The correlation between critical thinking tendency and the teaching style employed by faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The tendency towards critical thinking, along with its associated factors, has garnered significant interest among researchers as a pivotal professional competence for educators. Additionally, teaching styles play a crucial role in fostering critical thinking skills and enhancing one’s propensity for such thinking, thus contributing to its overall development. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between the tendency towards critical thinking and the teaching styles employed by faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This is a correlational study on 88 faculty members from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, who were selected through systematic sampling. Data were collected using Ricketts Critical Thinking Tendency Questionnaire and Grasha-Richman Teaching Style Inventory. The analysis of the data was conducted using multiple regression tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficient in SPSS software version 20 for statistical analysis.

RESULT:

The majority of the participants were 45–55 years old (63.7%) and had a doctoral degree (84.1%). Also, half of the faculty members were male and had more than 15 years of teaching experience (50%). The mean scores obtained for critical thinking disposition and teaching styles were 137.61 ± 9.48 and 153.47 ± 26.90, respectively. A statistically significant positive correlation was identified between critical thinking disposition and teaching styles (r = 0.63, P < 0.01). Additionally, an inverse correlation was found between critical thinking disposition and age (r = −0.28, P < 0.01), while a significant positive correlation was observed between critical thinking disposition and gender (r = 0.28, P < 0.01). Moreover, a significant inverse relationship between teaching styles and teaching experience was also noted (r = −0.27, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION:

The results of this research indicate a notable correlation between the inclination towards critical thinking and the teaching styles employed by faculty members. Furthermore, the propensity for critical thinking serves as a significant predictor of these teaching styles. Implementing educational initiatives focusing on critical thinking and instructional methodologies can create conducive learning environments that foster the development of critical thinking skills among both faculty and students.

Introduction

The intricate and accountable nature of teaching has captured the attention of educational planners throughout history, and it is regarded as a fundamental component of the educational process that significantly influences the operation of educational systems.[1] Over the past two decades, medical education researchers have recognized the significance of developing teaching skills.[2] Numerous investigations have been conducted regarding students’ learning styles, highlighting their importance. However, it is equally crucial to consider the teaching style, which also plays a vital role in the educational process.[3] The aim of all teaching endeavors is optimal student outcomes. Therefore, awareness of teaching styles, along with the alignment of these styles to the learning preferences of students and their diverse applications, significantly influences both the learning outcomes and the satisfaction levels of students. Furthermore, the interplay between teaching and learning styles enhances student satisfaction.[4] Teachers use different teaching styles to reach educational objectives. A highly regarded and extensive teaching style is that proposed by Grasha and Richman. This framework evaluates teaching styles through the lens of pedagogical approaches, distinguishing between student-centered and teacher-centered methodologies. Grasha shows that teaching style embodies a representation of the teacher’s behaviors, needs, beliefs, and perspectives as manifested within the classroom environment.[5] In this model, the teaching style includes: 1. Expert Style: The concept involves possessing the essential knowledge and skills that learners need, to enhance their competence through the dissemination of information; 2. Formal authority style: Occupying a role informed by expertise and pedagogical responsibilities, one endeavors to enhance the learners’ competencies through the effective dissemination of knowledge; 3. Personal style or personal model: In this style, the emphasis is on direct and continuous supervision, and faculty members believe that their teaching method is the best way to guide students; 4. Facilitator style: It highlights the dynamics of the teacher’s engagement with students, wherein the teacher facilitates learning by posing questions, delving into the subject matter, articulating viewpoints, offering reasoned recommendations, and motivating students to make their own choices. This approach enhances the inclusive ability to embrace personal accountability, with teachers serving as advisors who provide support and encouragement; and 5. Delegator Style: In this style, teachers are interested in developing the capacity of learners to do things independently. The teacher is present as a consultant, develops inclusive autonomy of students, and learners participate in projects individually; the teacher is present as an informed and helpful person when necessary.[5]

The ongoing progress in scientific disciplines, especially in medicine, has outpaced students’ ability to understand and absorb information, highlighting the need for efficient organization and training led by experts. Conventional educational approaches have not evolved in tandem with the advancements in contemporary science, thereby underscoring the significance of medical education to an even greater extent than in the past. In different studies, a wide array of innovative styles and methodologies are employed, tailored to meet specific educational objectives and enhance success.[6] The growth and cultivation of intellectual skills of students have always been a complex issue in education.

