Grieco_Luz gradworks.proquest.com 10103879

Meeting the Demands of the 21st
Century Workplace: Effects of Critical Thinking
Instruction on the Application of Critical Thought
Dissertation Manuscript
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
L. NERY GRIECO
Prescott Valley, Arizona
March 2016

Approval Page
Meeting the Demands ofthe 2151
Century Workplace: Effects of Critical Thinking
Instruction on the Application of Critical Thought
By
L. Nery Grieco
Approved by:
Barry K. Spiker April 20, 2016
Chair: Dr. Barry Spiker Date
Certified by:
Dean of School: Dr. Rebecca Wardlow Date
ii

iii
Abstract
One of the primary goals of education is to foster critical thinking. Since approximately
1980, both educators and employers have questioned whether the educational system in
the United States has adequately prepared students in the area of critical thinking
sufficient to meet the demands of 21st
century workforce. The problem addressed,
therefore, is that students consistently continue to graduate from the U.S. educational
system with inadequate critical thinking skills. This problem prompted the researcher to
question the transformational effects, if any, of teaching critical thinking within higher
education. The intent of explicit critical thinking instruction is not only to increase
students’ critical thinking skills, but equally important is to enhance their ability to
consistently apply those skills in a myriad of situations. The purpose of this quantitative,
quasi-experimental study was to examine the change, if any, in critical thinking skills and
application of critical thinking among undergraduates based on whether they receive
explicit critical thinking instruction throughout an introductory Physics course. The
study explored the effects of deliberately teaching critical thinking skills and the
application of those skills to real-world situations. Participants included 85 freshman and
sophomore cadets enrolled in an introductory physics course at the U.S. Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado during the fall semester of 2015. Cadets were
randomly sampled from a possible 218 cadets. Data were collected with two instruments:
the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment and a Real World Outcomes (RWO) inventory.
Although the raw data revealed increases in participants’ critical thinking skills and their
ability to apply critical thinking, results of statistical analyses were not consistent with
existing literature on critical thinking skills. Of the intended sample size n=85, only 36

iv
participants completed all pre- and post- intervention assessments. With a low sample
size all statistical tests indicated no significant relationship between the explicit critical
thinking instruction and participants’ critical thinking skills or their ability to apply
critical thought to real-world situations. Replication of this study, with a larger sample
size, is recommended to further examine whether teaching critical thinking would have a
transformative effect on participants’ critical thinking skills and, more importantly, on
their ability to consistently apply those skills in real-world situations.

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank, first and foremost, my amazingly supportive husband and
daughter: Mike and Stephanie Grieco. Not only did they instill confidence in me as a
wife, mother, and as a researcher, but they also provided the continuous encouragement
that I needed along the way. To my parents, Victor and Eneida, who have always been so
proud of me; les agradezco con todo el alma los sacrificios que han tomado por mi bien,
los quiero mucho as los dos. Sandra, my loving sister, her husband Hector, and my niece
Jacklyn all motivated me to pursue my dreams; thank you! I took this journey in hopes to
inspire my extended family to believe in life-long learning and to serve as an example for
them of how tenacity and dedication can overcome all obstacles in life.
It is with great appreciation that I also acknowledge the three members who
served on my Dissertation Committee, Dr. Barry Spiker, Dr. Nicole Avena, and Dr. Cary
Gillenwater. These professionals encouraged me through immediate feedback and
support throughout the process. Without the statistical analysis support of Dr. Victoria
Brione, I would not have appropriately completed Chapter 4 of this study, many thanks to
her as well. To Dr. Diane Halpern and Dr. Heather Butler, whose work stimulated my
interest in the topic for this study, directly took time off their busy schedules to provide
insightful guidance. A very special thanks also go to Dr. Kimberly De La Harpe, Dr.
Gregor Novak, Dr. Rajani Ayacitula, and Lt Col Steve Novotny, faculty members at the
United States Air Force Academy, whose tireless efforts helped shape the study and
accelerate both the Institutional Review Board approval process and data collection.
Finally, to the participants of this study, I thank you for your participation and wish you

vi
all the best as you embark in one of the greatest, most honorable professions anyone can
hope to be part of, an officer in the United States Air Force.
Disclaimer: This work was created in the performance of a Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement with the Department of the Air Force. The Government of the United States has certain rights
to use this work. The conclusions expressed in this document are my own. They do not reflect the official
position of the US Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States
Air Force Academy.

vii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1
Background................................................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework................................................................................................. 5
Research Questions....................................................................................................... 7
Nature of the Study....................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study.............................................................................................. 9
Definition of Key Terms............................................................................................. 10
Summary..................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................................ 14
Documentation............................................................................................................ 14
Taxonomy of Critical Thinking .................................................................................. 15
Significance of Critical Thinking................................................................................ 24
Historical Foundation of Critical Thought.................................................................. 26
Environments that Promote Critical Thinking Experiences ....................................... 28
Practical Application of Critical Thought................................................................... 33
Critical Thinking Skills and Individual Dispositions towards Critical Thinking ....... 42
Effects of Diversity on Critical Thinking ................................................................... 48
Transferability of Critical Thinking Theory to Practice ............................................. 49
Assessing the Application of Critical Thinking Skills................................................ 52
Summary..................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 3: Research Method............................................................................................. 57
Research Method and Design ..................................................................................... 58
Population ................................................................................................................... 62
Sample......................................................................................................................... 63
Instruments.................................................................................................................. 64
Operational Definition of Variables............................................................................ 66
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................. 67
Assumptions................................................................................................................ 70
Limitations.................................................................................................................. 71
Delimitations............................................................................................................... 72
Ethical Assurances...................................................................................................... 72
Summary..................................................................................................................... 75
Chapter 4: Findings........................................................................................................... 77
Results......................................................................................................................... 77
Evaluation of Findings................................................................................................ 93
Summary................................................................................................................... 100
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ...................................... 101

viii
Implications............................................................................................................... 106
Recommendations..................................................................................................... 112
Conclusions............................................................................................................... 116
References....................................................................................................................... 118
Appendixes ..................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix A: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment Manual ....................................... 130
Appendix B: Real-World Outcomes Inventory ............................................................. 131
Appendix C: Permission Letter...................................................................................... 133
Appendix D: United States Air Force Academy IRB Approval.................................... 134
Appendix E: Sample Lesson Introducing Concept Maps.............................................. 135

ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison between Standardized Critical Thinking Tests............................... 53
Table 2. Actual Statistical Power...................................................................................... 78
Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Participants...................................................... 80
Table 4. Frequencies and Percentages for Participants with Missing Data ..................... 82
Table 5. Frequency Table of Faculty Participants ............................................................ 86
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables ............................................ 86
Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations for HCTA Scores ............................................ 90
Table 8. Mixed ANOVA Results for Changes in HCTA Scores as a Function of
Instruction ......................................................................................................................... 91
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for RWOI- Part A Scores................................ 92
Table 10. Mixed ANOVA Results for Changes in RWOI- Part A Scores as a Function of
Instruction and Faculty Rank............................................................................................ 92
Table 11. Means and Standard Deviations for RWOI- Part B Scores.............................. 93
Table 12. Mixed ANOVA Results for Changes in RWOI- Part B Scores as a Function of
Instruction and Faculty Rank ........................................................................................... 93
Table 13. Relationship between Transformative and Critical Thinking Learning Theories
........................................................................................................................................... 97

x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Concept Map for Independent and Dependent Variables.................................. 60
Figure 2. Diagram of Participants’ Progress through Study Phases ................................ 79
Figure 3. Two by Two Factorial Design.......................................................................... 81
Figure 4. Histograms of Pre and Post HCTA Scores...................................................... 87
Figure 5. Histograms of Pre and Post RWOI-Part A Scores ........................................... 88
Figure 6. Histograms of Pre and Post RWOI-Part B Scores............................................ 89
Figure 7. Comparison between Themes in Defining Critical Thinking, Transformative
Learning Factors, and Explicit Critical Thinking Instruction......................................... 109

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Noah Webster and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom led the founding of the
American educational system, recognized the value of an educated citizenry (Behar-
Horenstein & Niu, 2011; Ravitch, 2008). However, whereas Webster believed that
education could be used to shape society Jefferson believed education should foster the
critical intelligence of the citizenry so that each person might understand and defend his
or her rights (Ravitch, 2008). Echoing Jefferson’s philosophy on education, Miller, Hall,
and Tice (2009) recognized that critical thought was essential for making decisions,
solving problems, reasoning, innovation, and effective practice in an increasingly
complex society. These skills are also the foundation for developing officers at the
United States Air Force Academy. People living in society need citizens as well as
military officers who can use critical thinking skills to resolve multifaceted problems
(Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011; Miller et al., 2009; Periklis, 2010).
One of the primary goals of education is to foster critical thinking skills (Behar-
Horensten & Niu, 2011; Marin & Halpern, 2011). Critical thinking skills give students
the ability not only to understand what they have read or been shown, but also to ask
independent questions about how they can build upon that knowledge (Fahim &
Masouleh, 2012). Since approximately 1980, both educators and employers have
questioned whether the educational system in the United States has adequately prepared
students in the area of critical thinking sufficient to meet the demands of 21st
century
workforce (Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), 2010; Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2011; Butler, 2012; Marin & Halpern, 2011; Lansiquot, Blake, Liou-
Mark, and Dreyfuss, 2011). The literature on critical thinking reveals that students

