Content area
Critical thinking (CT) enables EFL students in Ethiopia to analyze language, solve problems, and adapt to academic and real-life challenges, while reflective writing (RW), as an independent variable, supports them to think and reflect about experiences to learn better. This study examined English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student-teachers’ CT using a quasi-experimental method. The participants were first-year second-semester EFL diploma trainees at Asella College of Teacher Education (ACTE), comprising two intact groups: an experimental group (D1) and a control group (D2). The study employed MANCOVA (Analysis of covariates) as a statistical model, considering age, Ethiopian University Entrance Examination (EUEE), and pretest results. In addition, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) was used to assess both the students’ prior skills and post-intervention. The MANCOVA analysis revealed that RW significantly improved all aspects of CT with p < 0.001 and a large effect size (η2 = 0.691) compared to the control group. However, the most substantial gains were observed in Analysis (η2 = 0.540) and Interpretation (η2 = 0.507), while Evaluation (η2 = 0.282), Explanation (η2 = 0.352), and Inference (η2 = 0.396) improved less. This indicates the effects of RW are more noticeable in reasoning skills, while other higher-order thinking skills may need other targeted instructional support. Finally, age and EUEE had no influence on outcomes, while students with better initial CT benefited more from RW. This indicates that RW for cognitive growth may benefit learners across diverse backgrounds and academic profiles. In conclusion, integrating RW into EFL education is particularly timely and relevant in Ethiopia’s shift toward a competency-based curriculum and the cultivation of skilled professionals. Thus, this study suggests that as CT becomes an essential skill for the current education, the insights gained from Ethiopia’s classrooms offer valuable guidance for education systems facing similar constraints globally.
Introduction
Thinking abilities that encompass a wide range of cognitive processes, such as critical thinking (Paul and Elder 2006; Sternberg 2013), are very imperative for learning, decision-making, and problem solving in many areas of life, such as employment, education, and self-improvement. Many scholars define critical thinking and its importance in education; it is even an essential component of life to be successful in the modern world (Elder and Paul 2021; Facione 1990b; Paul 1989; Sunra 2022). The capacity to think critically is crucially important for academic performance and language acquisition in particular. Students are encouraged to improve their critical thinking abilities throughout the curriculum. According to Sunra (2022), critical thinking skills are described as the ability to recognize causes, evaluate claims and evidence, comprehend difficult texts, find solutions to new problems, make sound decisions, and think creatively.
In the world of EFL teaching, we know that a prerequisite to fostering critical thinking is profound understanding and meaningful communication. Eventually, this leads to an enhancement of competence in the language; this touches on many recent studies emphasizing that such enhancement is important. Recently, a key study by Sunra (2022) shows that as students reflect more, their disposition regarding critical thinking and reflection level improves. Additionally, Sunra (2022) emphasizes that reflective journal writing really does make a significant contribution to the improvement of critical thinking capacities for students in learning this foreign language. Similarly, a study chapter by Lin and Xiang (2019) looks into how we can effectively integrate critical thinking (CT) into English as a foreign language (EFL) courses in Chinese universities. Li found that explicit teaching of CT definitely improves the analytical skills and language proficiency of learners. Locally in Ethiopia as well, we see the importance of CT, enabling efficient investigation of arguments and analysis (Gergera and Tesmand 2023). Although the importance of CT is acknowledged globally and locally, there is a paucity of empirical research on CT development among English language learners, especially in Ethiopia. Similarly, Abuhussein (2022) highlighted that reflective journal writing significantly enhances EFL learners’ conceptual understanding and fosters the development of a growth mindset.
As this study aimed to address the EFL students’ critical thinking skills, one way of improving critical thinking is practicing writing, which leads to reflective writing (RW). A study by Abrami et al. (2008) suggested the link between critical thinking and writing, underlining that the students’ ability to write directly influences the growth of critical thinking skills. This indicates that reflective writing is a pedagogical tool that can significantly improve the students’ CT skills. Scholars highlighted the significance of reflective writing as it develops critical thinking skills. For instance, Helyer (2015) states that in reflective writing, the focus is not on merely descriptions but revisiting scenes and noticing details and feelings closely. Through reflection, we look at what went well and assess where we can grow with new learning. We then connect the experience to our total lives. Schön (1992), in his work, underlined that reflection is an intriguing professional practice, which allows individuals to critically analyze their actions and experiences, and this leads them to learning and development. Likewise, Williams et al. (2012) indicate that engaging in reflection is a very good reason to help students learn. In addition, they stated that reflection significantly changes how one thinks about things, what he/she does, and how they do it, and it points them to the next steps.
As a result, the primary reason why this study was pursued was to examine conventional teaching methods in Ethiopia that focus quite sharply on imparting facts and rote memorization rather than higher-level thinking skills (Bekalu Mulualem et al. 2022). In the context of EFL, this delays the students’ thinking abilities. The other reason and the most difficult challenge hindering Ethiopian EFL students from improving CT at the college level is the lack of foundational skills, such as reasoning skills, communication skills, writing and reading skills, and poor instructional methods (Fox and Cavner 2015), which hinder the students’ ability to express ideas coherently and critically. On top of that, many studies revealed the effectiveness of reflective writing on the students’ critical thinking skills. For instance, Nurwanti et al. (2017) incorporated reflective writing exercises into the EFL education to encourage students to think critically and develop their ability to create arguments. Another study by Tlale-Mkhize and Liebenberg (2024) also shows that reflective writing is key to sharp thinking skills development. It helps students to appraise their own actions and question assumptions and, at the same time, consider different points of view. Likewise, research by Yeh et al. (2022) concludes that reflections are also motivating students to make conceptual and behavioral changes. Similarly, a study by Yeh et al. (2022) concluded that reflections empower students to make conceptual and behavioral changes. In addition to this, the research by Hussein (2018) indicates that reflective journal writing greatly enhances EFL learners’ comprehension of concepts and promotes the development of a growth mindset. Additionally, Gudeta (2022) revealed that reflective practice improved the pre-service teachers’ reflective thinking abilities by overcoming their faults and mistakes.
Reflective writing has not been much researched in postsecondary education in Ethiopia, like in colleges or universities. Studies, nonetheless, have suggested that reflective writing is valuable and excels in certain educational settings. This research puts reflective writing within the Theory of Experiential Learning, emphasizing the creation of engagement and critical reflection (Dewey 1934). Highlighting the model put forth by Kolb, it stresses four core competencies: reflection, active engagement, conception, and application that all contribute to deeper thinking and true learning. A structured guide for reflection is provided for the research, including the Reflective Model of Driscoll (Answers 2024). This model helps students cross the stages of “what?” “so what?” and “now what?” It improves self-awareness and logical thinking and encourages adaptability through careful analysis of experience (Bassot 2015; Plack and Santasier 2004).
