EL EFECTO DE LAS RUTINAS DE PENSAMIENTO
CENTRALES COMO POTENCIADORAS DEL
PENSAMIENTO CRÍTICO EN EL DESARROLLO
DE HABILIDADES METACOGNITIVAS EN LA
EDUCACIÓN SUPERIOR: UN ESTUDIO EN LA
UNIVERSIDAD HISPANOAMERICANA (SEGUNDO
CUATRIMESTRE, 2025)
THE EFFECT OF CORE THINKING ROUTINES AS CRITICAL
THINKING ENHANCERS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
METACOGNITIVE SKILLS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A STUDY AT
UNIVERSIDAD HISPANOAMERICANA (SECOND TERM, 2025)
Adriana Apuy Rojas
Universidad Hispanoamericana - Costa Rica
pág. 8644
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.20199
El efecto de las rutinas de pensamiento centrales como potenciadoras del
pensamiento crítico en el desarrollo de habilidades metacognitivas en la
educación superior: un estudio en la Universidad Hispanoamericana
(Segundo Cuatrimestre, 2025)
Adriana Apuy Rojas1
adriana.apuy0341@uhispano.ac.cr
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1349-0408
Universidad Hispanoamericana
Costa Rica
RESUMEN
Este estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar el efecto de las rutinas de pensamiento visibles (Visible
Thinking Routines, VTRs) como herramientas potenciadoras del pensamiento crítico y el desarrollo de
habilidades metacognitivas en la educación superior. La investigación se llevó a cabo durante el segundo
cuatrimestre del 2025 en la Universidad Hispanoamericana, utilizando un diseño metodológico mixto
de tipo exploratorio secuencial. Participaron cinco docentes universitarios de diferentes áreas del
conocimiento y un total de 72 estudiantes. Se aplicaron cuatro instrumentos: una encuesta inicial a los
docentes sobre su conocimiento de la metacognición y las VTRs, una guía de implementación con tres
rutinas (Ver, Pensar, Preguntarse; Puntos de la brújula; y Antes Pensaba... Ahora Pienso...), una encuesta
de percepción estudiantil, y una encuesta final de valoración docente. Los resultados mostraron
percepciones mayoritariamente positivas tanto en docentes como en estudiantes respecto al impacto de
las rutinas en la comprensión, reflexión y participación activa en el aula. Aunque se identificaron algunas
dificultades en la integración de las rutinas en la planificación, los hallazgos sugieren que las VTRs
constituyen una estrategia pedagógica viable y beneficiosa para promover el aprendizaje autorregulado
y el pensamiento crítico en contextos universitarios.
Palabras clave: innovación pedagógica, aprendizaje autorregulado, práctica reflexiva, andamiaje
cognitivo, razonamiento de orden superior
1 Autor Principal
Correspondencia: adriana.apuy0341@uhispano.ac.cr
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.20199
El efecto de las rutinas de pensamiento centrales como potenciadoras del
pensamiento crítico en el desarrollo de habilidades metacognitivas en la
educación superior: un estudio en la Universidad Hispanoamericana
(Segundo Cuatrimestre, 2025)
Adriana Apuy Rojas1
adriana.apuy0341@uhispano.ac.cr
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1349-0408
Universidad Hispanoamericana
Costa Rica
RESUMEN
Este estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar el efecto de las rutinas de pensamiento visibles (Visible
Thinking Routines, VTRs) como herramientas potenciadoras del pensamiento crítico y el desarrollo de
habilidades metacognitivas en la educación superior. La investigación se llevó a cabo durante el segundo
cuatrimestre del 2025 en la Universidad Hispanoamericana, utilizando un diseño metodológico mixto
de tipo exploratorio secuencial. Participaron cinco docentes universitarios de diferentes áreas del
conocimiento y un total de 72 estudiantes. Se aplicaron cuatro instrumentos: una encuesta inicial a los
docentes sobre su conocimiento de la metacognición y las VTRs, una guía de implementación con tres
rutinas (Ver, Pensar, Preguntarse; Puntos de la brújula; y Antes Pensaba... Ahora Pienso...), una encuesta
de percepción estudiantil, y una encuesta final de valoración docente. Los resultados mostraron
percepciones mayoritariamente positivas tanto en docentes como en estudiantes respecto al impacto de
las rutinas en la comprensión, reflexión y participación activa en el aula. Aunque se identificaron algunas
dificultades en la integración de las rutinas en la planificación, los hallazgos sugieren que las VTRs
constituyen una estrategia pedagógica viable y beneficiosa para promover el aprendizaje autorregulado
y el pensamiento crítico en contextos universitarios.
