Science & Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00460-5

ARTICLE

Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education

Two Distinct but Symbiotically Related Intellectual Processes

Antonio García‑Carmona1

Accepted: 30 July 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Scientific thinking and critical thinking are two intellectual processes that are considered
keys in the basic and comprehensive education of citizens. For this reason, their develop-
ment is also contemplated as among the main objectives of science education. However,
in the literature about the two types of thinking in the context of science education, there
are quite frequent allusions to one or the other indistinctly to refer to the same cognitive
and metacognitive skills, usually leaving unclear what are their differences and what are
their common aspects. The present work therefore was aimed at elucidating what the dif-
ferences and relationships between these two types of thinking are. The conclusion reached
was that, while they differ in regard to the purposes of their application and some skills or
processes, they also share others and are related symbiotically in a metaphorical sense; i.e.,
each one makes sense or develops appropriately when it is nourished or enriched by the
other. Finally, an orientative proposal is presented for an integrated development of the two
types of thinking in science classes.

Education is not the learning of facts, but the

training of the mind to think. Albert Einstein

1 Introduction

In consulting technical reports, theoretical frameworks, research, and curricular reforms

related to science education, one commonly finds appeals to scientific thinking and critical
thinking as essential educational processes or objectives. This is confirmed in some studies
that include exhaustive reviews of the literature in this regard such as those of Bailin (2002),
Costa et al. (2020), and Santos (2017) on critical thinking, and of Klarh et al. (2019) and
Lehrer and Schauble (2006) on scientific thinking. However, conceptualizing and differen-
tiating between both types of thinking based on the above-mentioned documents of science
education are generally difficult. In many cases, they are referred to without defining them,

* Antonio García‑Carmona
[email protected]
1
Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales, Universidad de Sevilla,
Seville, Spain

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. García‑Carmona

or they are used interchangeably to represent virtually the same thing. Thus, for example,
the document A Framework for K-12 Science Education points out that “Critical thinking
is required, whether in developing and refining an idea (an explanation or design) or in con-
ducting an investigation” (National Research Council (NRC), 2012, p. 46). The same docu-
ment also refers to scientific thinking when it suggests that basic scientific education should
“provide students with opportunities for a range of scientific activities and scientific think-
ing, including, but not limited to inquiry and investigation, collection and analysis of evi-
dence, logical reasoning, and communication and application of information” (NRC, 2012,
p. 251).
A few years earlier, the report Science Teaching in Schools in Europe: Policies and
Research (European Commission/Eurydice, 2006) included the dimension “scientific
thinking” as part of standardized national science tests in European countries. This
dimension consisted of three basic abilities: (i) to solve problems formulated in theo-
retical terms, (ii) to frame a problem in scientific terms, and (iii) to formulate scientific
hypotheses. In contrast, critical thinking was not even mentioned in such a report. How-
ever, in subsequent similar reports by the European Commission/Eurydice (2011, 2022),
there are some references to the fact that the development of critical thinking should
be a basic objective of science teaching, although these reports do not define it at any
point.
The ENCIENDE report on early-year science education in Spain also includes an
explicit allusion to critical thinking among its recommendations: “Providing students with
learning tools means helping them to develop critical thinking, to form their own opinions,
to distinguish between knowledge founded on the evidence available at a certain moment
(evidence which can change) and unfounded beliefs” (Confederation of Scientific Societies
in Spain (COSCE), 2011, p. 62). However, the report makes no explicit mention to scien-
tific thinking. More recently, the document “Enseñando ciencia con ciencia” (Teaching
science with science) (Couso et al., 2020), sponsored by Spain’s Ministry of Education,
also addresses critical thinking:
(…) with the teaching approach through guided inquiry students learn scientific con-
tent, learn to do science (procedures), learn what science is and how it is built, and
this (...) helps to develop critical thinking, that is, to question any statement that is
not supported by evidence. (Couso et al., 2020, p. 54)
On the other hand, in referring to what is practically the same thing, the European report
Science Education for Responsible Citizenship speaks of scientific thinking when it estab-
lishes that one of the challenges of scientific education should be: “To promote a culture of
scientific thinking and inspire citizens to use evidence-based reasoning for decision mak-
ing” (European Commission, 2015, p. 14). However, the Pisa 2024 Strategic Vision and
Direction for Science report does not mention scientific thinking but does mention critical
thinking in noting that “More generally, (students) should be able to recognize the lim-
itations of scientific inquiry and apply critical thinking when engaging with its results”
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2020, p. 9).
The new Spanish science curriculum for basic education (Royal Decree 217/2022) does
make explicit reference to scientific thinking. For example, one of the STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) competency descriptors for compulsory sec-
ondary education reads:
Use scientific thinking to understand and explain the phenomena that occur around
them, trusting in knowledge as a motor for development, asking questions and check-

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

ing hypotheses through experimentation and inquiry (...) showing a critical attitude
about the scope and limitations of science. (p. 41,599)
Furthermore, when developing the curriculum for the subjects of physics and chemis-
try, the same provision clarifies that “The essence of scientific thinking is to understand
what are the reasons for the phenomena that occur in the natural environment to then try
to explain them through the appropriate laws of physics and chemistry” (Royal Decree
217/2022, p. 41,659). However, within the science subjects (i.e., Biology and Geology, and
Physics and Chemistry), critical thinking is not mentioned as such.1 It is only more or less
directly alluded to with such expressions as “critical analysis”, “critical assessment”, “criti-
cal reflection”, “critical attitude”, and “critical spirit”, with no attempt to conceptualize it
as is done with regard to scientific thinking.
The above is just a small sample of the concepts of scientific thinking and critical
thinking only being differentiated in some cases, while in others they are presented as
interchangeable, using one or the other indistinctly to talk about the same cognitive/meta-
cognitive processes or practices. In fairness, however, it has to be acknowledged—as said
at the beginning—that it is far from easy to conceptualize these two types of thinking
(Bailin, 2002; Dwyer et al., 2014; Ennis, 2018; Lehrer & Schauble, 2006; Kuhn, 1993,
1999) since they feed back on each other, partially overlap, and share certain features
(Cáceres et al., 2020; Vázquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2018). Neither is there una-
nimity in the literature on how to characterize each of them, and rarely have they been
analyzed comparatively (e.g., Hyytinen et al., 2019). For these reasons, I believed it nec-
essary to address this issue with the present work in order to offer some guidelines for
science teachers interested in deepening into these two intellectual processes to promote
them in their classes.

2 An Attempt to Delimit Scientific Thinking in Science Education

For many years, cognitive science has been interested in studying what scientific thinking
is and how it can be taught in order to improve students’ science learning (Klarh et al.,
2019; Zimmerman & Klarh, 2018). To this end, Kuhn et al. propose taking a characteri-
zation of science as argument (Kuhn, 1993; Kuhn et al., 2008). They argue that this is a
suitable way of linking the activity of how scientists think with that of the students and of
the public in general, since science is a social activity which is subject to ongoing debate,
in which the construction of arguments plays a key role. Lehrer and Schauble (2006) link
scientific thinking with scientific literacy, paying especial attention to the different images
of science. According to those authors, these images would guide the development of the
said literacy in class. The images of science that Leherer and Schauble highlight as char-
acterizing scientific thinking are: (i) science-as-logical reasoning (role of domain-general
forms of scientific reasoning, including formal logic, heuristic, and strategies applied in
different fields of science), (ii) science-as-theory change (science is subject to permanent
revision and change), and (iii) science-as-practice (scientific knowledge and reasoning are
components of a larger set of activities that include rules of participation, procedural skills,
epistemological knowledge, etc.).