Thus, this research promotes critical thinking via the use of structured reflective writing, like reflective journal writing. It stresses how reflective guiding enhances reasoning abilities, increases performance in formal education, and builds engaged, analytical learners by combining reflective writing with experiential learning frameworks. To address previously raised concerns, this study examines whether reflective writing influences critical thinking ability among students at Asella College of Teacher Education through the following research questions:
To what extent does reflective writing significantly improve students’ CT compared to a control group (D2), after controlling for covariates (age, EUEE, prior skills)?
Which CT aspects (interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, inference) show the greatest improvement following RW intervention, and how do these gains compare to the control group (D2)?
Does the efficacy of RW on CT outcomes vary significantly based on learner characteristics (age, EUEE, prior skill levels), suggesting tailored implementation strategies?
Methods
This study employed a quasi-experimental, non-randomized pretest-posttest control group design (Stanley and Campbell 1963), because the participants (pre-existing groups D1 and D2) could not be assigned at random because of rules at the College. Using the pragmatist epistemology (Dewey 1934), the design tested three phases of reflective writing interventions in a real Ethiopian English as a foreign language (EFL) setting through three phases. These are (1) baseline assessment using CCTST pretests and covariate measurement (age, National University Entrance Exam (EUEE) scores, prior academic performance), (2) implementation of structured reflective writing protocols for the experimental group (D1) alongside standard instruction for controls, and (3) post-intervention evaluation. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted with CT aspect scores (Interpretation, Analysis, Evaluation, Explanation, and Inference) as dependent variables, treatment condition as the fixed factor, and baseline CCTST scores plus demographic covariates (age, EUEE) as continuous predictors.
Thus, this design was chosen for three key reasons. First, this design helps to isolate results between groups where reflective writing exercises impact different kinds of students. Secondly, this approach works particularly well in a traditional ESL classroom where randomly selecting students is just not feasible, a common issue in English language programs (Rogers and Revesz 2019). Finally, with a pretest-posttest design, it helps measure the development at different times, which is essential for this gradual improvement of critical thinking skills as they add up in the learning of language itself (Rogers and Revesz 2019). So, by directly comparing students’ performance before and after intervention and controlling for baseline, this design results in reliable proof about effectiveness under realistic educational circumstances.
Participants
This quasi-experimental study looks at the impact of reflective writing on CT skills among newly trained English teachers in year one at ACTE. Participants included 52 first-year students in the English department and were randomly assigned into two intact groups: an Experimental Group (D1, n = 27) and a Comparison Group (D2, n = 25). The groups are comparable because they have similar backgrounds: all students were enrolled in the same program, have met identical admission criteria, and have taken equivalent prerequisite courses. Fundamental proficiency and prior education level have therefore become initially congruent.
Unlike previous classes where students who failed preparatory entrance exams in grade 10 got in, this study class was admitted under the new curriculum frameworks of 2023 (MOE 2023). All of these students successfully moved on to grade 12, and they passed both the national exams for university as well as ACTE’s English department entrance test. This change in admission criteria suggests that current students were better academically prepared as well as more motivated to specialize in EFL teaching.
Sampling and group assignment
Using pre-existing classroom divisions to accommodate the College’s scheduling restrictions, a convenience sampling strategy was used. The intact groups were systematically randomized to experimental and control conditions to reduce selection bias, even though individual-level random assignment was not practical. Importantly, in order to show that there were no statistically significant variations in baseline critical thinking abilities, which is a crucial marker of initial homogeneity, pretest scores on the CCTST were compared across groups using an independent samples t-test (p > 0.05).
Procedures
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate how well RW interventions worked to enhance CT abilities in EFL students taking the Basic Writing Course (EnLa-1342). From June 17 to September 25, 2024, a total of 14 weeks were spent implementing RW. As a baseline assessment of CT skills, the CCTST was given during the initial week of the research to provide the groundwork. Reflective writing assignments were then included, enabling researchers to evaluate the effects of these treatments on students’ CT skill development in an organized way.
Three interconnected elements made up the reflective writing intervention, which was used throughout the course. In order to encourage critical appraisal of their writing development, difficulties they faced, and connections between the course content and their own learning experiences, students first kept organized reflective diaries in which they wrote weekly responses to predetermined questions. Friday submission deadlines were set by explicit standards to guarantee uniformity.
In the meantime, students were asked about their experiences via reflective journal writing in order to make sure the intervention was successful. The purpose of this mid-intervention check, which was scheduled for Week 8, was to gather students’ opinions on the reflective writing process and how it affected their learning via casual conversations or surveys. Thirdly, a posttest CCTST was conducted at the end of the 14-week period to assess if the intervention had improved the participants’ critical thinking skills. The purpose of this final assessment is to evaluate how well the group discussions and reflective writing tasks went. Comparing the CCTST scores from the pre- and posttests was part of the data analysis process to gauge how the reflective writing intervention affected the students’ capacity for critical thought. The following table shows the timetable for this experiment procedure (Table 1).
Table 1. Experimental procedure timeline.
Experiment week | Activities during the research |
|---|---|
1 | Pretest CCTST |
2–13 | Weekly reflective journal assignments |
2–13 | Weekly group debrief sessions |
8 | Mid-intervention feedback collection |
14 | Posttest CCTST |
15 | Data analysis and reporting |
Data collection instrument
The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990d) was selected as the assessment tool based on its strong theoretical foundation in the Delphi expert consensus study (Facione 1990b). This test looks at five key cognitive skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference, which is done via 34 thought-out multiple-choice questions (Facione 1990d). The items in CCTS are put into cognitive domains: interpretation and analysis (questions 1–9), evaluation and explanation (questions 10–13, 25–34), and inference (questions 14–24) (Facione 1990b; Facione 1990d).
On the other hand, compared to CCTST, the Watson-Glaser test similarly analyzes comparable critical thinking components, but it places a bigger emphasis on verbal reasoning and decision-making, which could disadvantage students untrained with such formats or with insufficient English proficiency (Grimard Wilson and Wagner 1981). Similar to this, Ethiopian college students who have little experience writing essays or who do not speak English well may find the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Davidson and Dunham 1996) and Wang Critical Thinking Essay Test (Liu et al. 2018) challenging since they use essay responses to evaluate written reasoning and fallacies. As a result, the multiple-choice format provided by the CCTST, on the other hand, lessens the cognitive load associated with writing responses. In addition, its carefully constructed products have distractors that reflect prevalent reasoning faults, increasing critical thinking by correcting misconceptions effectively.
Thus, the CCTST is ideal for Ethiopian college students who are learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Given these students’ language limitations and little experience with essay-based exams, the CCTST’s clear framework and objective scoring system offer an accessible but rigorous approach to testing critical thinking. Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale and subscale alphas, which has been proven to be psychometrically reliable, ensures consistency and accuracy in measuring five core cognitive skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference (Facione et al. 1994).