Currently, the situation has reached a critical juncture, as the volume of information produced by society has surpassed individuals’ capacity for critical analysis of that information. In recent years, educational experts have voiced their apprehensions regarding students’ diminishing ability to engage in critical thinking.[7] Critical thinking is a style of thinking about any topic, content, or form that a thinker improves the quality of his thinking by analyzing, evaluating, and renovating.[8] The application of critical thinking skills enables the utilization of scientific knowledge within practical contexts. This capability serves as a mechanism to bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and their practical applications. A primary objective of educational institutions, alongside fostering students’ professional competencies, is to cultivate skills in decision-making, problem-solving, and self-efficacy, all of which being significantly enhanced by the practice of critical thinking.[9] The development of students’ abilities and critical thinking skills is inherently reliant on the guidance of educators; it cannot be achieved solely through passive activities such as attending lectures, reading textbooks, and completing examinations. It is essential for faculty members to articulate the significance of critical thinking within their academic discipline and to create opportunities for students to engage in the practice of critical thinking skills.[10] Critical thinking in medical science education is also considered as the goal of education and includes the organization of information in special situations.[11] In this regard, students can attain understanding and acquire knowledge through cognitive exertion. The capacity to address issues at the patient’s bedside is crucial for effective care. According to Abello et al.,[12] critical thinking has two dimensions: emotional and cognitive; cognitive aspects consist of cognitive strategies, and the emotional aspect is the tendency toward critical thinking. By enhancing critical thinking skills, healthcare professionals are better equipped to make informed decisions, thereby delivering optimal service throughout the caregiving process.[13] In addition, the necessity of critical thinking in medical science education has been doubly emphasized as medical education must be in line with the rapid developments of the 21^st century.[14] Numerous prior studies have investigated teaching styles and critical thinking tendencies of the faculty members; however, there is a paucity of research that explores the correlation between these two variables.[14,15,16] In addition, many studies have highlighted the importance of fostering students’ critical thinking skills through suitable educational approaches.[17,18] As indicated in Vasli et al.’s[19] study, poor critical thinking can bring about numerous negative consequences in clinical conditions, such as depression, failure to solve patient problems, and deficient clinical reasoning. Faculty members play a pivotal role in providing educational guidance and leadership, as well as in fostering essential skills among medical students. Furthermore, the development of critical thinking by educators is crucial for effective clinical decision-making and the attainment of professional competence.[20] Likewise, enhancing the capabilities of faculty members in teaching, research, and leadership contributes significantly to the fulfillment of the mission and overarching objectives of universities.[21] The identification of educational needs serves as a crucial component in the development planning of faculty members and plays a significant role in enhancing the quality of education. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of critical thinking among Shiraz University of Medical Sciences faculty members and investigate the correlation between critical thinking tendency and the teaching styles employed by faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Moreover, we sought to answer whether the faculty members’ critical thinking predicts their teaching styles adopted and explore the relationship between the faculty members’ teaching style adopted and their demographic features.

As to the significance of the study, to the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted so far on the correlation between the two above-mentioned factors. Moreover, attention to teaching methods is one of the essential issues in higher education, and an appropriate teaching method guarantees the students’ learning. The faculty members are required to be aware of their teaching method, leading to considerable effects on their functioning, which in turn leads to students’ optimal academic performance. Developing critical thinking is significant in learning. As Yuan and Liao in a study conducted in 2024 highlight, without understanding teacher cognitions, it is less probable to successfully implement it in the curriculum; thus, it is less likely to educate the open-minded, flexible, and self-regulated learners equipped with critical skills. According to them, we can equally identify opportunities and barriers in promoting critical thinking only when we analyze teachers’ practice.[22]

The theoretical framework of the study

The following Figure visually represents the conceptual framework that underpinned the study [Figure 1].

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of the study

1. Contextual factors: This layer represents demographic variables such as age, gender, education, and teaching experience, which shape the faculty members’ teaching styles and critical thinking tendencies. Understanding these factors provides the context for interpreting the results of the study.

2. Critical thinking tendency: This component of the framework highlights the three dimensions of critical thinking as identified in the study (Innovativeness, Cognitive Maturity, and Engagement). The framework posits that faculty members with higher levels of critical thinking disposition are likely to employ more effective teaching styles.

3. Teaching Styles Employed: This section illustrates the various teaching styles (Expert, Formal Authority, Personal Model, Facilitator, Delegator) that faculty may adopt. The framework suggests a positive correlation between critical thinking tendency and the adoption of more interactive and innovative teaching styles.