2
consistently continue to graduate from the U.S. educational system with inadequate
critical thinking skills (Stedman & Adams, 2014). This problem prompted the researcher
to question the transformational effects, if any, of teaching critical thinking within higher
education.
Background
Curricula based on fostering critical thinking encourage students to think for
themselves by reflecting and questioning the assumptions they make when addressing
cause and effect relationships to justify their conclusions (Mathews & Lowe, 2011).
Critical thinkers should not only make sound decisions within an educational
environment, but should also have the skills to make better decisions about other aspects
of their lives, such as in legal, medical, or financial areas (Butler, 2012; Carmel &
Yezierski, 2013). The challenge facing educators, however, is the gap that exists
between knowing critical thinking concepts and being able to consistently apply the
critical-thinking process to real-world situations (Butler, 2012; Flores, Matkin, Burbach,
Quinn, & Harding, 2012; Miller et al., 2009).
One reason for this difficulty is that educators often do not understand the
concepts inherent to critical thinking and therefore continue to practice traditional
teaching strategies such as lectures and requiring students to memorize (Flores et al.,
2012; Stedman & Adams, 2012). Another reason that students fail to apply critical
thinking to real-world situations may be that critical thinking has typically been studied
as a set of skills pertaining to the individual, with little attention placed on measuring the
efficacy of critical thinking pedagogies (Ku & Ho, 2010) or on assessing the application
of these skills to real-world problems (Dwyer, Boswell, & Elliott, 2015). To facilitate the

3
development of critical thinkers, it is necessary first to understand the nature of critical
thought and then to examine closely the effects of critical thinking pedagogies on
individuals’ preparedness for habitually applying critical thought processes in a myriad of
situations (Thomas, 2009). The understanding and examination of critical thinking
pedagogies could establish a basis for measuring the transformational efficacy of
teaching critical thinking within disciplines. Knowledge gained from studying the
effectiveness of teaching critical thinking within disciplines may help students enhance
their propensity for applying critical-thinking processes to successfully address real-
world problems as well as provide educators with insight into improving faculty
development programs.
Statement of the Problem
This study examined the pervasive problem of students continuing to graduate
from institutions of higher education with inadequate critical thinking skills despite an
ever-increasing emphasis placed on critical thinking as a desired outcome of higher
education (AAC&U, 2011; Carmel & Yezierski, 2013; Flores et al, 2012; Khandaghi,
Pakmehr, & Amiri, 2011; Stedman & Adams, 2014). According to Flores et al. (2012),
Holley (2009), and Khandaghi et al. (2011) educators have neither been challenging
students to think critically within academic disciplines nor encouraging the development
of reasoning skills essential for addressing the complexities of modern life. The results
of a large-scale longitudinal study of 2,322 American college students from 2005 to 2009
indicated that 45% of students made no significant improvement in their reasoning skills
during their first four years of college (Davies, 2011). The authors of the same study also
found that 36% of students showed no significant improvement in critical thinking skills

4
after four years (Kiener, Ahuna, & Tinnesz, 2014). This problem prompted the
researcher to question the transformational effects, if any, of teaching critical thinking
within higher education. The intent of explicit critical thinking instruction is not only to
increase students’ critical thinking skills, but equally important is to enhance their ability
to consistently apply those skills in a myriad of situations. Further research was needed
to examine whether teaching critical thinking had a transformational effect on students’
critical thinking skills and the application of those skills to real-world situations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to examine the
change, if any, in the dependent variables (DV) critical thinking skills (DV1) and
application of critical thinking (DV2) among United States Air Force Academy cadets
based on whether: (a) they received explicit critical thinking instruction, which was the
first independent variable (IV1), (b) they did not receive explicit critical thinking
instruction (IV2), (c) instruction was provided by a junior faculty member (IV3), or (d)
instruction was provided by a senior faculty member (IV4) as part of the cadet’s
introductory physics course. Participants included a minimum of 85 cadets randomly
sampled from a possible 218 cadets at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. The target population were freshmen and sophomore cadets enrolled
in the Physics-110 course during the fall semester of 2015. Physics-110 is a mandatory
course requirement for all cadets assigned to the United States Air Force Academy. This
course was selected because introductory physics courses, in general, emphasize the
scientific method for problem solving. There are many similarities between the scientific
method and the focus of this study, critical thinking processes. The sample size (n=85)

5
was determined using an a priori power analysis. A power analysis is defined as the
probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009).
Knowledge gained from examining the effects of critical thinking instruction on students’
application of those skills may not only provide students with an awareness of their own
critical thinking skill levels, but may also provide insight into enhancing critical thinking
curricula and faculty development programs to address the problem of students
graduating with inadequate critical thinking skills.
Theoretical Framework
Educational leaders may be better equipped to improve students’ critical thinking
skills and application of those skills by recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of
contemporary learning theories (Abu-Dabat, 2011). A review of the literature on
contemporary learning theories indicated that the transformative learning theory may be
related to the development of critical thinkers (Carawan, Knight, Wittman, Pokorny, &
Velde, 2011). The focus of transformative learning is on the analytical and rational, as
well as on the behavioral, steps of the adult learning process (Herlo, 2010).
Transformative learning, also known as Mezirow’s theory, is learning that
stimulates more extensive changes in the learner than other kinds of learning, especially
learning experiences which form the learner and produce major impacts affecting the
learner's subsequent experiences (Herlo, 2010). According to transformative learning
theory, the learning process is when learners critically reflect on their assumptions and
beliefs about something and then change their frames of reference by consciously taking
actions that bring about new ways of defining their worlds (Herlo, 2010). The process,
although fundamentally rational and analytical, is an experience that can be described as

6
a behavioral transformation (Herlo, 2010). An important part of transformative learning,
according to Herlo, is for individuals to change their behavior or frames of reference by
“critically reflecting on their assumptions and beliefs and consciously making and
implementing plans that brings about new ways of defining their worlds” (p. 108). These
behavioral transformations can take place within the classroom if the two domains of
transformative learning theory are incorporated into existing lesson plans (Sammut,
2014).
The transformative learning theory offers two domains of learning. The first
domain is based on task-oriented problem solving accomplished with the development of
causal relationships. The focus of the second domain is on communicative learning,
which involves understanding the meaning of what others communicate (Carawan et al.,
2011). Additionally, there are four key factors influencing transformative learning: (a) a
learning experience, (b) critical reflection, (c) rational discourse, and (d) taking action
(Carawan et al., 2011; Sammut, 2014). At the foundation of a learning experience is a
learner-centered environment in which learners feel unthreatened and can engage in open
dialogue (Carawan et al., 2011). Drawing from a safe learning environment, learners
experience a common base for constructing meaning via personal reflection and group
discussion (Carawan et al., 2011). These experiences lead to both critical reflection and
taking action through rational discourses, which are the basis for transformative learning.
By exploring the United States Air Force Academy’s Physics-110 course, for indications
of the four key factors influencing transformative learning, the efficacy of the specific
teaching approach may be better understood as it relates to the habitual application of
critical thinking processes.

7
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were designed to assess the importance of
exposure to critical thinking instruction to cadets in terms of their application of critical
thinking skills to given problems and situations. Following are the research questions for
this study.
Q1. What are the effects of explicit critical thinking instruction on the critical
thinking skill levels of a control group as compared to a treatment group of freshman and
sophomore cadets enrolled in the Physics-110 course at the U.S. Air Force Academy?
Q2. What are the effects of explicit critical thinking instruction on the application
of critical thinking skills of a control group as compared to a treatment group of freshmen
and sophomore cadets enrolled in the Physics-110 course at the U.S. Air Force
Academy?
Hypotheses
H10. There is no statistical difference between the critical thinking skills scores
of cadets who completed Physics-110 with explicit critical thinking instruction as
compared to those who completed Physics-110 without explicit critical thinking
instruction.
H1a. There is a statistical difference between the critical thinking skills scores of
cadets who completed Physics-110 with explicit critical thinking instruction as compared
to those who completed Physics-110 without explicit critical thinking instruction.
H20. There is no statistical difference between the application of critical thinking
compared to those who completed Physics-110 without critical thinking instruction.