1
Critical thinking is mentioned literally in other of the curricular provisions’ subjects such as in Education
in Civics and Ethical Values or in Geography and History (Royal Decree 217/2022).

13
 A. García‑Carmona

Based on a literature review, Jirout (2020) defines scientific thinking as an intellectual

process whose purpose is the intentional search for information about a phenomenon or
facts by formulating questions, checking hypotheses, carrying out observations, recogniz-
ing patterns, and making inferences (a detailed description of all these scientific practices
or competencies can be found, for example, in NRC, 2012; OECD, 2019). Therefore, for
Jirout, the development of scientific thinking would involve bringing into play the basic
science skills/practices common to the inquiry-based approach to learning science (García-
Carmona, 2020; Harlen, 2014). For other authors, scientific thinking would include a
whole spectrum of scientific reasoning competencies (Krell et al., 2022; Moore, 2019;
Tytler & Peterson, 2004). However, these competences usually cover the same science
skills/practices mentioned above. Indeed, a conceptual overlap between scientific thinking,
scientific reasoning, and scientific inquiry is often found in science education goals (Krell
et al., 2022). Although, according to Leherer and Schauble (2006), scientific thinking is a
broader construct that encompasses the other two.
It could be said that scientific thinking is a particular way of searching for information
using science practices2 (Klarh et al., 2019; Zimmerman & Klarh, 2018; Vázquez-Alonso
& Manassero-Mas, 2018). This intellectual process provides the individual with the abil-
ity to evaluate the robustness of evidence for or against a certain idea, in order to explain a
phenomenon (Clouse, 2017). But the development of scientific thinking also requires meta-
cognition processes. According to what Kuhn (2022) argues, metacognition is fundamental
to the permanent control or revision of what an individual thinks and knows, as well as that
of the other individuals with whom it interacts, when engaging in scientific practices. In
short, scientific thinking demands a good connection between reasoning and metacognition
(Kuhn, 2022).3
From that perspective, Zimmerman and Klarh (2018) have synthesized a taxonomy
categorizing scientific thinking, relating cognitive processes with the corresponding sci-
ence practices (Table 1). It has to be noted that this taxonomy was prepared in line
with the categorization of scientific practices proposed in the document A Framework
for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012). This is why one needs to understand that,
for example, the cognitive process of elaboration and refinement of hypotheses is not
explicitly associated with the scientific practice of hypothesizing but only with the
formulation of questions. Indeed, the K-12 Framework document does not establish
hypothesis formulation as a basic scientific practice. Lederman et al. (2014) justify it by
arguing that not all scientific research necessarily allows or requires the verification of
hypotheses, for example, in cases of exploratory or descriptive research. However, the
aforementioned document (NRC, 2012, p. 50) does refer to hypotheses when describing
the practice of developing and using models, appealing to the fact that they facilitate the
testing of hypothetical explanations.

2
García-Carmona (2021a) conceives of them as activities that require the comprehensive application of
procedural skills, cognitive and metacognitive processes, and both scientific knowledge and knowledge of
the nature of scientific practice .
3
Kuhn (2021) argues that the relationship between scientific reasoning and metacognition is especially fos-
tered by what she calls inhibitory control, which basically consists of breaking down the whole of a thought
into parts in such a way that attention is inhibited on some of those parts to allow a focused examination of
the intended mental content.

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

Table 1  Taxonomy of Zimmerman and Klarh (2018) for categorizing scientific thinking
Cognitive processes Science practices

Forming and refining hypotheses (hypothesis space search) Asking questions

Developing and using models
Investigation skills (experiment space search) Planning and carrying out investigations
Evaluating evidence Analyzing and interpreting data/evidence
Constructing explanations

Source: Zimmerman and Klarh (2018, p. 7)

In the literature, there are also other interesting taxonomies characterizing scientific think-
ing for educational purposes. One of them is that of Vázquez-Alonso and Manassero-Mas
(2018) who, instead of science practices, refer to skills associated with scientific thinking.
Their characterization basically consists of breaking down into greater detail the content of
those science practices that would be related to the different cognitive and metacognitive pro-
cesses of scientific thinking. Also, unlike Zimmerman and Klarh’s (2018) proposal, Vázquez-
Alonso and Manassero-Mas’s (2018) proposal explicitly mentions metacognition as one of
the aspects of scientific thinking, which they call meta-process. In my opinion, the proposal
of the latter authors, which shells out scientific thinking into a broader range of skills/prac-
tices, can be more conducive in order to favor its approach in science classes, as teachers
would have more options to choose from to address components of this intellectual process
depending on their teaching interests, the educational needs of their students and/or the learn-
ing objectives pursued. Table 2 presents an adapted characterization of the Vázquez-Alonso
and Manassero-Mas’s (2018) proposal to address scientific thinking in science education.

Table 2  Aspects of scientific thinking and associated basic skills for it to be developed in science education
Aspects of scientific thinking Basic associated skills

Observe and categorize what has been observed Observe phenomena; collect, order, organize data; etc.
Recognize patterns Identify evidence; quantify measurements; discover regu-
larities; synthesize; empirical generalization; etc.
Create and test hypotheses Ask questions; identify problems; formulate hypotheses;
plan and develop research; apply mathematical thinking
and statistical analyses; etc.
Think about causes and effects Control for effects of multiple variables; attribute causal-
ity; use logic; make valid and reliable interpretations;
etc.
Construct explanations from evidence Issue critical judgments on what is observed or measured;
accept and reject explanations; use available scientific
evidence and knowledge (consult the literature); justify
and validate ideas; present arguments; develop repre-
sentative and explanatory models; etc.
Be aware of and control for one’s own thinking Have a skeptical attitude; show open-mindedness; chal-
(meta-processes) lenge knowledge with alternatives; evaluate assump-
tions; predict; seek new ideas and knowledge with
creativity and imagination; etc.
Communicate, evaluate, share, collaborate, and Communicate and share knowledge; work cooperatively
think about the information in teams; debate with colleagues on theories and solu-
tions; evaluate the others’ results and conclusions; etc.

