Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42022422›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Critical thinking subskills in project-based EFL learning: uneven salience and conditional activation.

Xue Hu, Shaidatul Akma Adi Kasuma, Feng Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Xue HuSchool of Languages, Literacies, and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town, Malaysia.
Shaidatul Akma Adi KasumaSchool of Languages, Literacies, and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town, Malaysia.
Feng LiuJilin Engineering Normal University, Changchun, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Most research on critical thinking (CT) in project-based learning (PBL) has focused on whether CT improves following instruction, typically through composite or dimension-specific scores. Less is known about how learners experience individual CT subskills during task engagement. Methods: This qualitative study examined how twelve Grade 12 students at a Sino-foreign cooperative secondary school in China described their use of six CT subskills during intercultural project-based tasks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted one week after task completion and analysed using a hybrid thematic approach. Results: In students' accounts, the six subskills were not described as equally salient or simultaneously activated. Interpreting and analysing were commonly described as early, relatively consistent moves. Inferring and evaluating appeared more variable: under certain conditions they sharpened culturally responsive communication, while under others they narrowed cultural content through premature assumptions or receded into procedural compliance. Explaining and self-regulating were described as late-stage refinements, often compressed by time pressure. Perceived task stakes, rubric design, and feedback availability emerged as conditions that appeared to shape whether inference and evaluation took productive or constraining forms. Discussion: These findings suggest that CT subskills may be experienced as unevenly distributed across task phases, and that fostering CT in intercultural PBL may require explicit attention to the conditions under which less stable and later-emerging processes are supported.

Indexed as

cognitive processescritical thinkingEFL secondary educationproject-based learningstudent perspectives

Identifiers

PMID42022422
PMCPMC13095705

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.