Material preparation
The preparation of the teaching materials was rooted in the belief that reflective writing not only improves writing proficiency but also promotes metacognitive skills that are essential for lifelong learning. The teaching materials included RW activities throughout the syllabus of the Basic Writing Skills course (EngLa 1342), which was provided by the Oromia Education Bureau. These materials are structured into three chapters: Chapter 1 focuses on writing effective sentences, Chapter 2 emphasizes constructing coherent paragraphs, and Chapter 3 centers on developing effective essay-writing skills. Reflective Writing (RW) activities were integrated throughout these chapters to align with the learning objectives.
Structured reflective writing tasks, including journal prompts (Matten and Moon 2004), were carefully designed to enhance students’ critical thinking. Each activity complements the progression of the course content, guiding students through sentence-level mechanics, paragraph construction, and essay development while encouraging self-assessment and improvement. For example, students reflected on their ability to identify sentence errors, construct coherent paragraphs, and develop essay arguments, aligning with the idea that self-assessment fosters writing improvement (Schunk and Zimmerman 2011). This integration fosters deeper engagement with the writing process and cultivates a reflective mindset essential for academic and professional growth.
Method of data analysis
This study used the MANCOVA (multiple analyses of covariates) as an appropriate statistical model to achieve the objectives of this study. This model of analysis was employed to see if the RW intervention significantly improved critical thinking skills in five areas: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference. The study therefore employed this model to evaluate the effectiveness of reflective writing on EFL students’ critical thinking skills between the two groups (experimental group (D1) and control group (D2)) while controlling the covariates such as students’ age, National University Entrance Examination (EUEE) results, and critical thinking pretest results.
The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) was used to assess whether the EFL student teachers improved their higher-level thinking skills for both the pretest and posttest. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test, which was advanced and legalized, is appropriate to examine the students’ critical thinking skills (Facione 1990a). Ng and Cheung used this test to assess the analytical and cognitive abilities of undergraduates in Hong Kong (Yeh et al. 2022). They used this test to assess the analytical and cognitive abilities of undergraduates in Hong Kong (Naber 2011). Additionally, the main goal was to investigate how the intervention affected the dependent variables, which included interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference. The study included confounders, such as age, EUEE (National University Entrance Examination) scores, and pretest results, to account for potential confounding factors.
The requirements of linearity, independence of data, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multivariate normality were verified prior to executing the Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). After that, the MANCOVA was used to evaluate the CCTST scores before and after the intervention. The dependent variables were the various elements of critical thinking, and the independent variable was group membership (experimental vs. control). If significant differences were found, type I error would be controlled using adjustments like Bonferroni, and post hoc analyses would be performed to pinpoint specific group differences.
To measure the magnitude of the changes detected, effect sizes, more specifically, partial eta squared, would also be determined. A power analysis would also be necessary to ensure that the sample size was sufficient for detecting significant effects. A thorough summary of the intervention’s influence on critical thinking abilities would be provided by the results’ final, unambiguous presentation, which would include the MANCOVA results, significance levels, effect sizes, and power analysis findings in addition to the means and standard deviations for each group and time point.
To find out whether there were group differences in the average change in CCTST while adjusting for experience, the statistical analysis model MANCOVA was run using SPSS 27.0.
Implementation of reflective writing
This section introduces the implementation of a reflective writing intervention. RW was implemented in the 14-week regular semester schedule of the college. The intervention was primarily aimed at improving critical thinking among EFL diploma students enrolled in the Basic Writing Skills course (EngLa 1342). Moreover, the intervention tasks matched with the course of EngLa 1342, which moved from writing effective sentences (Chapter 1) to building logical paragraphs (Chapter 2) and writing effective essays (Chapter 3). As a result, students were involved in self-reflective and joint learning through RW tasks that complemented the course topics. The details of the implementation of reflective writing activities and schedules are seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Implementation of reflective writing.
Experiment week | Activities | Details of the activities |
|---|---|---|
Week 1 | Pretest: California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) | Students completed the pretest to establish baseline writing proficiency and critical thinking levels. |
Weeks 2–13 | Weekly Reflective Journal Assignments | Students responded to weekly prompts in their reflective notebooks, analyzing their learning experiences and writing progress. For example: Sentence Writing: “Reflect on the grammatical errors you identified in your sentences. How did you improve them, and what challenges remain?” Paragraph Writing: “Reflect on how you organized your ideas into coherent paragraphs. What techniques helped strengthen coherence?” Essay Writing: Journal prompt: “Reflect on the clarity of your essay arguments. Did your examples support your main points effectively?” |
Week 8 | Mid-Intervention Feedback Collection | Students provided feedback to the investigator about their experiences. Example: Students shared how reflective journals helped them identify weaknesses in vocabulary usage, prompting the instructor to provide additional practice resources. |
Week 14 | Posttest: California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) | Students completed the CCTST again to measure improvements in critical thinking. Example: Comparing pre- and posttest scores on items evaluating analytical skills, such as distinguishing relevant evidence in a scenario |
Results
The MANCOVA analysis was conducted after its key assumptions were checked for accuracy. Normality tests for both Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk were conducted to examine whether the distributions of the dependent variables: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference posttests were normally distributed for both experimental and control groups (see Table 3). Second, homogeneity of covariance matrices was assessed using Box’s Test, a necessary precondition for reliable MANCOVA analysis (see Table 4). These checks confirmed the appropriateness of MANCOVA for the study.
Table 3. Tests of multivariate.
Multivariate tests | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | F | Hypothesis df | Error df | Sig. | Partial eta squared | Observed power | |
Pillai’s trace | 0.691 | 17.442 | 5.00 | 39.00 | <0.001 | 0.691 | 1.00 |
Wilks’ lambda | 0.309 | 17.442 | 5.00 | 39.00 | <0.001 | 0.691 | 1.00 |
Hotelling’s trace | 2.236 | 17.442 | 5.00 | 39.00 | <0.001 | 0.691 | 1.00 |
Roy’s largest root | 2.236 | 17.442 | 5.00 | 39.00 | <0.001 | 0.691 | 1.00 |
Table 4. Tests of normality.