Source: simplified adaptation of Vázquez-Alonso and Manassero-Mas (2018, p. 314)

13
 A. García‑Carmona

3 Contextualization of Critical Thinking in Science Education

Theorization and research about critical thinking also has a long tradition in the field of the
psychology of learning (Ennis, 2018; Kuhn, 1999), and its application extends far beyond
science education (Dwyer et al., 2014). Indeed, the development of critical thinking is
commonly accepted as being an essential goal of people’s overall education (Ennis, 2018;
Hitchcock, 2017; Kuhn, 1999; Willingham, 2008). However, its conceptualization is not
simple and there is no unanimous position taken on it in the literature (Costa et al., 2020;
Dwyer et al., 2014); especially when trying to relate it to scientific thinking. Thus, while
Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina (2022)4 and McBain et al. (2020) consider critical think-
ing to be the basis of or forms part of scientific thinking, Dowd et al. (2018) understand
scientific thinking to be just a subset of critical thinking. However, Vázquez-Alonso and
Manassero-Mas (2018) do not seek to determine whether critical thinking encompasses
scientific thinking or vice versa. They consider that both types of knowledge share numer-
ous skills/practices and the progressive development of one fosters the development of
the other as a virtuous circle of improvement. Other authors, such as Schafersman (1991),
even go so far as to say that critical thinking and scientific thinking are the same thing. In
addition, some views on the relationship between critical thinking and scientific thinking
seem to be context-dependent. For example, Hyytine et al. (2019) point out that in the per-
spective of scientific thinking as a component of critical thinking, the former is often used
to designate evidence-based thinking in the sciences, although this view tends to domi-
nate in Europe but not in the USA context. Perhaps because of this lack of consensus, the
two types of thinking are often confused, overlapping, or conceived as interchangeable in
education.
Even with such a lack of unanimous or consensus vision, there are some interesting the-
oretical frameworks and definitions for the development of critical thinking in education.
One of the most popular definitions of critical thinking is that proposed by The National
Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (1987, cited in Inter-American Teacher Educa-
tion Network, 2015, p. 6). This conceives of it as “the intellectually disciplined process of
actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluat-
ing information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reason-
ing, or communication, as a guide to belief and action”. In other words, critical thinking
can be regarded as a reflective and reasonable class of thinking that provides people with
the ability to evaluate multiple statements or positions that are defensible to then decide
which is the most defensible (Clouse, 2017; Ennis, 2018). It thus requires, in addition to a
basic scientific competency, notions about epistemology (Kuhn, 1999) to understand how
knowledge is constructed. Similarly, it requires skills for metacognition (Hyytine et al.,
2019; Kuhn, 1999; Magno, 2010) since critical thinking “entails awareness of one’s own
thinking and reflection on the thinking of self and others as objects of cognition” (Dean &
Kuhn, 2003, p. 3).
In science education, one of the most suitable scenarios or resources, but not the
only one,5 to address all these aspects of critical thinking is through the analysis of

4
Specifically, Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina (2020) assume that critical thinking is at the basis of
rational or scientific skepticism that leads to questioning any claim that does not have empirical support.
5
As discussed in the introduction, the inquiry-based approach is also considered conducive to addressing
critical thinking in science education (Couso et al., 2020; NRC, 2012).

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

socioscientific issues (SSI) (Taylor et al., 2006; Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). Without wish-
ing to expand on this here, I will only say that interesting works can be found in the litera-
ture that have analyzed how the discussion of SSIs can favor the development of critical
thinking skills (see, e.g., López-Fernández et al., 2022; Solbes et al., 2018). For example,
López-Fernández et al. (2022) focused their teaching-learning sequence on the following
critical thinking skills: information analysis, argumentation, decision making, and commu-
nication of decisions. Even some authors add the nature of science (NOS) to this frame-
work (i.e., SSI-NOS-critical thinking), as, for example, Yacoubian and Khishfe (2018) in
order to develop critical thinking and how this can also favor the understanding of NOS
(Yacoubian, 2020). In effect, as I argued in another work on the COVID-19 pandemic as an
SSI, in which special emphasis was placed on critical thinking, an informed understanding
of how science works would have helped the public understand why scientists were chang-
ing their criteria to face the pandemic in the light of new data and its reinterpretations, or
that it was not possible to go faster to get an effective and secure medical treatment for the
disease (García-Carmona, 2021b).
In the recent literature, there have also been some proposals intended to characterize
critical thinking in the context of science education. Table 3 presents two of these by way
of example. As can be seen, both proposals share various components for the development
of critical thinking (respect for evidence, critically analyzing/assessing the validity/reliabil-
ity of information, adoption of independent opinions/decisions, participation, etc.), but that
of Blanco et al. (2017) is more clearly contextualized in science education. Likewise, that
of these authors includes some more aspects (or at least does so more explicitly), such as

Table 3  Two proposals of critical-thinking components to be developed in science education

Proposal of Blanco-López et al. (2017) Proposal of Jiménez-Aleixandre and Puig (2022)

Vision of science as a human activity with multiple Cognitive and epistemic skills: criteria and evidence
relationships with technology, society, and the for knowledge evaluation
environment
Knowledge of the topics addressed, without being Critical character and disposition to consider refuta-
limited to dominant discourses but knowing about tory evidence, to evaluate the reliability of sources,
alternative standpoints to revise views, etc.
Critical analysis of the information (the sources’ Capacity to develop independent opinions and to
credibility, the authors’ underlying interests…) challenge socially and culturally established ideas
Comprehensive treatment of the problems, taking Critical action: critical consciousness and participa-
into account the scientific, technical, ethical, tion
cultural, philosophical, social, environmental,
economic, and other dimensions
Discussion to question the validity of the arguments,
reject conclusions not based on evidence, and
detect fallacies in argumentation
Personal autonomy to develop an independent opin-
ion, acquiring the skill to reflect upon society and
participate in it
Decision-making to form rational choices and well-
founded judgments as elements of the decisions
used to resolve problems
Communication of decisions using language
appropriate for the context and the objectives or
intentions

Source: Blanco-López et al. (2017) and Aleixandre and Puig (2022)

13
 A. García‑Carmona

developing epistemological6 knowledge of science (vision of science…) and on its interac-

tions with technology, society, and environment (STSA relationships), and communication
skills. Therefore, it offers a wider range of options for choosing critical thinking skills/pro-
cesses to promote it in science classes. However, neither proposal refers to metacognitive
skills, which are also essential for developing critical thinking (Kuhn, 1999).