8
H2a. There is a statistical difference between the application of critical thinking
compared to those who completed Physics-110 without critical thinking instruction.
Nature of the Study
Accentuating critical thinking as an outcome of higher education has been a
common practice however, actually learning how to think critically has been less than
successful (Lansiquot et al., 2011). Through a quantitative Non-equivalent Group Design
(NEGD), the researcher addressed this problem by comparing the results of critical
thinking assessments between control and treatment groups. The NEGD is a quasi-
experimental research design that compares the observations of a treatment group with
those of a non-treatment group of participants (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, E.,
Zechmeister, J., 2014). The goal of this study was to quantify any changes in the skills
and the ability to apply critical thinking to real-world situations, between participants
who received explicit critical thinking instruction within Physics-110 and those who did
not. The skills were measured by the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Appendix
A) while the application of skills were measured by a Real-World Outcomes Inventory
(Appendix B).
Upon Northcentral University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the
researcher assessed participant responses to two critical thinking assessments; one
measured skills and the other assessed the ability of participants to apply critical thinking
skills to address real-world situations on a pre- and post-intervention basis. The second
phase of this study consisted of data processing and analysis using a factorial mixed

9
ANOVA procedure. Finally findings, implications, and recommendations for practice
and future studies are also reported in the second phase of this study.
Significance of the Study
Acquiring and using the cognitive skills of interpretation, analysis, evaluation,
inference, explanation, and self-regulation is valuable to many aspects of daily life. For
example, a study of over 1,100 college students showed that scores on a college level
critical thinking skills test markedly correlated with college GPA (Wilson-Mulnix, 2012).
Not only does strong critical thinking skills have a positive impact on grades, but it has
also been demonstrated that critical thinking skills can be learned, suggesting that
explicitly learning critical thinking concepts has a direct relationship to improved grades
(Heijltjes, Van Gog, & Paas, 2014; Moore, 2011b; Wilson-Mulnix, 2012).
Grades are not the only positive outcome of learning and applying critical
thinking concepts. Critical thinking can be considered a tool of inquiry (Ku, Ho, Kau, &
Lai, 2014). The dependence on technology coupled with the pressures of competing
cultural and social influences highlight the need for individuals to analyze, synthesize,
and evaluate an overwhelming amount of data on a daily basis (Weiner, 2011). There is
nearly unanimous consensus on the value of students graduating with the ability to think
critically; however, there are still many institutions of higher education that do not offer
explicit critical thinking instruction (Marin & Halpern, 2011).
Further research was necessary to study the effects of explicit critical thinking
instruction on the ability of students to apply critical thinking skills in real-world
situations. The results of this study may provide a strategy for enhancing critical thinking
outcomes throughout the United States Air Force Academy and other institutes of higher

10
education. Additionally, an understanding of the relationship between explicit critical
thinking instruction and individuals’ ability to habitually apply critical thought processes
could establish a basis for measuring the efficacy of teaching critical thinking within
varying disciplines.
Knowledge gained from studying the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking
may also help individuals enhance their own ability to apply critical-thinking processes to
successfully address real-world problems. It may also provide a strategy for future
faculty development/curriculum enhancements at the Academy and beyond. Moreover,
information realized from this study may help narrow the gap that exists between
knowing critical thinking concepts and being able to consistently apply the critical-
thinking process to real-world situations. This study facilitates an understanding of the
concepts inherent to critical thinking and examines the change in critical thinking skills
and application of critical thinking among undergraduates based on whether they
received explicit critical thinking instruction. Finally, although the results of this study
identified a statistically insignificant relationship between deliberately teaching critical
thinking concepts and the critical thinking skills and application of those skills to real-
world situations, results of future similar studies may support attempts to reverse the
trend of students consistently continuing to graduate from the U.S. educational system
without having the skills necessary to reason well.
Definition of Key Terms
Active learning environment. An active learning environment is an
environment in which students are engaged in activities related to relevant issues to
advance the making of meaning (Zimmerman & Land, 2014).

11
Critical reflection. Critical reflection is one of four conditions required for the
transformative learning process to take place. Critical reflection allows for individuals to
recognize, analyze, and question experiences and perspectives (Carawan, Knight,
Wittman, Pokorny, & Velde, 2011, p. 395).
Experience. Experience is one of four conditions required to enact
transformative learning. Experience refers to encounters individuals live through and the
meanings they attach to these occurrences (Carawan et al., 2011).
Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT). A teaching and learning strategy that combines
out of classroom web-based resources with in-class active activities; in-class content can
be rapidly adjusted to meet learner needs based on results of web-based activities (Novak,
Patterson, Garvin, & Christian, 1999).
Metacognition. Metacognition, also referred to as critical reflection, is one of the
four conditions required to be present for transformative learning to take place (Carawan
et al., 2011). Metacognition is the process of thinking about one’s own thinking and
monitoring one’s own learning (Jones, 2012).
Peer-Instruction (PI). A teaching and learning strategy that capitalizes on
student interaction during class and focuses on attention to underlying concepts; students
are encouraged to discuss or convince others of their understanding of the given concept
(Mazur, 1997).
Rational discourse. Rational discourse is one of four conditions required to be
present for transformative learning to take place. Rational discourse refers to questioning
what is being asserted in efforts to comprehend or validate the assertion further or to
question the credibility of the individual making the assertion (Carawan et al., 2011).

12
Transformative learning. Transformative learning is a form of learning that
explains changes in individuals understanding of knowledge then helps guide future
action (Taylor, 2007).
Summary
This study examined the problem of students consistently continuing to graduate
from institutions of higher education with inadequate critical thinking skills (AAC&U,
2011; Carmel & Yezierski, 2013; Flores et al, 2012; Khandaghi, Pakmehr, & Amiri,
2011). The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to examine the
change, if any, in critical thinking skills and application of critical thinking among United
States Air Force Academy cadets based on whether they received explicit critical
thinking instruction throughout eight lessons of an introductory Physics course. A
sample size of 85 participants (n=85) was administered two critical thinking assessments
on a pre/post-intervention basis to examine the relationship between explicit critical
thinking instruction and the level of critical thinking skills and ability to apply those skills
of participants given varying situations.
This quantitative research encompassed a quasi-experimental, Non-equivalent
Group Design (NEGD). The chosen design aligned with the study’s purpose and
research questions as reflected by the operational variables of explicit critical thinking
instruction (independent variable) and critical thinking skills and application of critical
thinking (dependent variables). Information realized from this study may help narrow
the gap that exists between knowing critical thinking concepts and being able to
consistently apply the critical-thinking process to real-world situations because the study
provided an understanding of the concepts inherent to critical thinking and examined the

13
change in critical thinking skills and application of critical thinking among
undergraduates based on whether they receive explicit critical thinking instruction.
Finally, the results of this study identified a statistically insignificant relationship between
deliberately teaching critical thinking concepts and the critical thinking skills and
application of those skills to real-world situations.
A brief description of the theoretical framework, nature, and significance of this
study established the foundation for how the researcher collected, analyzed, and reported
data. Prior to expanding on the research method that was used in this study, a review of
what was already known about critical thinking put into perspective the rationale and
significance of this study.

14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This literature review focuses on the application of the phenomena of critical
thinking. The goal is to integrate existing research on critical thinking interventions in
order to examine the effectiveness of critical thinking pedagogies on the habitual practice
of critical thought. By evaluating the pros and cons of existing research on critical
thinking interventions, as well as the central theories that have been used to explain
critical thinking, this literature review presents the need for further research to examine
the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking in higher education.
Documentation
Empirical and theoretical studies were included in the synthesis of the literature.
This literature review consists of approximately 100-peer-reviewed articles; the majority
of which were published within the last five years. The articles were accessed from
databases such as ProQuest, Science Direct, EBSCOhost, and several other library
resources. The following search words were used in a multitude of combinations:
“critical thinking”, “dispositions for”, “teaching strategies”, “critical thinking
assessments”, “critical reflection”, “rational thought” and “problem solving”.
This review begins with a brief comparison of the various definitions researchers
have used to explain the phenomenon of critical thinking. The taxonomy of critical
thinking sets the foundation for the next section which explains the value of thinking
critically throughout history. The main focus of this review is on prominent teaching
environments and strategies educators have used to cultivate critical thinking skills within
the classroom. A synopsis of individual dispositions towards critical thinking is also
presented to help explain how student’s dispositions may affect their application of

15
critical thinking processes. Finally this review illustrates a comparison of the different
methods used to assess critical thinking skills and dispositions attained through the
various teaching strategies. Assessments of critical thinking can help determine the
effectiveness of teaching critical thinking in higher education.
Taxonomy of Critical Thinking
The phenomenon of critical thought has been studied from a cognitive
psychological and a philosophical perspective (Fahim & Masouleh, 2012; Kennedy,
Fisher & Ennis, 1991). The taxonomical structure of critical thinking associates each
perspective with a particular theory for critical thinking which tends to cause confusion
when discussing a normative definition for critical thinking within higher education
(Cassum et al., 2013; Lloyd & Bahr, 2010). Whereas some scholars use “critical
thinking” and “higher order thinking” interchangeably (Marin & Halpern, 2011), others
make pointed distinctions that include the extent to which critical thinking can be defined
as either a set of skills or an innate cognitive process (Facione, 2013). The relationship
between the term “critical thinking” and other terms such as “informal logic”,
“metacognition”, “problem solving”, and “critical reflection” causes further confusion.
Definitions for critical thinking have stemmed from a multitude of views but there is little
empirical basis for a consensual definition of this phenomena within the context of higher
education (Celuch, Kozlenkova, & Black, 2010; Moore, 2011a). Each of the two
perspectives for defining critical thinking is explored more fully below to provide a
foundation for a study on the effectiveness of critical thinking teaching strategies.
Critical thinking as a cognitive psychological concept. From the cognitive
psychological theoretical perspective, critical thinking can be described as the actions,

16
behaviors, or attitudes individuals incorporate to acquire knowledge (Celuch,
Kozlenkova, & Black, 2010; Dewey, 1933; Ennis, 1996). The cognitive psychological
perspective explains how we think and why we follow a sequence of tasks in the mind
(Abu-Dabat, 2011; Dewey, 1933; Ennis, 1996). It also relies on the individual’s
disposition to willingly reflect on the internal questions and answers they make about
alternative possibilities in a given situation (Celuch et al., 2010). Cognitive
psychological theorists claim critical thinking is a transformative process the human mind
incorporates to acquire knowledge, solve a problem, or make decisions (Carawan,
Knight, Wittman, Pokorny, & Velde, 2011; Dewey, 1933; Ennis, 1996). Fahim and
Masouleh (2012) defined critical thinking by the types of actions or behaviors that
individuals exhibit during problem solving. Lloyd and Bahr (2010) added that critical
thinking is an attitude that individuals adopt when logically applying acquired skills in a
problem solving context.
Although the cognitive psychological classification of critical thinking has merits
in the context of describing the skills and dispositions critical thinkers use to solve
problems or acquire knowledge, one disadvantage of defining critical thinking
cognitively is that this definition relies primarily on the individual with little
acknowledgement of other variables that may contribute to a definition of critical
thinking such as the learning environment or the teaching or learning strategies that may
further encourage the individual to apply critical thinking processes/skills. Another
contentious aspect of the cognitive psychological definition of critical thinking is the
disagreement among critical thinking scholars over whether or not critical thinking is
dependent on specific disciplines such as the sciences as opposed to the humanities and