4. Learning Outcomes: The final layer of the framework encompasses the expected outcomes of the relationship between critical thinking tendency and teaching styles. Enhanced student engagement, improved critical thinking skills, and better academic performance are anticipated outcomes that result from faculty employing effective teaching styles influenced by their critical thinking tendencies.

This theoretical framework provides a structured understanding of how critical thinking tendencies in faculty members can influence their teaching styles, ultimately impacting student learning outcomes. The above framework can be utilized to guide future research and interventions aiming at enhancing teaching methodologies in higher education, particularly in medical sciences.

Using the above framework, we posed the following research questions:

1. What is the level of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences faculty members’ critical thinking?

2. What are the teaching styles used by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences faculty members?

3. Is there a relationship between the faculty members’ critical thinking and their teaching style?

4. Does the faculty members’ critical thinking predict their teaching style?

5. Is there a correlation between demographic features and the teaching styles employed by faculty members?

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

This is a cross-sectional correlational study conducted to explore the relationship between critical thinking tendencies and the teaching styles employed by faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2023.

Study participants and sampling

In the present study, out of 616 faculty members of the medicine, paramedical sciences, health, and nutrition sciences schools at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, 88 participated in the study. They were selected using quota sampling; the Gpower Table was used to determine the sample size. The inclusion criteria were being employed and being willing to participate in the study; on the other hand, unwillingness to complete the questionnaire served as a basis for exclusion from the study. Ethical considerations were observed in the research. The study involved reaching out to faculty members across various departments, elucidating the research objectives, and obtaining their consent before distributing the questionnaires for completion. The faculty members were also reminded that they did not need to write their names and were ensured that all their personal information would remain confidential.

Data collection tool and technique

The data collection tools were 3 questionnaires; first, the demographic questionnaire included variables such as age, gender, degree, teaching experience, type of employment, university rank, executive activity, and name of the faculty. The second questionnaire was Ricketts’s standard questionnaire for measuring the tendency toward critical thinking,[23] which was developed by Ricketts.[24] The summarized version of the Ricketts questionnaire includes 33 items and 3 subscales such as Innovativeness (11 items), Cognitive Maturity (9 items), and Engagement (13 items). Ricketts confirmed its validity and reliability in a study on 319 students of the University of Florida in the United States.[25] In Iran, Pakmehr and his colleagues in a study examined and confirmed the validity and reliability of this questionnaire through factor analysis and calculation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.[26] To assess the faculty members’ tendency towards critical thinking, the authors showed that the highest and lowest recorded scores were 165 and 33, respectively, with a median score of 99. In the Innovativeness domain, the highest and lowest scores are 55 and 11, respectively, and the median score is 33. In the Cognitive Maturity domain, the highest and lowest scores are 45 and 9, respectively, and the average score is 27. In examining the Engagement domain, the highest and lowest scores are 65 and 13, respectively, and the median score is 39.[27] Faculty members indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the items of the questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (completely agree). For questions 33, 32, 30, 23, 19, 15, 12, and 2 of the questionnaire, scoring is done in reverse. The average score for each subscale is calculated by summing the scores of the items associated with that subscale and then the total is divided by the number of items. The validity of this questionnaire has been confirmed by experts. The reliability coefficient of the creativity subscale is 0.75, growth is 0.57, and the commitment subscale is 0.86.[27] The version translated into Persian has been used in various studies.[28]

The third instrument was the Grasha Richman questionnaire. The content validity and reliability of the teaching styles questionnaire have been measured by Grasha and Richman.[23] In the study by Hassanzadeh et al.[29] in Kurdistan, the reliability of the questionnaire was also examined and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the Gersha Richman questionnaire was between 0.72 and 0.85. This questionnaire has 40 questions and 5 subscales including Expert style (8 questions), Formal authority style (8 questions), Personal model (8 questions), Facilitator style (8 questions), and Delegator style (8 questions). Its scoring method is based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). The scores in each style range from 8 to 40. The teaching style of faculty members was determined according to the average grades obtained. To achieve this objective, we first identified and organized the mean scores of the faculty member’s teaching styles. Subsequently, the teaching style that exhibited the highest average score was designated as the faculty member’s primary teaching style.[29]

Statistical analysis and method

The results of the study were entered into SPSS version 20 software and analyzed using descriptive statistical methods (absolute frequency, relative frequency, and drawing tables) and analytical statistics (Multiple regression test, Pearson, Mann–Whitney, and Krushal–Wallis correlation coefficient tests). In all tests, a P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

In the present study, 88 faculty members of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences participated; among them, 50% (n = 44) were women. Also, 63.7% (n = 56) of the faculty members who participated in the present study were in the age range of 45–55, 19.3% (n = 17) were 35–45 years old, and 17.0% (n = 15) were under 35 years old. Regarding the education level, 84.1% (n = 84) had doctorate and 15.9% (n = 14) had master's degrees. In addition, in terms of their teaching experience, 50% (n = 44) had more than 15 years of teaching experience, 30.7% (n = 27) 11–15 years, 15.9% (n = 14) 6–10 years, and 3.4% (n = 3) had less than 5 years of teaching experience.

