Review Gold Open Access 2025

How STEM students think: an AI-powered systematic review of thinking skills in STEM higher education

Discover Education
Journal · Vol. 4 · Issue 1 · Art. 461
Abstract

In STEM education, the development of thinking skills is increasingly viewed as essential for preparing students to navigate complex and uncertain futures. However, the field remains conceptually fragmented, with diverse and sometimes overlapping terminologies, definitions, and theoretical models. This study presents an LLM-powered systematic literature review, following the ENTREQ framework to ensure methodological transparency and rigor, aimed at identifying and mapping the thinking skills most frequently discussed in STEM higher education over the past decade. Using the AI tool Elicit, 170 peer-reviewed journal articles were analyzed. The review synthesizes definitions, conceptual frameworks, and interrelations among skills such as Critical, Systems, Computational, Mathematical, Spatial, Creative, Design, Reflective, Scientific, and Complexity Thinking. The results reveal eleven core thinking skills and highlight the conceptual overlaps and distinctions between them. AI use not only expedited literature screening and coding but also mitigated selection bias by systematically applying inclusion criteria, overcoming common limitations of manual reviews such as inconsistency and time lag. This overview contributes to greater clarity and consistency in the field and provides a foundation for future curriculum design and research, supporting a more coherent integration of thinking skills in STEM education. © The Author(s) 2025.

Keywords

Author Keywords

Critical thinking Higher education STEM design thinking Systems Thinking AI-assisted research Computational thinking Conceptual mapping Elicit Thinking skills

Index Keywords

Author Affiliations
School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bayern, Germany, Center for Digital Technology and Management, Munich, Bayern, Germany
Funding & Acknowledgements
No funding information
References 10 References
1 Li, Yeping, On Thinking and STEM Education, Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 1, pp. 1-13, (2019)
2 Dori, Yehudit Judy, Teaching and Assessing Thinking Skills and Applying Educational Technologies in Higher Education, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32, 6, pp. 773-777, (2023)
3 Thorndahl, Kathrine Liedtke, Thinking critically about critical thinking and prob-lem-based learning in higher education: A scoping review, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 14, 1, pp. 1-21, (2020)
4 Tiruneh, Dawit Tibebu, Designing Learning Environments for Critical Thinking: Examining Effective Instructional Approaches, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 6, pp. 1065-1089, (2018)
5 Monteiro, Sandra D., Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills, Medical Education, 54, 1, pp. 66-73, (2020)
6 Bernard, Nathan, Using artificial intelligence for systematic review: the example of elicit, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 25, 1, (2025)
7 Huang, Biyun, Promoting Secondary Students' Twenty-First Century Skills and STEM Career Interests Through a Crossover Program of STEM and Community Service Education, Frontiers in Psychology, 13, (2022)
8 Jauré, Allison, Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, (2012)
9 Page, Matthew James, The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372, (2021)
10 Thomas, James A., Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, (2008)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
0
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers