demonstrate your skills along with many more resources that will help you prepare.

If you have written a draft application for any type of opportunity, our team can provide personalised practical tips and advice to help you better understand how recruiters will shortlist your application, and how you can best demonstrate your motivation and your most relevant skills / experience.

Get one-to-one advice

The employer perspective – Procter and Gamble:

“ Analytical skills is an essential skill for all employees at Procter and Gamble . We recruit a variety of roles including Sales, Marketing, Finance, Engineering and HR and across all of these analytical skills are used in day to day life at P&G. As a data driven company, we make a lot of decisions based on data from the market, our customers and our campaigns which means its crucial all employees have an ability to analyse and manipulate data to create insights used for decision making.

Analytical Thinking, Critical Analysis, and Problem Solving Guide

• Post author: Samir Saif
• Post published: September 5, 2023
• Post category: marketing skills
• Post comments: 4 Comments
• Post last modified: November 10, 2023
• Reading time: 9 mins read

Analytical thinking; is a mental process that entails dissecting an issue or situation into its constituent parts, investigating their relationships, and reaching conclusions based on facts and logic.

It is not about trusting instincts or making assumptions; rather, it is about studying details, recognizing patterns, and developing a full understanding. Whether you’re a seasoned professional, an aspiring entrepreneur, or a curious mind, improving analytical thinking can help you solve problems more effectively.

Table of Contents

Analytical Thinking’s Importance in Problem Solving

Certainly! Analytical thinking entails the capacity to gather pertinent information, critically assess evidence, and reach logical conclusions. It enables you to:

• Identify Root Causes: Analytical thinking allows you to delve deeper into a problem to find the underlying causes rather than just addressing surface-level symptoms.
• Reduce Risks: Analytical thinking can help discover potential risks and obstacles connected with various solutions. This kind of thinking encourages constant progress and the generation of new ideas.
• Improve Communication: Analytical thinking enables you to deliver clear and well-structured explanations while giving answers to others.
• Adaptability : Analytical thinking gives you a flexible attitude.
• Learning and Development: Analytical thinking improves your cognitive skills, allowing you to learn from prior experiences and apply those lessons to new situations.
• Problem Prevention: By examining previous difficulties, you can find trends and patterns.
• Analytical thinking is, in essence, the foundation of effective problem-solving. It enables you to approach problems methodically, make well-informed judgments, and eventually get better results.

Key Components of Analytical Thinking

Analytical thinking is a multifaceted process including a beautifully woven tapestry of observation, inquiry, and logic. Engage your curiosity as you approach a complex task and see patterns emerge, similar to stars in the night sky.

These patterns direct your thinking toward greater comprehension. Your understanding grows as you progress, and your analytical thinking becomes a light of clarity, guiding people through the fog of complexity.

Your tapestry is complete as you approach the shores of conclusion, a tribute to the power of analytical thinking. Embrace your curiosity, navigate the waters of observation, and let the stars of logic guide you. Remember that the art of analytical thinking is a magnificent journey that leads to enlightenment.

Using analytical reasoning in real-life situations

Absolutely! Let’s get started with analytical thinking! Consider yourself in a busy city, attempting to discover the shortest route to your goal. Instead than taking the first option that comes to mind, you take a moment to think about your possibilities.

This is the initial stage in analytical thinking: evaluating the situation. As you contemplate, you balance the advantages and disadvantages of each route, taking into account issues such as traffic, distance, and potential bypasses. This information gathering approach assists you in making an informed decision.

Breaking down the problem

Then you go to the second phase, which entails breaking the problem down into smaller portions. You break down the difficult job of navigating the city into manageable components, much like a puzzle.

This technique allows you to identify future difficulties and devise creative solutions. For example, you may observe a construction zone on one route but recall a shortcut that may save you time.

Read Also:  Goal Alignment: Key Strategies for Success

Analyzing the information

You employ critical thinking to assess the material you’ve received as you go. As you consider the significance of each component—time, distance, and traffic—patterns and connections emerge.

You begin to make connections and discover that, while a faster route may appear enticing, heavy traffic at certain times of day might make it a frustrating experience.

Make a decision

Making a decision in the last step necessitates a complete comprehension of the circumstance as well as critical analysis. Analytical thinking entails investigating alternatives, comprehending nuances, and making informed decisions.

This approach can lead to optimal, well-thought-out, and adaptable solutions, whether navigating a city, tackling a complex project, or making life decisions. Analytic thinking allows one to make informed judgments that benefit both the situation and the individual.

Strategies to Enhance Analytical Thinking Skills

Developing strong analytical thinking abilities is a journey that opens up new possibilities for comprehension and issue solving.

Consider yourself on an exciting mental journey where every challenge is an opportunity for improvement. Here’s a step-by-step guide to cultivating and improving your analytical thinking talents.

Accept curiosity

Begin by embracing your curiosity. Allow your thoughts to roam, pondering about the hows and whys of the world around you.

Allow yourself to immerse yourself completely in the complexities of a complex topic, such as climate change. “What are the underlying causes of this phenomenon?” Two decent places to start are “How do different variables interact to shape its outcomes?”.

Improve your observing abilities

Then, put your observation abilities to the test. Pay close attention to details that would otherwise go undetected. Instead of just gazing at the colors and shapes, try to figure out the brushstrokes, the play of light and shadow, and the feelings they create, as if you were studying a painting.

When analyzing data, look underneath the surface figures for trends, anomalies, and patterns that can reveal hidden insights.

Accept critical thinking

Learn to think critically as you progress. Examine your assumptions and look for alternative points of view. Assume you’re looking into a business problem, such as declining sales.

Instead than jumping to conclusions, investigate the matter from all angles. Consider changes in the sector, client preferences, and even internal corporate processes. This broader viewpoint can lead to creative solutions.

Read Also:  Business Development: Strategies and Tips for Success

Experiment with logical reasoning

Also, practice logical reasoning. Improve your ability to connect the dots and build logical chains of reasoning. As if you were assembling a jigsaw puzzle, each piece must fit snugly into the whole.

Consider how numerous variables such as population growth, infrastructure, and transportation systems logically interconnect when dealing with a complex issue such as urban congestion.

Improve your problem-solving skills

Develop your problem-solving abilities as well. For example, if you’re struggling with a personal issue, such as time management, break it down into smaller components. Analyze your daily routine to discover bottlenecks and develop a strategy to overcome them.

Foster continuous learning

Finally, encourage ongoing learning by broadening your knowledge base and investigating new domains. Imagine yourself as a discerning thinker analyzing the world’s intricacies and unraveling secrets.

Remember that progress, not perfection, is the goal. Every task, question, and conundrum you solve puts you one step closer to being an analytical juggernaut. Continue to explore and study to see your critical thinking skills soar to new heights.

Applying analytical reasoning to work

Assume you are a business owner who wants to boost client happiness. An analytical thinker would collect and analyze client input to uncover frequent pain issues.

You can adopt targeted adjustments that address the fundamental causes of unhappiness by detecting patterns in feedback data.

How can you demonstrate analytical skills on a resume?

Analytical skills on your CV can set you apart and leave a lasting impression on potential employers. Make your CV into a canvas, describing specific instances where your analytical skills were put to use.

Share how you methodically dissected a challenging topic or situation, revealing insights that aided your decision-making.

If you were tasked with optimizing a company’s supply chain, for example, dig further into data on inventory levels, production rates, and distribution deadlines.

Explain how your study found a bottleneck in the distribution network, leading to a realignment suggestion that saved the organization time and money.

Storytelling is key. Create a fascinating story about how your analytical abilities helped solve a tough problem, demonstrating your abilities and attracting the reader.

Your CV should read like a motivational trip through your analytical abilities, inspiring companies with your future contributions to their organization.

What is a case study of analytical thinking?

Absolutely! Let me give you an excellent example of analytical thinking that perfectly expresses its essence. Maya, a young scientist in this example, is dedicated to discovering a long-term solution for safe drinking water in rural areas.

She performs extensive research on water supplies, toxins, and local circumstances, looking for patterns and anomalies. She develops the concept that heavy rains increase runoff, resulting in higher levels of water contamination.

Maya designs controlled experiments in a lab setting to test her idea, acquiring quantifiable information through manipulation and observation.

Maya’s investigation continues, and she explores the big picture, imagining a multi-faceted solution that involves rainwater gathering, enhanced filtration systems, and community education.

She anticipates problems and works with engineers, social workers, and community leaders to refine her ideas and ensure their viability.

Her journey exemplifies how analytical thinking can lead to transformational solutions, and it motivates us to tackle complex challenges with curiosity, diligence, and the hope that careful analysis may design a better future.

Final Thoughts

Analytical thinking is more than just a cognitive skill; it’s a mindset that empowers you to unravel complexity, make informed choices, and navigate challenges with confidence.

You will be better able to handle the intricacies of the modern world as your analytical thinking skills increase, whether in business, academics, or daily life. Accept the power of analytical thinking, and your decision-making and problem-solving abilities will soar.

Share this content

• Opens in a new window X
• Opens in a new window Facebook
• Opens in a new window WhatsApp

You Might Also Like

Business development: strategies and tips for success, goal alignment: key strategies for success, this post has 4 comments.

Pingback: Performance Appraisal to Improve Employee Engagement

Pingback: Self-Reflection Power: Uncovering Your True Potential

Pingback: Self-Esteem Development: Increasing Confidence and Empowerment

Pingback: Stress-Tolerance Mindset: Effective Stress Management Strategies

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.6(2); Summer 2007

Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Thinking Performance in General Education Biology

Ian j. quitadamo.

*Department of Biological Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7537; and

Martha J. Kurtz

† Department of Chemistry, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7539

Increasingly, national stakeholders express concern that U.S. college graduates cannot adequately solve problems and think critically. As a set of cognitive abilities, critical thinking skills provide students with tangible academic, personal, and professional benefits that may ultimately address these concerns. As an instructional method, writing has long been perceived as a way to improve critical thinking. In the current study, the researchers compared critical thinking performance of students who experienced a laboratory writing treatment with those who experienced traditional quiz-based laboratory in a general education biology course. The effects of writing were determined within the context of multiple covariables. Results indicated that the writing group significantly improved critical thinking skills whereas the nonwriting group did not. Specifically, analysis and inference skills increased significantly in the writing group but not the nonwriting group. Writing students also showed greater gains in evaluation skills; however, these were not significant. In addition to writing, prior critical thinking skill and instructor significantly affected critical thinking performance, whereas other covariables such as gender, ethnicity, and age were not significant. With improved critical thinking skill, general education biology students will be better prepared to solve problems as engaged and productive citizens.

INTRODUCTION

A national call to improve critical thinking in science.

