Critical Thinking Skills Profile of High School Students in AP Chemistry Learning

Abstract

From classrooms to workplaces, educators and policy makers have emphasized the necessity of graduating students who are strong critical thinkers for nearly 50 years and more (Forawi 2016). Critical thinking skills are a vital pillar skill to tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Critical thinking is defined as a set of fundamental skills that must be mastered before one may progress to more complicated thinking. Aiming to obtain more insight into the aspects of critical thinking, the present study particularly examines quantitively the critical thinking skills level of grade 12 students in a scientific learning context. Over a 35-min test, based on Danczak DOT criteria, data was collected and analyzed. The study’s findings revealed that the students’ critical thinking abilities are in medium range. However, other implications regarding curriculum modifications, educational teaching strategies and teachers’ readiness are needed to foster students’ critical thinking skills.

1 Introduction

Skills matter, and poor skills severely hinder access to better-paying and more gratifying professions, according to a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2016, 2018). Unsurprisingly, critical thinking skills, or CTS, have become a fundamental educational focus in recent decades (OECD 2016; Forawi 2020; Starichkova, Moskovskaya and Kalinovskaya 2022). Because CTS acts as a catalyst, students are able to go beyond simply gathering knowledge to developing a deep grasp of the information offered to them (Amin and Adiansyah 2018; Setyawan and Mustadi 2020). As a result, its most significant contribution is to promote good decision-making and problem-solving in real-world settings (Perez 2019; Forawi 2020).

Critical thinking CT is a reflective decision-making process that includes critical analysis based on relevant and accountable evidence and justifications (Hasan et al. 2020). Critical thinking is not the same as just thinking. It’s metacognitive, meaning it includes thinking about your own thoughts (Mai 2019).

According to Hidayati and Sinaga (2019), critical thinking necessitates logical and interpretative cohesiveness in order to detect prejudices and incorrect reasoning, and it is essential that students learn it.

Learning in the twenty-first century requires a shift in learning orientation, meaning mastering the content of knowledge, skills, expertise (Miterianifa et al. 2021). Students must also have thinking ability, action, and living skills in order to learn in the twenty-first century. One of the life skills is the ability to think critically, and students must have this ability in the twenty-first century, according to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Saleh 2019). In addition, students at the postsecondary level and in the workplace require learning assessment and critical thinking abilities in the 21 st century (Forawi 2020).

The major interest of future-oriented scientific, current, and chemical education is to develop students’ potential to think critically in all aspects of life (Sadhu et al. 2019). Critical thinking is also important because it allows students to successfully deal with problems and make a tangible contribution to society. It is one of the most important and well-known skills because it is required of everyone in the workplace of different fields such as leadership, and professions that require making decisions and clinical judgment. As a result, critical thinking is an important talent to be taught and educated (Abazar 2020).

In 1955, College Board established the Advanced Placement (AP) program as a non-profit organization that allows willing and academically qualified students to seek studies in the college-level while still in high school, with the chance of obtaining college credit, advanced placement, or both. Through AP classes in 38 disciplines, students learn to think critically, build good arguments, and understand different sides of a problem, all of which culminate in a hard test. These are abilities that will help them succeed in college and beyond (Conger et al. 2021). The AP Chemistry course gives students a college-level foundation in chemistry that will help them succeed in advanced chemistry courses in the future (College Board 2020; Conger et al. 2021). Students learn about chemistry through inquiry-based inquiries that cover topics including the structure of atoms, interactions and bonding between molecules, chemical reactions, reaction rates and thermodynamics equivalent of a college course (College Board 2020). The AP Chemistry course is meant to be a substitute for the general chemistry course that most students take their freshman year of college. Science practices are essential components of the course framework. These practices are; (1) models and representations, (2) question and method, (3) representing data and phenomena, 4) model analysis, (5) mathematical routines, and (6) argumentation; and they explain what a student should be able to do while discovering course concepts (College Board 2020, p. 13–15). Practices are divided into skills, which serve as the foundation for the AP exam’s tasks (College Board 2020).

However, the extent to which those science practice skills help in improving the critical thinking skills of the students, not only to comprehend course and to pass the AP exam, but also for them to spot difficulties, solve those problems, and solve problems in everyday life, is still a question to be answered.