17
whether or not the critical thinking processes can be transferable to various situations or
environments (Kennedy, Fisher & Ennis, 1991; McArthur, 2010). For these reasons the
cognitive psychological concept of critical thinking should not be exclusively used in the
context of higher education.
Philosophical theories on critical thought. Critical thinking philosophers such
as Richard Paul and Matthew Lipman (as cited in Moore, 2011b; as cited in Niu, Behar-
Horenstein, & Garvan, 2013; as cited in Kennedy, 2012; Paul, 2013) focus on the ideal
qualities or characteristics that individuals should be capable of doing under the best of
circumstances. Whereas cognitive theorists believe critical thinking is about how we
think, critical thinking philosophers believe critical thinking is about how we should
think. The philosophical perspective can be described as a systematic examination of
rules, ideas, or principles that would explain the phenomena of critical thought (Lai,
2011). Riggs and Hellyer-Riggs (2010) stated philosophical definitions for critical
thinking tend to list qualities that critical thinkers should possess, such as open-
mindedness, fair-mindedness, motivation, and reasoning skills. Moore (2011a) on the
other hand, described critical thinking as a habit of the mind where individuals feel the
need to question acquired beliefs. These philosophical classifications of critical thinking
are supported by the American Philosophical Association’s description of a critical
thinker:
Inquisitive in nature, open minded, flexible, fair-minded, well-informed,
understands diverse viewpoints, has the will to suspend judgment, and
considers others perspectives (Lai, 2011, p. 6).
The philosophical perspective of critical thinking focuses on the application of

18
formal rules of logic however this perspective does not always correspond to
reality (Sternberg, 1986). Emphasis on the attributes of an ideal critical thinker
may limit discussion to the ideal and not take into account how individuals
actually think. To define critical thinking in the context of higher education the
pros of each the cognitive psychological and philosophical descriptions of critical
thinking combined may provide a more applied definition of this phenomenon.
Critical thinking in an educational context. Education is not merely the
acquisition of knowledge under controlled environments; Periklis (2010)
suggested one of the desired outcomes of education is to foster basic human
capabilities such as the ability to think critically. Generalist and specialist
however, continue to debate over which definition captures what critical thinking
really means in the realm of education (Moore, 2011b). Generalist claim critical
thinking is a set of skills that can be learned in a systematic way and which can be
applied across all academic disciplines (Moore, 2011b; Wilson-Mulnix, 2012).
In a comparative analysis of critical thinking generalists, Wilson-Mulnix
(2012) suggested that some critical thinking consider critical thinking a
methodical evaluation of beliefs or statements using rational standards that can be
taught, for example, in an Introduction to Logic course. Generalists claim
individuals do not necessarily need to be aware of how they think because their
critical thinking skills tend to be utilized or applied across a broad range of
contexts and circumstances (Moore, 2011b). For example, certain aspects of
critical thinking such as rational discourse can be applied, generally, across
different reasoning contexts. In this sense, critical thinking skills can be taught in

19
a generic way (Lai, 2011; Moore, 2011a; Wilson-Mulnix, 2012). Specialists on
the other hand tend to be more skeptical and believe critical thinking is contextual
and therefore relegated to specific academic disciplines (Behar-Horenstien & Niu,
2011). In the discipline of history, for example, Jones (2009) explained that
students are taught to consider the validity of an argument which tends to be
concerned with political power relationships, whereas in physics logic and
accuracy of solutions are vital to enhancing critical thinking skills. Law and
medical students, according to staff members, examine evidence to make logical
decisions (Jones, 2009). The conflicting philosophies between generalist and
specialist regarding critical thinking has been a long standing debate. McPeck,
Ennis, and Bailin all argued that the most useful thinking skills are those that are
domain- specific whereas other scholars such as Halpern, Lipman, and Van
Gelder maintain that critical thinking relies on criteria. These criteria may vary
across domains, yet the fundamental meaning of critical thinking remains the
same and therefore can be generalized (Lai, 2011). These opposing views should
be taken into consideration when designing future research on critical thinking
pedagogies.
This study considered both a generalist and specialist viewpoint.
Although this study focused on one specific domain, an introductory physics
course, the intervention, explicit critical thinking instruction, may be generalized
into other domains to elicit a transformation in student learning across different
contexts and environments.
Despite the variety of critical thinking definitions, the aim of this section

20
is to identify crucial themes among the various definitions and propose an applied
definition of critical thinking in the context of higher education. Although a
normative definition for this phenomenon may remain elusive due to the diversity
of meanings individuals apply to the words describing critical thinking (Moore,
2011a), the following discussion is organized by four major themes of critical
thought. The consensus among critical thinking scholars regarding critical
thinking is that it involves reflection about the actual thinking process (Facione,
2013; Herlo, 2010; Lampert, 2011; Niu, Behar-Horenstein, & Garvan, 2013;
Riggs et al., 2010), making judgments based on using rational reasoning skills
(Boghossian, 2012; Halpern, 2014; Khandaghi, Pakmehr, & Amiri, 2011; Riggs et
al., 2010), being skeptical about an individuals’ skills and dispositions to reach a
desired outcome (Ku, Ho, Kau, & Lai, 2014), and creating new knowledge
(Dondlinger & Wilson, 2012; Myo-Kyoung, Patel, Uchizono, & Beck, 2012).
Each theme will be correlated to the factors influencing transformative learning to
illustrate the link between critical thinking and the transformative learning theory.
Reflection. The first repetitive theme found in the literature on critical thinking
is that critical thinking involves reflection (Facione, 2013; Herlo, 2010; Lampert, 2011;
Niu et al., 2013; Riggs et al., 2010). Whereas Tishman and Jay (1993) described critical
thinking as being reflectively aware of one’s own basic beliefs, Niu, Behar-Horenstein,
and Garvan (2013) stated critical thinking is a process of purposeful reflection on
information that requires logic in order to make judgments and informed decisions.
Monitoring the quality of one’s thought makes it more likely that one will engage in
high-quality thinking (Lai, 2011). Within a classroom, reflection begins when students’

21
ambiguity or uncertainty about a problem or unfamiliar experience compels them to
identify and evaluate options to problem resolution; these are functions of critical
thinking (Dewey, 1933). As Dewey pointed out, the challenge is for educators to
employ teaching strategies that allow enough uncertainty to trigger reflection which in
turn results in the application of critical thought (Bleicher, 2011). Reflection about a
problem or situation generally refers to making a judgment based on evaluation of
knowledge. This leads the discussion to the next major theme in defining critical
thinking which is judgment.
Judgment. Judgment is the rendering of a verdict or taking a stand based on
rational questioning using systematic forms of logic (Boghossian, 2012). Critical
thinkers tend to make different types of judgment based on the validity, truthfulness,
reliability, usefulness, or persuasiveness of the resulting verdict or stance (Khandaghi,
Pakmehr, & Amiri, 2011). Cognitive psychologist tend to classify judgment as an
individual’s action or behavior whereas philosophers tend to define the formal process
an ideal critical thinker should follow to judge situations in one way or another.
Transformative learning theory suggests one of the domains of learning is the task of
problem solving (Carawan et al., 2011; Herlo, 2010). This relates to the actions and to
formal processes of the mind that takes place while judging. Using systematic forms of
rational questioning to evaluate arguments or alternative solutions serve as examples of
applying judgment within the critical thinking process (Riggs et al., 2010).
Individual skepticism. A third theme noted in the literature on defining critical
thinking is the view that acquisition of knowledge should involve individual skepticism
(Ku, Ho, Kau, & Lai, 2014). This theme emphasizes Socratic questioning and negative

22
judgment in arriving at a verdict, stance, decision, or solution (Khandaghi, Pakmehr, &
Amiri, 2011).
Whereas reflection, judgment, and skepticism pertain to an individual’s cognitive
behavior, the fourth theme for defining critical thinking is dependent on both judgment
and skepticism in producing new knowledge. This theme is referred to as evaluation
(Myo-Kyoung, Patel, Uchizono, & Beck, 2012). Benjamin Bloom (as cited in Myo-
Kyoung et al., 2012) and his colleagues proposed taxonomy of educational objectives
and categorized information processing skills into hierarchical levels, placing
comprehension at the bottom and evaluation at the top level. Evaluation includes
descriptions such as being able to analyze, synthesize and create new knowledge. These
attributes are frequently said to represent critical thinking (Dondlinger & Wilson, 2012;
Myo-Kyoung, Patel, Uchizono, & Beck, 2012).
For critical thinking to be transformative it should consider the four components
of the transformative learning theory: a) reflection, b) rational discourse, c) taking
action, and d) the learning experience (Carawan et al., 2011; Herlo, 2010). The major
themes found in the myriad of critical thinking definitions correlate with three of the
four factors that influence transformative learning with one exception. Definitions for
critical thinking have not taken into consideration the learning experience. Therefore, in
order for critical thinking to be transformative and consistently applied to real-world
situations and within different domains/contexts, the experience must be addressed
through appropriate classroom environments and teaching strategies. Educators may
benefit by knowing that both the cognitive and the philosophical approaches to critical
thinking can be incorporated into a transformative definition of the phenomenon. The