In the past several years, an increasing number of national reports indicate a growing concern over the effectiveness of higher education teaching practices and the decreased science (and math) performance of U.S. students relative to other industrialized countries ( Project Kaleidoscope, 2006 ). A variety of national stakeholders, including business and educational leaders, politicians, parents, and public agencies, have called for long-term transformation of the K–20 educational system to produce graduates who are well trained in science, can engage intelligently in global issues that require local action, and in general are better able to solve problems and think critically. Specifically, business leaders are calling for graduates who possess advanced analysis and communication skills, for instructional methods that improve lifelong learning, and ultimately for an educational system that builds a nation of innovative and effective thinkers ( Business-Higher Education Forum and American Council on Education, 2003 ). Education leaders are similarly calling for institutions of higher education to produce graduates who think critically, communicate effectively, and who employ lifelong learning skills to address important scientific and civic issues ( Association of American Colleges and Universities, [AACU] 2005 ).

Many college faculty consider critical thinking to be one of the most important indicators of student learning quality. In its 2005 national report, the AACU indicated that 93% of higher education faculty perceived analytical and critical thinking to be an essential learning outcome (AACU, 2005) whereas 87% of undergraduate students indicated that college experiences contributed to their ability to think analytically and creatively. This same AACU report showed that only 6% of undergraduate seniors demonstrated critical thinking proficiency based on Educational Testing Services standardized assessments from 2003 to 2004. During the same time frame, data from the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency test showed a similar trend, with undergraduates improving their critical thinking less than 1 SD from freshman to senior year. Thus, it appears a discrepancy exists between faculty expectations of critical thinking and students' ability to perceive and demonstrate critical thinking proficiency using standardized assessments (AACU, 2005).

Teaching that supports the development of critical thinking skills has become a cornerstone of nearly every major educational objective since the Department of Education released its six goals for the nation's schools in 1990. In particular, goal three of the National Goals for Education stated that more students should be able to reason, solve problems, and apply knowledge. Goal six specifically stated that college graduates must be able to think critically ( Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1991 ). Since 1990, American education has tried—with some success—to make a fundamental shift from traditional teacher-focused instruction to more student-centered constructivist learning that encourages discovery, reflection, and in general is thought to improve student critical thinking skill. National science organizations have supported this trend with recommendations to improve the advanced thinking skills that support scientific literacy ( American Association for Higher Education, 1989 ; National Research Council, 1995 ; National Science Foundation, 1996 ).

More recent reports describe the need for improved biological literacy as well as international competitiveness ( Bybee and Fuchs, 2006 ; Klymkowsky, 2006 ). Despite the collective call for enhanced problem solving and critical thinking, educators, researchers, and policymakers are discovering a lack of evidence in existing literature for methods that measurably improve critical thinking skills ( Tsui, 1998 , 2002 ). As more reports call for improved K–20 student performance, it is essential that research-supported teaching and learning practices be used to better help students develop the cognitive skills that underlie effective science learning ( Malcom et al., 2005 ; Bybee and Fuchs, 2006 ).

Critical Thinking

Although they are not always transparent to many college students, the academic and personal benefits of critical thinking are well established; students who can think critically tend to get better grades, are often better able to use reasoning in daily decisions ( U.S. Department of Education, 1990 ), and are generally more employable ( Carnevale and American Society for Training and Development, 1990 ; Holmes and Clizbe, 1997 ; National Academy of Sciences, 2005 ). By focusing on instructional efforts that develop critical thinking skills, it may be possible to increase student performance while satisfying national stakeholder calls for educational improvement and increased ability to solve problems as engaged and productive citizens.

Although academics and business professionals consider critical thinking skill to be a crucial outcome of higher education, many would have difficulty defining exactly what critical thinking is. Historically, there has been little agreement on how to conceptualize critical thinking. Of the literally dozens of definitions that exist, one of the most organized efforts to define (and measure) critical thinking emerged from research done by Peter Facione and others in the early 1990s. Their consensus work, referred to as the Delphi report, was accomplished by a group of 46 leading theorists, teachers, and critical thinking assessment specialists from a variety of academic and business disciplines ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). Initial results from the Delphi report were later confirmed in a national survey and replication study ( Jones et al., 1995 ). In short, the Delphi panel expert consensus describes critical thinking as a “process of purposeful self-regulatory judgment that drives problem-solving and decision-making” ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). This definition implies that critical thinking is an intentional, self-regulated process that provides a mechanism for solving problems and making decisions based on reasoning and logic, which is particularly useful when dealing with issues of national and global significance.

The Delphi conceptualization of critical thinking encompasses several cognitive skills that include: 1) analysis (the ability to break a concept or idea into component pieces in order to understand its structure and inherent relationships), 2) inference (the skills used to arrive at a conclusion by reconciling what is known with what is unknown), and 3) evaluation (the ability to weigh and consider evidence and make reasoned judgments within a given context). Other critical thinking skills that are similarly relevant to science include interpretation, explanation, and self-regulation ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). The concept of critical thinking includes behavioral tendencies or dispositions as well as cognitive skills ( Ennis, 1985 ); these include the tendency to seek truth, to be open-minded, to be analytical, to be orderly and systematic, and to be inquisitive ( Facione and American Philosophical Association, 1990 ). These behavioral tendencies also align closely with behaviors considered to be important in science. Thus, an increased focus on teaching critical thinking may directly benefit students who are engaged in science.

Prior research on critical thinking indicates that students' behavioral dispositions do not change in the short term ( Giancarlo and Facione, 2001 ), but cognitive skills can be developed over a relatively short period of time (Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch, unpublished results). In their longitudinal study of behavioral disposition toward critical thinking, Giancarlo and Facione (2001) discovered that undergraduate critical thinking disposition changed significantly after two years. Specifically, significant changes in student tendency to seek truth and confidence in thinking critically occurred during the junior and senior years. Also, females tended to be more open-minded and have more mature judgment than males ( Giancarlo and Facione, 2001 ). Although additional studies are necessary to confirm results from the Giancarlo study, existing research seems to indicate that changes in undergraduate critical thinking disposition are measured in years, not weeks.

In contrast to behavioral disposition, prior research indicates that critical thinking skills can be measurably changed in weeks. In their study of undergraduate critical thinking skill in university science and math courses, Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch (unpublished results) showed that critical thinking skills changed within 15 wk in response to Peer Led Team Learning (a national best practice for small group learning). This preliminary study provided some evidence that undergraduate critical thinking skills could be measurably improved within an academic semester, but provided no information about whether critical thinking skills could be changed during a shorter academic quarter. It was also unclear whether the development of critical thinking skills was a function of chronological time or whether it was related to instructional time.

Numerous studies provide anecdotal evidence for pedagogies that improve critical thinking, but much of existing research relies on student self-report, which limits the scope of interpretation. From the literature it is clear that, although critical thinking skills are some of the most valued outcomes of a quality education, additional research investigating the effects of instructional factors on critical thinking performance is necessary ( Tsui, 1998 , 2002 ).

Writing and Critical Thinking

Writing has been widely used as a tool for communicating ideas, but less is known about how writing can improve the thinking process itself ( Rivard, 1994 ; Klein, 2004 ). Writing is thought to be a vehicle for improving student learning ( Champagne and Kouba, 1999 ; Kelly and Chen, 1999 ; Keys, 1999 ; Hand and Prain, 2002 ), but too often is used as a means to regurgitate content knowledge and derive prescribed outcomes ( Keys, 1999 ; Keys et al., 1999 ). Historically, writing is thought to contribute to the development of critical thinking skills ( Kurfiss, and Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988 ). Applebee (1984) suggested that writing improves thinking because it requires an individual to make his or her ideas explicit and to evaluate and choose among tools necessary for effective discourse. Resnick (1987) stressed that writing should provide an opportunity to think through arguments and that, if used in such a way, could serve as a “cultivator and an enabler of higher order thinking.” Marzano (1991) suggested that writing used as a means to restructure knowledge improves higher-order thinking. In this context, writing may provide opportunity for students to think through arguments and use higher-order thinking skills to respond to complex problems ( Marzano, 1991 ).

Writing has also been used as a strategy to improve conceptual learning. Initial work focused on how the recursive and reflective nature of the writing process contributes to student learning ( Applebee, 1984 ; Langer and Applebee, 1985 , 1987 ; Ackerman, 1993 ). However, conclusions from early writing to learn studies were limited by confounding research designs and mismatches between writing activities and measures of student learning ( Ackerman, 1993 ). Subsequent work has focused on how writing within disciplines helps students to learn content and how to think. Specifically, writing within disciplines is thought to require deeper analytical thinking ( Langer and Applebee, 1987 ), which is closely aligned with critical thinking.

The influence of writing on critical thinking is less defined in science. Researchers have repeatedly called for more empirical investigations of writing in science; however, few provide such evidence ( Rivard, 1994 ; Tsui, 1998 ; Daempfle, 2002 ; Klein, 2004 ). In his extensive review of writing research, Rivard (1994) indicated that gaps in writing research limit its inferential scope, particularly within the sciences. Specifically, Rivard and others indicate that, despite the volume of writing students are asked to produce during their education, they are not learning to use writing to improve their awareness of thinking processes ( Resnick, 1987 ; Howard, 1990 ). Existing studies are limited because writing has been used either in isolation or outside authentic classroom contexts. Factors like gender, ethnicity, and academic ability that are not directly associated with writing but may nonetheless influence its effectiveness have also not been sufficiently accounted for in previous work ( Rivard, 1994 ).

A more recent review by Daempfle (2002) similarly indicates the need for additional research to clarify relationships between writing and critical thinking in science. In his review, Daempfle identified nine empirical studies that generally support the hypothesis that students who experience writing (and other nontraditional teaching methods) have higher reasoning skills than students who experience traditional science instruction. Of the relatively few noninstructional variables identified in those studies, gender and major did not affect critical thinking performance; however, the amount of time spent on and the explicitness of instruction to teach reasoning skills did affect overall critical thinking performance. Furthermore, the use of writing and other nontraditional teaching methods did not appear to negatively affect content knowledge acquisition ( Daempfle, 2002 ). Daempfle justified his conclusions by systematically describing the methodological inconsistencies for each study. Specifically, incomplete sample descriptions, the use of instruments with insufficient validity and reliability, the absence of suitable comparison groups, and the lack of statistical covariate analyses limit the scope and generalizability of existing studies of writing and critical thinking ( Daempfle, 2002 ).

Writing in the Biological Sciences

The conceptual nature and reliance on the scientific method as a means of understanding make the field of biology a natural place to teach critical thinking through writing. Some work has been done in this area, with literature describing various approaches to writing in the biological sciences that range from linked biology and English courses, writing across the biology curriculum, and directed use of writing to improve reasoning in biology courses ( Ebert-May et al., 1997 ; Holyoak, 1998 ; Taylor and Sobota, 1998 ; Steglich, 2000 ; Lawson, 2001 ; Kokkala and Gessell, 2003 ; Tessier, 2006 ). In their work on integrated biology and English, Taylor and Sobota (1998) discussed several problem areas that affected both biology and English students, including anxiety and frustration associated with writing, difficulty expressing thoughts clearly and succinctly, and a tendency to have strong negative responses to writing critique. Although the authors delineate the usefulness of several composition strategies for writing in biology ( Taylor and Sobota, 1998 ), it was unclear whether student data were used to support their recommendations. Kokkala and Gessell (2003) used English students to evaluate articles written by biology students. Biology students first reflected on initial editorial comments made by English students, and then resubmitted their work for an improved grade. In turn, English students had to justify their editorial comments with written work of their own. Qualitative results generated from a list of reflective questions at the end of the writing experience seemed to indicate that both groups of students improved editorial skills and writing logic. However, no formal measures of student editorial skill were collected before biology-English student collaboration, so no definitive conclusions on the usefulness of this strategy could be made.