Tests of normality | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experimental (D1) vs. control (D2) | Kolmogorov–Smirnov | Shapiro–Wilk | |||||
Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | df | Sig. | ||
Interpretation Posttest | Control | 0.100 | 25 | 0.200 | 0.972 | 25 | 0.707 |
Experimental | 0.120 | 27 | 0.200 | 0.954 | 27 | 0.273 | |
Analysis Posttest | Control | 0.131 | 25 | 0.200 | 0.967 | 25 | 0.580 |
Experimental | 0.090 | 27 | 0.200 | 0.967 | 27 | 0.514 | |
Evaluation Posttest | Control | 0.088 | 25 | 0.200 | 0.966 | 25 | 0.549 |
Experimental | 0.103 | 27 | 0.200 | 0.965 | 27 | 0.479 | |
Explanation Posttest | Control | 0.170 | 25 | 0.061 | 0.912 | 25 | 0.035 |
Experimental | 0.139 | 27 | 0.192 | 0.954 | 27 | 0.273 | |
Inference Posttest | Control | 0.094 | 25 | 0.200 | 0.949 | 25 | 0.233 |
Experimental | 0.099 | 27 | 0.200 | 0.963 | 27 | 0.423 | |
The normality assumption is significant (Sig.) if p > 0.05.
According to Table 4, the normality assumption for the MANCOVA model is met. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test shows p-values of 0.200. It indicates that no significant deviation from normality in both experimental and control groups. Similarly, the Shapiro–Wilk test presents p-values ranging from 0.020 to 0.707; p > 0.05 indicates a significance threshold. This confirms the conclusion that the dependent variable distributions remain normal. Therefore, as both tests yielded consistent results and the assumption of normality validated the suitability of MANCOVA analysis.
As indicated in this table, the Test statistic Box’s M is 26.318, and the F-statistic is 1.557. Df1 and Df2 are 15 and 9929.41015, respectively. The significance (Sig.) column reveals a p-value of 0.077 above the significance threshold of 0.05, which confirms the covariance matrix homogeneity assumption. Thus, the covariance matrices of the dependent variables (i.e., Interpretation posttest, Analysis posttest, Evaluation posttest, and Inference posttest) are not substantially different across the MANCOVA model groups specified by the independent variables. This implies that this important assumption for the MANCOVA study has been satisfied, enabling me to continue and conduct the MANCOVA analysis.
Examining the impact of R on CT skills when compared to the control group
The analysis reports that there are large differences between the experimental and control groups with regards to the impact of RW on EFL students’ CT (see Fig. 1). The descriptive statistics illustrate variations across five critical thinking aspects: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference in Fig. 1. Additionally, multivariate tests evaluated the differential effects of the RW by examining differences across dependent variables, as shown in Table 5.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
Descriptive statistics showing the differences between the experimental and control groups.
Table 5. Tests of between-subjects effects.
Tests of between-subjects effects | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Source | Dependent variable | Type III sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. | Partial eta squared |
Corrected Model | Interpretation | 6622.263 | 8 | 827.783 | 11.620 | <0.001 | 0.684 |
Analysis | 9849.962 | 8 | 1231.245 | 10.437 | <0.001 | 0.660 | |
Evaluation | 2857.019 | 8 | 357.127 | 3.255 | 0.006 | 0.377 | |
Explanation | 3815.407 | 8 | 476.926 | 5.048 | <0.001 | 0.484 | |
Inference | 5964.789 | 8 | 745.599 | 7.410 | <0.001 | 0.580 | |
Group | Interpretation | 3144.462 | 1 | 3144.462 | 44.141 | <0.001 | 0.507 |
Analysis | 5953.041 | 1 | 5953.041 | 50.461 | <0.001 | 0.540 | |
Evaluation | 1854.164 | 1 | 1854.164 | 16.900 | <0.001 | 0.282 | |
Explanation | 2205.531 | 1 | 2205.531 | 23.345 | <0.001 | 0.352 | |
Inference | 2837.123 | 1 | 2837.123 | 28.196 | <0.001 | 0.396 | |
As indicated in the above analysis of the descriptive statistics in Fig. 1, there were substantial differences between the experimental and control groups across several CT aspects. For instance, in the Interpretation posttest, the experimental group earned M = 66.96, SD = 9.21, greatly exceeding the control’s M = 49.00, SD = 10.13, showing that RW boosted students’ capacity to grasp and interpret material. Similarly, in the Analysis posttest, the experimental group scored M = 69.07, SD = 8.44, whereas the control group scored M = 44.88, SD = 9.56, suggesting a bigger disparity. This shows that RW is beneficial in developing analytical abilities and understanding logical structures.
In the Evaluation, the experimental group (M = 61.48, SD = 7.97) outperformed the control group (M = 47.88, SD = 8.72) by over 13 points, and this demonstrates the enhanced ability to assess claims and make judgments. Likewise, for Explanation, the experimental group (M = 68.85, SD = 7.58) exceeded the control group (M = 57.40, SD = 8.05) by more than 11 points. This implies that RW enhanced EL students’ logical thinking and clarity. Lastly, the experimental group scored considerably higher than the control group (M = 46.92, SD = 9.43) in terms of inference (M = 66.00, SD = 8.23). This demonstrates how well RW works to improve students’ capacity for inference and evidence-based prediction (see Fig. 1).
To this end, the group engaged in reflective writing showed better performance in all aspects of critical thinking, mean scores. In addition, the reduced standard deviations suggest less unpredictability in student findings, and this indicates a greater consistency in the benefits acquired by reflective writing. Therefore, the stated data substantially support the hypothesis that reflective writing helps the development of cognitive capacities in students.
According to Table 6, the MANCOVA analysis confirmed a statistically significant impact of reflective writing on critical thinking skills, accounting for age, EUEE scores, and prior performance. Notably, Pillai’s Trace (0.691) indicates a substantial effect of reflective writing on various measures of critical thinking. This is supported by the Wilks’ Lambda (0.309), where a lower number indicates a greater effect of the independent variable (i.e., Reflective Writing). Likewise, Hotelling’s Trace (2.236) emphasizes how important reflective writing is for developing critical thinking. Furthermore, Roy’s Largest Root shows how closely reflective writing and certain facets of critical thinking, like interpretation, analysis, and evaluation, are related. These results confirm that reflective writing is a useful tool for promoting cognitive growth.
Table 6. Homogeneity of the MANCOVA analysis.
Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Box’s M | F | df1 | df2 | Sig. |
26.202 | 1.557 | 15 | 9929.41015 | 0.077 |
The Homogeneity assumption of the MANCOVA analysis is significant (Sig.) if p > 0.05.
With a p-value of less than 0.001 guaranteeing statistical significance, the F-value of 17.442 demonstrates a substantial correlation between reflective writing and enhanced critical thinking. These outcomes indicate that the intervention was successful in improving the cognitive abilities of the children. Additionally, a substantial effect size is shown by the Partial Eta Squared (η2 = 0.691), which proves that reflective writing explains 69.1% of the variation in students’ critical thinking abilities. This illustrates its potent instructional influence and supports its efficacy in fostering cognitive and academic growth. Additionally, the study’s robustness is confirmed by the observed power of 1.00, which guarantees great sensitivity in identifying the actual impact of reflective writing. These results demonstrate the importance of reflective writing in promoting deeper critical thinking and academic development in EFL training, validating it as a potent teaching tool.