23
relationship between the cognitive psychological and the philosophical definitions of
critical thinking as they relate to the transformative learning theory can be summarized
by comparing the key components of each theory. Whereas transformative learning is
influenced by four key factors, (a) critical reflection, (b) rational discourse, (c) taking
action, and (d) the learning experience (Carawan et al., 2011). Definitions for critical
thinking relate to three of the four key factors that influence transformative learning.
The definitions for critical thinking addresses (a) purposeful reflection, (b)
communication of rational thought and skepticism, and (c) actions of the mind, such as
judgment or creating new knowledge. There is a clear gap in the current literature on
critical thinking. For critical thinking to be transformative a definition in the educational
context should also address a learners’ experience.
In the context of higher education, a more appropriate definition for critical
thinking should not only take into account the skills, dispositions, and descriptions of an
ideal critical thinker, the definition should also provide a description of the
transformative influences that impart critical thought. A more appropriate definition of
critical thinking in an educational context would therefore include descriptions of
optimum learning environments for imparting a long-lasting experience. An educational
definition for critical thinking would also address the specific discipline or subject
matter that the critical thinking process is to encompass, as well as the teaching
strategies that have been proven to positively influence the cognitive as well as the
philosophical descriptions for critical thinking.
Despite the fact that critical thinking is primarily dependent on individuals, it is
essential to explore the additional factors that influence critical thinking. The next

24
sections examine optimum learning environments, teaching strategies that have
enhanced critical thought, how to transform theory into practice, possible influences of
demographics on critical thinking, and assessing critical thinking. Familiarity with all of
these factors will facilitate an understanding of the relationships between them and the
application of critical thinking to real-world problems.
Significance of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking scholars such as Robert Ennis (1996) and Richard Paul (2013)
agreed that the ability to think critically is essential for success in a world where new
knowledge is created at an ever-accelerating rate. The information age, for example,
ushered an overwhelming amount of data that demands individuals possess unique skills
to properly utilize data in problem solving and decision making (Martin, 2013; Weiner,
2011). There is far too much information in cyberspace to discern relevant and accurate
information from misinformation (Weiner, 2011).
Inherent to students’ academic journey through higher education, for example, is
the ability to organize knowledge in a logical and rational manner within specific time
constraints. To survive in the constrained environment students must possess strong
critical thinking skills (Martin, 2013). Having these skills facilitate the access and proper
use of precise information because critical thinking processes consists of rational,
structured, systematic and analytical steps which can lead to effective decision making in
the classrooms and beyond (Martin, 2013; Weiner, 2011).
The quality of life is highly dependent on the quality of thought (McArthur,
2010). The decisions individuals make about their education, finances, short, and long
term goals, as well as how they interact in society as citizens are all impacted by their

25
ability to apply critical thinking skills. Additionally, strong critical thinkers not only are
more likely to do better academically, they tend to also be more employable (Dwyer et
al., 2012). It is therefore vital to examine the efficacy of critical thinking teaching
strategies.
Students who graduate from college without being able to figure facts from
opinions further exemplify the implications of deficient critical thought. Educators
should therefore be responsive to an increasingly complex society by developing critical
thinkers (Holley, 2009). Being a critical thinker enables citizens to engage with the
broader society in a creative and transformative dialectic (McArthur, 2010).
Unfortunately, the American education system has been perceived as failing to cultivate
critical thinking skills and dispositions (Frodeman, Klien & Mitcham, 2012; Wilson-
Mulnix, 2012).
Educators, in general, tend to be fixated on teaching at lower cognitive levels in
efforts to meet federally mandated standards (Frodeman et al., 2010; Marin & Halpern,
2011). The prominent perception of the failure to cultivate critical thinking has
motivated some educators to elicit unconventional teaching strategies in hopes of
cultivating the critical thinking skills students need for future success in the workforce
(Butler, 2012; Hodge & Lear, 2011). Colleges such as the University of Colorado,
Colorado Springs, the United States Air Force Academy, and other institutions of higher
education have experimented with various strategies for teaching critical thought.
Although the effectiveness of some of these interventions has been measured with respect
to individuals’ skill levels, the effectiveness of critical thinking teaching strategies have
not been evaluated from the perspective of individuals’ consistent application of critical

26
thinking processes. A better understanding of environments that may promote critical
thinking may foster further interest in evaluating the effectiveness of teaching critical
thinking. The emphasis on thinking critically however is not exclusive to the
complexities of modern society.
Historical Foundation of Critical Thought
The intellectual foundation of critical thinking can be traced to the teaching and
practices of Socrates (470-399 BC) who believed the best way to lead to reason in the
interest of finding truths was through a process of rigorous questioning (Bareham, 2012).
His use of questions to elicit deeper and broader thinking compelled others to challenge
fallacious thinking and empty rhetoric (Bareham, 2012). The permanence of this
philosophers’ influence is evidenced by the fact Socratic questioning, and its concern
with clarity and logic, remains widely used in educational settings to this day (Bareham,
2012).
John Locke revolutionized education during the 1600’s by developing the
theoretical foundation for critical thinking (Stuart, 2010). Locke argued that reflection,
intuition, reason, and sensation produce critical thinking (Allen, 2013; Stuart, 2010). He
believed ideas came from reflections and that intuition and reasoning were considered
complex ideas (Allen, 2013; Stuart, 2010). As a result of Locke’s philosophy on critical
thinking, educators began using a building block approach to reasoning to be understood
by students in the same way that a malfunctioning mechanism could be taken apart and
reassembled with fixed components (Allen, 2013). Students were encouraged to make
thinking rational, to grapple with concepts rather than to accept conditions as taught. The
phenomenon of thought continued to expand throughout the 17th
through 19th
centuries

27
with a corresponding awareness of educational tools that, at the time, were considered to
enhance critical thinking, such as textbooks and blackboards (Allen, 2013; Stuart, 2010).
In the 20
th
century, the concept of critical thinking became more explicit primarily
through the works of William Graham Sumner who studied the origins of sociology and
anthropology (Fahim & Ghamari, 2011). Sumner described criticism as the examination
and test of propositions of any kind that are offered for acceptance, to determine whether
or not they correspond to reality. His descriptions of critique supported the need for
critical thinking in education since education at the time was evolving from simple
questioning to making judgments based on logic (Fahim & Ghamari, 2011).
Similar to Sumner, John Dewey addressed the concept of critical thinking in
education with an emphasis on the good habits of thinking (Davies, 2011). Dewey
discussed reflection as an aspect of sound thinking and he provided a pragmatic approach
to human thought as being grounded in actual human purposes, goals, and objectives
(Dewey, 1933). Both Sumner and Dewey's work made a significant impact to the
growing concept of critical thinking in the United States and provided a foundation for it
both in education and practice (Kennedy, 2012).
The 1980’s ushered in a Critical Thinking Movement with scholars such as Paul,
Ennis, Elder, Halpern, and Lipman (Niu, Behar-Horenstein, & Garvan, 2013). These
scholars emphasized the ideal characteristics and qualities of critical thinkers as opposed
to the actions or behaviors critical thinkers are capable of performing (Behar-Horenstein
& Niu, 2011; Fahim & Masouleh, 2012). Today critical thinking is the cornerstone of
higher education however the effectiveness of various teaching strategies has yet to be
definitively established. It is necessary to examine the efficacy of critical thinking

28
teaching strategies because critical thinking skills that are systematically cultivated can
build responsible citizens who are equipped to respond effectively in a myriad of
situations (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011).
Environments that Promote Critical Thinking Experiences
Critical thinking skills can be learned; however individual dispositions or attitudes
need to be encouraged through learning experiences (Halpern, 1998; Marin & Halpern,
2011). These learning experiences tend to be dependent on numerous factors such as the
classroom’s physical location or how the classroom furniture is arranged (Cleveland &
Fisher, 2014). Classroom environments have often been associated with the type of
learning experience (such as active or student-centered learning) or the pedagogy the
educator incorporates within the classroom. Little attention has been placed on the
effects of the physical space associated with the type of learning experience or pedagogy
that is used (Cleveland & Fisher, 2014). In a comprehensive review of literature on the
effects of the physical space on learning outcomes, Cleveland and Fisher (2014)
illustrated the complex nature of evaluating the impacts of the physical classroom space
and configuration on learning outcomes. Although conclusive evaluations require further
research, the findings indicated that physical space should be designed to enable students
to feel a sense of identity and belonging, it should facilitate student engagement in
activities, and that the seating arrangements should correlate with the specific pedagogy
that is used (Cleveland & Fisher, 2014). These elements of the physical classroom space
tend to positively influence students’ learning experiences.
The relationships between the classroom learning environment, student’s
cognition, and learning outcomes were explored in a study conducted by Pitkaniemi and