Therefore, the research has a purpose to examine the profile of critical thinking skills of high school students studying AP Chemistry course adopted in an American curriculum school in Dubai, using Danczak-Overton-Thompson Chemistry Critical Thinking Test or DOT test.

The study attempts to answer the following question:

To what extent do the AP Chemistry course foster the development of 12th grade students’ critical thinking skills?

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy Theory of Learning

Bloom’s Taxonomy and critical thinking go hand in hand (see Fig. 1). Bloom’s taxonomy walks students through the process of evaluating material or knowledge critically (Wilson 2016).

Fig. 1

(Adopted from: https://bcc-cuny.libguides.com/c.php?g=824903&p=5897590)

Interconnection between Critical Thinking and Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s taxonomy begins with knowledge or memory and progresses through a series of levels of questions and keywords that encourage the learner to act. Education and meta-cognition which is the master level of thinking, require both critical thinking and Bloom’s taxonomy (Wilson 2016). Critical thinkers can dissect their own reasoning, draw inferences from available data or apply their understanding of a concept in a variety of ways. They can rephrase questions, divide down tasks into parts, apply information, and generate new data. This is a set of skills that can be taught and learned (Arievitch 2020). Critical thinking, according to Paul, is thinking about one’s thinking while he/she is already thinking in order to improve your his/ her thinking.

2.2 Critical Thinking and ZPD

Cognitive psychologists were particularly interested in deep thinking and the internal understanding process.

Critical thinking is a cognitive activity that involves the use of the intellect. The ability to transfer knowledge from one discipline to another is referred to as critical thinking. Critical thinking has been linked to the development of individual pondering skills such as logical reasoning and personal judgment, as well as the support of suspicious thoughts (Santos 2017). According to Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory, cognitive skills like critical thinking are socially guided and produced (Stetsenko and Selau 2018). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky, often known as scaffolding, is a concept used in schools to help students learn new skills. The expert gradually withdraws help as the learner achieves competency, until the student is capable of doing the activity on his or her own. This used to be accomplished by offering the student some suggestions and tips to help him solve the problem, while the teacher remained mute until the solver came up with his own hypothesis after properly understanding the problem. Close observation and reason-guide tests would be followed by hypothesis modifications as essential CT phases (Shah and Rashid 2018).

2.3 Guided Inquiry Model

The guided inquiry learning model is a teaching approach that can be used to help students build problem-solving skills through experience (Nisa et al. 2017). This paradigm has been found to be useful in training and guiding students in their grasp of concrete topics as well as their capacity to create higher-order thinking patterns (Seranica et al. 2018). The goal of inquiry-based learning is to educate learners how to research and explain an event. Orientation, formulation of the problem, formulation of hypotheses, data collection, hypothesis testing, and formulation of conclusions, are the guided inquiry learning phases (Putra et al. 2018) which go along with the CT aspects to be assessed in this study (see Table 1) (Hasan and Pri 2020).

Table 1. The Relation between guided inquiry stages and CT skills

3 Literature Review

3.1 Defining Critical Thinking

‘Critical,’ ‘Criticicism’, and ‘Critic’ are all derivatives of the ancient Greek term ‘Kritikos’, which means ‘able to authorise, perceive, or decide’. In modern English, a ‘critic’ is someone whose job it is to pass judgment on things like movies, novels, music, and food. It entails expressing an objective and unprejudiced view about anything (Padmanabha 2021).

Philosophy, cognitive psychology, and educational research are the three domains that dominate the debate over the meaning of critical thinking (see Table 2). The philosophy literature focuses on the generation of an argument or opinion (Hitchcock 2018). The critical thinking process is found to encourage problem solving and deciding what to do, according to the literature in psychology (Sternberg and Halpern 2020). While the majority of education research concentrates on observing behaviors. Critical thinking, according to these experts, is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based” (Danczak 2018).

Table 2. Categorization of critical thinking skills as defined by the philosophy, cognitive psychology and education research disciplines

3.2 Development of Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills are developed at a young age, and the effectiveness of educational strategies for enhancing these skills does not vary by grade level (Abrami et al. 2015).

