05. Effects of Active Learning on Enhancing Student Critical Thinking in an Undergraduate General Science Course

8/20/2019 05. Effects of Active Learning on Enhancing Student Critical Thinking in an Undergraduate General Science Course

1/13

Effects of Active Learning on Enhancing Student Critical

Thinking in an Undergraduate General Science Course

Kyoungna Kim & Priya Sharma & Susan M. Land & Kevin P. Furlong

Published online: 12 September 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract To enhance students’

critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course, wedesigned and implemented active learning modules by incorporating group-based learning with

authentic tasks, scaffolding, and individual reports. This study examined the levels of critical

thinking students exhibited in individual reports and the students’ critical thinking level change

over time. Findings indicated that students’ average critical thinking level fell in the category of

“developing”, but students’ scores on individual reports revealed a statistically significant

increase. The study suggested that the active learning strategies employed in the study were

useful to promote student critical thinking.

Keywords Active learning . Geoscience . Undergraduate education . Scaffolding .

Critical thinking

New developments in the science of learning emphasize the importance of developing

student competency to deal with complex problems in real-life contexts (Bransford et al.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235

DOI 10.1007/s10755-012-9236-x

Kyoungna Kim is Instructor at Diplomatic Language Services. She received a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems

from Pennsylvania State University. Her interests include the design of technology-enhanced, learner-centered

learning environments; experience and interaction design; and everyday learning.

Kevin P. Furlong is Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. He received a Ph.D. in

Geophysics from the University of Utah. His interests include design of learning modules to engage

undergraduate students in authentic, scientific thinking about natural hazards.

Susan M. Land is Associate Professor of Education at the Pennsylvania State University. She received a

Ph.D. in Instructional Technology from Florida State University. Her research investigates frameworks for the

design of open-ended, technology-rich learning environments. She studies learning environments and design

connected to everyday contexts, mobile devices, social networking, and student-created design projects.

Priya Sharma is Associate Professor of Education at the Pennsylvania State University. She received a Ph.D.

in Instructional Technology from the University of Georgia. Her work focuses on design and learning as it occurs in the context of online networks and with ubiquitous digital and connectivity tools.

K. Kim (*)

Diplomatic Language Services, Arlington, VA, USAe-mail: [email protected]

P. Sharma : S. M. Land

Department of Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

K. P. Furlong

Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA


2/13

2000; National Research Council 1996). Dealing with complex problems requires students

to engage in active critical thinking processes, which include purposeful, reasoned, and goal-

directed higher-order thinking (Halpern 1999) as well as identifying problems in context,

considering influences, analyzing appropriate data and evidence, making inferences and

sound decisions, and evaluating relevant elements (Paul 1995; Perkins 1998).A primary educational goal of colleges and universities is to help students develop the ability

to think critically, to communicate effectively, and to solve problems (National Education Goals

Panel 1991). In undergraduate general science education, for example, it is important to develop

students’ ability to understand concepts about the natural world, to use scientific information to

make daily life choices, and to engage in public discourse about important issues involving

science (National Research Council 1996; www.project2061.org), that is, to promote students’

scientific thinking and critical thinking (Halpern 1999; Yuretich 2004). There is broad

consensus that it is important to engage students in authentic practices in science

education (National Research Council 1996, 2012; www.project2061.org), by providing

meaningful contexts that will enhance their ability to apply what they have learned

(Edelson and Reiser 2006).

Introductory Undergraduate Science Courses

Prior research has demonstrated that college science students often fail to apply concepts they

have learned in the classroom to real-life situations, presumably the result of limited application

opportunities in science classrooms (Gupta 2005). In particular, undergraduate general educa-

tion courses taking place in the environment of a large lecture hall classes pose challenges for promoting critical thinking due to barriers such as physical space, an emphasis on memorization

of facts from lecture for multiple-choice exams (McConnell 2005), and passive learning

(Chapman 2001).

Many introductory science classes tend to focus on lower-level cognitive tasks, which offer

few opportunities for students to engage in higher cognitive tasks including application,

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Yuretich 2004). In addition, many instructors are unaware

of the possible impact of such instructional strategies on the development of student thinking;

and many are ill-prepared to cultivate students’ thinking skills (McConnell 2005). Few

introductory science courses provide students with learning environments where they engage

in tasks and assignments that encourage their critical thinking (McConnell 2005). Even whencourses are well designed to meet the need for the development of critical thinking, appropriate

assessment tools are also needed to be developed in order to measure the level of thinking and to

monitor student development in the context of their learning. Despite these challenges, based on

a review of over 300 studies on undergraduate science course innovations, Ruiz-Primo et al.

(2011) confirmed overall positive effects of course innovations on student learning when the

innovation emphasis was on transformation of the course from traditional lecture-based learn-

ing to a more student-centered instructional approach, focusing on students' active role in their

learning and developing deep understanding of critical concepts.