To answer the first and second research questions, ”What is the level of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences faculty members’ critical thinking?” and “What are the teaching styles used by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences faculty members?”, the mean and standard deviation of faculty members’ critical thinking tendency and teaching styles were calculated. The results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mean and standard deviation of critical thinking tendency and teaching styles of faculty members (n=88)

Variables	Component/domain	Mean and SD	Score obtained		Possible score
			Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
The tendency toward critical thinking	Innovativeness	46.42 (3.75)	39	55	11	65
	Cognitive Maturity	33.95 (3.63)	24	39	9	45
	Engagement	57,23 (4.56)	48	65	13	65
	Total score	137.95 (9.48)	114	151	33	165
Teaching style	Expert style	31.35 (6.34)	12	39	8	40
	Formal authority style	30.02 (5.29)	14	39	8	40
	Personal model	30.45 (4.14)	12	37	8	40
	Facilitator style	31.13 (5.99)	17	39	8	40
	Delegator style	30.42 (5.34)	18	40	8	40
	Total score	153.47 (26.90)	73	931	40	200

The results indicated that the mean score reflecting the overall tendency towards critical thinking was calculated to be 137.95 with a standard deviation of 9.48. An analysis of the mean scores related to critical thinking tendency and their respective components revealed that the scores achieved by faculty members exceeded the average possible score. This finding suggests that the faculty members studied exhibited elevated levels of critical thinking tendencies. Also, the mean score of the teaching styles of the faculty members who participated in the study was 153.47 ± 26.90, which is higher than the average possible score. The dominant teaching style among faculty members was determined based on their highest score among various teaching styles. In light of this information, among the faculty members involved in this study, 41 individuals (46.6 percent) exhibited an expert teaching style, 9 individuals (10.2 percent) demonstrated a formal authority teaching style, 12 individuals (13.6 percent) adopted a personal teaching style, 16 individuals (18.2 percent) utilized a facilitator teaching style, and 10 individuals (11.4 percent) employed a delegator teaching style.

To answer the third research question, “Is there a relationship between the faculty members’ critical thinking and their teaching style”, we first used the Kolomogrov-Smirnov test to check the normality of the data. It was found that the distribution of the data was normal; therefore, we used the Pearson correlation test; the results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

The correlation between the tendency toward critical thinking and the teaching styles of faculty members

Variable	Expert style	Formal authority style	Personal model	Facilitator style	Delegator style	Teaching style	Cognitive Maturity	Engagement	Innovativeness	Critical thinking
Expert style	1
Formal authority style	**0.65	1
Personal model	**0.53	**0.73	1
Facilitator style	**0.66	**0.73	**0.77	1
Delegator style	**0.77	**0.70	**0.65	**0.76	1
Teaching style	**0.77	**0.79	**0.80	**0.89	**0.90	1
Cognitive Maturity	**0.23	0.12	0.16	** 0.38	**0.40	**0.27	1
Engagement	**0.45	** 0.29	**0.49	** 0.53	**0.55	**0.60	**0.41	1
Innovativeness	**0.65	**0.51	** 0.51	** 0.50	**0.55	**0.62	0.18	**0.65	1
Critical thinking	**0.54	**0.40	**0.55	** 0.61	**0.60	**0.63	**0.56	**0.92	**0.77	1

**P<0.01

According to the results, there was a significant positive correlation between critical thinking tendency and teaching styles (r = 0.63, P < 0.01). In addition, the tendency toward critical thinking had a significant positive correlation with all types of teaching styles. The highest correlation between critical thinking tendency was observed with facilitator teaching style (r = 0.61, P < 0.01) and the lowest correlation with formal authority teaching style (r = 0.40, P < 0.01). On the other hand, teaching style had a significant positive correlation with types of tendency towards critical thinking. The analysis revealed that the strongest correlation was found between teaching styles and the tendency towards innovation, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.62 (P < 0.01). Conversely, the weakest correlation was found in Cognitive Maturity, yielding a coefficient of r = 0.27 (P < 0.01). Furthermore, the most significant relationship between different teaching styles and the propensity for critical thinking was noted between the expert teaching style and the tendency towards innovation, which exhibited a correlation of r = 0.65 (P < 0.01).