This conclusion is startling from the perspective of Piaget, which considers young children’s cognitive processes to be underdeveloped in comparison to those of older people. Thinking is dependent on experience,” Piaget says. “Intelligence is the result of an individual’s natural potential interacting with their surroundings,” he says, adding that small children know more than he can express. The term “development” refers to the general mechanics of action and thought. However, research reveals that there is no specific age at which a child is cognitively equipped to learn more complicated strategies of thinking (Silva 2008), which is in line with both sociocultural and cognitive learning theories. Social connection, according to Vygotsky, is crucial in the cognitive development process (Padmanabha 2021).

3.3 Approaches for Teaching Critical Thinking

Many studies have found that the best teaching effects occur when students’ critical thinking skills are explicitly taught and developed over the course of their studies rather than in a single course or semester (Haber 2020). At K-12 education institutions, pedagogical techniques to developing critical thinking range from writing exercises, inquiry-based projects, flipped lectures, and open-ended practical to gamification and work integrated learning WIL (Danczak 2018). Chemical learning necessitates a thorough grasp of concepts, which serves as a basis for grasping later topics (Taber 2019). Students’ knowledge is built based on their learning experiences and is linked to their developmental stage as well as the influence of their surroundings. Linking existing understandings with new insights is one strategy to achieve learning success. The constructivist approach is concerned with this process, which focuses on the learners, fostering inventive thinking and allowing them to reach their full potential (Yezierski 2018).

The guided inquiry learning methodology outperforms traditional learning in terms of critical thinking skills, according to many studies (Mulyana et al. 2018 and Seranica et al. 2018). Students will be engaged in learning and will be taught how to tackle environmental problems through guided inquiry. They claim that students’ critical thinking abilities develop step by step in inquiry-based learning, including the processes of recognizing and defining issues, generating hypotheses, designing and performing experiments, and formulating conclusions based on the experimental data. Guided inquiry promotes students to develop scientific thinking habits (see Fig. 2) by encouraging them to be more receptive to new ideas in the group and by teaching them critical thinking skills when teachers engage in question-and-answer sessions and guide students in formulating relevant facts. Students consider the entire process rather than simply the final result (Suardana et al. 2019 and Rambe et al. 2020).

Fig. 2

(Adopted from: Crockett, L. 2018)

Scientific thinking habits

Moreover, cooperative Learning is a set of teaching/learning approaches for assisting students in developing critical thinking skills. Students work together to acquire and practice subject matter aspects and achieve common learning objectives. It entails much more than simply grouping students and hoping for the best. These strategies necessitate greater teacher control. Students are asked to discuss a specific topic or participate in brainstorming exercises. Cooperative Learning is a very formal manner of organizing activities in a learning environment that contains specific features aimed at increasing the participants’ ability to learn richly and deeply. Examples of these strategies: Think-Pair-Share, Circle-the-Sage, Timed-Pair-Share, Agree-Disagree Line-ups and Rally Coach (Macpherson 2019).

3.4 Importance of Critical Thinking

Is it necessary for us to develop critical thinking skills? What about knowing how to acquire knowledge? In fact, acquiring information is a harmful habit that stands in the way of any discovery. Because, as de Bono puts it, “the illusion of knowledge” will imprison people in what they think they know and prevent them from being open to new ideas (Abazar 2020).

Developing our thoughts is an important element of being educated; it is crucial to a person’s development, and every human being has the right to do so. To grow as a well-educated person, our minds must think critically and creatively (Forawi 2020).

Solving complex problems and complicated life issues that necessitate quick and effective solutions is a feature of the 21 st century (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019). The development of students’ abilities and competences is in high demand all around the world. Major concerns concerning the capacities of the next generation are regularly acknowledged among educators. Critical thinking, communication, and teamwork abilities are especially important. Schools are obligated to give students with relevant learning opportunities in order for them to develop the skills and competences necessary to succeed in the workplace (Carson 2017).

One of the UAE’s main challenges is guaranteeing that its system of education equips students with the skills that the country’s developing private market requires, consequently assisting in the diversification of the country’s industries and correcting the country’s manpower population imbalance. In an innovative economy, the circumstances demonstrate how critical it is for the government to have highly skilled Emirati laborers with significant skill sets available (Forawi 2020). As a result, students’ critical thinking skills should be practiced as soon as possible. Junior high school children, with an average age of 11–13 years, are included in the concrete operational cognitive stage, according to Piaget’s (1927–1980) cognitive development theory. The idea is that youngsters of that age have been able to use their cognitive skills to identify tangible objects but have not been able to identify abstract objects (Ibda 2015). As a result, kids can begin practicing critical thinking abilities as soon as they enter high school (Hasanah et al. 2020).