29
Vanninen (2012) who suggested that the classroom environment produces learning
experiences and it is the learning experience that has been shown to be the most
significant factor in students’ learning and attitudes. The learning experience refers to the
cognitive and psychosocial properties linked to student learning through mediating
factors such as motivation and metacognition (Pitkaniemi & Vanninen, 2012). In other
words a positive learning experience and associated learning outcome is not only related
to the teacher’s instruction or classroom configuration, but it is also related to the
students’ motivation to learn and to the students’ metacognition. This is consistent with
Mathews and Lowe’s (2011) finding that revealed teachers should create classroom
experiences that center around learners’ sense of control. Despite the myriad of studies
that suggest student-centered environments enhance learning, Pascarella, Wang, Trolian,
and Blaich (2013) argued that it is the clear and organized classroom instruction and
student deep learning activities that provide positive impacts to critical thinking. The
Cleveland and Fishers’ (2014) study, Pitkaniemi and Vannienen (2012) study and the
Pascarella et al. (2013) study all shared a similar suggestion--learners who are actively
engaged in their classroom environments tend to think in a more logical and structured
way. This common finding of emphasizing active student engagement can be correlated
to transformative learning theory and critical thinking theory whereby task-orientation
and actions of the mind are congruent within both learning theories.
Learning experiences have been categorized into the following types: student-
centered, team-based, active-learning, and traditional lecture-based learning (Carawan et
al., 2011; Drummond, 2012; Yin Yin, Kanesan Abdullah, & Alazidiyeen, 2011; Zapatero,
Maheshwari, & Chen, 2012). A student-centered experience is one where learners feel

30
unthreatened and can engage in open dialogue (Carawan et al., 2011; Mathews and Lowe,
2011). When students can draw knowledge from a safe learning environment, they
experience a common base for constructing meaning via personal reflection and group
discussion (Carawan et al., 2011; Pitkaniemi & Vanninen, 2012). Within student-
centered environments, individual students are empowered to determine their own
learning goals using means they are most comfortable with (Mathews & Lowe, 2011).
These approaches are fundamentally different from traditional teacher-led instruction
hence student-centered learning has many critics. Opponents of student-centered
learning contend that this approach lacks compelling evidence to document effectiveness
(Pascarella et al., 2013). As technologies evolve and different teaching approaches
emerge, future research is needed to document evidence of the effectiveness of the
various approaches in supporting learning experiences that foster critical thinking.
Whereas student-centered experiences tend to focus on individual students’ self-
esteem, team-based learning experiences focus on student interaction within the class
learning setting (Drummond, 2012). Yin Yin, et al. (2011) studied college classroom
experiences and found a positive relationship between critical thinking and the amount of
student interaction, instructor support and questioning. The concept of team-based or
collaborative learning, refers to an instruction method whereby students work together in
small groups toward a common learning objective (Zapatero, Maheshwari, & Chen,
2012). One of the benefits of team-based learning approaches is that students are
responsible not only for their own learning but also for one another’s learning; hence the
success of one student benefits the success of the other students (Drummond, 2012;
Ofstad & Brunner, 2013; Parmelee & Michaelsen, 2010).

31
Advocates of team-based learning claim that the active exchange of thoughts and
ideas within small groups promotes critical thinking and increases the interest level
among participants (Macke, Taylor & Taylor, 2013; Thomas, 2009). Learning activities
that are designed for team-based learning tend to challenge students to apply the content
knowledge gained from readings. The activities, while feasible, tend to be challenging
enough to require engagement by every group member. In addition, activities do not
have clear-cut answers because the intent of team-based learning is to require group
discussion, problem solving, and critical thinking (Macke et al., 2013). For team-based
learning to be effective, Parmelee and Michaelsen (2010) suggested using twelve
guidelines which begins with a robust and solid course design and contains such tips as
including application exercises to fully engage teams in deep thinking and focused
discussion. The use of similar steps was suggested by Macke et al. (2013) in their
description of a step-by-step sequence for team-based instruction that fosters critical
thinking. While team-based learning has many proponents, its critics tend to believe that
implementation of this approach in the classroom is too complex and therefore students
do not enjoy the experience (Parmelee and Michaelsen, 2010). Additionally, opponents
point to the academic performance of the team is dependent on the lowest performing
team member which may jeopardize the motivation of higher performing students within
the team (Ofstad & Brunner, 2013). Perhaps the key would be to ensure that students,
whether in a student-centered or team-based learning environment, are engaged in active
learning versus listening to teachers lecturing subject matter.
Research demonstrated that active learning versus traditional lectures enhances
critical thinking skills (Drummond, 2012; Zapatero et al., 2012; Kim, Sharma, Land, &

32
Furlong, 2013). A 2006 National Commission on the Future of Higher Education
revealed that college students are not interested in the traditional lecture based instruction
style of yesteryear because their attention spans tend to be shorter leading to a lack of
student engagement and resulting in poor levels of learning and understanding (Zapatero
et al., 2012). Active learning on the other hand engages students in activities about
relevant issues to advance meaning making (Meltzer & Thornton, 2012; Zimmerman &
Land, 2014).
The similarity between all four of these learning experiences is the fact that they
each ensure student engagement and reflection are incorporated as the key approaches to
understanding the course content (Pascarella et al., 2013). Divergences between the
learning experiences stem primarily from the focus on individual versus a team. These
learning experiences can enhance critical thinking however many obstacles to their
implementation exist. According to Fraser, Timan, Miller, Dowd, Tucker and Mazur
(2014), limited time available posed the most crucial barrier to successfully implementing
positive learning experiences. A workaround strategy to this barrier may be for
instructors to build student trust and buy-in when adopting a new teaching strategy
(Fraser et al., 2014). Another challenge to fostering a positive learning experience is that
each of the four learning experiences described above depend on how well the teacher
organizes and presents the content (Pitkaniemi & Vanninen, 2012). Designing the
pedagogical approach to capitalize on strong learning experiences should consider how
the design may encourage the application of critical thought.

33
Practical Application of Critical Thought
Many critical thinking scholars maintain that critical thinking skills can be taught
(Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011; Fahim & Masouleh, 2012). Several different
approaches to teaching critical thinking skills have evolved. These instructional
interventions have been empirically studied during the past decades in efforts to examine
their effects on critical thinking skills development (Niu, Behr-Horenstein, & Garvan,
2013). The results of 61 empirical studies were analyzed by Niu et al. (2013) to reveal
mixed conclusions. While some studies have demonstrated that interventions have been
effective under certain conditions and populations, others provided non-significant results
under similar interventions. The mixed conclusions can be attributed to two key factors.
First the length of participant exposure to the intervention provided support to the notion
that the longer the exposure the greater the positive effect on critical thinking skills.
While some studies used similar interventions, the length of exposure to the intervention
varied thereby producing differing results. The second reason for differences in
conclusions between similar studies was based on the different discipline or subject
where the intervention took place. Within science courses the impact of the critical
thinking intervention was higher than within humanities. This may be attributed to the
strict processes inherent within the sciences as compared to the humanities.
The commonality among the empirical research however was the fact that the
majority of the studies utilized standardized measurements of critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking skills were measured by administering pre-post standardized
assessments such as the International Critical Thinking Basic Concepts and

34
Understandings Test, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, California
Critical Thinking Skills Test, and Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment, to name a few.
Although assessment of students’ critical thinking skills is nearly common
practice at institutions of higher education, measuring the practical application of those
skills has eluded researchers. Further research is therefore required to explore whether or
not teaching interventions enhance the consistent application of critical thinking skills.
Developing critical thinking through explicit instruction. Critical thinking is
rarely explicitly taught, according to Heijltjes, Van Gog, and Paas (2014), because
research based guidelines for maximizing what to teach, when to teach, and how to teach
critical thinking are elusive. Another reason for the rarity of explicit critical thinking
instruction is the fact that a separate course on critical thinking tends to be resource
dependent (Marin & Halpern, 2011). Despite the elusive nature of standardized
guidelines for explicit critical thinking instruction, research has been conducted by
numerous scholars who reached similar findings. Marin and Halpern (2011) evaluated
the acquisition of critical thinking by conducting an experiment using an explicit form of
transferring critical thinking skills to students. The explicit form of transferring critical
thinking skills consisted of an online tutorial using topics of interest to high school
students such as video gaming, sports, dieting, and music videos. The online materials
required students to actively respond to questions. In addition to the online tutorial,
teachers provided classroom materials that corresponded to each online tutorial.
Teachers used these materials to introduce, discuss, and close each session. Marin and
Halpern’s findings supported the notion that explicit critical thinking instruction had a
greater positive impact on students’ critical thinking levels. A variation of Marin and

35
Halpern’s online tutorial and in-classroom materials strategy for transferring critical
thinking skills is noted in an interactive engagement pedagogy used across disciplines
called Just-in-Time Teaching.
Just-in-Time Teaching. The basic premise of Just-in-Time Teaching is that
instructors adjust in-class lessons based on students’ responses to pre-class, web-based
“warm-up” activities (Novak, 2011). Students complete the warm-up assignments online
a few hours before class. Teachers incorporate students’ understanding, or lack thereof,
of key concepts into the in-class lesson. In a sense this pedagogical approach fosters a
teacher-student team creating relevant learning experiences. Classroom instruction is
then more of a mix between pre-planned activities and student’s feedback. In a study to
examine the extent to which a new science teacher adopted Just-in-Time Teaching,
Osmond and Goodnough (2011) explored how pedagogical knowledge and practice
would be enhanced through the use of Just-in-Time Teaching. Osmond and Goodnough
(2011) concluded that the Just-in-Time Teaching strategy reinforced many areas of the
new teachers’ educational content knowledge. Just-in-Time Teaching activities helped
the teacher assess her students prior knowledge allowing her to address, in the classroom,
any gaps in their knowledge by challenging their thinking. In-class activities compelled
the teacher to reflect on her own instructional methodologies as she tried to instill active
participation through discussion sessions. Novak (2011) explained that timely web-based
assignments help both students and teachers prepare for enhanced in-class engagement as
well as provide students with some control over their own learning. The Osmond et al.
study supported the notion that Just-in-Time Teaching benefits student learning and
strengthens faculty development.