Palabras clave: innovación pedagógica, aprendizaje autorregulado, práctica reflexiva, andamiaje
cognitivo, razonamiento de orden superior
1 Autor Principal
Correspondencia: adriana.apuy0341@uhispano.ac.cr
pág. 8645
The effect of core thinking routines as critical thinking enhancers on the
development of metacognitive skills in higher education: A study at
Universidad Hispanoamericana (Second Term, 2025)
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to analyze the effect of Visible Thinking Routines (VTRs) as tools to enhance critical
thinking and the development of metacognitive skills in higher education. The research was conducted
during the second academic term of 2025 at Universidad Hispanoamericana, using a mixed-methods
exploratory sequential design. Five university professors from different subject areas and a total of 72
students participated in the study. Four instruments were applied: a pre-implementation survey to assess
professors’ knowledge of metacognition and VTRs, an implementation guide featuring three routines
(See, Think, Wonder; Compass Points; and I Used to Think, Now I Think), a student perception survey,
and a post-implementation teacher reflection survey. Results revealed predominantly positive
perceptions from both professors and students regarding the impact of VTRs on comprehension,
reflection, and active classroom engagement. While some challenges were noted in integrating the
routines into existing lesson planning, findings suggest that VTRs are a viable and beneficial
pedagogical strategy for promoting self-regulated learning and critical thinking in university-level
settings.
Key words: pedagogical innovation, self-regulated learning, reflective practice, cognitive scaffolding,
higher-order reasoning
The effect of core thinking routines as critical thinking enhancers on the
development of metacognitive skills in higher education: A study at
Universidad Hispanoamericana (Second Term, 2025)
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to analyze the effect of Visible Thinking Routines (VTRs) as tools to enhance critical
thinking and the development of metacognitive skills in higher education. The research was conducted
during the second academic term of 2025 at Universidad Hispanoamericana, using a mixed-methods
exploratory sequential design. Five university professors from different subject areas and a total of 72
students participated in the study. Four instruments were applied: a pre-implementation survey to assess
professors’ knowledge of metacognition and VTRs, an implementation guide featuring three routines
(See, Think, Wonder; Compass Points; and I Used to Think, Now I Think), a student perception survey,
and a post-implementation teacher reflection survey. Results revealed predominantly positive
perceptions from both professors and students regarding the impact of VTRs on comprehension,
reflection, and active classroom engagement. While some challenges were noted in integrating the
routines into existing lesson planning, findings suggest that VTRs are a viable and beneficial
pedagogical strategy for promoting self-regulated learning and critical thinking in university-level
settings.
Key words: pedagogical innovation, self-regulated learning, reflective practice, cognitive scaffolding,
higher-order reasoning
pág. 8646
INTRODUCTION
In contemporary higher education, the development of students’ critical thinking and metacognitive
skills has become a pedagogical priority. Universities today are expected not only to deliver disciplinary
knowledge but also to foster higher-order cognitive skills that enable learners to reason, reflect, adapt,
and transfer knowledge across contexts. Critical thinking is commonly understood as the ability to
analyze information, evaluate arguments, and draw sound conclusions analyze, organize, reason,
argument, evaluate and position knowledge to make decisions (Galindo-Domínguez et al., 2023).