Taking a slightly different tack, Steglich (2000) informally assessed student attitudes in nonmajors biology courses, and noted that writing produced positive changes in student attitudes toward biology. However, the author acknowledged that this work was not a research study. Finally, Tessier (2006) showed that students enrolled in a nonmajors ecology course significantly improved writing technical skills and committed fewer errors of fact regarding environmental issues in response to a writing treatment. Attitudes toward environmental issues also improved ( Tessier, 2006 ). Although this study surveyed students at the beginning and the end of the academic term and also tracked student progress during the quarter, instrument validity and reliability were not provided. The generalizability of results was further limited because of an overreliance on student self-reports and small sample size.

Each of the studies described above peripherally supports a relationship between writing and critical thinking. Although not explicitly an investigation of critical thinking, results from a relatively recent study support a stronger connection between writing and reasoning ability ( Daempfle, 2002 ). Ebert-May et al. (1997) used a modified learning cycle instructional method and small group collaboration to increase reasoning ability in general education biology students. A quasi-experimental pretest/posttest control group design was used on a comparatively large sample of students, and considerable thought was given to controlling extraneous variables across the treatment and comparison groups. A multifaceted assessment strategy based on writing, standardized tests, and student interviews was used to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate student content knowledge and thinking skill. Results indicated that students in the treatment group significantly outperformed control group students on reasoning and process skills as indicated by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) content exam. Coincidentally, student content knowledge did not differ significantly between the treatment and control sections, indicating that development of thinking skill did not occur at the expense of content knowledge ( Ebert-May et al., 1997 ). Interview data indicated that students experiencing the writing and collaboration-based instruction changed how they perceived the construction of biological knowledge and how they applied their reasoning skills. Although the Ebert-May study is one of the more complete investigations of writing and critical thinking to date, several questions remain. Supporting validity and reliability data for the NABT test was not included in the study, making interpretation of results somewhat less certain. In addition, the NABT exam is designed to assess high school biology performance, not college performance ( Daempfle, 2002 ). Perhaps more importantly, the NABT exam does not explicitly measure critical thinking skills.

Collectively, it appears that additional research is necessary to establish a more defined relationship between writing and critical thinking in science ( Rivard, 1994 ; Tsui, 1998 , 2002 ; Daempfle, 2002 ). The current study addresses some of the gaps in previous work by evaluating the effects of writing on critical thinking performance using relatively large numbers of students, suitable comparison groups, valid and reliable instruments, a sizable cadre of covariables, and statistical analyses of covariance. This study uses an experimental design similar to that of the Ebert-May et al. (1997) study but incorporates valid and reliable test measures of critical thinking that can be used both within and across different science disciplines.

Purpose of the Study

Currently there is much national discussion about increasing the numbers of students majoring in various science fields ( National Research Council, 2003 ; National Academy of Sciences, 2005 ). Although this is a necessary and worthwhile goal, attention should also be focused on improving student performance in general education science because these students will far outnumber science majors for the foreseeable future. If college instructors want general education students to think critically about science, they will need to use teaching methods that improve student critical thinking performance. In many traditional general education biology courses, students are not expected to work collaboratively, to think about concepts as much as memorize facts, or to develop and support a written thesis or argument. This presents a large problem when one considers the societal role that general education students will play as voters, community members, and global citizens. By improving their critical thinking skills in science, general education students will be better able to deal with the broad scientific, economic, social, and political issues they will face in the future.

The problem addressed by this study was to discover whether writing could improve student critical thinking performance in general education biology courses. How might writing in general education biology affect the analysis, inference, and evaluation skills that are inherent to critical thinking? What level of critical thinking skill do students bring to nonmajors biology courses? Can their critical thinking skills be measurably improved using writing? What other factors affect development of critical thinking skills? When do student critical thinking skills begin to change, and how much? In this study, the effect of writing on critical thinking performance was investigated using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) at the beginning (pretest) and end (posttest) of 10 sections of general education biology at a regional comprehensive university in the Pacific Northwest. Several research questions framed this investigation:

Does writing in laboratory affect critical thinking performance in general education biology? Does the development of analysis, inference, and evaluation skills differ between students who experience writing versus those who experience traditional laboratory instruction? What measurable effect do factors like gender, ethnicity, and prior thinking skill have on changes in critical thinking in general education biology? If critical thinking skills change during an academic quarter, when does that take place?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study context.

The study took place at a state-funded regional comprehensive university in the Pacific Northwest. All participants were nonmajor undergraduates who were taking biology to satisfy their general education science requirement. Ten total sections of general education biology offered over three academic quarters (one academic year) were included in the study. Four of the 10 sections implemented a writing component during weekly laboratory meetings (N = 158); six traditional quiz-based laboratory sections served as a nonwriting control group (N = 152). Only scores from students who had completed both the initial (pretest) and end-of-quarter (posttest) critical thinking assessments were included in the data analysis. A breakdown of participant demographics for the writing and nonwriting groups is provided in Table 1 .

Demographics for the writing and nonwriting groups

Demographics profile for the study sample. n values in parentheses.

a Other includes the ″choose not to answer″ response.

Each course section included a lecture component offered four times per week for 50 min and a laboratory component that met once a week for 2 h. Course lecture sections were limited to a maximum enrollment of 48 students, with two concurrent lab sections of 24 students. Two different instructors taught five writing sections and five other instructors taught 11 traditional sections over three consecutive quarters. Each course instructor materially participated in teaching laboratory with the help of one graduate assistant per lab section (two graduate students per course section). None of the instructors from treatment sections had implemented writing in the laboratory before the start of this study. Writing instructors were chosen on the basis of personal dissatisfaction with traditional laboratory teaching methods and willingness to try something new.

Strong efforts were made to establish equivalency between writing and nonwriting course sections a priori. Course elements that were highly similar included common lecture rooms, the use of similar (in most cases identical) textbooks, and a lab facility coordinated by a single faculty member. More specifically, three similarly appointed lecture rooms outfitted with contemporary instructional technology including dry erase boards, media cabinets, a networked computer, and digital projection were used to teach the nonmajors biology courses. The same nonmajors biology textbook was used across the writing and most of the nonwriting sections. All laboratory sections used a common lab facility and were taught on the same day of the week. Although the order in which specific labs were taught differed among sections, a common laboratory manual containing prescriptive exercises covering the main themes of biology (scientific method, cellular biology and genetics, natural selection and evolution, kingdoms of life, and a mammalian dissection) was used across all writing and nonwriting lab sections.

Primary course differences included a writing component in the laboratory, and how much time was devoted to laboratory activities. Those sections that experienced the writing treatment completed the prescriptive lab exercises in the first hour and engaged in writing during the second hour of the lab. Nonwriting sections allocated 2 h for the prescriptive lab exercises and included a traditional laboratory quiz rather than a writing assignment. The degree to which the writing and nonwriting sections included small group collaboration in laboratory varied and all course sections differed with regards to individual instructor teaching style. Although all course sections used traditional lecture exams during the quarter to assess content knowledge, the degree to which rote memorization-based exam questions were used to evaluate student learning varied.

Description of the Writing Treatment

On the first day of lecture, students in the writing treatment group were told that their laboratory performance would be evaluated using collaborative essays instead of traditional quizzes. A brief overview of the writing assignments was included in associated course syllabi. During the first laboratory session of the quarter, students were grouped into teams of three or four individuals, and the criteria for completing weekly writing assignments were further explained.

The decision to use collaborative groups to support writing in the laboratory was partly based on existing literature ( Collier, 1980 ; Bruffee, 1984 ; Tobin et al., 1994 ; Jones and Carter, 1998 ; Springer et al., 1999 ) and prior research by Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch (unpublished results), who showed that Peer Led Team Learning (one form of collaborative learning) helped to measurably improve undergraduate critical thinking skills. Small group learning was also used in the nonwriting treatment groups to a greater or lesser extent depending on individual instructor preference.

Baseline critical thinking performance was established in the academic quarters preceding the writing experiment to more specifically attribute changes in critical thinking to the writing treatment. Concurrent nonwriting course sections were also used as comparison groups. The historical baseline provided a way to determine what student performance had been before experiencing the writing treatment, whereas the concurrent nonwriting groups allowed for a direct comparison of critical thinking performance during the writing treatment. Pretest scores indicating prior critical thinking skill were also used to further establish comparability between the writing and nonwriting groups.

Laboratory activities were coordinated for all sections by a single faculty member who taught in the nonwriting group. All faculty and graduate assistants met regularly to discuss course progress, laboratory procedure, and coordinate resources. Nonwriting faculty drafted quizzes that addressed laboratory content knowledge. Writing faculty collaboratively crafted a consensus essay, or thought question, designed to elicit student critical thinking and ability to apply content knowledge. Each thought question was designed so that students had to apply lecture concepts and build on their conceptual understanding by integrating actual laboratory experiences (see Supplemental Appendix 1 , available online) for thought question examples). Weekly thought questions became progressively more difficult as the term progressed. Initial planning meetings took place just before the beginning of the academic quarter and included graduate assistant training to help them learn to consistently evaluate student writing using a modified thesis-based essay rubric (see Supplemental Appendix 2 ; Beers et al., 1994 ). A range of sample essays from poor to high quality was used to calibrate graduate assistant scoring and ensure consistency between assistants from different laboratory sections within the writing group. All graduate assistants and course instructors applied the thesis-based rubric to sample essays and worked toward consensus. Initial training ended when all graduate assistants scored within 0.5 points of each other on at least two sample essays.

Students were given weekly thought questions before beginning laboratory to help them frame their efforts during laboratory exercises. Students completed the prescriptive lab activities during the first hour, and then each student group relocated to an assigned computer lab in the same building and worked around a common computer terminal to draft a collective response to the weekly thought question. Students were allowed to use any suitable information or materials (laboratory observations, laboratory manuals, lecture notes, textbooks, the Internet, etc.) to help them address their thought question. Internal group discussions allowed students to argue individual viewpoints as they worked toward group agreement on each thought question. Essay responses to thought questions were answered using a standard five-paragraph format. Each essay included an introduction with a group-generated thesis statement, two to three body paragraphs that provided sufficient detail to support the thesis statement, and a summary paragraph that concluded the essay. Students were not allowed to work on essays outside of the laboratory environment.