Identifying which aspects of CT show the greatest improvement in EFL learners
This research examines the development of EFL students’ critical thinking abilities with an emphasis on analysis, inference, interpretation, and assessment. The study identifies issue areas and offers suggestions for improving EFL training and strengthening students’ critical thinking abilities in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, the study evaluates the differential impact of reflective writing on five critical thinking skills in Ethiopian EFL learners. While all components showed significant improvement (p < 0.001), Analysis (η2 = 0.540) and Interpretation (η2 = 0.507) exhibited the greatest gains. These findings suggest that reflective writing effectively enhances learners’ ability to deconstruct information and derive meaning. This finding aligns with RW’s core function of fostering deep examination and rephrasing of ideas.
Evaluation, on the other hand, showed moderate improvement (η2 = 0.282). This is likely due to its higher cognitive and linguistic demands, such as assessing credibility and opposing arguments. Explanation (η2 = 0.352) and Inference (η2 = 0.396) also indicated meaningful but smaller gains, because these skills require coherent argument construction, claim justification, and logical reasoning, tasks dependent on advanced academic language proficiency, and metacognitive development, which may still be evolving in EFL learners.
To this end, this analysis underscores the effectiveness of reflective writing in enhancing critical thinking, particularly in foundational skills like interpretation and analysis. While all components showed improvement, higher-order skills like evaluation, explanation, and inference developed less significantly. These findings then highlight a need for targeted instructional strategies to bridge this gap. As a result, the findings suggest that the nature of reflective prompts plays a crucial role in shaping cognitive development. Tasks emphasizing descriptive reflection and event analysis naturally strengthened interpretation and analytical skills, while the absence of explicit prompts focusing on argument assessment, reasoning justification, and evidence-based conclusions may have limited progress in higher-order thinking.
Post hoc analysis: estimated marginal means and Bonferroni corrections
Following the analysis of Tests of Between-Subjects Effects, post hoc analysis using estimated marginal means was necessary to validate the observed differences in critical thinking components between the experimental and control groups. While the between-subjects analysis confirmed significant differential effects, Table 7 is needed to verify these differences through Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons to ensure the statistical reliability.
Table 7. Post hoc analysis: pairwise comparisons.
Pairwise comparisons | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | (I) Experimental vs. control | (J) Experimental vs. control | Mean difference (I − J) | Std. error | Sig. | 95% Confidence interval for difference | |
Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||||
Interpretation | Control | Experimental | −17.118* | 2.576 | <0.001 | −22.314 | −11.922 |
Experimental | Control | 17.118* | 2.576 | <0.001 | 11.922 | 22.314 | |
Analysis | Control | Experimental | −23.553* | 3.316 | <0.001 | −30.240 | −16.866 |
Experimental | Control | 23.553* | 3.316 | <0.001 | 16.866 | 30.240 | |
Evaluation | Control | Experimental | −13.145* | 3.198 | <0.001 | −19.593 | −6.696 |
Experimental | Control | 13.145* | 3.198 | <0.001 | 6.696 | 19.593 | |
Explanation | Control | Experimental | −14.336* | 2.967 | <0.001 | −20.320 | −8.352 |
Experimental | Control | 14.336* | 2.967 | <0.001 | 8.352 | 20.320 | |
Inference | Control | Experimental | −16.260* | 3.062 | <0.001 | −22.435 | −10.084 |
Experimental | Control | 16.260* | 3.062 | <0.001 | 10.084 | 22.435 | |
Based on estimated marginal means: *The mean difference is significant at the 0 0.05 level.
aAdjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
After adjusting for age, EUEE scores, and baseline pretest performance, the estimated marginal means for Interpretation, Analysis, Evaluation, Explanation, and Inference are shown in Table 7. The analysis carefully controls Type I error inflation by using Bonferroni adjustments to ensure that the discrepancies are caused by reflective writing’s direct effect rather than chance. This step strengthens the accuracy of the findings and provides robust evidence for how reflective writing enhances critical thinking among EFL learners.
According to Table 7, the post hoc analysis, using Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons, provides further validation of the findings from Table 5. This analysis was conducted to justify the effectiveness of RW in enhancing CT skills. The analysis in Table 5 established statistically significant differences between groups. However, this is an additional analysis that ensures accuracy by verifying specific improvements across various CT aspects. The results then demonstrate that the Interpretation component showed substantial gains to all other components, with the experimental group (M = 66.56) outperforming the control group (M = 49.44, Δ = 17.12). This difference is confirmed by non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals ([63.12–69.99] vs. [45.85–53.02]). This finding indicates how effective reflection is in deepening engagement with complex ideas, strengthening students’ ability to think and comprehend.
The analysis indicated that the most dramatic improvement emerged in the Analysis component with distinctly different confidence intervals ([64.34–73.19] vs. [40.60–49.83]). The experimental group’s mean of 68.77 significantly outperformed the control group’s 45.21 (Δ = 23.56). This improvement was the most noticeable, which predicts the success of RW in promoting the Analysis component, as shown by this gap. Therefore, RW helps students develop the ability to quickly reason and see logical connections. Additionally, these improvements are consistent with theoretical predictions since reflective activities include analyzing experiences and combining knowledge.
Regarding the Evaluation component, the experimental group maintained a significant advantage (M = 61.26 vs. M = 48.12, Δ = 13.14), though the smaller margin suggests that this higher-order skill may require additional instructional support beyond general reflection. This may invite additional study into scaffolding techniques aimed specifically at improving evaluative judgment. Notably, Explanation, on the other hand, exhibited one of the strongest intervention effects when compared to the evaluation component, with the experimental group scoring 70.24 compared to 55.90 in the control group (Δ = 14.34). These results highlight reflective writing’s power in enhancing students’ ability to articulate reasoning, which is an essential skill practiced during reflective exercises that demand organized expression of thoughts. Finally, the Inference results (64.64 vs. 48.38; Δ = 16.26) showed strong improvement in the Analysis and Interpretation components. This finding then indicates that RW enhances evidence-based reasoning, hypothesis generation, and interpretive depth, enhancing students’ ability to draw conclusions and predict outcomes through iterative processes.
To this end, the finding of this study ensures the statistical accuracy by eliminating the concerns about Type I error through Bonferroni corrections. This is to confirm that RW significantly enhances EFL students’ CT, with the strongest effects seen in Analysis, Interpretation, and Inference, where students exhibited deep engagement with complex ideas and strengthened their ability to draw conclusions and predict outcomes through an iterative process. Although Evaluation, Explanation, and Inference showed meaningful improvements, their more moderate gains suggest that higher-order cognitive skills may require additional structured support. As a result, these results reinforce the pedagogical effectiveness of RW, as it validated its role in fostering CT across multiple dimensions.