Meanwhile, metacognitive skills play a role in regulating and controlling students’ cognitive processes
in learning and thinking, and this regulation significantly influences learning outcomes (Willison et al.,
2023).
The link between metacognitive regulation and critical thinking development is well supported in
educational studies. Academic research consistently emphasizes the interconnection between these two
domains. Metacognitive regulation enables learners to be more intentional in their use of cognitive
strategies and, as a result, enhances their ability to critically assess information and construct well-
reasoned arguments (Pereles et al., 2024). For instance, research indicates that conscious use of
metacognitive strategies—such as self-assessment and reflective questioning—supports enhanced
monitoring and regulation, which in turn improves critical thinking performance (Rivas et al., 2022). In
Spanish higher education findings Guamanga, Saiz, Rivas, and Bueno (2025), demonstrate that critical
thinking directly strengthens metacognitive capability, and this enhanced metacognition subsequently
contributes to higher levels of psychological well-being and empathy in learners.
In this regard, metacognition functions not only as a support mechanism but as an enabler of deep,
critical engagement with content. However, while their value is widely recognized, effective
pedagogical interventions that target the development of both critical thinking and metacognitive skills
in higher education remain insufficiently explored in many educational contexts—particularly in Latin
America.
Dennis and Somerville (2023) found that while higher education faculty often express appreciation for
metacognitive-supportive strategies in theory, only about 37.5% were familiar with metacognitive
principles—and even then, they tended to emphasize knowledge-focused practices rather than cognitive
INTRODUCTION
In contemporary higher education, the development of students’ critical thinking and metacognitive
skills has become a pedagogical priority. Universities today are expected not only to deliver disciplinary
knowledge but also to foster higher-order cognitive skills that enable learners to reason, reflect, adapt,
and transfer knowledge across contexts. Critical thinking is commonly understood as the ability to
analyze information, evaluate arguments, and draw sound conclusions analyze, organize, reason,
argument, evaluate and position knowledge to make decisions (Galindo-Domínguez et al., 2023).
Meanwhile, metacognitive skills play a role in regulating and controlling students’ cognitive processes
in learning and thinking, and this regulation significantly influences learning outcomes (Willison et al.,
2023).
The link between metacognitive regulation and critical thinking development is well supported in
educational studies. Academic research consistently emphasizes the interconnection between these two
domains. Metacognitive regulation enables learners to be more intentional in their use of cognitive
strategies and, as a result, enhances their ability to critically assess information and construct well-
reasoned arguments (Pereles et al., 2024). For instance, research indicates that conscious use of
metacognitive strategies—such as self-assessment and reflective questioning—supports enhanced
monitoring and regulation, which in turn improves critical thinking performance (Rivas et al., 2022). In
Spanish higher education findings Guamanga, Saiz, Rivas, and Bueno (2025), demonstrate that critical
thinking directly strengthens metacognitive capability, and this enhanced metacognition subsequently
contributes to higher levels of psychological well-being and empathy in learners.
In this regard, metacognition functions not only as a support mechanism but as an enabler of deep,
critical engagement with content. However, while their value is widely recognized, effective
pedagogical interventions that target the development of both critical thinking and metacognitive skills
in higher education remain insufficiently explored in many educational contexts—particularly in Latin
America.
Dennis and Somerville (2023) found that while higher education faculty often express appreciation for
metacognitive-supportive strategies in theory, only about 37.5% were familiar with metacognitive
principles—and even then, they tended to emphasize knowledge-focused practices rather than cognitive
pág. 8647
regulation. Most incorporated minimal scaffolding for student self-reflection or cognitive monitoring,
illustrating a persistent dependence on content transmission. This metacognition theory–practice gap
highlights an urgent need for scalable, practical interventions—such as professional development
programs—that enable instructors to move beyond valuing these strategies in principle to embedding
them consistently in teaching.