36
Student and teacher engagement has been examined in different capacities over
the past 30 years (Sun, Martinez, & Seli, 2014). Just-in-Time Teaching was first
developed over 16 years ago to enhance students’ learning experiences by providing
Physics instructors with insights to which concepts their students had difficulty
understanding (Novak, 2011). This approach has continued to be used in Physics and
other disciplines such as Economics and Biology. The goal of this strategy is to optimize
class time discussion among peers to ensure a common understanding of key concepts.
Just-in-Time Teaching makes attainment of knowledge an explicit outcome
primarily because of the nature of pre-class assignments. For Just-in-Time Teaching to
be successfully implemented, instructors must hold students responsible for on-time
delivery of meaningful responses (Scott, Gray, & Yates, 2013). Not only should the pre-
class assignment require students to include a written response in their own words, but
they should also indicate the process that led them to the response (Novak, 2011). By
reflecting on their thinking processes, students practice essential critical thinking skills.
Through a study comparing traditional lecture-based instruction with Just-in-Time
Teaching, Scott et al. (2013), measured the effectiveness of these two pedagogical
approaches in a short course on Newtonian mechanics. By assessing participants’ scores
on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) on a pre-post intervention basis, Scott et al. (2013)
concluded that there were greater learning gains among participants in Just-in-Time
Teaching as compared to participants in the lecture-based program. Interestingly, the
female participants in Just-in-Time Teaching demonstrated greater gains in problem-
solving skills than the male participants in Just-in-Time Teaching whereas the male
participants in the lecture-based program showed improvement in problem-solving skills

37
as compared to the male participants in the Just-in-Time Teaching. The difference
between male and female outcomes was examined in two separate studies suggesting
similar conclusions. The study results suggest groups which are subject to negative
stereotypes, such as females in the science fields, tend to actively reflect and reaffirm
their core values which in turn counteracts the psychological effects of difficult and
stressful programs such as physics or mathematics (Scott et al., 2013).
This study capitalized on the Just-in-Time Teaching pedagogical approach by
introducing participants in the treatment groups to a four-part model for learning critical
thinking within the Physics-110 course warm-up activities as well as within classroom
discussion and in homework assignments. The four part model consist of (a) explicitly
learning the skills of critical thinking as identified by the Physics Department
chairperson, (b) developing the students dispositions for effortful thinking and learning,
(c) directing learning activities in ways that increase the probability of transformative and
trans contextual transfer (structure training), and (d) making metacognitive monitoring
explicit and overt (Halpern, 2014).
The goal of the Just-in-Time Teaching approach is to explicitly introduce
treatment groups to a common definition of what critical thinking is, in the context of
Physics, and provide them with the description of the critical thinking skills necessary to
solve real-world Physics applications. These two explicit concepts were introduced as
part of the pre-class warm-up activities, repeated during classroom discussions, and
assessed on a pre-test and post-test basis. During classroom time the teacher-student
team, emphasized the key concepts that some students struggled to understand during
pre-class warm-ups. Whereas students were expected to participate in and reflect on the

38
learning and teaching process, instructors fostered a community of mutual help through
Peer Instruction.
Peer Instruction. Peer Instruction, introduced by Mazur in 1997, is a teaching
method whereby students are grouped into small teams and rationally discuss their
individual answers to multiple choice questions (Scott et al., 2013). Mazur (1997)
contended that active involvement of students in the teaching process, facilitates
reflection among peers and allows instructors to continuously assess knowledge
attainment (learning). Peer Instruction (PI) is at the cornerstone of the Just-in-Time
Teaching strategy. Although Just-in-Time Teaching and Peer-Instruction had their
origins in the discipline of Physics, many other science-based disciplines have adopted
these teaching strategies (Scott et al., 2013).
Simon & Cutts (2012) suggested that the computing education community can
learn from the Physics community to foster deep understanding of computing mechanics.
These two scholars explained how Peer-Instruction is not merely talking about what the
“right” answer is; the right answer becomes apparent when the students use the
appropriate core concepts in their attempts to explain how they each define what the
problem is and articulate how they arrived at the solution (Simon & Cutts, 2012). They
acknowledged that the computing education community’s use of Peer-Instruction may
help educators learn what areas about computing that their students have difficulty
learning. The positive impacts of Peer-Instruction were empirically examined by Gok
(2012) in a quasi-experimental research design. Findings indicated that students
receiving traditional lecture-based instruction experienced significantly more difficulties
understanding the Physics phenomena then those who participated in Peer-Instruction and

39
problem solving.
This study was a quasi-experimental research design, similar to the Gok study;
however the intervention was explicit critical thinking instruction using Just-in-Time
Teaching, Peer Instruction, and incorporated concept mapping techniques in efforts to
optimize students’ deep understanding of critical thinking concepts so that they can
consistently apply those concepts and processes to real-world situations.
In examining explicit critical thinking instruction, several consistent themes
emerged. The themes consistent within explicit critical thinking instruction include
repetition, the use of argument-mapping or concept-mapping, Socratic questioning, and
student-centered active engagement (Bensley & Spero, 2014; Fahim & Masouleh, 2012;
Niu et al., 2013; Wilson-Mulnix, 2012). Students receiving explicit critical thinking
instruction must have a metacognitive awareness of the processes of thought. This can be
achieved through substantial repetition of thinking exercises (Wilson-Mulnix, 2012).
Through repetition of action oriented tasks students practice the critical thinking
principles. With repeated practice critical thinking becomes a habit of the mind.
The second theme emerging from the literature on explicit critical thinking
instruction was the active use of argument or concept maps in the classroom. Argument
or concept maps are diagrams depicting chains of reasoning and evidence that are
structured hierarchically, with premises reinforced by others in support of a conclusion
(Wilson-Mulnix, 2012). Argument or concept mapping engages students in rational
discourse while actively writing down their argument and supporting their argument with
evidence all in search for a solution or conclusion to a given problem or situation (Yeo,

40
2014). Argument or concept maps are designed to instill questioning in efforts to move
to the next logical and rational concept (Carr-Lopez, Galal, Vyas, Patel, & Gnesa, 2014).
Students can increase understanding by asking questions (Jones, 2012). The
philosopher, Socrates revolutionized instruction by basing it on questioning. Socratic
questioning was grounded on a series of methodical questions that helped learners gain
awareness towards their own misconceptions, erroneous assumptions, and false
conclusions. Teaching using the Socratic Method consists of questioning for which there
are no definitive answers in order to stimulate the thinking. According to Fahim and
Bagheri (2012) it is through questioning that students can be led to new discoveries, so
the function of questions is not limited to assessing the amount of knowledge obtained
but creating new levels of understanding, to uncover contradictions. Estes, Gunter, and
Mintz (2011) argued that "good questions are educative – they provide the opportunity
for deeper thought" (p.192). Based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy and Paul's Taxonomy
of Socratic Questioning, Estes et al. (2011) introduced common types of questions
educators can ask to assess student knowledge and raise their level of understanding.
Bloom's Taxonomy contains six types of questioning for six cognitive levels:
1. Remembering questions which ask students to recall what they have learned,
2. Understanding questions which ask students to explain what they have learned,
3. Applying questions which ask students to use new learning in other familiar
situations,
4. Analyzing questions which ask students to break what they have learned into its
parts and explore the relationships among them,
5. Evaluative questions which ask students to render a judgment,

41
6. Creating questions which ask students to generate new ways of thinking about
issues and subjects. Likewise, Paul categorized Socratic questioning into six types as
well; however Paul’s taxonomy is also the foundation for the International Critical
Thinking Basic Concepts and Understandings Test (FCT, 2013). The six types of
Socratic questions Paul developed are:
1. Questions for clarification,
2. Questions that probe assumptions,
3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence,
4. Questions about viewpoints and perspectives,
5. Questions that probe implications, and
6. Questions that probe consequences.
Socratic questioning is not relegated to the teacher asking questions of the
student, it entails students posing question of their own, which according to Jones (2012),
is vital to critical thinking.
A student-centered active-learning environment, such as having students edit their
own and others assignments, is the fourth theme of explicit critical thinking instruction.
There is an extensive consensus among critical thinking scholars about the importance of
engaging students in authentic practices (Kim, Sharma, Land, & Furlong, 2013; Zapatero
et al., 2012), that provide meaningful contexts that will enhance their ability to apply
what they have learned. To explore the effect of active learning on critical thinking, Kim,
Sharma, Land, and Furlong, (2013) conducted a study on undergraduate environmental
science students who were tasked to develop arguments and write a final report
addressing a real-world problem, in this case, the response to a Hurricane emergency.

