A systematic review of analytical thinking skills in STEM education settings

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.

Citation

Hidayat, R., Nugroho, I., Zainuddin, Z. and Ingai, T.A. (2024), "A systematic review of analytical thinking skills in STEM education settings", Information and Learning Sciences, Vol. 125 No. 7/8, pp. 565-586. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0070