One promising strategy to this pedagogical shortfall is the implementation of thinking routines, a set of
structured thinking prompts designed to make learners’ cognitive processes visible. These routines,
developed by researchers at Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, such as See–Think–
Wonder, Claim–Support–Question, and Compass Points, which are designed to help students convey
their thought processes and develop habits of inquiry and reflection to encourage reflection, questioning,
and cognitive articulation (Project Zero, 2022). Although initially applied in primary and secondary
education, their use in higher education has begun to gain attention, especially for their potential to
promote not just cognitive engagement but also metacognitive growth.
Recent research has begun to empirically support the use of thinking routines in university classrooms.
For example, Ramos-Vallecillo et al. (2024) show that integrating thinking routines into university
courses fosters meaningful conceptual understanding, elevates the quantity and quality of classroom
discourse, and promotes reflective self-awareness among students regarding their learning processes.
Similarly, in the study by ElSayad (2024) examined blended learning environments, which found that
academic self-efficacy, student–student and student–lecturer interactions significantly influenced
planning, monitoring, and regulating—key components of metacognitive self-regulation—which in turn
affected perceived learning outcomes in blended settings.
Despite these encouraging results, the use of thinking routines as systematic tools for metacognitive
development remains under-researched, particularly in non-English-speaking academic environments.
While most existing studies focus on North America or Europe, one recent contribution from Costa Rica
demonstrates the efficacy of thinking routines: in a master’s-level theoretical course, the use of such
routines significantly improved reading comprehension and triggered critical, reflective, and meaningful
learning among Spanish-speaking students (Calvo-Cascante, 2024). This highlights the potential of
regulation. Most incorporated minimal scaffolding for student self-reflection or cognitive monitoring,
illustrating a persistent dependence on content transmission. This metacognition theory–practice gap
highlights an urgent need for scalable, practical interventions—such as professional development
programs—that enable instructors to move beyond valuing these strategies in principle to embedding
them consistently in teaching.
One promising strategy to this pedagogical shortfall is the implementation of thinking routines, a set of
structured thinking prompts designed to make learners’ cognitive processes visible. These routines,
developed by researchers at Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, such as See–Think–
Wonder, Claim–Support–Question, and Compass Points, which are designed to help students convey
their thought processes and develop habits of inquiry and reflection to encourage reflection, questioning,
and cognitive articulation (Project Zero, 2022). Although initially applied in primary and secondary
education, their use in higher education has begun to gain attention, especially for their potential to
promote not just cognitive engagement but also metacognitive growth.
Recent research has begun to empirically support the use of thinking routines in university classrooms.
For example, Ramos-Vallecillo et al. (2024) show that integrating thinking routines into university
courses fosters meaningful conceptual understanding, elevates the quantity and quality of classroom
discourse, and promotes reflective self-awareness among students regarding their learning processes.
Similarly, in the study by ElSayad (2024) examined blended learning environments, which found that
academic self-efficacy, student–student and student–lecturer interactions significantly influenced
planning, monitoring, and regulating—key components of metacognitive self-regulation—which in turn
affected perceived learning outcomes in blended settings.
Despite these encouraging results, the use of thinking routines as systematic tools for metacognitive
development remains under-researched, particularly in non-English-speaking academic environments.
While most existing studies focus on North America or Europe, one recent contribution from Costa Rica
demonstrates the efficacy of thinking routines: in a master’s-level theoretical course, the use of such
routines significantly improved reading comprehension and triggered critical, reflective, and meaningful
learning among Spanish-speaking students (Calvo-Cascante, 2024). This highlights the potential of
pág. 8648
thinking routines across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts—and underscores the need for more
research in Latin American and non-English higher education settings.
In the Costa Rican higher education context, the use of thinking routines is largely anecdotal and has
not been the subject of rigorous empirical investigation. Universidad Hispanoamericana, a private
institution committed to educational innovation, presents a valuable case study for exploring how these
routines function in real classroom settings. The present study, conducted during the second term of
2025, seeks to address this gap by evaluating the impact of core thinking routines on the development
of critical thinking and metacognitive skills among undergraduate students.