42
Findings from the study indicated that students who actively engaged in reflection of the
problem, held rational discussions, and wrote down argument maps scored high on a post
exercise critical thinking assessment than those who did not engage in a task-oriented
teaching module (Kim et al., 2013). While the Kim et al. study incorporated task
oriented instruction modules, Nelson and Crow’s (2014) intervention consisted primarily
of students’ repeated engagement in the practice of problematizing given situations.
Students would then collaborate on possible strategies and solutions to address the type
of situation, which theoretically developed new critical thinking skills that “improved
their ability to interpret, analyze, and address similar situations in the field of practice”
(p. 78). Both studies arrived at similar conclusions; active learning promotes critical
thinking.
Despite the myriad of empirical research concluding that explicit instruction
imparts critical thinking, a prevailing view seems to be that critical thinking can be
learned primarily through immersion into the real world (Halpern, 1998; Heijltjes et al.,
2014). Immersion into real world application of critical thinking provides learners with
opportunities to practice critical thinking skills.
Critical Thinking Skills and Individual Dispositions towards Critical Thinking
Traditionally, being a critical thinker was described in terms of ideal cognitive
abilities or skills such as being logical, analytical, open-minded, fair-minded, and rational
(Riggs & Hellyer-Riggs, 2010). A critical thinker certainly possesses these skills
however these particular skills are not meant to be definitive or exhaustive because
critical thinking is a much more complex phenomenon. For example, Halpern (2014)
discussed a much longer general list of thinking skills that would be applicable in almost

43
any situation or classroom. It is useful to identify those key thinking skills to help clarify
some of the underlying concepts of, what Halpern explained, are five categories of skills
that can be defined within a rubric for using an explicit approach to teaching critical
thinking skills. The five categories of critical thinking skills are: 1) verbal reasoning, 2)
argument analysis, 3) thinking as hypothesis testing, 4) likelihood and uncertainty, and 5)
decision making and problem solving.
The first category of critical thinking skills emphasizes verbal reasoning, using
existing knowledge about one statement believed to be true and comparing it to another
statement, the conclusion, to determine if it is true. The underlying skills of this category
include being pragmatic and logical, organizing thoughts linearly, using “if, then”
statement or graphic diagrams (Halpern, 2014). In general, the skills in this category are
those that are needed to comprehend and defend against the complexities of everyday
language. Language and thinking are integrated concepts therefore the skills required to
reason verbally have a reciprocal relationship where thoughts determine the language
used to express them, and the language used forms the thoughts. For example, verbal
reasoning includes the ability to discriminate between deductive and inductive reasoning,
the ability to avoid the fallacies of confirming the consequent and denying the antecedent
of a statement or argument, and understanding the difference between truth and validity
among several other skills. Analysis of arguments on the other hand, focuses on the skills
of making assumptions, qualifiers and counterarguments.
An argument, Halpern (2012) defined as an attempt to convince another that a
specific conclusion is true based on the rationale that is presented. Arguments must have
at least one premise (reason) and one conclusion and tend to have structures that can be

44
identified and diagramed. Although it takes a lot of effort to diagram an argument,
knowing the tools that facilitate analysis of arguments such as, identifying conclusions,
rating the quality of reasons, and determining the overall strength of an argument, are
vital to the success of teaching critical thinking in higher education (Halpern, 2014).
Whereas verbal reasoning and analysis of arguments tend to be cognitive skills
that take a great deal of effort to accomplish, thinking as hypothesis testing is a bit easier
because much of human thinking is like the scientific method of hypothesis testing
(Halpern, 2012). Like scientific reasoning, the skills needed for thinking as hypothesis
testing include the gathering of observations or information, formulating beliefs, and then
using the information collected to determine whether or not the beliefs are confirmed.
Similar to thinking as hypothesis testing, the fourth category of critical thinking skills that
should be explicitly taught, is using likelihood and uncertainty to make judgments.
Understanding probabilities and how they can affect the likelihood of an outcome
or, in uncertain situations, the unlikelihood of an outcome is the fourth essential
component of critical thinking skills. Probability in this context refers to the number of
ways a particular outcome or belief can occur divided by the number of possible
outcomes (Halpern, 2012). The skills in this category Halpern (2012) explained, require
formal instruction on concepts such as regression to the mean (another term for the
average) or conjunction errors (a misconception that the co-occurrence of two or more
events is more likely than the occurrence of the event alone). Despite the difficulty in
comprehending these skills, they are nonetheless necessary to the critical thinking process
because individual estimates of the likelihood of certain outcomes with unknown

45
frequencies tend to be inaccurate. By teaching how to calculate the likelihood of
uncertain outcomes, educators may reverse the counterintuitive nature of probabilities.
The fifth and last category of critical thinking skills is problem solving or making
a decision. There is a consensus among critical thinking scholars such as Paul, Elder, and
Halpern that critical thinking skills are used in the process of making decisions or solving
problems (Halpern, 2012; Paul, 2013). This category of skills however emphasizes how
to phrase problem statements in a variety of ways, how to identify objectives,
alternatives, and use of precise criteria to make judgments among the alternatives.
In addition to these five critical skill categories, attitudes such as motivation and
self-efficacy, values and habits of mind all play important roles in critical thinking
(Tishman & Jay, 1993). Critical thinking scholars use the term disposition to refer to the
characterological attributes of individuals (Ennis, 1996). Ennis (1996) defined critical
thinking disposition as reflectively exercising a tendency to act on certain conditions.
Individual dispositions have a significant impact to determining whether or not
individuals use their thinking skills consistently and when it matters most (Facione,
2013).
According to Facione (2013) individual dispositions can be classified as either
positively or negatively influencing critical thinking results or as not having formed a
strong habit of mind one way or the other. Ambivalent tendencies toward the use of
critical thinking should be discouraged in a classroom environment since one of the
primary goals of education is to produce critical thinkers (Butler, 2012; Halpern, 2014;
Marin & Halpern, 2011). Under the sponsorship of the Committee on Pre-College
Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, a panel of 46 experts conducted a

46
strict-method Delphi research project which resulted in a comprehensive
conceptualization of critical thinking which included descriptions of both positive
attributes towards critical thought and negative habits of thought (Facione P., Facione N.,
& Giacarlo, 2000; Zhang, 2003). Positive dispositions or attributes of critical thinking
outcomes included inquisitiveness, judiciousness, truth-seeking, open-mindedness,
analytical, systematic, and confidence in reasoning. The bad habits of mind are the
antithesis of the positive attributes and include intellectual dishonesty, intolerance,
inattentiveness, haphazardness, indifference, mistrustfulness of reason, and having
simplistic reasoning (Facione et al., 2000; Zhang, 2003).
The following section highlights three positive dispositions that tend to be
considered antecedents to critical thinking: engagement, cognitive maturity, and
innovativeness (Khandaghi & Pakmehr, 2012; Mathews & Lowe, 2011; Ricketts & Rudd,
2004). The intent is to synthesize individual attributes that may be necessary in order for
any critical thinking teaching method to be effective.
Engagement. The term engagement as it relates to critical thinking disposition
refers to an individual’s inclination towards seeking opportunities to use reasoning or
anticipating situations that require reasoning (Khandaghi & Pakmehr, 2012; Ricketts &
Rudd, 2004). Having an engaged disposition also means an individual is confident in
their reasoning abilities (Khandaghi & Pakmehr, 2012; Ricketts & Rudd, 2004).
Whereas Khandaghi et al. (2012) uses the term engagement to describe a propensity for
recognizing opportunities for critical thinking, Mathews and Lowe (2011) use the term
sensitivity for critical thought to mean one’s capacity to apply critical thinking to
different situations. It is one’s sensitivity, according to Mathews et al. (2011), that can

47
initially trigger the processes for critical thinking because the individual is disposed to be
“vigilant for recognizing situations that might be enhanced by instantiating one’s skills
and strategies for critical thinking” (p. 61). A person disposed to engagement or
sensitivity for critical thinking does not necessarily mean that person will capitalize on
that disposition at every given opportunity. That individual also should have the
cognitive maturity to act on his/her sensitivity.
Cognitive Maturity. A person with cognitive maturity is one who is aware of the
complexity of problems, is open to other perspectives, and is cognizant of their own
biases (Ricketts & Rudd, 2004). Mathews and Lowe (2011) used the term inclination to
describe the engagement in mental behavior that includes critical thinking (cognitive
maturity). In a study exploring students’ critical thinking dispositions, Khandaghi and
Pakmehr (2012) noted that the implemented curricula, including the contents of
textbooks, did not enhance students’ cognitive maturity abilities. This knowledge may be
beneficial towards future research examining the effectiveness of teaching critical
thinking skills as skills alone do not ensure critical thinking is consistently applied
beyond the classroom. Teachers need to nurture the cognitive maturity of their students
by encouraging their open-mindedness.
Innovativeness. An innovative disposition refers to a predisposition to be
intellectually curious and possess a desire to know the truth (Ricketts & Rudd, 2004).
Innovativeness can also mean an ability to engage in cognitive behavior associated with
critical thinking (Matthews & Lowe, 2011). The innovativeness of participants in a
Khandaghi and Pakmehr (2012) study revealed that students should be actively engaged
in real problem-solving situations and share their experiences with their instructors. A

Grieco_Luz gradworks.proquest.com 10103879

Grieco_Luz gradworks.proquest.com 10103879

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Grieco_Luz gradworks.proquest.com 10103879

Similar to Grieco_Luz gradworks.proquest.com 10103879 (20)

Grieco_Luz gradworks.proquest.com 10103879