3.5 The Assessment of Critical Thinking

According to certain research findings around the world, students’ CT skills are still in the poor category (Fadhlullah et al. 2017; OECD 2019; Haber 2020).

The critical thinking assessment is critical because there are various objectives to be met, particularly in science education. Because grasping science information necessitates additional reasoning, CT abilities are required. The importance of critical thinking assessment, according to Ennis, is diagnosing students’ CT skills, providing constructive feedback and encouraging students to improve their ability to think critically, as well as inspiring teachers about the suitable teaching strategies needed to teach students CT skills (Hidayati 2019).

The significance of developing students’ critical thinking skills at higher education institutions can be seen in its inclusion as a graduate criterion for universities. In addition, research emphasizes the importance of exhibiting critical thinking skills to employers, instructors, and students (Danczak 2018).

The learning outcome can be used to assess the effectiveness of a learning process (Panter and Williford 2017). Critical thinking is difficult to assess. There are features of critical thinking that are both domain-specific and generic (Rashel and Kinya 2021).

The main point of contention in the assessment of CT is whether it is best taught in broad or in specialized disciplines such as history, medicine, law, and education. Critical thinking has been considered as a global, general skill that can be used to any practice of teaching by the ‘generalists’. The ‘specialists’, on the other hand, perceive critical thinking as a skill unique to a certain context and specialty. The discussion over this long-running topic is vital for gaining an insight into the nature of human thought; yet, taking one side or the other is not required. The idea of combining the two approaches has a lot of support. The authors endorse the idea of preparing students for ‘multifaceted critical thinking’ and the concept of CT that strikes a chord with the pioneers of ‘infusion’. (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019).

At universities, critical thinking skills are rarely directly assessed. There are infomercial CT assessments available, which are frequently broad in nature. However, research suggests that evaluations that use a context appropriate to the students’ CT skills quite effectively represent their abilities (Chevalier et al. 2020; Wei et al. 2021).

A variety of commercial tools that evaluate critical thinking are available (AssessmentDay Ltd. 2015; Ennis and Weir 1985; Insight Assessment 2013; The Critical Thinking Co. 2015). The setting of these examinations is generally broad or abstract, and they are created for recruitment purposes. When students, on the other hand, assign meaning to the test environment, a more reliable reflection of students’ critical thinking can be derived (Bhutta et al. 2019).

Therefore, for the context of this study, a critical thinking evaluation that tests critical thinking especially from chemistry study is required. According to Suwandi (2011), attainment of advanced thinking skills should not be isolated from assessment, and must be conducted as an integral component of the learning environment to identify students’ cognitive growth and learning outcomes, as well as to improve the learning process (Nurfatihah et al. 2021).

4 Methodology

4.1 Design and Methods

This study is quantitative in nature, and aims to examine the critical thinking abilities of class 12 students.

Quantitative research involves the collection of numerical data, and the use of statistics. (Bhandari 2020).

Reflecting on the research question, which focuses on fostering students’ critical thinking skills, an assessment tool is used to collect data quantitatively from the students’ test results. Then, the test results are analyzed into percentages to measure the causal relation between the quality of the science practice skills implemented in AP Chemistry course and the development of CT skills of high school students.

The paradigm of the study, which is the philosophy that underpins it, is post positivism. Only “fact based” information obtained through using the senses to observe and monitor, including measurement, is considered reliable by this philosophy (Bloomfield and Fisher 2019). In the context of this study, the DOT test results of students are the measurement on which the study’s outcomes rely on. In positivism studies, the researcher’s role is confined to gather data and analyze it objectively. In other words, while conducting research, the researcher acts as an unbiased analyst who disconnects himself or herself from personal preferences (Bloomfield and Fisher 2019).

4.2 Participants and Ethical Considerations

The participants in this study are 30 twelfth grade students from an American curriculum school in Dubai, adopting American curriculum and AP courses.

Participants were informed that participating in the study was completely voluntary, anonymous, and would have no bearing on their academic records, and that they had the option to withdraw at any moment. All students have been acknowledged with the informed consent. In addition, all techniques were authorized and acknowledged by the school principal.