The central hypothesis of this research is that the structured and consistent use of thinking routines in
university courses can serve as a catalyst for both critical and metacognitive development. Specifically,
the study investigates whether students exposed to thinking routines over a 3-week period demonstrate
measurable improvements in (1) their ability to regulate their learning processes, (2) their capacity for
critical analysis and argumentation, and (3) their engagement in reflective discourse that deepens
conceptual understanding and promotes meaningful learning.
Finally, this research contributes to the growing conversation on pedagogical innovation in Latin
America by offering context-sensitive evidence about how global educational practices can be adapted
and evaluated within local realities. It provides a model for integrating thinking routines into university
courses in a way that supports both cognitive and metacognitive growth, responding to the dual
challenge of fostering academic excellence and promoting student autonomy.
Linking Critical Thinking and Metacognition in Higher Education
Stanton, Sebesta, and Dunlosky (2021) argue that metacognition—defined as the awareness and control
of thinking—can substantially influence student learning and performance. They recommend practical
instructional strategies for educators, including supporting learning strategies, encouraging monitoring
and control of learning, and fostering social metacognition in group work, and offer a set of four easily
implementable teaching practices to enhance metacognitive engagement across disciplines.
Extending this perspective, Willison et al. (2024) synthesizes a hierarchical model of metacognition that
integrates metacognitive knowledge—awareness of one’s thinking—and metacognitive regulation—
deliberate control over cognitive strategies. This dual emphasis aligns with what can be described as
thinking routines across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts—and underscores the need for more
research in Latin American and non-English higher education settings.
In the Costa Rican higher education context, the use of thinking routines is largely anecdotal and has
not been the subject of rigorous empirical investigation. Universidad Hispanoamericana, a private
institution committed to educational innovation, presents a valuable case study for exploring how these
routines function in real classroom settings. The present study, conducted during the second term of
2025, seeks to address this gap by evaluating the impact of core thinking routines on the development
of critical thinking and metacognitive skills among undergraduate students.
The central hypothesis of this research is that the structured and consistent use of thinking routines in
university courses can serve as a catalyst for both critical and metacognitive development. Specifically,
the study investigates whether students exposed to thinking routines over a 3-week period demonstrate
measurable improvements in (1) their ability to regulate their learning processes, (2) their capacity for
critical analysis and argumentation, and (3) their engagement in reflective discourse that deepens
conceptual understanding and promotes meaningful learning.
Finally, this research contributes to the growing conversation on pedagogical innovation in Latin
America by offering context-sensitive evidence about how global educational practices can be adapted
and evaluated within local realities. It provides a model for integrating thinking routines into university
courses in a way that supports both cognitive and metacognitive growth, responding to the dual
challenge of fostering academic excellence and promoting student autonomy.
Linking Critical Thinking and Metacognition in Higher Education
Stanton, Sebesta, and Dunlosky (2021) argue that metacognition—defined as the awareness and control
of thinking—can substantially influence student learning and performance. They recommend practical
instructional strategies for educators, including supporting learning strategies, encouraging monitoring
and control of learning, and fostering social metacognition in group work, and offer a set of four easily
implementable teaching practices to enhance metacognitive engagement across disciplines.
Extending this perspective, Willison et al. (2024) synthesizes a hierarchical model of metacognition that
integrates metacognitive knowledge—awareness of one’s thinking—and metacognitive regulation—
deliberate control over cognitive strategies. This dual emphasis aligns with what can be described as
pág. 8649
metacognitive literacy: the capacity to consciously guide, monitor, and adjust thinking to support
informed reasoning. Chen et al. (2025) reinforce this view by defining metacognition as the deliberate
awareness and examination of one’s own learning and thought processes, positioning it as a
developmental pathway through which learners actively reflect on and regulate their cognition. Together,
these perspectives underscore a theoretical foundation in which metacognition operates both as a
precursor and as a facilitator of robust critical thinking, enabling students to engage in disciplined,
strategic, and evidence-based reasoning.
