Comparative Analysis of Critical Thinking Skills Across Undergraduate Academic Disciplines

Thesis Abstract

Critical thinking skills are fundamental to academic success and professional competence across diverse disciplines; however, the extent to which these skills vary among students in different undergraduate fields remains underexplored. This study investigates the comparative levels of critical thinking skills among undergraduate students enrolled in five distinct disciplines Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, Business, and Social Sciences, to identify discipline-specific strengths and weaknesses and inform targeted pedagogical strategies. The primary aim is to provide empirical evidence on the variations in critical thinking across academic domains, with specific objectives including assessing students’ critical thinking levels, examining the influence of discipline-specific curricula and pedagogies, and identifying demographic factors associated with critical thinking performance. The research adopts a quantitative, cross-sectional design grounded in the Dual-Process Theory and Bloom’s Taxonomy as the theoretical framework, which conceptualizes critical thinking as a multifaceted cognitive process involving analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. The study population comprises 1,000 undergraduate students randomly sampled from five universities offering comprehensive programs in the targeted disciplines, with stratified sampling used to ensure proportional representation. Data collection employed validated instruments, including the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and discipline-specific situational judgment tests developed through expert panels, to measure students’ critical thinking capabilities accurately. Data analysis involves descriptive statistics to profile the sample, followed by inferential techniques such as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare mean critical thinking scores across disciplines. Additionally, multiple regression analysis will assess the predictive power of demographic variables (age, gender, GPA, socioeconomic status) and academic variables (year of study, coursework exposure) on critical thinking skills. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) aims to explore the mediating effects of pedagogical approaches and curriculum design on critical thinking levels across disciplines. Expected findings indicate significant differences in critical thinking skills among students in different fields, with students in Humanities and Social Sciences demonstrating higher scores relative to Science and Engineering students, attributable to differences in pedagogical emphasis on argumentation and analysis. The study anticipates that variables such as participation in debate, coursework design, and teaching methods significantly influence critical thinking development, aligning with constructivist learning theories. The findings will also reveal demographic factors that moderate these differences, offering insights into targeted interventions. This research contributes to the academic literature by providing a nuanced, discipline-sensitive understanding of critical thinking development in undergraduate education, addressing notable gaps in comparative analyses within higher education. The findings are expected to inform curriculum revision, pedagogical strategies, and policy formulations aimed at fostering higher-order thinking skills universally and within specific disciplines. The study concludes with recommendations for integrating critical thinking training explicitly into core curricula, promoting interdisciplinary teaching approaches, and tailoring pedagogical techniques to discipline contexts. It advocates for further longitudinal research to examine critical thinking development over time and across educational stages, as well as qualitative investigations to explore students’ perceptions of critical thinking within their disciplines. Overall, the study underscores the importance of discipline-specific strategies in cultivating critical thinking among undergraduates and contributes to the broader discourse on enhancing higher education quality through cognitive skill development.