ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Basic Thinking Skills and Their Direct Instructional Approaches: A Narrative Review.
Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Basic thinking skills serve as fundamental cognitive operations that underpin all forms of thought, acting as catalysts to enhance the speed, efficiency, and quality of mental processes. These skills are prerequisite for developing higher-level abilities such as critical thinking, problem-solving and clinical reasoning, which are essential pillars of medical education. Addressing the existing gap in practical instructional methods, this narrative review aimed to define basic thinking skills and identify specific tools and approaches for their direct instruction. Methods: A narrative review was conducted by searching authoritative databases. Keywords such as "basic thinking skills", "direct instruction", and their equivalents were utilized. From an initial pool of 4,697 records, following the removal of duplicates and a rigorous screening process, 56 sources (9 regarding the identification of skills and 47 regarding instructional methods) that were most relevant to the study objectives were selected and analyzed. Results: Basic thinking skills align largely with frameworks such as Bloom's taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying) and Marzano's dimensions. Identified direct instructional tools and methods were classified into three main categories: 1) Standalone programs independent of the formal curriculum (eg, CoRT, Philosophy for Children [P4C], and thinking schools); 2) Programs embedded within specific academic subjects (eg, the use of Six Thinking Hats or concept mapping in nursing and medical courses); and 3) Programs infused throughout the entire curriculum (eg, ACTS). Recent evidence (2020-2025) highlights the significant effectiveness of these tools in enhancing clinical reasoning and ethical decision-making in health professions education. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that direct instruction of basic thinking skills via structured tools efficiently fosters higher-order thinking. Versatile tools like concept maps and Six Thinking Hats adapt well to medical education. Educators and curriculum planners should adopt hybrid approaches for systematic integration into pre-clinical and clinical training, building foundations for professional competence and lifelong learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.