Current educational research emphasizes that critical thinking and metacognition are mutually
reinforcing cognitive domains—each supporting and amplifying the other in structured learning
environments. For instance, Jaramillo Gómez et al. (2025) conducted a comprehensive narrative review
identifying metacognition—alongside motivation, cognitive autonomy, active pedagogical strategies,
and collaborative work—as one of the key psychological and educational determinants of critical
thinking in higher education, emphasizing the multifactorial nature of its development. Similarly, Saleh
et al. (2023) provide compelling quantitative evidence of this interplay in a high school context: their
regression analysis showed that metacognitive skills contributed 10.06% to male student retention and
12.81% to female student retention, compared to critical thinking skills contributing just 2.44% for
males and 7.89% for females. These figures suggest that metacognitive processes may exert a stronger,
more foundational influence on successful learning outcomes—especially for female students.
Evidence from targeted interventions reinforces this view. The ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program (Rivas
et al., 2022), implemented in Spanish universities, combined problem-based learning with explicit
metacognitive scaffolding, including reflective prompts, decision maps, and structured peer discussions.
Findings revealed that students in the intervention group scored significantly higher on measures of both
metacognitive regulation and critical thinking compared to control groups. These results indicate that
intentionally designing learning experiences to prompt metacognitive engagement can simultaneously
strengthen self-regulation and foster deeper analytical reasoning.
This dual development pathway has relevance in higher education, where students are expected to
navigate complex disciplinary content, evaluate competing perspectives, and construct well-reasoned
arguments. Integrating thinking routines as structured, repeatable strategies offers one promising
metacognitive literacy: the capacity to consciously guide, monitor, and adjust thinking to support
informed reasoning. Chen et al. (2025) reinforce this view by defining metacognition as the deliberate
awareness and examination of one’s own learning and thought processes, positioning it as a
developmental pathway through which learners actively reflect on and regulate their cognition. Together,
these perspectives underscore a theoretical foundation in which metacognition operates both as a
precursor and as a facilitator of robust critical thinking, enabling students to engage in disciplined,
strategic, and evidence-based reasoning.
Current educational research emphasizes that critical thinking and metacognition are mutually
reinforcing cognitive domains—each supporting and amplifying the other in structured learning
environments. For instance, Jaramillo Gómez et al. (2025) conducted a comprehensive narrative review
identifying metacognition—alongside motivation, cognitive autonomy, active pedagogical strategies,
and collaborative work—as one of the key psychological and educational determinants of critical
thinking in higher education, emphasizing the multifactorial nature of its development. Similarly, Saleh
et al. (2023) provide compelling quantitative evidence of this interplay in a high school context: their
regression analysis showed that metacognitive skills contributed 10.06% to male student retention and
12.81% to female student retention, compared to critical thinking skills contributing just 2.44% for
males and 7.89% for females. These figures suggest that metacognitive processes may exert a stronger,
more foundational influence on successful learning outcomes—especially for female students.
Evidence from targeted interventions reinforces this view. The ARDESOS-DIAPROVE program (Rivas
et al., 2022), implemented in Spanish universities, combined problem-based learning with explicit
metacognitive scaffolding, including reflective prompts, decision maps, and structured peer discussions.
Findings revealed that students in the intervention group scored significantly higher on measures of both
metacognitive regulation and critical thinking compared to control groups. These results indicate that
intentionally designing learning experiences to prompt metacognitive engagement can simultaneously
strengthen self-regulation and foster deeper analytical reasoning.