To answer the fourth research question, “Does the faculty members’ critical thinking predict their teaching style?”, a multiple regression analysis was run using the entry method to predict the teaching style of faculty members through critical thinking. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Multiple regression analysis using entry method to predict teaching style through critical thinking tendency

Criterion Variables	Predictor Variables	R	R 2	Adjusted R2	F	P	B	β	P
Expert style	Cognitive Maturity	0.670	0.449	0.429	22.803	0.001	0.272	0.156	0.81
	Engagement						-0.322	-0.231	0.049
	Innovativeness						1.294	0.765	0.001
Formal authority	Cognitive Maturity	0.594	0.3530	0.329	15.244	0.001	0.223	0.154	0.112
Style	Engagement						-0.198	-0.171	0.178
	Innovativeness						0.922	0.653	0.001
Personal model	Cognitive Maturity	0.573	0.328	0.304	10.146	0.001	0.215	0.152	0.122
	Engagement						-0.150	-0.133	0.303
	Innovativeness						0.836	0.610	0.001
Facilitator style	Cognitive Maturity	0.677	0.458	0.439	23.691	0.001	0.401	0.243	0.007
	Engagement						-0.171	-0.130	0.262
	Innovativeness						1.077	0.683	0.001
Delegator style	Cognitive Maturity	0.680	0.462	0.443	24.049	0/001	0.423	0.288	0.001
	Engagement						0.036	0.031	0.789
	Innovativeness						0.758	0.532	0.001

According to the results, the tendency to think critically can significantly predict the changes in the teaching style of faculty members. As shown, the highest multivariate correlation coefficient was related to the Delegator teaching style (R = 0.680), and the lowest multivariable correlation coefficient was related to the Personal model teaching style (R = 0.573). Furthermore, the tendency towards critical thinking demonstrated the highest predictive capability in elucidating variations in the Delegator teaching style, as indicated by F = 24.049, P < 0.001, and R2 = 0.462. Conversely, the tendency toward critical thinking exhibited the lowest predictive power in accounting for the Personal model teaching style changes, with F = 10.146, P < 0.001, and R2 = 0.304.

As to the fifth research question, “Is there a correlation between demographic features and the teaching styles employed by faculty members?”, the distribution of the total score of teaching styles was not normal. Therefore, we used the Mann–Whitney test to find the differences in teaching styles based on the variables of gender and education; also, we used the Kruskal–Walli’s test to find the differences in teaching styles based on age and teaching experience. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

The correlation between teaching styles employed by the faculty member and their demographic features

Variable	Categories	Mean	SD	Mean/rank	P
Gender	male	159.38	21.30	49.49	* 0.006
	female	147.56	30.64	39.51
Age	25–35 years	156.73	28.41	48	**0.868
	35–45 years	157.05	22.10	47.24
	45–55 years	151.51	28.04	42.73
Education	MSc	153.64	25.48	41.32	*0.611
	PhD	153.44	27.32	45.10
Teaching experience	5 years or lower	157	12.12	44.67	**0.037
	6–10 years	168.35	7.46	60.75
	15–11 years	152.22	30.75	46.30
	Over 15 years	149.27	27.86	38.22

*Mann–Whitney U test, **Kruskal–Wallis test

The findings indicated that there were notable variations in teaching styles among faculty members that were influenced by gender. Also, the age and education variables had no significant relationship with the teaching style of faculty members, but there was a significant difference based on teaching experience and gender. In other words, the mean scores reflecting the teaching styles of faculty members tend to rise as their teaching experience grows. The results indicate a correlation between various teaching styles and the teaching experience of faculty members, with a particularly significant relationship observed in the expert and authority styles.