Initial essay drafts were composed in Microsoft Word and submitted to the graduate assistant by the end of the laboratory period using the campus e-mail system. Graduate assistants evaluated each group's essay (typically six per lab section) and assigned an initial grade based on the thesis-based essay rubric. Graduate assistants made comments and suggestions electronically using Microsoft Word revising and track changes tools. Evaluated essays were e-mailed back to each student group, which addressed comments and suggestions during the subsequent week's laboratory writing time. Each student group submitted a final draft that was re-evaluated and assigned a final grade. During the second week, students both revised their essay from the previous week and then generated an initial draft for the current week's thought question, all within the lab writing hour. This was done to help students become more proficient writers within a short period of time. Overall, students in the writing group completed eight essays that, along with lab book scores, constituted 25% of their overall course grade. An identical percentage was used to calculate traditional quiz and lab book scores in all nonwriting course sections.

At the end of the quarter, each writing group member completed a peer evaluation for all group members, including themselves (see Supplemental Appendix 3 ). This was done to help students reflect on and evaluate their own performance, maximize individual accountability within the group, and make sure students received credit proportional to their contributions. The average peer evaluation score for each student was included as 5% of the final course grade.

Collectively, this approach to writing and evaluation was used to 1) help students reflect on and discuss deficiencies in their collective and written work, 2) provide an opportunity for students to explicitly address deficiencies in thesis development and general writing skill, 3) provide a suitable reward for student efforts to revise their work relative to established performance benchmarks, 4) improve individual accountability within each group, and 5) help students develop more efficient and effective writing skills that collectively might lead to improved critical thinking skill.

Assessment of Critical Thinking

Using critical thinking to indicate student learning performance is particularly useful because it can be measured within and across disciplines. Various instruments are available to assess critical thinking ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ; Ennis and Weir, 1985 ; Facione, 1990b ; Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, 1996 ); however, only the CCTST measures cognitive and meta-cognitive skills associated with critical thinking, is based on a consensus definition of critical thinking, and has been evaluated for validity and reliability for measuring critical thinking at the college level ( Facione, 1990a ; Facione et al., 1992 , 2004 ). The CCTST measures cognitive skills of analysis, inference, evaluation, induction, and deduction, with results expressed as raw scores or national percentile equivalents based on a national norming sample of students from 4-yr colleges and universities. Construct validity for the CCTST is high as indicated by greater than 95% consensus of the Delphi panel experts on the component skills of critical thinking. Test reliability (calculated using the KR–20 internal consistency method) is 0.78–0.84 for the form used in this study, a value considered to be within the recommended range for tests that measure a wide range of critical thinking skills ( Facione, 1991 ). The CCTST norming sample for 4-yr colleges and universities is based on a stratified sample of 2000 students from various disciplines, with approximately 30% of the norming sample comprised of science and math students. Approximately 20,000 college students complete the CCTST each year ( Insight Assessment and Blohm, 2005 ).

The CCTST contains 34 questions and is a 45-min timed assessment of critical thinking. An online version of the CCTST was administered in this study, which allowed the researchers to collect student demographics data including gender, ethnicity, age, and several others at the same time critical thinking skill was measured. Total critical thinking skill as well as analysis, inference, and evaluation component critical thinking skills ( Facione, 1990c ) were determined for each CCTST administration and compared across the writing and nonwriting groups.

Research Design

A quasi-experimental pretest/posttest control group design was used for this study to determine whether critical thinking performance in the writing group differed significantly from the nonwriting group. This design was chosen in order to compare critical thinking performance between intact groups, and because it was not feasible to randomly assign students from one course section to another within the sample. Frequency distributions of pretest/posttest changes in total critical thinking skill and analysis, inference, and evaluation component critical thinking skills were constructed to provide some indication of sample randomness and to inform assumptions for subsequent statistical analyses of covariance (see Figure 1 , A–D).

(A–D) Frequency distribution of change in critical thinking skills. Distribution of change in critical thinking skill for the experimental sample. Changes are indicated using raw scores from CCTST pre- and posttests for total critical thinking skill (A) as well as analysis (B), inference (C), and evaluation (D) component critical thinking skills.

The pretest/posttest control group design was also used in order to minimize internal validity threats that could potentially compete with the effects of the writing treatment on student critical thinking performance. This design is widely used in educational research, and generally controls for most threats to internal validity ( Campbell and Stanley, 1963 ). Internal threats that remain a concern include history, maturation, pretest sensitization, selection, and statistical regression toward the mean. In the current study, history and maturation threats were minimized to the extent that the CCTST pretest and posttest were administered only 9 wk apart, and class standing and age covariables that indicate maturation were included in the statistical analysis. Pretest sensitization and selection are larger concerns for this design. Pretest sensitization was minimized in several ways: 1) prior critical thinking skill indicated by the CCTST pretest was used as a covariable in statistical analyses, 2) pretest/posttest to posttest only comparison studies conducted by Insight Assessment indicate CCTST pretest sensitization is minimized ( Facione, 1990a ), and 3) neither the students, instructors, nor the test administrators have access to the correct answers on the CCTST, so repeat performance on the posttest is less likely. Selection threats were also reduced by using CCTST pretest scores in the statistical analyses, thereby making it more difficult to detect statistically significant differences in critical thinking performance between the writing and nonwriting groups. Statistical regression toward the mean, which was observed to some extent in this study, was minimized because this study used a valid and reliable instrument to assess critical thinking ( Facione, 1990a ). Regression threats were also minimized to the extent that students with higher initial scores regressed much less than students with lower initial scores.

The generalizability of study results is limited because all data were collected at a single university. Specific threats to external validity include selection-treatment interaction and treatment diffusion. These threats were minimized because writing was mandatory for all treatment group participants, thereby minimizing volunteer effects. Because the writing also took considerable student effort, it is less likely that treatment diffusion occurred. In summary, the pretest/posttest control group design was used to minimize internal and external validity threats and maximize the ability to determine the effects of writing on student critical thinking performance.

Study Variables and Data Analysis

Effect of writing on critical thinking performance..

General education biology students were divided into writing and nonwriting groups (independent variable). Changes in CCTST pretest/posttest scores (dependent variable) were determined to discover whether writing influenced student critical thinking performance. Two CCTST outcome measures were used to statistically test for writing effect: 1) raw scores for total critical thinking skill, and 2) raw scores for analysis, inference, and evaluation component skills. Results were reported using raw scores and corresponding national percentile rank so that critical thinking performance outcomes would be more meaningful and intuitive. Conversion of CCTST raw scores to national percentile ranking was done using SPSS (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) statistical software and a linear estimation conversion script based on an equivalency scale from Insight Assessment (Millbrae, CA).

Several covariables were included in the analysis to increase statistical accuracy and precision, and to more specifically isolate the effects of writing on critical thinking performance. CCTST pretest scores were used to indicate initial critical thinking skill. Gender and ethnicity helped to account for male/female or race-specific changes in critical thinking performance and were also used to identify potential sources of performance bias. Academic term and time of day were used to account for critical thinking differences due to the time of year each course was offered and the time of day each student took the course, respectively. Class standing and age were used to indicate maturation related to time in college and chronological age, respectively. Finally, the instructor covariable was used to account for performance differences due to individual teaching styles.

Statistical Analysis of Effect of Writing.

Several statistical analyses were conducted to determine the effects of writing on critical thinking performance in general education biology. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test provided insight regarding differences in overall critical thinking performance between the writing and nonwriting groups. Change in CCTST total raw scores and national percentile ranking was used as composite measures of critical thinking ( Facione, 1990c ) in this initial analysis. Second, changes in particular component critical thinking skills (analysis, inference, and evaluation) were evaluated using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) test because of the three dependent variables. The ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests also provided some insight into the effect the covariables had on critical thinking performance in general education biology. Collectively, these statistical tests allowed for a more accurate and precise analysis because variance associated with the covariables could be more specifically isolated from the writing treatment. Mean, SE, and effect size were also compared between the writing and nonwriting groups. Effect size, represented in standard units, was used to compare the magnitude of writing effect in the study.

Analysis of Thought Question Performance.

Performance on weekly thought questions was analyzed to discover specifically when and how much student critical thinking skills changed during the academic term. This analysis also provided context for CCTST critical thinking performance measures. Specifically, average scores from a representative sample of writing course sections (approximately 100 students) were used to compare initial essay drafts across the weeks of the term to discover when students began to show changes in their first attempt at each essay. Weekly performance on final revised essays was also compared to determine how student final submissions changed over time. Finally, the weekly difference between each initial essay and each final essay was compared to determine how much the revision process changed during the term. These calculations collectively helped to provide a profile of critical thinking performance over time.

Participant Demographics

Student demographics provided in Table 1 indicated an overall distribution of approximately 49% freshmen, 31% sophomores, 11% juniors, and 9% seniors. Approximately 74% of the writing group students were freshmen and sophomores, whereas 82% of the nonwriting group was underclassmen. Overall, 61% of the sample was female and 39% male, with near identical gender distribution across the writing and nonwriting groups. The predominant ethnicity in the sample was Caucasian (>83%), with Asian American (5%), Latino/Hispanic (3%), African American (2%), and Native American (1%) students comprising the remainder of the sample. About 6% of the sample classified themselves as having some other ethnicity or chose not to identify their ethnic heritage.

Statistical Assumptions

Analysis of covariance and multivariate analysis of covariance tests were used to compare critical thinking performance between the writing and nonwriting groups. The evaluated assumptions for the ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests were homogeneity of slopes, homogeneity of covariances, and normality. An analysis evaluating the homogeneity of slopes assumption indicated that the relationship between the covariables and the critical thinking performance dependent variable did not differ significantly by the writing/nonwriting independent variable for the ANCOVA test, F(2, 307) = 1.642, p = 0.195, power = 0.346, partial η 2 = 0.011, or the MANCOVA test, F(6, 610) = 1.685, p = 0.122, power = 0.645, partial η 2 = 0.016. These results confirmed that both analyses of covariance met the homogeneity of slopes assumption. The homogeneity of covariance assumption was tested using Levene's and Box's tests. Levene's test results for the ANCOVA indicated that error variances were not equal across writing and nonwriting groups, F(1,308) = 7.139, p = 0.008. Similarly, Box's test results indicated that covariance was not equal for the writing and nonwriting groups, F(6, 684,530) = 4.628, p = 0.000. These results indicated that the ANCOVA/MANCOVA tests did not meet the homogeneity of covariance assumption. To more fully evaluate this assumption, distributions of total and component critical thinking skill were constructed (see Figure 1 , A–D). Furthermore, the writing and nonwriting groups were highly similar in size and no post hoc tests were conducted. On the basis of these data, it was determined that the ANCOVA and MANCOVA tests were the best statistical measures to answer the research questions. Finally, the normality assumption was evaluated using the previously constructed frequency distributions for total change in critical thinking ( Figure 1 A) as well as change in analysis ( Figure 1 B), inference ( Figure 1 C), and evaluation ( Figure 1 D) critical thinking skills. Frequency distributions of total and component critical thinking dependent variables indicated that each approximated a standard normal curve.