Assessing the influence of covariates on the effectiveness of reflective writing in enhancing students’ critical thinking outcomes
This analysis was to identify how key covariates, including age, prior academic performance, and baseline critical thinking skills. Table 8 illustrates these effects across critical thinking components and most significantly influences intervention outcomes.
Table 8. Tests of between-subjects effects: influence of covariates.
Tests of between-subjects effects | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Covariates | Dependent variable | Mean square | F | Sig. | Partial eta squared |
Age | Interpretation posttest | 20.649 | 0.29 | 0.593 | 0.007 |
Analysis posttest | 11.925 | 0.101 | 0.752 | 0.002 | |
Evaluation posttest | 24.101 | 0.22 | 0.642 | 0.005 | |
Explanation posttest | 32.885 | 0.348 | 0.558 | 0.008 | |
Inference posttest | 20.354 | 0.202 | 0.655 | 0.005 | |
EUEE | Interpretation posttest | 14.976 | 0.21 | 0.649 | 0.005 |
Analysis posttest | 49.635 | 0.421 | 0.52 | 0.01 | |
Evaluation posttest | 41.05 | 0.374 | 0.544 | 0.009 | |
Explanation posttest | 1.929 | 0.02 | 0.887 | 0 | |
Inference posttest | 196.791 | 1.956 | 0.169 | 0.044 | |
Interpretation pretest | Interpretation posttest | 1918.137 | 26.926 | 0 | 0.385 |
Analysis posttest | 355.618 | 3.014 | 0.09 | 0.066 | |
Evaluation posttest | 30.18 | 0.275 | 0.603 | 0.006 | |
Explanation posttest | 139.375 | 1.475 | 0.231 | 0.033 | |
Inference posttest | 118.146 | 1.174 | 0.285 | 0.027 | |
Analysis pretest | Interpretation posttest | 287.873 | 4.041 | 0.051 | 0.086 |
Analysis posttest | 1102.433 | 9.345 | 0.004 | 0.179 | |
Evaluation posttest | 71.491 | 0.652 | 0.424 | 0.015 | |
Explanation posttest | 88.706 | 0.939 | 0.338 | 0.021 | |
Inference posttest | 382.256 | 3.799 | 0.058 | 0.081 | |
Evaluation pretest | Interpretation posttest | 204.292 | 2.868 | 0.098 | 0.063 |
Analysis posttest | 116.346 | 0.986 | 0.326 | 0.022 | |
Evaluation posttest | 1.442 | 0.013 | 0.909 | 0 | |
Explanation posttest | 33.365 | 0.353 | 0.555 | 0.008 | |
Inference posttest | 83.984 | 0.835 | 0.366 | 0.019 | |
Explanation pretest | Interpretation posttest | 112.29 | 1.576 | 0.216 | 0.035 |
Analysis posttest | 0.213 | 0.002 | 0.966 | 0 | |
Evaluation posttest | 286.54 | 2.612 | 0.113 | 0.057 | |
Explanation posttest | 1166.894 | 12.352 | 0.001 | 0.223 | |
Inference posttest | 249.274 | 2.477 | 0.123 | 0.054 | |
Inference pretest | Interpretation posttest | 0.001 | 0 | 0.997 | 0 |
Analysis posttest | 237.619 | 2.014 | 0.163 | 0.045 | |
Evaluation posttest | 35.321 | 0.322 | 0.573 | 0.007 | |
Explanation posttest | 346.253 | 3.665 | 0.062 | 0.079 | |
Inference posttest | 202.296 | 2.01 | 0.163 | 0.045 | |
As indicated in Table 8, the analysis of covariates indicates that age and prior academic performance had no significant influence on students’ ability to improve critical thinking through reflective writing, as seen in their low effect sizes (η2 < 0.01) and non-significant p-values. This suggests that reflective writing benefits students across diverse backgrounds, making it an inclusive strategy for cognitive development. In contrast, pretest scores in some subskills of CT significantly predicted posttest outcomes. For instance, Interpretation skill (η2 = 0.385, p = 0.000), Analysis skill (η2 = 0.179, p = 0.004), and Explanation skill (η2 = 0.223, p = 0.001). This suggests that participants with greater beginning CT skills, such as identifying assumptions, biases, relevant information, and questioning sources, have benefited from reflective writing, since it typically emphasizes existing strengths rather than creating new skills from scratch.
In contrast, both the Evaluation and Inference pretests had no statistically significant effect on the Evaluation posttest (F = 0.013, p = 0.909, η2 = 0.000) and the Inference posttest (F = 2.010, p = 0.163, η2 = 0.045). These results may predict that higher-order critical thinking skills, like evaluation and inference, may not develop substantially through RW alone, especially for students starting with weaker abilities in those areas. Therefore, these findings emphasize the differential impact of reflective writing, reinforcing its effectiveness for foundational cognitive processes, whereas highlighting potential gaps in developing advanced reasoning skills.
On the other hand, some pretest scores showed cross-skill effects. For instance, the Analysis pretest nearly predicted the Interpretation posttest (F = 4.041, p = 0.051, η2 = 0.086), and the Inference pretest was marginally related to the Explanation posttest (F = 3.665, p = 0.062, η2 = 0.079). This implies that there is some interrelatedness among critical thinking subskills, where progress in one area (like analyzing) may contribute to others (like interpreting or explaining), though not strongly enough to be statistically conclusive in this case.
To this end, the analysis clearly showed that participants’ age and academic backgrounds had no effect on their final performance. This indicates RW can benefit students across diverse backgrounds, making it an inclusive strategy for cognitive development. During this intervention, RW benefited from participants’ foundational subskills such as interpretation, analysis, and explanation. This means the treatment was done effectively since these participants were effectively participating. As a result, RW appears to be more effective in strengthening such critical thinking skills. However, higher-order skills like evaluation and inference showed weaker gains, suggesting that they may require additional instructional support.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to explore whether incorporating RW into EFL instruction may serve as a transformative method to strengthen students’ CT among Ethiopian EFL students. RW has long been recognized as a powerful pedagogical tool for fostering CT in EFL contexts where deep cognitive engagement with language is essential for academic and intellectual growth (Nurwanti et al. 2017; Schön 1992; Williams et al. 2012). The findings of the MANCOVA analysis then offered persuasive evidence that RW significantly promotes CT skills among EFL learners in the Ethiopian context.
The first objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which RW significantly improves students’ CT compared to a control group (D2), after controlling for covariates such as age, EUEE scores, and prior skills. The MANCOVA analysis revealed compelling evidence that students in the experimental group (D1), who engaged in reflective writing, outperformed the control group (D2) in all measured aspects of CT namely interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and inference (see Fig. 1). These findings align with recent research by Tlale-Mkhize and Liebenberg (2024), who asserts that RW is a fundamental way to nurture CT abilities by encouraging learners to examine their own assumptions, critically assess behavior, and adopt multiple perspectives.