Discussion

This research aimed to determine the level of critical thinking and the teaching style adopted by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences faculty members and investigate the correlation between critical thinking tendency and the teaching styles employed by faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Moreover, we sought to answer whether the faculty members’ critical thinking predicts their teaching styles adopted. As to the first research question, which was the assessment of the level of critical thinking tendency among the faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, the results showed that the total score of critical thinking tendency was 137.61 out of 165; the highest score was 151 and the lowest 114. Besides, the mean score of critical thinking tendency was equal to 9.48 which is more than the average according to the median score of 99. However, it is far from the expected situation that estimates the level of tendency towards critical thinking in the range of 33 to 165.[30] The results of a study conducted at Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences confirm our findings, revealing that the average inclination towards critical thinking among faculty members was 123.[31] Consistent with the current research, this score for critical thinking tendency exceeded the average level. In the study of Rezaiyan et al.,[9] who investigated the level of critical thinking tendency among faculty members of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, the average critical thinking tendency score was 11.17. Also, in the study by Yousefi et al.,[32] who investigated the critical thinking of faculty members of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, the average critical thinking tendency score was equal to 13.77. Compared to the two mentioned studies, the average score of tendency toward critical thinking in the present study was lower.

An additional outcome of this research was the assessment of the teaching styles employed by the faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The findings revealed a predominance of both expert and facilitator teaching styles among the university faculties. The expert teaching style is characterized by a teacher-centered approach, wherein the educator serves primarily as the conduit for information and occupies a central position in the instructional process, a method that was prevalent in this study. Conversely, the facilitator teaching style prioritizes interactions between students and the teacher, fostering an environment where students are encouraged to express their ideas and engage in open discussions during the classroom hours. These findings are consistent with the results of the studies conducted by Razeghinejad, Islamian and Amini, who reported the dominant teaching style of the faculty members of Yazd, Mazandaran and Shiraz University of Medical Sciences as experts.[33,34,35] When juxtaposed with the findings of Karimi’s research, which categorizes the teaching styles of Yazd faculty members as teacher-oriented, authoritarian, indifferent, and student-centered, the results align closely. This is particularly evident in the teacher-oriented style, which corresponds to the expert style, wherein the faculty member assumes the role of information transmitter and serves as the focal point of the educational process.[36] Inconsistent with our results, Dash, in a study by examining the teaching style of faculty members in several medical schools, reported that the preferred teaching style of faculty members was the expert and authority style.[37] The reason for this discrepancy might be the different population and contexts of these two studies. However, the results of Grasha’s study are closer to ours; he introduced the most dominant teaching style of faculty members as the expert style.[23] Other studies have reached almost the same conclusion as ours. For example, Azizinejad et al.[38] stated that the dominant teaching style among the faculty members of Urmia University of Medical Sciences was the facilitator teaching style. Elkader also declared that the dominant teaching style of faculty members was expert and facilitator; similarly, Saritish also declared that the dominant teaching style among the teachers was facilitator style.[39,40] The substantial amount of course materials and the condensed nature of the academic semester in medical sciences, coupled with the need to convey a significant volume of information to students, are likely to contribute to the tendency of faculty members at medical sciences universities to prioritize teacher-centered and subject-centered instructional approaches over student-centered and problem-centered interactive methods. This issue raises the need for medical schools to review their curriculum and use student-centered interactive methods. In this regard, Rezaei et al.[41] confirmed that using appropriate teaching strategies gives rise to better attention to class and deep learning in learners.

As to the third research question, “Is there a correlation between the faculty members’ critical thinking and their teaching styles”, the results of the present study showed that the tendency toward critical thinking had a significant positive correlation with all types of teaching styles. The highest correlation was observed between the tendency toward critical thinking and facilitator teaching style and the lowest correlation was observed with formal authority teaching style. Also, the highest correlation between the types of teaching styles and the tendency toward critical thinking was observed between expert teaching style and tendency toward innovation. The results of the research conducted by Karami et al.[42] on the inclination towards critical thinking among secondary school educators and its influence on their preferred teaching styles are not consistent with ours; they revealed that the strongest correlation existed between innovation and the teaching styles of teachers, while the weakest correlation was observed with engagement. Also, the results of Mohammadi et al.’s[43] study on the relationship between teachers’ teaching style and the development of higher thinking skills showed that teachers’ teaching style had a positive and significant relationship with creative thinking, decision-making, and critical thinking, which is in line with our results. In the same vein, Piri et al.[18] demonstrated in their research that a notable correlation existed between thinking styles and teaching styles. Also, the findings of the study by Shakournia et al.[6] showed that the tendency toward critical thinking had a significant relationship with the faculty members’ teaching style, and among the components of the tendency toward critical thinking, the subscale of innovation had the highest correlation; moreover, the subscale of Cognitive Maturity had the lowest correlation with the teaching style. The interpretation of these findings suggests that faculty members who exhibit elevated levels of innovation and creativity, along with enhanced analytical and reasoning abilities, tend to employ effective teaching styles and active pedagogical methods. This approach not only enhances the satisfaction of the teaching process but also fosters deeper learning among students. Active teaching methods encourage greater student engagement by promoting inquiry and curiosity, while also facilitating genuine communication between faculty and students.

