Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40291767›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2024

The effects of teaching strategies on learning to think critically in primary and secondary schools: an overview of systematic reviews.

Andrew D Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Laura Martínez García, Margaret Kaseje, Laura Samsó Jofra, Daniel Semakula, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Sarah E Rosenbaum

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Andrew D OxmanCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research (CEIR), Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Oslo, 0213, Norway.
Allen NsangiCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Central Region, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-9217
Laura Martínez GarcíaCIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0126-8706
Margaret KasejeTropical Institute of Community Health and Development in Africa, Kisumu, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9789-1927
Laura Samsó JofraEpidemiology and Public Health Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5975-702X
Daniel SemakulaCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Central Region, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0806-213X
Heather Munthe-KaasCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research (CEIR), Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Oslo, 0213, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-9010
Sarah E RosenbaumCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research (CEIR), Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Oslo, 0213, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-7664

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about the effects of teaching strategies that can be used to teach primary and secondary school students to think critically. Our objective was to inform decisions about what teaching strategies to use in resources that we developed to teach critical thinking about health in secondary schools. Methods: We mapped characteristics of systematic reviews of teaching strategies and summarised findings from the most relevant reviews to teaching students to think critically about health. We included reviews that assessed the effects of teaching strategies that could potentially be used in primary or secondary schools to teach students to think critically, had a Methods section with explicit selection criteria, reported at least one outcome measure of the ability to undertake one of four basic types of cognitive tasks (memory, procedural, comprehension, or opinion), and were published after 1999. Results: We included 326 systematic reviews. The reviews evaluated a wide range of teaching strategies for a variety of purposes. Important limitations of the reviews included not considering adverse effects (99% of the reviews), not assessing the risk of bias for included studies (93% of the reviews), and not assessing the credibility of subgroup effects (100% of the reviews). We summarised the findings for 37 teaching strategies that we considered most relevant. The certainty of the evidence of the effects varied from very low to moderate. We used 12 of the strategies in resources that we developed to teach secondary students to think critically about health. Conclusions: A tremendous amount of work has gone into evaluating the effects of a wide range of teaching strategies. The results of this research can inform decisions about how to teach critical thinking and future research. However, well-designed, up-to-date systematic reviews are still needed for many teaching strategies.

Indexed as

LearningSchoolsTeachingThinkingAdolescentHumansStudentsCritical thinkingHealthSystematic reviewsTeaching strategies

Identifiers

PMID40291767
PMCPMC12022541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.