Moreover, the current study provides strong empirical evidence for the effectiveness of RW with significant improvements in interpretation, analysis, and explanation (p < 0.001), F-value of 17.442, and the Partial Eta Squared (η2 = 0.691), which indicates a large effect size. These results are consistent with Bouanani (2015), who observed significant gains in CT skills, including Analysis, Problem Solving, Evaluation, and Synthesis in reflective writing. The large effect sizes in both experiments support the idea that metacognitive reflection improves cognition and intelligence. This finding aligns with theoretical insights from Williams et al. (2012), who argue that engaging in reflection enhances learners’ awareness and promotes meaningful learning. Another qualitative study by Nurwanti et al. (2017) revealed that participants have improved higher-order thinking skills during reflection, though limited in sample size. In the same way, Yeh et al. (2022) noted that participation in RW resulted in behavioral and conceptual development, including enhanced patience, self-awareness, and reasoning skills among Taiwanese university students. These results closely mirror the present study’s results.
The second objective of this study was to identify which aspects of CT show the greatest improvement in EFL learners. In this regard, RW has demonstrated a significant impact on CT’s aspects compared to the control group (D2). The results revealed that Analysis (η2 = 0.540) and Interpretation (η2 = 0.507) had the largest effect size, followed by Explanation (η2 = 0.352) and Inference (η2 = 0.396), all of which showed meaningful changes but smaller gains (see Table 5). This may indicate that while RW enhances the abilities to understand and deconstruct information (analysis and interpretation), other higher-order thinking skills like coherent argument construction, claim justification, and making inferences may need other targeted instructional support. The findings are corroborated by Sunra (2022), who examines the significance of reflective journals in enhancing critical thinking, particularly in the evaluation and analysis of ideas, especially within EFL contexts where language serves as both a communication tool and a medium for cognitive development.
Reflective activities enable learners to pause, question, and make meaning, conditions under which interpretation and analysis flourish. However, while Sunra underscores the importance of reflective practices, some scholars argue that explicit instruction may be necessary to maximize gains in higher-order reasoning skills. For instance, Colley et al. (2012) argue that while reflection is essential, it must be paired with structured, explicit instruction that scaffolds complex reasoning processes. In addition, Andreucci-Annunziata et al. (2023) highlighted that critical thinking is both a skill and a disposition, requiring direct instructional strategies to strengthen higher-order reasoning. Their research underscores that CT benefits from a cognitive framework that learners can internalize and apply. This is particularly relevant in EFL settings, where students are developing academic literacy alongside intellectual maturity. These support the findings of the present study that RW is a powerful driver of cognitive engagement, especially in interpretation and analysis.
Finally, the third objective of this study was to assess the influence of covariates on the effectiveness of RW in enhancing Students’ CT is also the major purpose of this study. The analysis revealed that neither age nor academic background significantly influenced the outcomes; both variables showed low effect sizes (η2 < 0.01) and non-significant p-values. This finding underscores the inclusive nature of RW as a cognitive development strategy that benefits learners across diverse backgrounds and academic profiles. This finding aligns with Ghanizadeh (2017), who examined the interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, and academic achievement, finding that self-monitoring and engagement in reflection were stronger predictors of success than prior academic performance.
However, pretest scores in certain subskills significantly predicted posttest outcomes, especially for Interpretation (η2 = 0.385, p = 0.000), Analysis (η2 = 0.179, p = 0.004), and Explanation (η2 = 0.223, p = 0.001). This suggests that RW builds on students’ existing strengths rather than creating new skills. These conclusions align with Bouanani (2015), who found that RW interventions significantly enhance CT skills, particularly in interpretation and analysis. These studies support the idea that reflection amplifies prior skills such as identifying assumptions, biases, relevant information, and questioning sources. The analysis also revealed potential cross-skill relationships among CT subskills, with Analysis pretest scores nearly predicting Interpretation posttest outcomes and Inference marginally related to Explanation. This supports Facione (1990c) view of CT subskills as overlapping and Williams et al. (2012), who argue that reflective tasks foster flexible movement across skills in a holistic reasoning process.
Implications
In Ethiopia, such integration can empower educators with self-assessment skills and a more student-centered approach, essential for meeting diverse learner needs and preparing teachers for evolving educational challenges.
Globally, as education shifts from traditional, exam-driven models to more reflective, communicative methods, reflective writing emerges as a valuable tool to enhance both linguistic proficiency and higher-order cognitive skills in EFL contexts.
Conclusion
Reflective writing significantly enhances critical thinking in EFL learners by boosting foundational skills like interpretation, analysis, and explanation. Grounded in experiential learning theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural constructivism, and Driscoll’s reflective writing model, the framework confirms that students build knowledge through active, reflective processes. The study also shows that while age and prior academic performance do not affect outcomes, students with stronger pretest skills benefit more, indicating that reflection amplifies existing competencies rather than creating new ones. However, the moderate improvement in higher-order thinking skills such as evaluation and inference suggests that additional instructional support might be necessary. In short, incorporating reflective writing into English Language Education can transform teaching practices by moving away from rote memorization toward developing critical thinking and effective communication skills. Future research should examine the long-term impact of RW on CT and Critical Disposition in EFL contexts and delve into the underlying processes through qualitative studies.
Limitations
The study found a positive effect of reflective writing (RW) on the CT skills of Ethiopian EFL students. However, the small sample size and regular teaching schedule of a single college may limit the applicability of the findings to other educational contexts. The brief intervention period also hindered long-term evaluation, raising questions about the permanence of CT improvements. The research may have overlooked other significant effects of reflective writing, such as greater writing fluency. Additionally, socio-political and economic issues in Ethiopia may have influenced emotional well-being and involvement during the intervention.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my wife, Zinash Wami, for her invaluable support.
Author contributions
GTC led the primary research and drafted the main manuscript. ATD, AAE, and AGT provided ongoing supervision and contributed to refining the manuscript for clarity and accuracy. All authors reviewed and approved the final version prior to submission.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Artificial intelligence tools
In preparing this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT, Quillbot, and Grammarly to assist with language enhancement and grammar checking. ChatGPT and Quillbot were employed to improve the clarity and flow of the text, while Grammarly was used to refine grammar and style. All AI-generated or AI-assisted content was thoroughly reviewed and edited by the authors to ensure accuracy, coherence, and alignment with the study’s objectives. The authors take full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.