As to the fourth research question of the study, it was indicated that the teaching styles employed by faculty members could be anticipated based on the scores reflecting their critical thinking tendencies. According to the results, the three subscales of critical thinking tendency—cognitive maturity, engagement, and innovation—could predict 44% of the variations in expert teaching style, 32% in formal authority teaching style, 30% in personal teaching style, 43% in facilitator teaching style, and 44% in delegator teaching style. The results of the research conducted by Abbasi and Izadpanah et al. and Amirian et al.[44,45] are in the same line with the findings of the present study, revealing a notable correlation between critical thinking tendencies and teaching styles. Also, Heydarnejad et al.[46] came to the same conclusion as ours. Their findings indicated that teachers equipped with higher critical thinking abilities tended to implement learner-centered styles (namely, Facilitator and Delegator), but those with lower critical thinking abilities and self-regulatory skills tended to do the opposite. Moreover, utilizing the three subscales of critical thinking tendency— innovation, cognitive maturity, and engagement— allows for the prediction of 48% of the variations in the formal authority and facilitator style. The highest level of prediction in the teaching style of faculty members was related to the expert, delegator, and facilitator styles.[15] This finding can be interpreted to suggest that the predominant use of the expert style among faculty members in medical sciences universities aligns well with the cognitive frameworks and educational experiences of the students. In employing this pedagogical approach, educators aim to assert their authority within the classroom by demonstrating their scholarly competence. Conversely, the facilitator teaching style ranked as the second most effective method. This shows the students’ transition from teacher-centered methods to self-reliance in the classroom. Mahdavi-Rad showed that teaching methods based on thinking styles make teaching more effective.[11] Similar to our findings, another study also indicated that an individual’s thinking style can affect his/her teaching style, and the interplay between the two can enhance the predictive capacity of classroom management.[31] The results of Zhang et al.[47] confirm our findings; in an attempt to investigate the interplay among critical thinking, teaching, and learning styles, they indicate that CT offers a golden chance for both teachers and learners to change their teaching and learning styles. Educators exhibiting a greater propensity for innovation tend to engage in activities that necessitate creativity and design. By employing a diverse array of teaching methods, they strive to guide students toward profound and imaginative learning experiences.

The fifth objective of this research was to explore the correlation between demographic features and the pedagogical approaches employed by faculty members. The findings indicated that there were notable variations in teaching styles among faculty members that were influenced by gender. Male gender was associated with higher teaching style scores. Consistent with our result, Kariminia’s study also stated that there was a significant difference between males and females in terms of teaching style[48] Similarly, in Razeghinejad’s[33] study, there was also a significant relationship between teaching style and gender. In contrast to our findings, in the study of Attar et al.,[49] who examined the teaching style of teachers teaching Persian to non-Persian speakers, the results showed that gender had a non-significant relationship with all teaching styles. One of the reasons for this discrepancy can be the difference in the personality type of the studied faculty members; however, this issue needs further investigation.[49] The level of education did not have a significant difference; that is, the average scores of the teaching style of faculty members did not show a significant difference between the level of master’s education and PhD. The age variable also had no significant relationship with the teaching style of faculty members, but there was a significant difference based on teaching experience. In other words, the mean scores reflecting the teaching styles of faculty members tend to rise as their teaching experience grows. In the same line, Zhang’s[50] investigation indicates that individual characteristics of teachers influence their teaching styles. In contrast to our result, Azizinejad et al’s[38] research reveals that there is no significant correlation between educational qualifications and work experience with the chosen teaching methods. The findings indicate a correlation among the specified variables, suggesting that the behaviors, attitudes, and actions of faculty members during the teaching process—encompassing both verbal and non-verbal communication—play a significant role in influencing students’ social adaptation, engagement, and sense of responsibility. A more critical aspect to consider is that teaching methods and their corresponding styles are prescriptively determined by the theory of unified teaching. These methodologies are frequently selected based on various factors, including the social status of the learners, class size, educational objectives, and the characteristics of the subject matter. This selection process serves as a validation of the disconnection that exists between individual attributes, such as age and academic qualifications, and the teaching styles employed.[51]