This dual development pathway has relevance in higher education, where students are expected to
navigate complex disciplinary content, evaluate competing perspectives, and construct well-reasoned
arguments. Integrating thinking routines as structured, repeatable strategies offers one promising
pág. 8650
approach to operationalizing this linkage. By prompting learners to make their thinking visible, these
routines create scaffolded opportunities for monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting cognitive processes—
while simultaneously fostering critical analysis, argumentation, and reflective discourse. Building on
this theoretical base, the present study investigates whether a structured and consistent application of
thinking routines over a three-week period can produce measurable gains in:
• Students’ ability to regulate their learning processes (metacognitive regulation);
• Their capacity for critical analysis and well-reasoned argumentation (critical thinking
performance); and
• Their engagement in reflective, collaborative discourse that deepens conceptual understanding
and promotes meaningful learning.
Thinking Routines as Pedagogical Tools for Cognitive and Metacognitive Development
Thinking routines—brief, structured sets of prompts such as See–Think–Wonder and Connect–Extend–
Challenge—originated in K–12 classrooms through Harvard’s Project Zero initiative (Project Zero,
2022). While initially conceived for younger learners, emerging scholarship demonstrates their
adaptability and efficacy in higher education contexts. For example, Ramos‑Vallecillo et al. (2024)
found that when undergraduate students consistently used thinking routines across theoretical course
sessions, their engagement, reflective depth, conceptual understanding, and academic performance all
improved. The routines facilitated activation of prior knowledge and collaborative reasoning, thereby
transforming abstract notions of reflection into tangible, classroom-centered practices.
This potential is echoed in Nord Anglia Education’s (2024) Building Better Thinkers study, which
surveyed 2,429 students across 27 schools in 17 countries. The results show that 71% of students
reported that thinking routines deepened their thinking, while over two-thirds noted improvements in
critical thinking, creativity, curiosity, compassion, collaboration, and commitment. These findings
underscore how, with consistent weekly implementation, thinking routines can evolve from novel
classroom activities into habitual cognitive strategies—integrated by learners as part of their self-
regulatory toolkit.
Along with Jaramillo Gómez et al. (2025), “The conscious and intentional use of metacognitive
strategies, such as continuous self-assessment and reflective questioning, facilitates the monitoring and
approach to operationalizing this linkage. By prompting learners to make their thinking visible, these
routines create scaffolded opportunities for monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting cognitive processes—
while simultaneously fostering critical analysis, argumentation, and reflective discourse. Building on
this theoretical base, the present study investigates whether a structured and consistent application of
thinking routines over a three-week period can produce measurable gains in:
• Students’ ability to regulate their learning processes (metacognitive regulation);
• Their capacity for critical analysis and well-reasoned argumentation (critical thinking
performance); and
• Their engagement in reflective, collaborative discourse that deepens conceptual understanding
and promotes meaningful learning.
Thinking Routines as Pedagogical Tools for Cognitive and Metacognitive Development
Thinking routines—brief, structured sets of prompts such as See–Think–Wonder and Connect–Extend–
Challenge—originated in K–12 classrooms through Harvard’s Project Zero initiative (Project Zero,
2022). While initially conceived for younger learners, emerging scholarship demonstrates their
adaptability and efficacy in higher education contexts. For example, Ramos‑Vallecillo et al. (2024)
found that when undergraduate students consistently used thinking routines across theoretical course
sessions, their engagement, reflective depth, conceptual understanding, and academic performance all
improved. The routines facilitated activation of prior knowledge and collaborative reasoning, thereby
transforming abstract notions of reflection into tangible, classroom-centered practices.
This potential is echoed in Nord Anglia Education’s (2024) Building Better Thinkers study, which
surveyed 2,429 students across 27 schools in 17 countries. The results show that 71% of students
reported that thinking routines deepened their thinking, while over two-thirds noted improvements in
critical thinking, creativity, curiosity, compassion, collaboration, and commitment. These findings
underscore how, with consistent weekly implementation, thinking routines can evolve from novel
classroom activities into habitual cognitive strategies—integrated by learners as part of their self-
regulatory toolkit.