Effect of Writing on Total Critical Thinking Performance

The ANCOVA test of total critical thinking performance showed that writing and nonwriting groups differed significantly, F(1, 300) = 19.357, p < 0.0001, power = 0.992, partial η 2 = 0.061 (see Table 2 ). The strength of the relationship between the writing/nonwriting groups and critical thinking performance was modest but significant, accounting for more than 6% of the variance in critical thinking performance.

ANCOVA results for total critical thinking performance

Analysis of covariance for the writing and nonwriting groups. Tested covariables included gender, ethnicity, class standing, age, prior critical thinking skill (CCTST pre-test), academic term, time of day, and instructor.

a Significance tested at 0.05 level.

Descriptive statistics of total critical thinking performance in the writing and nonwriting groups were also calculated (see Table 3 ). The writing group showed an average CCTST raw score change of 1.18 compared with the nonwriting group, which showed an average raw score change of −0.51. These critical thinking raw scores equated to gains in national percentile rank of 7.47 (45th to 53rd percentile) for the writing group and −2.09 (42nd to 40th percentile) for the nonwriting group. Critical thinking improvement in the writing group was approximately nine times greater than the nonwriting group (see Figure 2 ).

Writing effect on total critical thinking performance: CCTST raw scores

Comparison of writing and nonwriting group performance based on CCTST raw scores. CCTST raw score range was 0–34; n values in parentheses.

Effect of writing on total critical thinking national percentile rank. Comparison of total critical thinking national percentile gains between writing and nonwriting groups. Percentile ranking was computed using CCTST raw scores, an equivalency scale from Insight Assessment, and a linear conversion script in SPSS.

The ANCOVA test of total critical thinking skill indicated that gender, ethnicity, age, class standing, and academic term did not significantly affect critical thinking performance (see Table 2 ). Covariables that significantly affected total critical thinking performance included 1) CCTST pretest score, F(1, 300) = 19.713, p < 0.0001, power = 0.993, partial η 2 = 0.062, 2) instructor, F(1, 300) = 7.745, p < 0.006, power = 0.792, partial η 2 = 0.025, and 3) time of day, F(1300) = 6.291, p < 0.013, power = 0.705, partial η 2 = 0.021. The effect of prior critical thinking skill (CCTST pretest) was moderately strong, accounting for more than 6% of the variance in total critical thinking performance. The effect of instructor and time of day were smaller, accounting for 2.5 and 2%, respectively, of total critical thinking performance variance. Critical thinking improvement associated with CCTST pretest score was approximately 2.5 times greater than for instructor and nearly three times greater than for time of day.

Effect of Writing on Component Critical Thinking Performance

The MANCOVA test indicated that analysis, inference, and evaluation critical thinking skills differed significantly between the writing and nonwriting groups, Wilks λ = 0.919, F(3, 296) = 8.746, p < 0.0001, power = 0.995, partial η 2 = 0.081 (see Table 4 ). The strength of the relationship between writing and component critical thinking performance was modest but significant, accounting for more than 8% of the variance in critical thinking performance.

MANCOVA results for component critical thinking performance

Multivariate analysis of covariance for the writing and nonwriting groups. Tested covariables included gender, ethnicity, class standing, age, prior critical thinking skill (CCTST pretest), academic term, time of day, and instructor.

Specifically, significant gains in analysis and inference skills were observed in the writing group but not the nonwriting group. No statistically significant gains in evaluation skill were observed in either group (see Table 5 ). National percentile rank equivalents for CCTST component raw scores indicated the writing group gained 10.51 percentile in analysis skill (42nd to 52nd percentile), 6.05 percentile in inference skill (45th to 52nd percentile), and 5.16 percentile in evaluation skill (46th to 52nd percentile). The nonwriting group showed a national percentile rank change of −4.43 percentile in analysis skill (47th to 42nd percentile), −2.23 percentile in inference skill (42nd to 40th percentile), and 1.37 percentile in evaluation (44th to 45th percentile; see Figure 3 ). Critical thinking performance for the writing group was 15 times greater for analysis and 8 times greater for inference skills than for the nonwriting group. Although neither the writing nor the nonwriting group showed significant gains in evaluation skill, the writing group showed more than 3 times greater improvement than did the nonwriting group.

Effect of writing on component critical thinking performance

Comparison of writing and nonwriting group performance based on critical thinking component skill raw scores (CCTST subscales). Score range was 0–7 (analysis), 0–16 (inference), and 0–11 (evaluation).

Effect of writing on component critical thinking national percentile rank. Comparison of component critical thinking national percentile gains between writing and nonwriting groups. Percentile ranking was computed using CCTST raw scores, an equivalency scale from Insight Assessment, and a linear conversion script in SPSS.

The MANCOVA test of analysis, inference, and evaluation skills indicated that gender, ethnicity, age, class standing, academic term, and time of day did not significantly affect critical thinking performance. Critical thinking performance was affected by prior analysis, inference, and evaluation skill (CCTST component pretest scores) and instructor (see Table 4 ). Specifically, component pretest scores had a large effect on critical thinking, accounting for 38% (analysis), 32% (inference), and 39% (evaluation) of critical thinking performance variance. The effect of instructor was smaller, accounting for 4.4% of variation in critical thinking skill. The effect of prior component critical thinking skill was approximately 4.5 times greater than the effect of writing, and nearly 9 times greater than the effect of instructor.

Student Thought Question Performance

Critical thinking performance on student essays was evaluated by applying a thesis-based essay rubric (see Supplemental Appendix 2 ) on initial submissions and final revised essays. Average weekly performance during the academic term is shown in Figure 4 . A comparison of initial essays indicated that students improved 53.3% from week 1 (average score of 27.9%) to week 7 (average score of 81.2%). A similar comparison of final essays showed that students improved 32.5% from week 1 (average score of 54.1%) to week 7 (average score of 86.6%). The largest changes between initial and final essays occurred in week 1 (change of 26.2%), and decreased each week thereafter (24.8, 23.9, 18.8, 8, 7.8, and 5.4% for weeks 2 through 7, respectively). These results showed that students produced little evidence of critical thinking skill in their writing early in the term, but improved dramatically on both initial and revised essay submissions by the end of the term.

Profile of change in critical thinking performance in writing group. Comparison of student writing performance on weekly initial and revised essays. Essay scores were derived using a thesis-based critical thinking rubric (see Supplemental Appendix 2 ). Average essay scores were computed across writing sections.

The purpose of this study was to discover whether writing could measurably influence critical thinking performance in general education biology. Results indicated that students from the writing group significantly outperformed their nonwriting peers in both total critical thinking skill and the component critical thinking skills of analysis and inference. The writing and nonwriting groups were highly similar initially and began the academic term with comparable critical thinking ability (45th and 42nd national percentile for writing and nonwriting, respectively). By the end of the term, writing students had improved their critical thinking skill to above the 52nd percentile whereas nonwriting students decreased to below the 40th percentile. In addition to writing, prior critical thinking skill and course instructor significantly affected critical thinking performance, with prior critical thinking skill having the largest effect on critical thinking gains of any variable tested. Further analysis of the writing group showed that the largest gains in critical thinking occurred during the first few weeks of the term, with graduated improvement during the remainder of the term. A comparison of average critical thinking performance on initial essays and revised essays showed that thinking skills improvement was greater on initial essays (53%) than on final essays (33%). Collectively, the results of this study indicated that students who experienced writing in general education biology significantly improved their critical thinking skills.

The covariance analysis that was conducted provided a partial means to separate out the effects of writing, prior critical thinking skill, instructor, and multiple covariables from total and component critical thinking gains. The analysis of total critical thinking skill indicated that writing students changed their critical thinking skill from below the national average to above the national average within an academic quarter, whereas nonwriting students remained below the national average. This observation is important because it shows that students can develop critical thinking skills within a fairly short 9-wk period of time, and that writing can play a role in that process. A similar study showed critical thinking skills improve over 15 wk (Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch, unpublished results); however, this study provided no insight into whether critical thinking skills could be changed over a shorter period of time, in a different academic setting, or in response to instructional variables such as writing.

Although critical thinking gains were influenced by writing, they did not appear to be affected by gender, ethnicity, class standing, or age. In fact, statistical results indicated that these variables collectively had a very small effect on critical thinking performance. Gender distribution was nearly identical across the writing and nonwriting groups, and was predominantly female (nearly 62%). Ethnic distribution was also highly similar across the writing and nonwriting groups, but the sampling was largely Caucasian (>84%). Class standing varied a little more across the writing and nonwriting groups, with the sample largely comprised of underclassmen (70%). Although nearly three-quarters of the sample was between 18 and 21 years of age, nearly 10% was over 21, with a fair number of older nontraditional students represented. It is possible that a more diverse sample would have produced different results, or it may be that the individuals participating in this study responded particularly well to writing. Although further investigation of these variables is necessary and important, it was beyond the scope of the current study.

The analysis of component skills provided greater insight into the particular critical thinking skills that students changed in response to writing. Specifically, writing students significantly improved their analysis and inference skills whereas nonwriting students did not. Writing students also improved their evaluation skills much more than nonwriting students, although not significantly. These results indicate that the process of writing helps students develop improved analytical and inference skills. Prior research indicates that the writing to learn strategy is effective because students must conceptually organize and structure their thoughts as well as their awareness of thinking processes ( Langer and Applebee, 1987 ; Ackerman, 1993 ; Holliday, 1994 ; Rivard, 1994 ). More specifically, as students begin to shape their thoughts at the point of construction and continually analyze, review, and clarify meaning through the processes of drafting and revision, they necessarily engage and apply analysis and inference skills ( Klein, 1999 ; Hand and Prain, 2002 ). In this study, the process of writing appears to have influenced critical thinking gains. It also seems likely that writing students experienced a greater cognitive demand than nonwriting students simply because the writing act required them to hypothesize, debate, and persuade ( Rivard, 1994 ; Hand and Prain, 2002 ) rather than memorize as was the case in nonwriting control courses.

Conversely, the lack of any significant change in analysis, inference, or evaluation skills in the nonwriting group indicated that the traditional lab instruction used in the general education biology control courses did not help students develop critical thinking skills. Based on the results of this study, it could be argued that traditional lab instruction actually prevents the development of critical thinking skills, which presents a rather large problem when one considers how frequently these traditional methods are used in general education biology courses. One also has to consider that the critical thinking gains seen in the writing group might also have resulted from the relative absence of traditional lab instruction rather than writing alone. Additional research will be necessary to gain further insight into this question. Either way, changes to the traditional model of lab instruction will be necessary if the goal is to enhance the critical thinking abilities of general education biology students.

The variable that had the largest impact on critical thinking performance gains was prior critical thinking skill. This phenomenon was previously observed by Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch (unpublished results) in a related study that investigated the effect of Peer Led Team Learning on critical thinking performance. That study focused on science and math major undergraduate critical thinking performance at a major research university, and found that, in addition to Peer Led Team Learning, prior critical thinking skill significantly influenced critical thinking performance (Quitadamo, Brahler, and Crouch, unpublished results). Specifically, students with the highest prior critical thinking skill showed the largest performance gains, whereas students with low initial skill were at a comparative disadvantage. The fact that prior critical thinking skill also had a large effect on critical thinking performance in this study increases the generalizability of the observation and underscores its importance. Simply put, students who have not been explicitly taught how to think critically may not reach the same potential as peers who have been taught these skills, not because they lack the cognitive hard-wiring to perform but because they lack the tools to build their knowledge. Is it reasonable or just to expect otherwise comparable students to perform at similar levels when only some of them have the keys for success? If we hope to improve the perception of science in this country, we need to educate people on how to think about important scientific issues, and not simply argue a position based on one school of thought. By helping general education students to develop critical thinking skills, it is hoped that they will be better able to think rationally about science.

The observation that students who come to general education biology with greater critical thinking skills leave with the largest skill gains has important implications for the K–12 school system as well. If a high proportion of students are coming to institutions of higher education lacking critical thinking skills, why are these skills not being explicitly taught in the K–12 system? Ideally, students would learn the foundational tenets of critical thinking at an earlier age, and be able to refine and hone these skills as they progress through the K–20 education system. The results of this study reinforce the idea that students should be explicitly taught critical thinking skills and be expected to practice them as early and often as possible.

Although its effect was smaller than writing or prior critical thinking skill, the instructor variable also played a significant role in student critical thinking performance, accounting for 2.5% of the total variance in critical thinking gains. Determining the particular qualities of each instructor that contributed to student critical thinking success and further separating instructor and writing effects will require additional research. Previous research indicates that teaching style positively influences certain aspects of student learning ( Grasha, 1994 ; Hativa et al., 2001 ; Bain, 2004 ), but the qualities that specifically influence student critical thinking gains have not been sufficiently investigated. Additional research in this area is necessary.

Faculty considering whether to use writing in the laboratory may wonder about how much time and energy it takes to implement, if efforts to change will translate into improved student learning, and how these changes affect disciplinary content. From a practical perspective, implementing writing did not take more time and effort per se; rather, it required faculty to reconceptualize how they spent their instructional time. Instead of individually developing course materials, writing faculty collaborated to a greater extent than nonwriting faculty on course design and assessments that required students to demonstrate their critical thinking skill. Interviews of faculty from the writing and nonwriting groups indicated that writing faculty felt the course was less work because they collaborated with colleagues and because students demonstrated improved thinking skill. Writing faculty generally became more comfortable with the new model after ∼2–3 wk when students began to show observable changes in writing proficiency and critical thinking. Together, collaboration with colleagues and observed gains in critical thinking tended to create a positive feedback loop that helped to sustain writing faculty efforts. In contrast, nonwriting faculty similarly wanted their students to think better but were convinced that traditional methods would be more effective, and so remained closed to change. There were some logistical challenges with writing, like scheduling computer labs where students could draft and revise their weekly essay responses under instructor and teaching assistant supervision. Teaching assistants (and faculty) also needed to be trained on how to evaluate writing using a rubric. Finally, with regards to content coverage, no lecture or laboratory content was killed in order to implement writing because writing and nonwriting students both performed the same lab activities. Collectively, the benefits of using writing in laboratory should encourage faculty who want their students to learn to think critically to give it a try.

Future Directions

This study showed that writing affects student critical thinking skill in a nonmajors biology course, but the results have generated more questions than have been answered. How does writing specifically produce gains in critical thinking performance? What factors influence student prior critical thinking skill? How do instructors specifically influence student gains in critical thinking? Future studies that analyze student essays in more detail would provide greater insight into how writing influences critical thinking skill. Using writing in other nonmajor science courses such as chemistry, geology, or physics could also be done to determine the transferability of this method. Additional studies that investigate student prior critical thinking skill and instructor variables are also necessary. These future studies would further contribute to the knowledge base in this area, and also address some of its identified limitations ( Ebert-May et al., 1997 ; Daempfle, 2002 ). Results from these studies would also increase the generalizability of the results from this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Building on existing research and on the basis of several lines of evidence presented in this study, we conclude that writing positively influences critical thinking performance for general education biology students. Those students with prior critical thinking skill may have a comparative advantage over other general education biology students who have not developed these same skills. To rectify that inequity critical thinking skills should be explicitly taught early and used often during the K–20 academic process. As it appears that particular instructors improve student critical thinking skills more than others, students should be discerning in their choice of instructors if they want to improve their critical thinking skills. Whether writing as a method to improve critical thinking skills will prove useful in other general education science courses will likely depend on a host of factors, but it has potential. Further study of writing in general education science will be necessary to verify these results and discover the breadth and depth of how writing affects critical thinking skill.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Drs. Holly Pinkart, Roberta Soltz, Phil Mattocks, and James Johnson and undergraduate researchers Matthew Brewer, Dayrk Flaugh, Adam Wallace, Colette Watson, Kelly Vincent, and Christine Weller for their valuable contributions to this study. The authors also acknowledge the generous financial support provided by the Central Washington University Office of the Provost and the Office of the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies.

• Ackerman J. M. The promise of writing to learn. Writ. Commun. 1993; 10 (3):334–370. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC: 1989. Science for All Americans. A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Applebee A. N. Writing and reasoning. Rev. Educ. Res. 1984; 54 (4):577–596. [ Google Scholar ]
• Association of American Colleges Universities. Washington, DC: 2005. Liberal Education Outcomes: A Preliminary Report on Student Achievement in College. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bain K. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beers T., McIssac C., Henderson B., Gainen J. Writing: thesis and support scoring guide. 1994. [accessed 25 August 2006]. http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/RUB_WTHS.PDF .
• Bruffee K. A. Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” Coll. Engl. 1984; 46 (7):635–653. [ Google Scholar ]
• Business-Higher Education Forum, and American Council on Education. Washington, DC: 2003. Building a Nation of Learners: The Need for Changes in Teaching and Learning To Meet Global Challenges. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bybee R. W., Fuchs B. Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006; 43 (4):349–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnevale A. P. American Society for Training Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. Workplace Basics: The Essential Skills Employers Want. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State University; 1996. ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Test. [ Google Scholar ]
• Champagne A., Kouba V., Mintzes J., Wandersee J., Novak J. Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View. New York: Academic Press; 1999. Written product as performance measures; pp. 224–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collier K. G. Peer-group learning in higher education: the development of higher order skills. Stud. High. Educ. 1980; 5 (1):55–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daempfle P. A. New York: U.S. Department of Education; 2002. Instructional Approaches for the Improvement of Reasoning in Introductory College Biology Courses: A Review of the Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May D., Brewer C., Allred S. Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. Bioscience. 1997; 47 (9):601–607. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educ. Leadership. 1985; 43 (2):44–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H., Weir E. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications; 1985. The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990a. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test—College Level. Technical Report 1. Experimental Validation and Content Validity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990b. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test—College Level. Technical Report 3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990c. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test—College Level. Technical Report 4. Interpreting the CCTST, Group Norms, and Sub-Scores. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1991. Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in Research, Evaluation, and Assessment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. American Philosophical Association. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A., Facione N. C., Giancarlo C. A. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment; 1992. Test Manual: The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A, Facione N. C. Insight Assessment. 2004. [accessed 30 June 2006]. Test of everyday reasoning. http://www.insightassessment.com/test-ter.html . [ Google Scholar ]
• Giancarlo C. A., Facione P. A. A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. J. Gen. Educ. 2001; 50 (1):29–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grasha A. F. A matter of style: the teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. Coll. Teach. 1994; 42 (4):142–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hand B., Prain V. Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: a case study. Sci. Educ. 2002; 86 (6):737–755. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hativa N., Barak R., Simhi E. Exemplary university teachers: knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. J. High. Educ. 2001; 72 (6):699–729. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holliday W. G. The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994; 31 (9):877–893. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes J., Clizbe E. Facing the 21st century. Bus. Educ. Forum. 1997; 52 (1):33–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holyoak A. R. A plan for writing throughout (not just across) the biology curriculum. Am. Biol. Teach. 1998; 60 (3):186–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howard V. A. Thinking on paper: a philosopher's look at writing. In: Howard V. A., editor. Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center. New York: Routledge; 1990. pp. 84–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Insight Assessment. Blohm S. Annual number of users for the CCTST form 2000. 2005 [accessed 8 December 2006]; [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones E. A., Hoffman S., Moore L. M., Ratcliff G., Tibbets S., Click B., III . Report no. NCES-95-001. University Park, PA: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.; 1995. National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduates' Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and Listening, and Critical Thinking. Final project report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones G. M, Carter G. Small groups and shared constructions. In: Mintzes J. J., Wandersee J. H., Novak J. D., editors. Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1998. pp. 261–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly G. J., Chen C. The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999; 36 (8):883–915. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keys C. W. Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Sci. Educ. 1999; 83 (2):115–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keys C. W., Hand B., Prain V., Collins S. Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999; 36 (10):1065–1084. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein P. Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Ed. Psychol. Rev. 1999; 11 (3):203–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein P. D. Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instr. Sci. 2004; 32 (3):191–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klymkowsky M. W. Can nonmajors courses lead to biological literacy? Do majors courses do any better? Cell. Biol. Educ. 2006; 4 :42–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokkala I., Gessell D. A. Writing science effectively: biology and English students in an author-editor relationship. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2003; 32 (4):252–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurfiss J. G. Association for the Study of Higher Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University; 1988. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities. [ Google Scholar ]
• Langer J. A., Applebee A. N. Learning to write: learning to think. Educ. Horizons. 1985; 64 (1):36–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Langer J. A., Applebee A. N. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; 1987. How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. NCTE research report no. 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawson A. E. Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. J. Biol. Educ. 2001; 35 (4):165–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malcom S. M., Abdallah J., Chubin D. E., Grogan K. A System of Solutions: Every School, Every Student. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marzano R. J. Fostering thinking across the curriculum through knowledge restructuring. J. Reading. 1991; 34 (7):518–525. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century; 2005. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995. National Science Education Standards. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. Washington, DC: Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century; 2003. Bio 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: Directorate for Education and Human Resources; 1996. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Office of Educational Research Improvement. Washington, DC: 1991. Striving for excellence: The National Education Goals. [ Google Scholar ]
• Project Kaleidoscope. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2006. Transforming America's Scientific and Technological Infrastructure: Recommendations for Urgent Action. [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnick L. B. Education and Learning To Think. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivard L. P. A review of writing to learn in science: implications for practice and research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994; 31 (9):969–983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Springer L., Donovan S. S., Stanne M. E. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1999; 69 (1):21–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steglich C. S. A writing assignment that changes attitudes in biology classes. Am. Biol. Teach. 2000; 62 (2):98–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor K. L., Sobota S. J. Writing in biology: an integration of disciplines. Am. Biol. Teach. 1998; 60 (5):350–353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tessier J. Writing assignment in a nonmajor introductory ecology class. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2006; 35 (4):25–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin K. G., Tippins D. J., Gallard A. J. Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In: Gabel D. L., editor. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan; 1994. pp. 45–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui L. ASHE annual meeting paper. Miami, FL: 1998. A review of research on critical thinking; pp. 5–8. 1998 November. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui L. Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: evidence from four institutional case studies. J. High. Educ. 2002; 73 (6):740–763. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 1990. National Goals for Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson G., Glaser E. M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Cleveland, OH: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich); 1980. [ Google Scholar ]

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

What are analytical skills? Examples and how to level up

Jump to section

What are analytical skills?

Why are analytical skills important, 9 analytical skills examples, how to improve analytical skills, how to show analytical skills in a job application, the benefits of an analytical mind.

With market forecasts, performance metrics, and KPIs, work throws a lot of information at you. 

If you want to stay ahead of the curve, not only do you have to make sense of the data that comes your way — you need to put it to good use. And that requires analytical skills.

You likely use analytical thinking skills every day without realizing it, like when you solve complex problems or prioritize tasks . But understanding the meaning of analysis skills in a job description, why you should include them in your professional development plan, and what makes them vital to every position can help advance your career.

Analytical skills, or analysis skills, are the ones you use to research and interpret information. Although you might associate them with data analysis, they help you think critically about an issue, make decisions , and solve problems in any context. That means anytime you’re brainstorming for a solution or reviewing a project that didn’t go smoothly, you’re analyzing information to find a conclusion. With so many applications, they’re relevant for nearly every job, making them a must-have on your resume.

Analytical skills help you think objectively about information and come to informed conclusions. Positions that consider these skills the most essential qualification grew by 92% between 1980 and 2018 , which shows just how in-demand they are. And according to Statista, global data creation will grow to more than 180 zettabytes by 2025 — a number with 21 zeros. That data informs every industry, from tech to marketing.

Even if you don’t interact with statistics and data on the job, you still need analytical skills to be successful. They’re incredibly valuable because:

• They’re transferable: You can use analysis skills in a variety of professional contexts and in different areas of your life, like making major decisions as a family or setting better long-term personal goals.
• They build agility: Whether you’re starting a new position or experiencing a workplace shift, analysis helps you understand and adapt quickly to changing conditions. 
• They foster innovation: Analytical skills can help you troubleshoot processes or operational improvements that increase productivity and profitability.
• They make you an attractive candidate: Companies are always looking for future leaders who can build company value. Developing a strong analytical skill set shows potential employers that you’re an intelligent, growth-oriented candidate.

If the thought of evaluating data feels unintuitive, or if math and statistics aren’t your strong suits, don’t stress. Many examples of analytical thinking skills don’t involve numbers. You can build your logic and analysis abilities through a variety of capacities, such as:

1. Brainstorming

Using the information in front of you to generate new ideas is a valuable transferable skill that helps you innovate at work . Developing your brainstorming techniques leads to better collaboration and organizational growth, whether you’re thinking of team bonding activities or troubleshooting a project roadblock. Related skills include benchmarking, diagnosis, and judgment to adequately assess situations and find solutions.

2. Communication

Becoming proficient at analysis is one thing, but you should also know how to communicate your findings to your audience — especially if they don’t have the same context or experience as you. Strong communication skills like public speaking , active listening , and storytelling can help you strategize the best ways to get the message out and collaborate with your team . And thinking critically about how to approach difficult conversations or persuade someone to see your point relies on these skills. 

3. Creativity

You might not associate analysis with your creativity skills, but if you want to find an innovative approach to an age-old problem, you’ll need to combine data with creative thinking . This can help you establish effective metrics, spot trends others miss, and see why the most obvious answer to a problem isn’t always the best. Skills that can help you to think outside the box include strategic planning, collaboration, and integration.

4. Critical thinking

Processing information and determining what’s valuable requires critical thinking skills . They help you avoid the cognitive biases that prevent innovation and growth, allowing you to see things as they really are and understand their relevance. Essential skills to turn yourself into a critical thinker are comparative analysis, business intelligence, and inference.

5. Data analytics

When it comes to large volumes of information, a skilled analytical thinker can sort the beneficial from the irrelevant. Data skills give you the tools to identify trends and patterns and visualize outcomes before they impact an organization or project’s performance. Some of the most common skills you can develop are prescriptive analysis and return on investment (ROI) analysis.

6. Forecasting

Predicting future business, market, and cultural trends better positions your organization to take advantage of new opportunities or prepare for downturns. Business forecasting requires a mix of research skills and predictive abilities, like statistical analysis and data visualization, and the ability to present your findings clearly.

7. Logical reasoning

Becoming a logical thinker means learning to observe and analyze situations to draw rational and objective conclusions. With logic, you can evaluate available facts, identify patterns or correlations, and use them to improve decision-making outcomes. If you’re looking to improve in this area, consider developing inductive and deductive reasoning skills.

8. Problem-solving

Problem-solving appears in all facets of your life — not just work. Effectively finding solutions to any issue takes analysis and logic, and you also need to take initiative with clear action plans . To improve your problem-solving skills , invest in developing visualization , collaboration, and goal-setting skills.

9. Research

Knowing how to locate information is just as valuable as understanding what to do with it. With research skills, you’ll recognize and collect data relevant to the problem you’re trying to solve or the initiative you’re trying to start. You can improve these skills by learning about data collection techniques, accuracy evaluation, and metrics.

You don’t need to earn a degree in data science to develop these skills. All it takes is time, practice, and commitment. Everything from work experience to hobbies can help you learn new things and make progress. Try a few of these ideas and stick with the ones you enjoy:

1. Document your skill set

The next time you encounter a problem and need to find solutions, take time to assess your process. Ask yourself:

• What facts are you considering?
• Do you ask for help or research on your own? What are your sources of advice?
• What does your brainstorming process look like?
• How do you make and execute a final decision?
• Do you reflect on the outcomes of your choices to identify lessons and opportunities for improvement?
• Are there any mistakes you find yourself making repeatedly?
• What problems do you constantly solve easily? 

These questions can give insight into your analytical strengths and weaknesses and point you toward opportunities for growth.

2. Take courses

Many online and in-person courses can expand your logical thinking and analysis skills. They don’t necessarily have to involve information sciences. Just choose something that trains your brain and fills in your skills gaps . 

Consider studying philosophy to learn how to develop your arguments or public speaking to better communicate the results of your research. You could also work on your hard skills with tools like Microsoft Excel and learn how to crunch numbers effectively. Whatever you choose, you can explore different online courses or certification programs to upskill. 

3. Analyze everything

Spend time consciously and critically evaluating everything — your surroundings, work processes, and even the way you interact with others. Integrating analysis into your day-to-day helps you practice. The analytical part of your brain is like a muscle, and the more you use it, the stronger it’ll become. 

After reading a book, listening to a podcast, or watching a movie, take some time to analyze what you watched. What were the messages? What did you learn? How was it delivered? Taking this approach to media will help you apply it to other scenarios in your life. 

If you’re giving a presentation at work or helping your team upskill , use the opportunity to flex the analytical side of your brain. For effective teaching, you’ll need to process and analyze the topic thoroughly, which requires skills like logic and communication. You also have to analyze others’ learning styles and adjust your teachings to match them. 

5. Play games

Spend your commute or weekends working on your skills in a way you enjoy. Try doing logic games like Sudoku and crossword puzzles during work breaks to foster critical thinking. And you can also integrate analytical skills into your existing hobbies. According to researcher Rakesh Ghildiyal, even team sports like soccer or hockey will stretch your capacity for analysis and strategic thinking . 

6. Ask questions

According to a study in Tr ends in Cognitive Sciences, being curious improves cognitive function , helping you develop problem-solving skills, retention, and memory. Start speaking up in meetings and questioning the why and how of different decisions around you. You’ll think more critically and even help your team find breakthrough solutions they otherwise wouldn’t.

7.Seek advice

If you’re unsure what analytical skills you need to develop, try asking your manager or colleagues for feedback . Their outside perspective offers insight you might not find within, like patterns in. And if you’re looking for more consistent guidance, talking to a coach can help you spot weaknesses and set goals for the long term.

8. Pursue opportunities

Speak to your manager about participating in special projects that could help you develop and flex your skills. If you’d like to learn about SEO or market research, ask to shadow someone in the ecommerce or marketing departments. If you’re interested in business forecasting, talk to the data analysis team. Taking initiative demonstrates a desire to learn and shows leadership that you’re eager to grow. 

Shining a spotlight on your analytical skills can help you at any stage of your job search. But since they take many forms, it’s best to be specific and show potential employers exactly why and how they make you a better candidate. Here are a few ways you can showcase them to the fullest:

1. In your cover letter

Your cover letter crafts a narrative around your skills and work experience. Use it to tell a story about how you put your analytical skills to use to solve a problem or improve workflow. Make sure to include concrete details to explain your thought process and solution — just keep it concise. Relate it back to the job description to show the hiring manager or recruiter you have the qualifications necessary to succeed.

2. On your resume

Depending on the type of resume you’re writing, there are many opportunities to convey your analytical skills to a potential employer. You could include them in sections like: 

• Professional summary: If you decide to include a summary, describe yourself as an analytical person or a problem-solver, whichever relates best to the job posting. 
• Work experience: Describe all the ways your skill for analysis has helped you perform or go above and beyond your responsibilities. Be sure to include specific details about challenges and outcomes related to the role you’re applying for to show how you use those skills. 
• Skills section: If your resume has a skill-specific section, itemize the analytical abilities you’ve developed over your career. These can include hard analytical skills like predictive modeling as well as interpersonal skills like communication.

3. During a job interview

As part of your interview preparation , list your professional accomplishments and the skills that helped along the way, such as problem-solving, data literacy, or strategic thinking. Then, pull them together into confident answers to common interview questions using the STAR method to give the interviewer a holistic picture of your skill set.

Developing analytical skills isn’t only helpful in the workplace. It’s essential to life. You’ll use them daily whenever you read the news, make a major purchase, or interact with others. Learning to critically evaluate information can benefit your relationships and help you feel more confident in your decisions, whether you’re weighing your personal budget or making a big career change .

Invest in your career

Get your promotion. Make your career change. Build the future you dream about. And do it faster with a world-class BetterUp Coach by your side.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

20 examples of development opportunities that can level up your career

Professional development is for everyone (we’re looking at you), are you being passed over for a promotion here’s what to do, discover how to get noticed by upper management at work, create a networking plan in 7 easy steps, how to pursue jobs versus careers to achieve different goals, a guide on how to find the right mentor for your career, 8 examples for setting professional development goals at work, how to set short-term professional goals, similar articles, how to develop critical thinking skills, what business acumen is and 9 ways to develop it, 10 essential business skills that make an impact on your career, what are hard skills & examples for your resume, 17 essential transferable skills to boost your job search, critical thinking is the one skillset you can't afford not to master, what are metacognitive skills examples in everyday life, 10 organizational skills that will put you a step ahead, what are adaptability skills 8 tips to shine in the face of adversity, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

How to demonstrate your analytical skills on a job application

You’re looking for a new job, and almost everywhere you look, it seems that 'analytical skills' are a requirement. What exactly does that mean? And how do you know if you have them? Here, we’ll discuss what analytical skills are and how to demonstrate them when applying for a job.

What are analytic skills?

Analytical ability means that you can analyse a situation, problem or issue well. It means you can approach a problem or issue in a solution-focused manner and through different angles. You can also quickly distinguish the main issue from the secondary issues. In short, you aim to understand an issue first and then devise appropriate action.

Analytical ability is very similar to critical thinking. Critical thinkers don’t just take everything for face value, but they ask questions to get to the deeper issue: “Is that true? What does that mean? Why? And how does that work?” These kinds of questions help you better understand the issue so you can give a better answer.

Why are analytical skills important?

Especially if you often deal with more complex issues in your work environment, it is important not to get overwhelmed by all the information that comes your way. By categorizing and making connections, you can easily map out your tasks independently and perform them quickly. This is an important characteristic in technical and medical professions, for example.

Do I have analytical thinking?

Analytical thinking may be an abstract concept if you have never really studied it. The list below will help you determine if you have analytical thinking skills. Are these qualities familiar to you?

• You quickly see the core or essence of an issue
• You can distinguish between main and secondary issues
• You foresee the possible consequences of certain choices and can weigh them against one another
• You can quickly make connections
• You only take action after looking at the issue from multiple angles
• Questioning and listening is something you are good at
• Sometimes you think too much and keep contemplating before you come to a choice
• You first weigh all options and are therefore described by others as 'indecisive'

Develop your analytical skills

Are the above characteristics not immediately familiar to you? No problem. Like many skills, you can train your analytical skills. A good exercise is to not immediately take the first course of action that comes to mind when dealing with a problem or issue. First, write down in one sentence what the essence of the problem is. Below that, put all possible solutions and describe the advantages and disadvantages of the best three. By being goal-oriented, you develop your analytical skills until this kind of thinking comes naturally.

Demonstrate analytical thinking when applying for a job

Are analytical skills a requirement in an application ? Then you will probably be asked to demonstrate this during the interview. Practical examples of how you deal with a certain situation are your best course of action. Below are some examples:

• ■ Indicate that you never just choose a solution for a problem or issue, but weigh the options first.          Describe an example from practice that shows this.
• ■ Explain how you can view a problem or issue from different angles.
• ■ Explain how you involve the input of others in a particular problem or issue.
• ■ Explain how to map connections by looking for background information or by comparing practical         examples.
• ■ Give an example of how you distinguish between main and secondary issues.

Example: You apply for a vacancy as a journalist. When researching a story, you make an overview of main and secondary issues to quickly see through the common thread and not to drown in the amount of information.

Use your analytical skills!

Do you have analytical thinking? You now know what it is and how you can demonstrate this soft skill during your job interview — a must for more and more data-driven functions. Check which of our vacancies  have this competence.

See our global vacancies

• personal development
• soft skills

Need to start saving with a new ATS? Learn how to calculate the return on investment of your ATS Calculate ROI now

How to Answer Analytical Skills Interview Questions

Why is the interviewer testing your analytical skills? During an interview, your employer may ask you some tricky questions to assess your problem-solving skills and how you use data to analyze and evaluate processes. By preparing for these questions in advance with sample answers created by our team at Workable, you can demonstrate your analytical skills and present yourself as an outstanding candidate.

Workable's content team brings its HR & employment expertise to Resources.

What are common interview questions ?

The following analytical interview questions assess how you:

• Gather data to inform your decisions
• Assess both positive and negative situations to improve your processes
• Are able to develop processes 
• Evaluate information through critical thinking
• Think through problems to find solutions
• Set and achieve goals
• Communicate your findings and decisions to a team

Describe a situation where you needed to solve a problem but did not have all the information you needed to do so. What did you do then?

This question requires you to demonstrate your research skills and problem-solving abilities. Use this opportunity to show what makes you unique and how analytical, organized, and detail-oriented you are by supporting your interview answer with real work experience.

Sample answer: “Sales were down, and I needed to find a solution. I sent out surveys to team members to determine the cause of the problem. It turned out that sales were down because employees were not following up on leads. After I implemented a new project management system, sales increased by 10%.”

How do you weigh the pros and cons before making a decision?

When answering the question, explain how you make decisions, what systems you use, and why you use them. There’s no right or wrong system.

Sample answer: “When I make decisions, I use logic and reasoning and ensure I have gathered all the information I need. I then use the facts to weigh the different options and evaluate the likelihood of each outcome. I make the best decision for my company based on the ideal scenario.”

Your manager wants to buy new software or hardware to increase team productivity and asks you for a recommendation. How would you respond?

Your interviewer has asked you to imagine a job-related scenario. It’s hypothetical, but it will test your ability to think through all the relevant factors. 

Sample answer: “ First, I would research which functions are most important to my supervisor and what the budget constraints are. Then I would search for productivity software that would meet current and future needs. Once I compiled a list of 5-10 options, I would narrow it down to three with a top recommendation.”

Explain step-by-step how you troubleshoot [X] problem

You are not expected to solve the problem but rather explain how you approach it.

Sample answer: “I first try to understand the situation. Then I take a step-by-step approach to figure out what caused the problem. If I can’t do it myself, I ask for help. At that point, we should have found something that works. If not, I’ll review to see if there’s another step I have overlooked or contact my managers .”

What metrics do you regularly track (e.g., conversion rates, number of new customers, expenses)? What information do you research, and how do you use it?

Answer this with a metric that you know is relevant to the job you are applying for.

Sample answer: “ I currently use analytics software to track where visitors to my website are coming from and their activities while they are there. This helps me understand how successful our current campaigns are and how often we attract new visitors to our site. These statistics assist in determining the next step for the business .”

Do you need to prepare for an analytical skills interview?

For your interview preparation , it’s a good idea to have some answers in mind beforehand to clarify your thoughts. The best way to do this is to practice using these sample questions and answers and adapting them to your role. You can also prepare for an interview by looking at the types of decision-making questions an interviewer might ask.

Related articles

Taking the lead: how to take control in your next job interview

55+ real-life interview questions for soft skills at every level

24+ real-life interview questions for media & entertainment roles

71+ real-life interview questions for marketing manager roles

Remote, hybrid and on-site jobs..

Check out the latest posts for jobs in your field with the work style that works for you.

Looking for a new opportunity?

Thousands of employers have posted their job openings on the Workable job board.

Share on Mastodon

• myState on Mississippi State University
• Directory on Mississippi State University
• Calendars on Mississippi State University
• A-Z Index on Mississippi State University
• Maps on Mississippi State University
• News on Mississippi State University
• Contact on Mississippi State University

Innovative MSU History Resource Center assists with writing, critical thinking for student success

Contact: Sam Kealhofer

STARKVILLE, Miss.—A new universitywide resource is now available to Mississippi State students wanting to improve their analytical and written skills for history courses.

The HRC primarily targets first-year students taking large survey courses which can have high drop-fail-withdraw rates. Located in Allen Hall, Room 215, the center is open Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 9 a.m. to noon and 1-4 p.m., and by appointment.

 “Success in history courses can be a determinant of overall success in college because these classes expect students to use critical thinking and to synthesize a large amount of information around very broad themes and topics,” McCourt said. “These skills translate to virtually any other academic endeavor and learning the content of American history helps us navigate our lives in the present day.”

The history department launched the HRC in response to a study conducted by the American Historical Association which found success in entry-level history courses often correlates with overall success or failure in students’ entire college careers.

“While the center originally launched to serve students in the survey courses, we’ve now expanded to reach students in advanced history courses as well,” Smith said. “We can help with sharpening an essay’s argument, using proper citations and comprehending secondary literature in addition to our core mission of working with primary sources.”

To learn more about this service or to make an appointment, email HRC staff members Ryan Reynolds at [email protected] or Madelyn Bemisderfer at [email protected] .

For more details about MSU’s College of Arts and Sciences or the Department of History, visit www.cas.msstate.edu or www.history.msstate.edu .

Mississippi State University is taking care of what matters. Learn more at www.msstate.edu .

Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - 3:44 pm

• Faculty & Staff News
• Students News
• Education & Leadership News
• College of Arts & Sciences

You may also be interested in…

Harmony between honeybees and soybeans focus of msu entomologists.

June 14, 2024

MSU professor’s impact on landscape architecture students, community prompts fellow selection

June 11, 2024

Out of this world: MSU Goldwater Scholars join 2024 Astronaut Scholars Class

May 29, 2024

• Find Mississippi State University on Facebook
• Find Mississippi State University on Instagram
• Find Mississippi State University on LinkedIn
• Find Mississippi State University on Pinterest
• Find Mississippi State University on Twitter
• Find Mississippi State University on YouTube

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Supporting Educators & Students

Teaching & learning.

As part of its broad-based teaching mission, the AHA develops and shares resources for educators and students. From regional teaching conferences and online programs to pathbreaking research projects, AHA initiatives foster a community grounded in our shared commitment to understanding the past. We support and convene people who share a love of history and historical thinking.

Resources for Educators & Students

K–12 Education

The AHA strives to ensure that every K–12 student has access to high quality history instruction. We create resources for the classroom, advise on state and federal policy, and advocate for the vital importance of history in public education.

Undergraduate Education

Teaching and learning are at the foundation of the AHA’s mission to promote historical thinking in public life. What do students learn in undergraduate history courses? How and why are history majors so successful in a variety of careers?

Graduate Education

Many historians will pursue graduate training at some stage in their career. To meet the needs of both students and graduate programs, the AHA creates resources, provides platforms, and convenes conversations about student success from application to completion.

For Academic Departments

History department chairs are on the front lines of the discipline, defending historians’ work and supporting their professional lives at all stages of their academic careers. The AHA strives to strengthen this work and provide resources and opportunities that make chairs’ work easier and valued. The AHA provides resources and hosts a variety of events and opportunities to benefit department chairs and build community, including webinars, sessions at the annual meeting, and an in-person workshop.

Current Events in Historical Context

Essential, carefully researched resources by historians providing context for conversations about current events.

Regional Conferences on Introductory History Courses

What do students learn in introductory history courses? How can historical thinking support student learning and success across the curriculum? Our regional conferences endeavor to strengthen the community of practice focused on introductory history courses, both in secondary and higher education.

Standards & Guidelines

June 10, 2024

Guidelines for Academic Tenure-Track Job Offers in History

June 9, 2024

Statement on Age Discrimination

Aha historical collections.

The AHA has made primary sources available for research purposes, along with AHA archival reports and documents.

Vetted Resources

Vetted Resources compiles in a central location materials and tools that have been professionally vetted by historians, offering instructors access to high-quality materials that meet professional standards

AHA Resource Library

June 20, 2024

16 Months to Sumter: Newspaper Editorials on the Path to Secession

June 16, 2024

The History of Racism and Racist Violence: International Contexts and Comparisons

The history of racism and racist violence: monuments and museums, join the aha.

The AHA brings together historians from all specializations and all work contexts, embracing the breadth and variety of activity in history today.