More specifically, the results of the current study indicate a correlation between various teaching styles and the teaching experience of faculty members, with a particularly significant relationship observed between expert and authority styles. This finding aligns with the research conducted by Rahimi[52] and Baghizadeh[53]; however, it contradicts the findings of the studies by Darvish Ghadimi and Roudbari.[4] Regarding the relationship between the faculty member’s teaching style and their degree, it was found that the faculty members with a doctorate degree chose the facilitator, expert, and delegator styles, respectively, and the faculty members with a master’s degree chose the facilitator and expert styles. The results of this study may align to a certain degree with those reported by Razeghinejad et al.[33] Nevertheless, this is somewhat inconsistent with Grasha’s[23] assertion, which posits that faculty members holding the rank of instructor professor tend to adopt the expert style, while those at the rank of assistant professor prefer the autorotated style. The analysis revealed that faculty members exhibited no notable variation in their propensity for critical thinking when considering age and teaching experience; however, it was observed that an increase in age correlated with a diminished inclination towards critical thinking among these educators. In this regard, Ziling in a study conducted in 2024 indicated that critical thinking encouraged students to evaluate their thinking and further develop their existing knowledge. They revealed that debriefing was an effective pedagogical approach to strengthen critical thinking in health-related disciplines. The analysis, evaluations, and synthesis of skills in critical thinking significantly promote the teachers’ competency which in turn helps students develop this important skill in themselves.[54] This point is well highlighted by a qualitative study by Elias et al.,[55] indicating that “higher-order thinking skills are vital tools that help learners become creative and reflective in a learner-centered context.” Education authorities should take this effect into account that enhancing teachers’ knowledge about CT, in turn, might lead to a systematic implementation of critical thinking in teaching.

In a more recent study, Yuan and Liao also suggest that teacher education programs should integrate critical thinking into the curriculum, and teachers receive systematic training on content and pedagogical knowledge about CT. Enhancing teachers’ knowledge about CT, in turn, might lead to a systematic implementation of critical thinking in teaching. Different approaches have been suggested to increase teachers’ understanding and beliefs about critical thinking.[56]

Limitations and recommendation

This study has been able to deal with the correlation between critical thinking and teaching style among the faculty members, a subject that has not yet, to the best of our knowledge, been done on our local academic staff and will be of help to all educators and academic staff. However, like any other study, this study had some limitations. Access to the faculty members was not easy. We allocated sufficient time to reach out to the faculties and explain the significance of the study and the results to be achieved; we decided on the time and location for the distribution of the questionnaires based on their convenience. The insufficient collaboration of faculty members in filling out the questionnaire can be attributed to their demanding work schedules. Given the significance of the topic and the limited research available in this area, it is suggested that the evolution of teaching styles and their elements within the university context should be investigated in future studies. Further, higher education administrators should prioritize the enhancement and refinement of teaching methodologies, critical thinking, and classroom management through strategic planning; it is also suggested that faculty members should endeavor to cultivate critical thinking skills in students through the implementation of suitable pedagogical approaches. As Ansari et al.[57] highlight, educational authorities and training systems should focus on the development of critical thinking skills to select, analyze, and apply information to solve problems rather than invent and apply methods of memorizing and processing information in memory. Additionally, given that multiple factors may influence faculty members’ teaching styles and their tendency toward critical thinking, it is recommended that these factors should be systematically identified and explored in greater depth. Therefore, future studies can identify other personal and environmental variables related to critical thinking tendencies among faculty members, adopt mixed-method approaches, and triangulate data by using other instruments such as class observations and focused interviews.

Conclusion

On the whole, in this study, we attempted to contribute to the sparse knowledge of teaching style and its relationship with critical thinking among university teachers, illuminating the contribution of critical thinking to the pedagogical approaches adopted by lecturers. Furthermore, the benefit of critical thinking for the enhancement of learner-centered activities was highlighted, leading to quality instruction. The implication is that teachers equipped with critical thinking skills prefer student-centered styles of teaching, which enhance the quality of instruction, rather than formal authority style so that they can break the barrier of thinking they are the dominant authority in the class without any space for student engagement and collaboration. The results of this study can help educational authorities and programmers in higher education to hold interventions to promote the faculty members’ teaching style and strengthen their competence in teaching. The implications of this study may open up new insights into successful teaching styles for policymakers, curriculum designers, and teachers.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted under the Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association. For ethical considerations, research permission was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences with the ethics code of IR.SUMS.REC 1402-051. Also, after providing the participants with information about the research objectives and obtaining their consent, they were assured that the information gathered would remain confidential. In addition, written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The participants were informed of optional withdrawal at any stage of the study.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Nil.