3.1 Critical thinking vs. scientific thinking in science education: differences

and similarities

In accordance with the above, it could be said that scientific thinking is nourished by criti-
cal thinking, especially when deciding between several possible interpretations and expla-
nations of the same phenomenon since this generally takes place in a context of debate in
the scientific community (Acevedo-Díaz & García-Carmona, 2017). Thus, the scientific
attitude that is perhaps most clearly linked to critical thinking is the skepticism with which
scientists tend to welcome new ideas (Normand, 2008; Sagan, 1987; Tena-Sánchez and
León-Medina, 2022), especially if they are contrary to well-established scientific knowl-
edge (Bell, 2009). A good example of this was the OPERA experiment (García-Carmona
& Acevedo-Díaz, 2016a), which initially seemed to find that neutrinos could move faster
than the speed of light. This finding was supposed to invalidate Albert Einstein’s theory of
relativity (the finding was later proved wrong). In response, Nobel laureate in physics Shel-
don L. Glashow went so far as to state that:
the result obtained by the OPERA collaboration cannot be correct. If it were, we
would have to give up so many things, it would be such a huge sacrifice... But if it
is, I am officially announcing it: I will shout to Mother Nature: I’m giving up! And I
will give up Physics. (BBVA Foundation, 2011)
Indeed, scientific thinking is ultimately focused on getting evidence that may support an
idea or explanation about a phenomenon, and consequently allow others that are less con-
vincing or precise to be discarded. Therefore when, with the evidence available, science
has more than one equally defensible position with respect to a problem, the investigation
is considered inconclusive (Clouse, 2017). In certain cases, this gives rise to scientific con-
troversies (Acevedo-Díaz & García-Carmona, 2017) which are not always resolved based
exclusively on epistemic or rational factors (Elliott & McKaughan, 2014; Vallverdú, 2005).
Hence, it is also necessary to integrate non-epistemic practices into the framework of sci-
entific thinking (García-Carmona, 2021a; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018), prac-
tices that transcend the purely rational or cognitive processes, including, for example, those
related to emotional or affective issues (Sinatra & Hofer, 2021). From an educational point
of view, this suggests that for students to become more authentically immersed in the way
of working or thinking scientifically, they should also learn to feel as scientists do when
they carry out their work (Davidson et al., 2020). Davidson et al. (2020) call it epistemic
affect, and they suggest that it could be approach in science classes by teaching students to
manage their frustrations when they fail to achieve the expected results;7 or, for example, to

6
Epistemic skills should not be confused with epistemological knowledge (García-Carmona, 2021a). The
former refers to skills to construct, evaluate, and use knowledge, and the latter to understanding about the
origin, nature, scope, and limits of scientific knowledge.
7
For this purpose, it can be very useful to address in class, with the help of the history and philosophy of
science, that scientists get more wrong than right in their research, and that error is always an opportunity to
learn (García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018).

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

moderate their enthusiasm with favorable results in a scientific inquiry by activating a cer-
tain skepticism that encourages them to do more testing. And, as mentioned above, for some
authors, having a skeptical attitude is one of the actions that best visualize the application
of critical thinking in the framework of scientific thinking (Normand, 2008; Sagan, 1987;
Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina, 2022).
On the other hand, critical thinking also draws on many of the skills or practices of sci-
entific thinking, as discussed above. However, in contrast to scientific thinking, the coex-
istence of two or more defensible ideas is not, in principle, a problem for critical think-
ing since its purpose is not so much to invalidate some ideas or explanations with respect
to others, but rather to provide the individual with the foundations on which to position
themself with the idea/argument they find most defensible among several that are possible
(Ennis, 2018). For example, science with its methods has managed to explain the green-
house effect, the phenomenon of the tides, or the transmission mechanism of the corona-
virus. For this, it had to discard other possible explanations as they were less valid in the
investigations carried out. These are therefore issues resolved by the scientific community
which create hardly any discussion at the present time. However, taking a position for or
against the production of energy in nuclear power plants transcends the scope of scientific
thinking since both positions are, in principle, equally defensible. Indeed, within the scien-
tific community itself there are supporters and detractors of the two positions, based on the
same scientific knowledge. Consequently, it is critical thinking, which requires the man-
agement of knowledge and scientific skills, a basic understanding of epistemic (rational or
cognitive) and non-epistemic (social, ethical/moral, economic, psychological, cultural, ...)
aspects of the nature of science, as well as metacognitive skills, which helps the individual
forge a personal foundation on which to position themself in one place or another, or main-
tain an uncertain, undecided opinion.
In view of the above, one can summarize that scientific thinking and critical thinking are
two different intellectual processes in terms of purpose, but are related symbiotically (i.e.,
one would make no sense without the other or both feed on each other) and that, in their
performance, they share a fair number of features, actions, or mental skills. According to
Cáceres et al. (2020) and Hyytine et al. (2019), the intellectual skills that are most clearly
common to both types of thinking would be searching for relationships between evidence
and explanations, as well as investigating and logical thinking to make inferences. To this
common space, I would also add skills for metacognition in accordance with what has been
discussed about both types of knowledge (Khun, 1999, 2022).
In order to compile in a compact way all that has been argued so far, in Table 4, I pre-
sent my overview of the relationship between scientific thinking and critical thinking. I
would like to point out that I do not intend to be extremely extensive in the compilation, in
the sense that possibly more elements could be added in the different sections, but rather
to represent above all the aspects that distinguish and share them, as well as the mutual
enrichment (or symbiosis) between them.

4 A Proposal for the Integrated Development of Critical Thinking

and Scientific Thinking in Science Classes

Once the differences, common aspects, and relationships between critical thinking and sci-
entific thinking have been discussed, it would be relevant to establish some type of specific
proposal to foster them in science classes. Table 5 includes a possible script to address

13
 Table 4  Differences and relationships between scientific and critical thinking

13
Purpose of
Scientific thinking Critical thinking

Finding the best rational explanation of a phenomenon Choosing the most defensible idea/position among others that
among different possible explanatory proposals (i.e., gener- are also defensible
ating scientific knowledge)
Skills or actions to
Scientific thinking Critical thinking) Both (common)
Manage scientific knowledge related to the issue to be Make moral/ethical, political, etc., as well as scientific assess- Have respect for evidence
investigated ments/analysis related to the issue in order to construct Possess an informed understanding of epistemic and
Formulate researchable questions and hypotheses (where appro- complex arguments non-epistemic aspects of NOS
priate) to initiate scientific inquiry Make decisions or take one’s own position on the issue on the Assess the reliability of data or information
Obtain data or evidence through the planning and develop- basis of arguments Interpret data and information (inference)
ment of scientific inquiries Maintain a skeptical attitude towards new data, information Construct arguments from evidence
Look for patterns of behavior and generalizations to elabo- or ideas Communicate ideas or opinions in an understandable way
rate explanations (models, causal relationships, etc.) Emotionally manage frustrations in the face of errors or Discuss different ideas, opinions
Apply logical reasoning unexpected results Being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of one’s
Elaborate explanations from evidence Respect ideas or opinions different from one’s own if they are own ideas or opinions as well as those of others
Discard those ideas that have no logical/rational or empirical argued and do not incur illegalities. (metacognition)
support
Symbiosis between both types of thinking
Application of critical thinking in scientific thinking Application of scientific thinking in critical thinking
Activate a skeptical attitude (or critical judgment) towards Handling scientific knowledge
new data or information Search for evidence through inquiry processes
Emotionally manage error, frustrations, and euphoria Identify patterns and behaviors in numerical data sources (e.g.,
Apply extra-scientific arguments (e.g., ethical, moral, polit- statistical results related to an SSI) in order to develop a
ical, etc.) in planning and carrying out scientific inquiries personal opinion
Admit and, therefore, respect that other ideas or interpreta- Apply logical reasoning
tions of evidence than one’s own are also possible in the
absence of more conclusive research