4.3 Data Collection Instrument

The tool used in this study in a test designed using Google Forms. The test’s questions are constructed based on the Danczak-Overton-Thompson Chemistry Critical Thinking Skills Test (Danczak 2018), which is a tool that can be used to assess a student’s CT ability at any point during their study of Chemistry. Within a range of quantitative and qualitative reliability and validity testing phases, the DOT test was developed and evaluated throughout three versions. According to the studies, (Li et al. 2020, Salirawati et al. 2021; Susetyo et al. 2021 and Helix et al. 2021) the final version of the DOT test has good internal reliability, strong test–retest reliability, moderate convergent validity, and is independent of past academic success and university of study (Danczak et al. 2016).

The DOT test consists of multiple-choice questions in Chemistry topics to assess five main aspects of CT including: (1) making assumptions: 7 questions (2) analyzing arguments: 7 questions (3) developing hypotheses: 6 questions (4) testing hypotheses: 5 questions (5) drawing conclusions: 5 questions.

A debriefed and revised form of DOT is used in this study, including 15 questions to examine the five critical thinking indicators with three questions for each indicator.

5 Data Analysis and Results

This section depicts the results derived from the DOT examination of student responses.

Data is gathered by including each student’s responses to each of the five aspects of the DOT Test.

The students’ grades in each of the five key areas are subsequently transformed into percentages (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Percentage of the students’ CT skills aspects in DOT-Test

The students’ critical thinking percentage score is then transformed into qualitative values (categories) based on the following (see Table 3).

Table 3. Categories of students’ critical thinking skills level

The graph (see Fig. 3) below shows the results of students’ critical thinking skills exam, which reveal that three components categorized as medium score including ‘Developing Hypotheses’ (56,6%), ‘Testing Hypothesis’ (54.4%), and ‘Drawing Conclusion’ (46.6%), while two components receive scores categorized as low, including ‘Making Assumptions’ (38.8%) and ‘Analyzing Arguments’ (36.6%).

The graph displays the average proportion of students’ CT skills from the five components, which is 46.6% which is considered medium. According to the findings, the average outcomes of 12th grade students’ critical thinking abilities exams are medium, at 46.6%. This is not in accordance with other studies, which claim that high school students’ CT skills are poor (Fadhlullah et al. 2017; Haber 2020).

In the aspects of developing and testing hypothesis of the DOT test, the students demonstrated the ability to predict what will happen in a specific context of interest based on existing evidence and reasoning, then seeking information to confirm or refute this prediction, and lastly drawing a conclusion.

On the other hand, students struggled a bit to postulate and decide the validity of an argument in the aspects of making assumptions and analyzing arguments.

6 Discussion

In discussing the results of the study, three keys with high order abilities were determined to be the greatest in the results of the DOT test: developing hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and drawing conclusion.

Critical thinking skills in the ‘Developing Hypotheses’ component of students were rated at [49%].

In scientific reasoning, scientists make conclusions based on data, observations, and assumed facts while developing hypotheses. To make a connection or find the intended meaning, an inference is employed to fill in the gaps. These conclusions are not certain, but the hypothesis being constructed has a high level of confidence based on the evidence supplied (Danczak 2018).

The results of the tests suggest that this element is medium, which indicates that students are trained to design a hypothesis through applying the guided inquiry teaching technique as discussed in the literature review.

Results obtained in the section of ‘Testing Hypothesis’, reflect the same analysis as in the ‘Developing Hypothesis’ section. With a score of 54.4%, students were able to decide if the idea presented in the passage was supported by the evidence presented, or the deduction had nothing to do with the hypothesis, and there wasn’t enough data to back it up.

In a guided inquiry approach, experiments are carried out to test hypotheses (Putra et al. 2018).

Students start with a theory or assertion that they believe is correct and then seek information to corroborate or contradict it. As a result, a premise is formed that is thought to be correct or true (Danczak 2018). This area is very fundamental in science education.

By 46.6% in the area of ‘Drawing Conclusion’, these results are considered medium; however, it could be considered as ‘low’ medium. Students may struggle to formulate a conclusion due to a lack of comprehension and inability to make connections. A conclusion’s strength is defined by how well the deductions, inferences, and/or premises support it. To reach a conclusion, a scientist will combine multiple pieces of knowledge, such as deductions, inferences, or premises (Danczak 2018). This indicator is consistent with the constructivist approach discussed earlier in the literature review, which emphasizes learners using prior knowledge, encouraging inventive thinking, and allowing them to grow and thrive (Yezierski 2018).

Moreover, formulation of conclusions is one of its essential learning phases in the guided inquiry model (Putra et al. 2018).

The test findings revealed that the area with the lowest score, 36.6%, is ‘Analyzing Arguments’.

Students must decide whether or not an argument is valid as part of the scientific process. This necessitates distinguishing assumptions (spoken or implicit), inferences, deductions, and premises, conclusions (certain conclusions in a statement may be implied), and if the argument is relevant to the topic being addressed.

Even if there is sufficient evidence, reliable sources, and supporting material, an argument might be regarded weak if it is unimportant and unrelated to the question being presented (Danczak 2018).

In summary, the average of all components of critical thinking skills is 46.6%, demonstrating a medium category, according to the criteria used. Referring to this research question, this 46.6% average indicates that the science practice implemented in the AP Chemistry course can assist in fostering the CT skills of the high school students.

Whereas, it contradicts the results of the three-year PISA research conducted from 2009 to 2015, which revealed low scores due to students’ lack of familiarity with higher-order thinking (Hidayati and Sinaga 2019).

7 Recommendations and Limitations

The exam results are influenced by a number of other factors, such as the process of teaching and learning in the classroom, which is not attuned to developing CT skills in conformance with the expectations of the twenty-first century. Students’ inadequate critical thinking abilities are attributable to a lack of activity and training, as well as restricted resources and time, which limit the environment’s ability to build critical thinking skills (Fadhlullah et al. 2017).

Memorization should not be prioritized in learning activities (DuDevoir 2018). To solve problems and make judgments, students should be able to derive, interpret, and evaluate information. In the learning process, teamwork and collaboration are also stressed while solving difficulties (Hagemann and Kluge 2017). Learning must also shift from a focus on low-level thinking abilities to one that prioritizes high-level thinking skills (Hasanah et al. 2020).

The study’s limitations include the small sample size, making it difficult to generalize the findings and draw firm conclusions based on such a small sample size. To confirm the study results, tt is necessary to conduct a larger sample size study on a broader scope. For example, conduct the study on all grades 10, 11 and 12 students who study Chemistry.

Also, the gender factor can be included in the results and the data analysis. The study conducted by the researcher was on two sets of students, 20 students from the girls’ high school section and 10 students from the boys’ high school section. Moreover, confounding variables should have been taken into consideration (Jeske and Yao 2020). The environmental conditions of the exam were not identical, since another instructor teaches in the boys section. This instructor may have influenced the students’ responses.

Lastly, the study’s instrumental tool did not include all the components of the original DOT exam. These metrics may not be able to fully represent all characteristics of an instance.

In summary, the way science curricula are developed will have an impact on future science instruction. This concept is further backed by a significant requirement to incorporate critical thinking skills into science training in order to improve learning outcomes in schools and beyond.

8 Conclusion

The learning experiences that students have, have a big impact on their critical thinking skills. Students will acquire critical thinking abilities if they are frequently offered training to carry out CT activities during the learning process. As a result, future study should emphasize the significance of teaching critical thinking skills to students at an early age, and making it a main priority educational objective. Moreover, teachers should devise teaching techniques that allow students’ engagement in activities that assess in the development of critical thinking skills (Chu et al., 2017; Emerson 2019). It is the role of the institutes to keep a closer eye on actual teaching in the classrooms.

Once educated, creative and critical thinking need to be assessed (Abazar 2020). Several instruments are available to help with this, but evaluators must ensure that these instruments are used appropriately in a correct setting, because changes in testing techniques can impact the result’s accountability (Forwai 2020). In addition, a study of how science teachers integrate reasoning and critical thinking abilities into teaching and increasing students’ learning should be conducted.

Finally, we may firmly admit at the end that critical thinking in science education is the magic wand that will usher in a knowledge-actions based society. That knowledge-actions based society, whether in the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere in the world, will be able to maintain control over the present while deciding on and planning for the future with the adherence to high ethical and moral standards.