Evidence Hub

Systematic Review of Future Thinking Skills and Their Impact on Academic Achievement

Noor Naim Ajel, Ali Khalkhali, Falih Abdulhasan Owai Al-Nuairi, Mahboubeh Sadat Fadavi

Assessment and Practice in Educational Sciences, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of research on future thinking skills in higher education during the period from 2014 to 2023, with a focus on classifying these skills and analyzing their impact on students’ academic achievement. The systematic literature review (SLR) methodology was employed to analyze previous studies related to future thinking skills in higher education. The search process included major academic databases such as ERIC, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar, in which 507 articles were screened, and 22 relevant studies were selected based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This review revealed a significant shortage of published research on future thinking skills in higher education, as only 22 relevant studies were identified out of the 507 articles reviewed. In recent years, particularly between 2020 and 2023, there has been a notable increase in the number of published research articles in this area, indicating growing academic interest in foresight-related thinking skills. Three Arab countries dominated research output on future thinking: Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This reflects the growing regional interest in fostering students’ future thinking skills. Future thinking skills were classified into three main categories: Preventive skills, such as future planning, scientific forecasting, and decision-making; Creative skills, such as envisioning the future and constructing scenarios; and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free