Investigating the Effectiveness of Case-Based Socio-Legal Pedagogy in Developing Critical Thinking: Evidence from Muslim Women’s Legal Experiences in Israel

Developing critical thinking is a central aim of contemporary higher education, yet conventional instructional approaches often underuse authentic, real-world materials that stimulate higher-order reasoning and reflective judgment. The study examines the effectiveness of case-based socio-legal pedagogy in fostering critical thinking within contexts of legal pluralism and social complexity. A quasi-experimental mixed-methods pre–post design was conducted with 62 undergraduate students enrolled in a course on Islamic law and society. Over a four-week intervention, students engaged with six socio-legal cases drawn from Muslim women’s legal experiences in Israel, focusing on divorce, maintenance (nafaka), and child custody. Quantitative data were collected using a validated Critical Thinking Rubric assessing argumentation, evaluation of multiple perspectives, and legal reasoning. Results showed significant improvement in overall critical thinking, with gains across all measured dimensions. Qualitative analysis of written assignments and student reflections revealed greater recognition of legal ambiguity, more structured and evidence-based argumentation, and deeper engagement with competing normative and social frameworks. Overall, the findings highlight the pedagogical value of integrating socio-legal complexity into case-based learning as an adaptable model for strengthening critical thinking across disciplines involving interpretive, contested, and context-dependent knowledge in higher education and other fields requiring careful judgment under conditions of uncertainty and change.