Ethical approval
This study was ethically reviewed and approved by the Department of Graduate Council of Postgraduate Programs (CPGP) at Haramaya University on April 26, 2024 (Ref. No. PPD/ድፕዳ 18/843/16). Since Haramaya University does not currently have a separate Institutional Review Board (IRB), the CPGP serves as the authorized body for overseeing research ethics. The first author, Gemechu Tola Chala (PhD Candidate, ID No. PHD/961/15), obtained this approval as part of his doctoral research in the Department of English Language and Literature. The approval process followed ethical standards equivalent to those outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring that the study met accepted ethical principles for research involving human participants.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants on June 24, 2024, after being informed about the intervention’s purpose and procedures, including reflective journal writing and group debriefing as part of regular classroom instructional activities in the Basic Writing Skills course. We assured the participants that their participation or withdrawal would not affect their academic standing, and we strictly maintained confidentiality and anonymity. At the conclusion of the study, Asella College of Teacher Education provided a letter affirming the credibility and academic soundness of the research (Ref. No. KBBA/2-523/61, dated October 4, 2024).
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Abrami, PC; Bernard, RM; Borokhovski, E; Wade, A; Surkes, MA; Tamim, R; Zhang, D. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res; 2008; 78,
Abuhussein HF (2022) EFL learners’ attitudes towards online reflective journals’ impact on creative writing: an analytical study. [ep2208.]. Int J Prof Dev Learn Learn. https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/12326
Andreucci-Annunziata, P; Riedemann, A; Cortés, S; Mellado, A; del Río, MT; Vega-Muñoz, A. Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: a systematic review of systematic reviews [Review]. Front Educ; 2023; 8, 2023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1141686]
Answers N (2024) Driscoll’s model of reflection. https://nursinganswers.net/reflective-guides/driscoll-model-of-reflection.php?vref=1
Bassot B (2015) The reflective practice guide: an interdisciplinary approach to critical reflection, 1st edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768298
Bekalu Mulualem, M; Tamiru, AB; Dagnaw Kelkay, A. Traditional educational systems in Ethiopia: a pedagogical practices inquiry. Rev Educ Pedagog Cult Stud; 2022; 44,
Bouanani, N. Enhancing critical thinking skills through reflective writing intervention among business college students. IOSR J Res Method Educ; 2015; 5,
Colley BM, Bilics AR, Lerch CM (2012) Reflection: a key component to thinking critically. Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2012.1.2
Davidson BW, Dunham RL (1996) Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed403302
Dewey J (1934) Having an experience. In: Art as experience. Milton, Balch and Company. https://books.google.com.et
Elder L, Paul R (2021) Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Marland, USA. https://books.google.com.et/books/about/Critical_Thinking.html?id=MXZPEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Facione NC, Facione PA, Giancarlo CA (1994) The disposition toward critical thinking as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%28Giancarlo+and+Facione%2C+1994&btnG
Facione PA (1990a) The California Critical Thinking Skills Test-college Level: Technical Report #1: Experimental validation and content validity. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA, USA
Facione PA (1990b) The California Critical Thinking Skills Test-college Level: Technical Report #2: Factors predictive of critical thinking skills. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA, USA
Facione PA (1990c) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Facione%2C+P.+%281990%29.+Critical+thinking%3A+A+statement+of+expert+consensus+for+purposes+of+educational+assessment+and+instruction+%28The+Delphi+Report%29.&btnG
Facione PA (1990d) The California critical thinking skills test–college level. Tech Rep# 1. Experimental validation and content validity. C. A. Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED327549
Fox, J; Cavner, Delta. 21st-Century teaching and learning in Ethiopia: challenges and hindrances. Int J Pedagog Curric; 2015; 22,
Gergera SG, Tesmand AG (2023) Higher-order thinking skills in teaching reading skills at Ethiopian higher education: a qualitative study on classroom practice, and teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. Psychol Educ Stud. https://doi.org/10.17759/psyedu.2023150107
Ghanizadeh, A. The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. High Educ; 2017; 74,
Grimard Wilson, D; Wagner, EE. The Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal as a predictor of performance in a critical thinking course. Educ Psychol Meas; 1981; 44, pp. 1319-1322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100443]
Gudeta D (2022) Professional development through reflective practice: the case of Addis Ababa secondary school EFL in-service teachers. Cogent Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2030076
Helyer, R. Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). J Work Appl Manag; 2015; 7, pp. 15-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-003]
Hussein, H. Examining the effects of reflective journals on students’ growth mindset: a case study of tertiary level EFL students in the United Arab Emirates. IAFOR J Educ; 2018; 6,
Lin M, Xiang X (2019) Integrating critical thinking into an EFL writing curriculum: a mediated model. In: Thinking skills and creativity in second language education. Routledge, pp 95–130. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315098920-6
Liu, OL; Shaw, A; Gu, L; Li, G; Hu, S; Yu, N; Loyalka, P. Assessing college critical thinking: preliminary results from the Chinese HEIghten® Critical Thinking assessment. High Educ Res Dev; 2018; 37,
Matten, D; Moon, J. Corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics; 2004; 54,
MOE (2023) Quality of education in Ethiopia - Panel discussion report (1).pdf. https://www.psi.org.et/index.php/policy-briefs?download=151:quality-of-education-in-ethiopia-panel-discussion-report
Naber JL (2011) The effect of reflective writing interventions on critical thinking skills. Dissertation, University of Tennessee. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1104
Nurwanti DI, Kurniawati N, Sani SM (2017) The use of reflective writing to improve students’ writing and critical thinking skills. Paper presented at the The Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and The Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with The First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007166903310335
Paul, R; Elder, L. Critical thinking: the nature of critical and creative thought. J Dev Educ; 2006; 30,
Paul, RW. Critical thinking in North America: a new theory of knowledge, learning, and literacy. Argumentation; 1989; 3, pp. 197-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00128149]
Plack M, Santasier A (2004). Reflective practice: a model to enhance professional behaviors, integration and critical thinking within a case studies classroom experience. J Phys Ther Educ. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-200401000-00002
Rogers J, Revesz A (2019) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In: The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge, pp 133–143. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780367824471-12
Schön DA (1992) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, 1st edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Schunk DH, Zimmerman B (eds) (2011) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 1st edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010
Stanley, JC; Campbell, DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research; 1963; Chicago, R. McNally: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00022-000
Sternberg RJ (2013) Wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesised: a model of giftedness. In: The Routledge international companion to gifted education. Routledge, pp 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400715
Sunra L (2022) Students’ critical thinking and writing skills regarded to reflective writing. INFERENCE J English Lang Teach. https://doi.org/10.51629/cjls.v2i2.111
Tlale-Mkhize M, Liebenberg J (2024) Reflective practice to foster critical thinking among students. Paper presented at the 2024 international conference on multidisciplinary research, Pearle Beach Resort & Spa, Mauritius, 7–9 November 2024
Williams K, Woolliams M, Spiro J (2012) Reflective writing. Bloomsbury Academic. https://books.google.com.et/books?id=-YSsuAAACAAJ
Yeh, H-C; Yang, S-H; Fu, JS; Shih, Y-C. Developing college students’ critical thinking through reflective writing. High Educ Res Dev; 2022; 42,
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.