Source: own elaboration

A. García‑Carmona
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

Table 5  Motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive skills or processes for the integrated development of
critical thinking and scientific thinking in science classes

i. Motivation and predisposition to reflect on and discuss the issue being analyzed
ii. Respect for the scientific evidence related to the issue
iii. Appropriate scientific knowledge (concepts, laws, models, theories, …) and epistemological under-
standing (how knowledge is constructed) with which to address the issue
iv. Obtaining information from reliable sources and differentiate it from that coming from unreliable
sources
v. Understanding and critical analysis of information
vi. Making inferences from the information analyzed
vii. When faced with various defensible statements or situations, elaborating explanations and/or adopting
one’s own position (or decision) with arguments based on scientific evidence and knowledge, as well as
other extra-scientific factors (ethical and moral, social, economic, …)
viii. Communication and discussion of ideas or opinions
ix. Metacognition:
(1) Reflection on and awareness of one’s own knowledge and the personal cognitive processes that come
into play), and
(2) Self-regulation of one’s own knowledge and opinions (self-criticism, review of one’s own ideas and,
where appropriate, rectifying, qualifying, and amplifying them; recognition of other ideas/arguments…)

Source: own elaboration

various skills or processes of both types of thinking in an integrated manner. However,

before giving guidance on how such skills/processes could be approached, I would like to
clarify that while all of them could be dealt within the context of a single school activity, I
will not do so in this way. First, because I think that it can give the impression that the pro-
posal is only valid if it is applied all at once in a specific learning situation, which can also
discourage science teachers from implementing it in class due to lack of time or training to
do so. Second, I think it can be more interesting to conceive the proposal as a set of think-
ing skills or actions that can be dealt with throughout the different science contents, select-
ing only (if so decided) some of them, according to educational needs or characteristics
of the learning situation posed in each case. Therefore, in the orientations for each point
of the script or grouping of these, I will use different examples and/or contexts. Likewise,
these orientations in the form of comments, although founded in the literature, should be
considered only as possibilities to do so, among many others possible.
Motivation and predisposition to reflect and discuss (point i) demands, on the one hand,
that issues are chosen which are attractive for the students. This can be achieved, for exam-
ple, by asking the students directly what current issues, related to science and its impact or
repercussions, they would like to learn about, and then decide on which issue to focus on
(García-Carmona, 2008). Or the teacher puts forward the issue directly in class, trying for
it be current, to be present in the media, social networks, etc., or what they think may be
of interest to their students based on their teaching experience. In this way, each student is
encouraged to feel questioned or concerned as a citizen because of the issue that is going
to be addressed (García-Carmona, 2008). Also of possible interest is the analysis of con-
temporary, as yet unresolved socioscientific affairs (Solbes et al., 2018), such as climate
change, science and social justice, transgenic foods, homeopathy, and alcohol and drug use
in society. But also, everyday questions can be investigated which demand a decision to be
made, such as “What car to buy?” (Moreno-Fontiveros et al., 2022), or “How can we pre-
vent the arrival of another pandemic?” (Ushola & Puig, 2023).

13
 A. García‑Carmona

On the other hand, it is essential that the discussion about the chosen issue is planned
through an instructional process that generates an environment conducive to reflection and
debate, with a view to engaging the students’ participation in it. This can be achieved, for
example, by setting up a role-play game (Blanco-López et al., 2017), especially if the issue
is socioscientific, or by critical and reflective reading of advertisements with scientific con-
tent (Campanario et al., 2001) or of science-related news in the daily media (García-Car-
mona, 2014, 2021a; Guerrero-Márquez & García-Carmona, 2020; Oliveras et al., 2013),
etc., for subsequent discussion—all this, in a collaborative learning setting and with a clear
democratic spirit.
Respect for scientific evidence (point ii) should be the indispensable condition in any
analysis and discussion from the prisms of scientific and of critical thinking (Erduran, 2021).
Although scientific knowledge may be impregnated with subjectivity during its construction
and is revisable in the light of new evidence (tentativeness of scientific knowledge), when it is
accepted by the scientific community it is as objective as possible (García-Carmona & Ace-
vedo-Díaz, 2016b). Therefore, promoting trust and respect for scientific evidence should be
one of the primary educational challenges to combating pseudoscientists and science deniers
(Díaz & Cabrera, 2022), whose arguments are based on false beliefs and assumptions, anec-
dotes, and conspiracy theories (Normand, 2008). Nevertheless, it is no simple task to achieve
the promotion or respect for scientific evidence (Fackler, 2021) since science deniers, for
example, consider that science is unreliable because it is imperfect (McIntyre, 2021). Hence
the need to promote a basic understanding of NOS (point iii) as a fundamental pillar for the
development of both scientific thinking and critical thinking. A good way to do this would
be through explicit and reflective discussion about controversies from the history of science
(Acevedo-Díaz & García-Carmona, 2017) or contemporary controversies (García-Carmona,
2021b; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2016a).
Also, with respect to point iii of the proposal, it is necessary to manage basic scientific
knowledge in the development of scientific and critical thinking skills (Willingham, 2008).
Without this, it will be impossible to develop a minimally serious and convincing argument
on the issue being analyzed. For example, if one does not know the transmission mecha-
nism of a certain disease, it is likely to be very difficult to understand or justify certain
patterns of social behavior when faced with it. In general, possessing appropriate scientific
knowledge on the issue in question helps to make the best interpretation of the data and
evidence available on this issue (OECD, 2019).
The search for information from reliable sources, together with its analysis and interpre-
tation (points iv to vi), are essential practices both in purely scientific contexts (e.g., learn-
ing about the behavior of a given physical phenomenon from literature or through enquiry)
and in the application of critical thinking (e.g., when one wishes to take a personal, but
informed, position on a particular socio-scientific issue). With regard to determining the
credibility of information with scientific content on the Internet, Osborne et al. (2022) pro-
pose, among other strategies, to check whether the source is free of conflicts of interest, i.e.,
whether or not it is biased by ideological, political or economic motives. Also, it should be
checked whether the source and the author(s) of the information are sufficiently reputable.
Regarding the interpretation of data and evidence, several studies have shown the dif-
ficulties that students often have with this practice in the context of enquiry activities (e.g.,
Gobert et al., 2018; Kanari & Millar, 2004; Pols et al., 2021), or when analyzing science
news in the press (Norris et al., 2003). It is also found that they have significant difficul-
ties in choosing the most appropriate data to support their arguments in causal analyses
(Kuhn & Modrek, 2022). However, it must be recognized that making interpretations or
inferences from data is not a simple task; among other reasons, because their construction