Along with Jaramillo Gómez et al. (2025), “The conscious and intentional use of metacognitive
strategies, such as continuous self-assessment and reflective questioning, facilitates the monitoring and
pág. 8651
regulation of cognitive processes, promoting more effective learning in university students” (p. 12).
These insights support the assumption that pedagogical tools encouraging self-questioning, like thinking
routines, may promote self-regulatory behaviors.
The connection between thinking routines and self-regulated learning is further reinforced by research
on metacognitive strategy instruction. Khurram (2023), in a study with ESL university students,
demonstrated that “explicit instruction in metacognitive reading strategies significantly enhanced ESL
university students’ ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading, leading to measurable gains in
both metacognitive awareness and strategy use” (p. 7). Quantitatively, the intervention resulted in
statistically significant increases on the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
(MARSI): planning strategies improved by 0.59 points, monitoring strategies by 0.53 points, and
evaluating strategies by 0.61 points (p < .05). These three processes—planning, monitoring, and
evaluation—are core elements of metacognitive regulation and are inherently embedded within many
thinking routine structures. This alignment suggests that when higher education instructors integrate
thinking routines into coursework, they are not only structuring cognitive engagement but also
reinforcing the same self-regulatory mechanisms that empirical evidence has shown to produce
measurable learning gains.
From a pedagogical standpoint, thinking routines align directly with the evolving principles of cognitive
apprenticeship. A recent qualitative revision of the model (Matsuo, 2024) confirms that key instructional
phases—modeling, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration—remain vital for cultivating
both cognitive and metacognitive skills. Specifically, Matsuo found that instructors naturally embed
opportunities for articulation and reflection within scaffolding and exploration activities, supporting
deeper processing and self-awareness. By incorporating thinking routines into instruction—paired with
explicit debriefing, reflective prompts, and iterative use—educators can emulate these practices:
modeling expert thinking, scaffolding learner reasoning, encouraging metacognitive articulation, and
reinforcing structured reflection—thus guiding students toward independent, strategic thinking.
In application, thinking routines fulfill multiple educational functions:
regulation of cognitive processes, promoting more effective learning in university students” (p. 12).
These insights support the assumption that pedagogical tools encouraging self-questioning, like thinking
routines, may promote self-regulatory behaviors.
The connection between thinking routines and self-regulated learning is further reinforced by research
on metacognitive strategy instruction. Khurram (2023), in a study with ESL university students,
demonstrated that “explicit instruction in metacognitive reading strategies significantly enhanced ESL
university students’ ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading, leading to measurable gains in
both metacognitive awareness and strategy use” (p. 7). Quantitatively, the intervention resulted in
statistically significant increases on the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
(MARSI): planning strategies improved by 0.59 points, monitoring strategies by 0.53 points, and
evaluating strategies by 0.61 points (p < .05). These three processes—planning, monitoring, and
evaluation—are core elements of metacognitive regulation and are inherently embedded within many
thinking routine structures. This alignment suggests that when higher education instructors integrate
thinking routines into coursework, they are not only structuring cognitive engagement but also
reinforcing the same self-regulatory mechanisms that empirical evidence has shown to produce
measurable learning gains.
From a pedagogical standpoint, thinking routines align directly with the evolving principles of cognitive
apprenticeship. A recent qualitative revision of the model (Matsuo, 2024) confirms that key instructional
phases—modeling, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration—remain vital for cultivating
both cognitive and metacognitive skills. Specifically, Matsuo found that instructors naturally embed
opportunities for articulation and reflection within scaffolding and exploration activities, supporting
deeper processing and self-awareness. By incorporating thinking routines into instruction—paired with
explicit debriefing, reflective prompts, and iterative use—educators can emulate these practices:
modeling expert thinking, scaffolding learner reasoning, encouraging metacognitive articulation, and
reinforcing structured reflection—thus guiding students toward independent, strategic thinking.
In application, thinking routines fulfill multiple educational functions: