A systematic review of analytical thinking skills in STEM education settings

IF 1.6 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Riyan Hidayat, Irham Nugroho, Zamzami Zainuddin, Tony Anak Ingai
{"title":"A systematic review of analytical thinking skills in STEM education settings","authors":"Riyan Hidayat, Irham Nugroho, Zamzami Zainuddin, Tony Anak Ingai","doi":"10.1108/ils-06-2023-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose In the realm of education, there has been an increasing emphasis on developing analytical thinking (AT) in the past few years. This systematic review focuses on an analysis of journal publications that have explored AT within the context of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. This analysis investigated four primary issues: (1) the operational definition that was used; (2) the types of theories that were used; (3) the interventions that were implemented to enhance AT skills; and (4) the research designs that were used. Design/methodology/approach To ensure a comprehensive and thorough review, we used the guidelines of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Findings A comprehensive review of 28 pertinent scholarly articles reveals that scholars frequently rely on the concepts proposed by Anderson (2002), Marzano and Kendall (2008), Rodrangsee and Tuntiwongwanich (2021) and Suyatman et al. (2021) to establish a framework for delineating the competencies associated with analytical thinking (AT). Quasi-experimental designs were the most frequently used research designs in the studies analysed, followed by research and development approaches and then correlational designs. Most researchers have focused on investigating the effectiveness of problem-based learning as an intervention for improving AT skills. However, most research indicates that the theories or theoretical frameworks used to guide the research must be evident. Originality/value To the extent the authors know, this study represents the initial comprehensive examination of analytical thinking in STEM education. It presents a consolidated summary of the available evidence, assessing its quality and bringing it together in a single resource.","PeriodicalId":44588,"journal":{"name":"Information and Learning Sciences","volume":"6 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-06-2023-0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose In the realm of education, there has been an increasing emphasis on developing analytical thinking (AT) in the past few years. This systematic review focuses on an analysis of journal publications that have explored AT within the context of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. This analysis investigated four primary issues: (1) the operational definition that was used; (2) the types of theories that were used; (3) the interventions that were implemented to enhance AT skills; and (4) the research designs that were used. Design/methodology/approach To ensure a comprehensive and thorough review, we used the guidelines of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Findings A comprehensive review of 28 pertinent scholarly articles reveals that scholars frequently rely on the concepts proposed by Anderson (2002), Marzano and Kendall (2008), Rodrangsee and Tuntiwongwanich (2021) and Suyatman et al. (2021) to establish a framework for delineating the competencies associated with analytical thinking (AT). Quasi-experimental designs were the most frequently used research designs in the studies analysed, followed by research and development approaches and then correlational designs. Most researchers have focused on investigating the effectiveness of problem-based learning as an intervention for improving AT skills. However, most research indicates that the theories or theoretical frameworks used to guide the research must be evident. Originality/value To the extent the authors know, this study represents the initial comprehensive examination of analytical thinking in STEM education. It presents a consolidated summary of the available evidence, assessing its quality and bringing it together in a single resource.
对STEM教育背景下分析性思维技能的系统回顾
在过去的几年里,在教育领域,分析性思维(AT)的发展越来越受到重视。本系统综述的重点是对在科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)教育背景下探索人工智能的期刊出版物进行分析。该分析调查了四个主要问题:(1)所使用的操作定义;(二)运用的理论类型;(3)为提高AT技能而实施的干预措施;(4)采用的研究设计。设计/方法/方法为了确保全面彻底的审查,我们使用了首选报告项目的指导方针进行系统审查和荟萃分析。对28篇相关学术文章的全面回顾表明,学者们经常依赖Anderson(2002)、Marzano和Kendall(2008)、Rodrangsee和Tuntiwongwanich(2021)以及Suyatman等人(2021)提出的概念来建立描述与分析性思维(AT)相关的能力的框架。在分析的研究中,准实验设计是最常用的研究设计,其次是研究和开发方法,然后是相关设计。大多数研究人员都把重点放在调查基于问题的学习作为一种干预措施来提高AT技能的有效性上。然而,大多数研究表明,用于指导研究的理论或理论框架必须是显而易见的。就作者所知,这项研究代表了对STEM教育中分析性思维的首次全面考察。它提供了现有证据的综合摘要,评估其质量并将其汇集在一个资源中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Information and Learning Sciences
Information and Learning Sciences INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Information and Learning Sciences advances inter-disciplinary research that explores scholarly intersections shared within 2 key fields: information science and the learning sciences / education sciences. The journal provides a publication venue for work that strengthens our scholarly understanding of human inquiry and learning phenomena, especially as they relate to design and uses of information and e-learning systems innovations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信