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

is influenced by multiple factors, both epistemic (prior knowledge, experimental designs,

etc.) and non-epistemic (personal expectations, ideology, sociopolitical context, etc.),
which means that such interpretations are not always the same for all scientists (García-
Carmona, 2021a; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018). For this reason, the perfor-
mance of this scientific practice constitutes one of the phases or processes that generate the
most debate or discussion in a scientific community, as long as no consensus is reached.
In order to improve the practice of making inferences among students, Kuhn and Lerman
(2021) propose activities that help them develop their own epistemological norms to con-
nect causally their statements with the available evidence.
Point vii refers, on the one hand, to an essential scientific practice: the elaboration of
evidence-based scientific explanations which generally, in a reasoned way, account for
the causality, properties, and/or behavior of the phenomena (Brigandt, 2016). In addition,
point vii concerns the practice of argumentation. Unlike scientific explanations, argumen-
tation tries to justify an idea, explanation, or position with the clear purpose of persuading
those who defend other different ones (Osborne & Patterson, 2011). As noted above, the
complexity of most socioscientific issues implies that they have no unique valid solution or
response. Therefore, the content of the arguments used to defend one position or another
are not always based solely on purely rational factors such as data and scientific evidence.
Some authors defend the need to also deal with non-epistemic aspects of the nature of sci-
ence when teaching it (García-Carmona, 2021a; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018)
since many scientific and socioscientific controversies are resolved by different factors or
go beyond just the epistemic (Vallverdú, 2005).
To defend an idea or position taken on an issue, it is not enough to have scien-
tific evidence that supports it. It is also essential to have skills for the communication
and discussion of ideas (point viii). The history of science shows how the difficulties
some scientists had in communicating their ideas scientifically led to those ideas not
being accepted at the time. A good example for students to become aware of this is
the historical case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever (Aragón-Méndez et al., 2019).
Its reflective reading makes it possible to conclude that the proposal of this doctor
that gynecologists disinfect their hands, when passing from one parturient to another
to avoid contagions that provoked the fever, was rejected by the medical community
not only for epistemic reasons, but also for the difficulties that he had to communi-
cate his idea. The history of science also reveals that some scientific interpretations
were imposed on others at certain historical moments due to the rhetorical skills of
their proponents although none of the explanations would convincingly explain the
phenomenon studied. An example is the case of the controversy between Pasteur and
Liebig about the phenomenon of fermentation (García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz,
2017), whose reading and discussion in science class would also be recommended
in this context of this critical and scientific thinking skill. With the COVID-19 pan-
demic, for example, the arguments of some charlatans in the media and on social net-
works managed to gain a certain influence in the population, even though scientifi-
cally they were muddled nonsense (García-Carmona, 2021b). Therefore, the reflective
reading of news on current SSIs such as this also constitutes a good resource for the
same educational purpose. In general, according to Spektor-Levy et al. (2009), sci-
entific communication skills should be addressed explicitly in class, in a progressive
and continuous manner, including tasks of information seeking, reading, scientific
writing, representation of information, and representation of the knowledge acquired.
Finally (point ix), a good scientific/critical thinker must be aware of what they
know, of what they have doubts about or do not know, to this end continuously

13
 A. García‑Carmona

practicing metacognitive exercises (Dean & Kuhn, 2003; Hyytine et al., 2019; Magno,
2010; Willingham, 2008). At the same time, they must recognize the weaknesses and
strengths of the arguments of their peers in the debate in order to be self-critical if
necessary, as well as to revising their own ideas and arguments to improve and reori-
ent them, etc. (self-regulation). I see one of the keys of both scientific and critical
thinking being the capacity or willingness to change one’s mind, without it being
frowned upon. Indeed, quite the opposite since one assumes it to occur thanks to the
arguments being enriched and more solidly founded. In other words, scientific and
critical thinking and arrogance or haughtiness towards the rectification of ideas or
opinions do not stick well together.

5 Final Remarks

For decades, scientific thinking and critical thinking have received particular atten-
tion from different disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, pedagogy, and specific
areas of this last such as science education. The two types of knowledge represent
intellectual processes whose development in students, and in society in general, is
considered indispensable for the exercise of responsible citizenship in accord with the
demands of today’s society (European Commission, 2006, 2015; NRC, 2012; OECD,
2020). As has been shown however, the task of their conceptualization is complex,
and teaching students to think scientifically and critically is a difficult educational
challenge (Willingham, 2008).
Aware of this, and after many years dedicated to science education, I felt the need
to organize my ideas regarding the aforementioned two types of thinking. In consult-
ing the literature about these, I found that, in many publications, scientific thinking
and critical thinking are presented or perceived as being interchangeable or indistin-
guishable; a conclusion also shared by Hyytine et al. (2019). Rarely have their dif-
ferences, relationships, or common features been explicitly studied. So, I considered
that it was a matter needing to be addressed because, in science education, the devel-
opment of scientific thinking is an inherent objective, but, when critical thinking is
added to the learning objectives, there arise more than reasonable doubts about when
one or the other would be used, or both at the same time. The present work came about
motivated by this, with the intention of making a particular contribution, but based on
the relevant literature, to advance in the question raised. This converges in conceiving
scientific thinking and critical thinking as two intellectual processes that overlap and
feed into each other in many aspects but are different with respect to certain cognitive
skills and in terms of their purpose. Thus, in the case of scientific thinking, the aim
is to choose the best possible explanation of a phenomenon based on the available
evidence, and it therefore involves the rejection of alternative explanatory propos-
als that are shown to be less coherent or convincing. Whereas, from the perspective
of critical thinking, the purpose is to choose the most defensible idea/option among
others that are also defensible, using both scientific and extra-scientific (i.e., moral,
ethical, political, etc.) arguments. With this in mind, I have described a proposal to
guide their development in the classroom, integrating them under a conception that I
have called, metaphorically, a symbiotic relationship between two modes of thinking.
Conflict of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

Funding Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Sevilla/CBUA

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2017). Controversias en la historia de la ciencia y cultura
científica [Controversies in the history of science and scientific culture]. Los Libros de la Catarata.
Aragón-Méndez, M. D. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2019). Prospective biology teach-
ers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis
and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(3), 525–555. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11422-​018-​9868-y
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11(4), 361–375. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1023/A:​10160​42608​621
BBVA Foundation (2011). El Nobel de Física Sheldon L. Glashow no cree que los neutrinos viajen más
rápido que la luz [Physics Nobel laureate Sheldon L. Glashow does not believe neutrinos travel faster
than light.]. https://​www.​fbbva.​es/​notic​ias/​nobel-​fisica-​sheld​on-l-​glash​ow-​no-​cree-​los-​neutr​inos-​via-
jen-​mas-​rapido-​la-​luz/. Accessed 5 Februray 2023.
Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. In Best Practices in Science
Education. National Geographic School Publishing.
Blanco-López, A., España-Ramos, E., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2017). Estrategias didácticas para el desar-
rollo del pensamiento crítico en el aula de ciencias [Teaching strategies for the development of critical
thinking in the teaching of science]. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 1(1), 107–115. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​17979/​arec.​2017.1.​1.​2004
Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the difference between explanation and argument matters to science education.
Science & Education, 25(3-4), 251–275. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​016-​9826-6
Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., & Ortiz, J. (2020). Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s
perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100674. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tsc.​2020.​100674
Campanario, J. M., Moya, A., & Otero, J. (2001). Invocaciones y usos inadecuados de la ciencia en la publi-
cidad [Invocations and misuses of science in advertising]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19(1), 45–56.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5565/​rev/​ensci​encias.​4013
Clouse, S. (2017). Scientific thinking is not critical thinking. https://​medium.​com/​extra-​extra/​scien​tific-​think​
ing-​is-​not-​criti​cal-​think​ing-​b1ea9​ebd8b​31
Confederacion de Sociedades Cientificas de Espana [COSCE]. (2011). Informe ENCIENDE: Enseñanza de
las ciencias en la didáctica escolar para edades tempranas en España [ENCIENDE report: Science
education for early-year in Spain]. COSCE.
Costa, S. L. R., Obara, C. E., & Broietti, F. C. D. (2020). Critical thinking in science education publications:
the research contexts. International Journal of Development Research, 10(8), 39438. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​37118/​ijdr.​19437.​08.​2020
Couso, D., Jiménez-Liso, M.R., Refojo, C. & Sacristán, J.A. (coords.) (2020). Enseñando ciencia con cien-
cia [Teaching science with science]. FECYT & Fundacion Lilly / Penguin Random House
Davidson, S. G., Jaber, L. Z., & Southerland, S. A. (2020). Emotions in the doing of science: Exploring
epistemic affect in elementary teachers’ science research experiences. Science Education, 104(6),
1008–1040. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​21596
Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2003). Metacognition and critical thinking. ERIC document. Reproduction No.
ED477930. https://​files.​eric.​ed.​gov/​fullt​ext/​ED477​930.​pdf
Díaz, C., & Cabrera, C. (2022). Desinformación científica en España. FECYT/IBERIFIER https://​www.​
fecyt.​es/​es/​publi​cacion/​desin​forma​cion-​cient​ifica-​en-​espana
Dowd, J. E., Thompson, R. J., Jr., Schiff, L. A., & Reynolds, J. A. (2018). Understanding the complex rela-
tionship between critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis writers. CBE—
Life Sciences. Education, 17(1), ar4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1187/​cbe.​17-​03-​0052

13
 A. García‑Carmona

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st cen-
tury. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tsc.​2013.​12.​004
Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Non-epistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philoso-
phy of Science, 81(1), 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1086/​674345
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11245-​016-​9401-4
Erduran, S. (2021). Respect for evidence: Can science education deliver it? Science & Education, 30(3),
441–444. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​021-​00245-8
European Commission. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Publications Office https://​op.​
europa.​eu/​en/​publi​cation-​detai​l/-/​publi​cation/​a1d14​fa0-​8dbe-​11e5-​b8b7-​01aa7​5ed71​a1
European Commission / Eurydice. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and
research. Publications Office. https://​op.​europa.​eu/​en/​publi​cation-​detai​l/-/​publi​cation/​bae53​054-​c26c-​
4c9f-​8366-​5f95e​21876​34
European Commission / Eurydice. (2022). Increasing achievement and motivation in mathematics and sci-
ence learning in schools. Publications Office. https://​euryd​ice.​eacea.​ec.​europa.​eu/​publi​catio​ns/​mathe​
matics-​and-​scien​ce-​learn​ing-​schoo​ls-​2022
European Commission/Eurydice. (2006). Science teaching in schools in Europe. Policies and research.
Publications Office. https://​op.​europa.​eu/​en/​publi​cation-​detai​l/-/​publi​cation/​1dc3d​f34-​acdf-​479e-​bbbf-​
c404f​a3bee​8b
Fackler, A. (2021). When science denial meets epistemic understanding. Science & Education, 30(3), 445–
461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​021-​00198-y
García-Carmona, A. (2008). Relaciones CTS en la educación científica básica. II. Investigando los prob-
lemas del mundo [STS relationships in basic science education II. Researching the world problems].
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 26(3), 389–402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5565/​rev/​ensci​encias.​3750
García-Carmona, A. (2014). Naturaleza de la ciencia en noticias científicas de la prensa: Análisis del con-
tenido y potencialidades didácticas [Nature of science in press articles about science: Content analysis
and pedagogical potential]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(3), 493–509. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5565/​rev/​
ensci​encias.​1307
García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2016). Learning about the nature of science using newspa-
per articles with scientific content. Science & Education, 25(5–6), 523–546. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11191-​016-​9831-9
García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2016b). Concepciones de estudiantes de profesorado de Edu-
cación Primaria sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia: Una evaluación diagnóstica a partir de reflexiones en
equipo [Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a diagnostic evaluation
based on team reflections]. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 21(69), 583–610. https://​
www.​redal​yc.​org/​artic​ulo.​oa?​id=​14045​395010
García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical
and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Edu-
cation, 26(1–2), 65–91. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​017-​9876-4
García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2018). The nature of scientific practice and science education.
Science & Education, 27(5–6), 435–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​018-​9984-9
García-Carmona, A. (2020). From inquiry-based science education to the approach based on scientific
practices. Science & Education, 29(2), 443–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​020-​00108-8
García-Carmona, A. (2021a). Prácticas no-epistémicas: ampliando la mirada en el enfoque didác-
tico basado en prácticas científicas [Non-epistemic practices: extending the view in the didactic
approach based on scientific practices]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Cien-
cias, 18(1), 1108. https://​doi.​org/​10.​25267/​Rev_​Eureka_​ensen_​divulg_​cienc.​2021.​v18.​i1.​1108
García-Carmona, A. (2021b). Learning about the nature of science through the critical and reflective
reading of news on the COVID-19 pandemic. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(4), 1015–
1028. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11422-​021-​10092-2
Guerrero-Márquez, I., & García-Carmona, A. (2020). La energía y su impacto socioambiental en la prensa
digital: temáticas y potencialidades didácticas para una educación CTS [Energy and its socio-environ-
mental impact in the digital press: issues and didactic potentialities for STS education]. Revista Eureka
sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 17(3), 3301. https://​doi.​org/​10.​25267/​Rev_​Eureka_​
ensen_​divulg_​cienc.​2020.​v17.​i3.​3301
Gobert, J. D., Moussavi, R., Li, H., Sao Pedro, M., & Dickler, R. (2018). Real-time scaffolding of stu-
dents’ online data interpretation during inquiry with Inq-ITS using educational data mining. In M.
E. Auer, A. K. M. Azad, A. Edwards, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Cyber-physical laboratories in engineer-
ing and science education (pp. 191–217). Springer.

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

Harlen, W. (2014). Helping children’s development of inquiry skills. Inquiry in Primary Science Educa-
tion, 1(1), 5–19. https://​ipsej​ournal.​files.​wordp​ress.​com/​2015/​03/3-​ipse-​volume-​1-​no-1-​wynne-​har-
len-​p-5-​19.​pdf
Hitchcock, D. (2017). Critical thinking as an educational ideal. In On reasoning and argument (pp. 477–
497). Springer.
Hyytinen, H., Toom, A., & Shavelson, R. J. (2019). Enhancing scientific thinking through the develop-
ment of critical thinking in higher education. In M. Murtonen & K. Balloo (Eds.), Redefining scien-
tific thinking for higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2022). Educating critical citizens to face post-truth: the time is
now. In B. Puig & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Critical thinking in biology and environmental
education, Contributions from biology education research (pp. 3–19). Springer.
Jirout, J. J. (2020). Supporting early scientific thinking through curiosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
1717. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2020.​01717
Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science
investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748–769. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
tea.​20020
Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Matlen, B. J. (2019). Improving students’ scientific thinking. In J. Dunlosky
& K. A. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 67–99). Cambridge
University Press.
Krell, M., Vorholzer, A., & Nehring, A. (2022). Scientific reasoning in science education: from global
measures to fine-grained descriptions of students’ competencies. Education Sciences, 12, 97.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​educs​ci120​20097
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Sci-
ence education, 77(3), 319–337. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​37307​70306
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3102/​00131​89X02​80020​16
Kuhn, D. (2022). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 73–86. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00461​520.​2021.​19886​03
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to
develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435–451. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​cogdev.​2008.​09.​006
Kuhn, D., & Lerman, D. (2021). Yes but: Developing a critical stance toward evidence. International
Journal of Science Education, 43(7), 1036–1053. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09500​693.​2021.​18978​97
Kuhn, D., & Modrek, A. S. (2022). Choose your evidence: Scientific thinking where it may most count.
Science & Education, 31(1), 21–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​021-​00209-y
Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014).
Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about
scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tea.​21125
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In K. A. Renninger, I. E.
Sigel, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in prac-
tice (pp. 153–196). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
López-Fernández, M. D. M., González-García, F., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2022). How can socio-
scientific issues help develop critical thinking in chemistry education? A reflection on the problem
of plastics. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(10), 3435–3442. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​jchem​
ed.​2c002​23
Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and
Learning, 5, 137–156. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11409-​010-​9054-4
McBain, B., Yardy, A., Martin, F., Phelan, L., van Altena, I., McKeowen, J., Pembertond, C., Tosec, H.,
Fratuse, L., & Bowyer, M. (2020). Teaching science students how to think. International Journal of
Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 28(2), 28–35. https://​openj​ourna​ls.​libra​ry.​sydney.​
edu.​au/​CAL/​artic​le/​view/​14809/​13480
McIntyre, L. (2021). Talking to science deniers and sceptics is not hopeless. Nature, 596(7871), 165–165.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​d41586-​021-​02152-y
Moore, C. (2019). Teaching science thinking. Using scientific reasoning in the classroom. Routledge.
Moreno-Fontiveros, G., Cebrián-Robles, D., Blanco-López, A., & y España-Ramos, E. (2022). Decisiones
de estudiantes de 14/15 años en una propuesta didáctica sobre la compra de un coche [Fourteen/fifteen-
year-old students’ decisions in a teaching proposal on the buying of a car]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias,
40(1), 199–219. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5565/​rev/​ensci​encias.​3292

13
 A. García‑Carmona

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. National Academies
Press.
Network, I.-A. T. E. (2015). Critical thinking toolkit. OAS/ITEN.
Normand, M. P. (2008). Science, skepticism, and applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice,
1(2), 42–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF033​91727
Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports
of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Under-
standing of Science, 12(2), 123–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09636​62503​01220​01
Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop critical
thinking in science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 885–905. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​09500​693.​2011.​586736
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). PISA 2018. Assessment and
Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​b25ef​ab8-​en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2020). PISA 2024: Strategic Vision
and Direction for Science. https://​www.​oecd.​org/​pisa/​publi​catio​ns/​PISA-​2024-​Scien​ce-​Strat​egic-​
Vision-​Propo​sal.​pdf
Osborne, J., Pimentel, D., Alberts, B., Allchin, D., Barzilai, S., Bergstrom, C., Coffey, J., Donovan, B.,
Kivinen, K., Kozyreva, A., & Wineburg, S. (2022). Science Education in an Age of Misinformation.
Stanford University.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Sci-
ence Education, 95(4), 627–638. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​20438
Pols, C. F. J., Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & De Vries, M. J. (2021). What do they know? Investigating students’
ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education. International Journal of Science
Education, 43(2), 274–297. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09500​693.​2020.​18655​88
Royal Decree 217/2022. (2022). of 29 March, which establishes the organisation and minimum teaching of
Compulsory Secondary Education (Vol. 76, pp. 41571–41789). Spanish Official State Gazette. https://​
www.​boe.​es/​eli/​es/​rd/​2022/​03/​29/​217
Sagan, C. (1987). The burden of skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer, 12(1), 38–46. https://​skept​icali​nquir​er.​org/​
1987/​10/​the-​burden-​of-​skept​icism/
Santos, L. F. (2017). The role of critical thinking in science education. Journal of Education and Practice,
8(20), 160–173. https://​eric.​ed.​gov/?​id=​ED575​667
Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking. https://​facul​tycen​ter.​ischo​ol.​syr.​edu/​wp-​
conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2012/​02/​Criti​cal-​Think​ing.​pdf. Accessed 10 May 2023.
Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2021). How do emotions and attitudes influence science understanding? In
Science denial: why it happens and what to do about it (pp. 142–180). Oxford Academic.
Solbes, J., Torres, N., & Traver, M. (2018). Use of socio-scientific issues in order to improve critical think-
ing competences. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 19(1), 1–22. https://​www.​
eduhk.​hk/​apfslt/
Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B. S., & Scherz, Z. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in science
studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5),
875–903. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10763-​009-​9150-6
Taylor, P., Lee, S. H., & Tal, T. (2006). Toward socio-scientific participation: changing culture in the science
classroom and much more: Setting the stage. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 645–656.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11422-​006-​9028-7
Tena-Sánchez, J., & León-Medina, F. J. (2022). Y aún más al fondo del “bullshit”: El papel de la falsifi-
cación de preferencias en la difusión del oscurantismo en la teoría social y en la sociedad [And even
deeper into “bullshit”: The role of preference falsification in the difussion of obscurantism in social
theory and in society]. Scio, 22, 209–233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​46583/​scio_​2022.​22.​949
Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). From “try it and see” to strategic exploration: Characterizing young chil-
dren’s scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 94–118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​tea.​10126
Uskola, A., & Puig, B. (2023). Development of systems and futures thinking skills by primary pre-ser-
vice teachers for addressing epidemics. Research in Science Education, 1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11165-​023-​10097-7
Vallverdú, J. (2005). ¿Cómo finalizan las controversias? Un nuevo modelo de análisis: la controvertida his-
toria de la sacarina [How does controversies finish? A new model of analysis: the controversial history
of saccharin]. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 2(5), 19–50. http://​www.​
revis​tacts.​net/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2020/​01/​vol2-​nro5-​art01.​pdf
Vázquez-Alonso, A., & Manassero-Mas, M. A. (2018). Más allá de la comprensión científica: educación
científica para desarrollar el pensamiento [Beyond understanding of science: science education for

13
Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

teaching fair thinking]. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17(2), 309–336. http://​reec.​
uvigo.​es/​volum​enes/​volum​en17/​REEC_​17_2_​02_​ex1065.​pdf
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review,
109(4), 21–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3200/​AEPR.​109.4.​21-​32
Yacoubian, H. A. (2020). Teaching nature of science through a critical thinking approach. In W. F. McCo-
mas (Ed.), Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 199–212). Springer.
Yacoubian, H. A., & Khishfe, R. (2018). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and sociosci-
entific issues: a dialogue between two researchers. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7),
796–807. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09500​693.​2018.​14499​86
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of elementary
science education, 21(2), 49–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF031​73684
Zimmerman, C., & Klahr, D. (2018). Development of scientific thinking. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens’
handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 4, pp. 1–25). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc..

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13