Our research focused on the use of appropriate design strategies to foster innovation within anundergraduate science classroom. Our goal was to advance students’ thinking ability despite the

presence of commonly-cited barriers such as large numbers of students, fixed seating, and lecture

hall style arrangement. Our design focused on supporting students to engage actively in authentic

practices by providing a systematically-designed learning environment to support the use of

scientific knowledge in solving real-life problems (Edelson and Reiser 2006; National Research

Council 1996, 2012). Our design included supports of cognitive process such as scaffolding

224 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235

http://www.project2061.org/http://www.project2061.org/http://www.project2061.org/http://www.project2061.org/


3/13

strategies and tools that are necessary to support knowledge building and the problem-solving

process in learner-centered, authentic environments (Kim 2009; Ge and Land 2003). By provid-

ing a theoretically and empirically driven evaluation of our efforts, we aim to contribute

specifically to an understanding of how to support and advance the critical thinking and scientific

thinking competencies of students within large, undergraduate science classrooms.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is defined as the “ purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed” use of cognitive skills

and strategies (Halpern 1999, p. 70). It requires students to be engaged actively in the process of

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, and communicating information

(Scriven and Paul 1996). However, the range of perspectives on critical thinking is quite broad;

and the literature offers various definitions, such as argument analysis, problem-solving, decision-

making, and cognitive process. Some scholars have included the notion of reflection on one's own

thinking, and decision making (e.g., Scriven and Paul 1996 cited as in MacKnight 2000) and

metacognition as part of critical thinking (e.g., Ennis 1991; Halpern 1999). For instance, Halpern

(1999) addressed the notion of metacognition and characterized critical thinking, stating, “When

we think critically, we are evaluating the outcomes of our thought processes – how good a decision

is or how well a problem is solved” (p.70).

In relation to pedagogy, Moon (2008) linked critical thinking to activities such as reflection and

argument while considering the progression of student learning in higher education. Aligned with

Moon’s considerations, King (1995) suggested that critical thinking includes skills and the specific

process of analyzing the presented arguments, making inferences, drawing logical conclusions, andcritically evaluating all relevant elements as well as the possible consequences of each decision.

Active Learning Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking

Problem tasks that require students to engage in data retrieval, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis

are believed to support complex thinking (Paul 1995; Perkins 1998). Ill-structured problems

(Jonassen 1997), or those having multiple possible answers, provide students with opportunities

to engage in critical thinking processes such as seeking alternatives and considering other points

of views. Hager, Sleet, Logan, and Hooper ’s study (2003) incorporated critical-thinking tasks byusing open problems that required students to apply chemistry and physics concepts to the

problems of everyday life; and they found that the use of open problems and tasks in small

cooperative groups was effective for enhancing students’ thinking skills. Similarly, Kronberg and

Griffin (2000) selected analysis problems as a means for developing student critical thinking in an

introductory biology course, requiring students to apply their knowledge and understanding of the

situation and offering choices and alternatives depending on the justifications students made for

their selections. Requiring students to justify each response was found to be effective in

developing critical thinking and improving student achievement and retention by helping them

to analyze and synthesize information in an applied manner (Kronberg and Griffin 2000).Collaborative learning can also facilitate student critical thinking. Prior research and theory

have detailed the intellectual benefits of student collaboration with peers (e.g., Scardamalia and

Bereiter 1996; Vygotsky 1978). The use of dialogue and social interaction in group-based

learning can be viewed as a form of scaffolding. Theoretically, students help each other carry out a

task beyond their individual capabilities (Vygotsky 1978). Peer interaction during collaborative

learning or small-group learning can be beneficial for the development of critical thinking. For

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235 225


4/13

instance, Yuretich (2004) employed an “in-class investigation” approach that was intended to

introduce critical thinking skills into large classes; students were given questions that required them

to synthesize and evaluate information from the lectures and readings and to engage in group

discussion and cooperative learning activities. Students completed these investigations while

discussing them with their peers and then reviewed the answers as a class. Yuretich argued that this active learning strategy would improve higher-order thinking skills. Thus, “having the

opportunity to pause and reflect on, analyze, and discuss processes and concepts is the key” (p.44).

Scaffolding, or the support of student ’s cognitive processes in complex tasks, is also needed to

facilitate student critical thinking. Without external support, it is challenging for students to ask

thought-provoking questions, to activate and use their relevant prior knowledge, and to solve

problems in a purposeful manner (King 1995; Land 2000). Providing appropriate scaffolding is

critical for the promotion of critical thinking, which is the key to the development of high-level science

performance on ill-structured problems that reflect everyday scientific practice (Lajoie et al. 2001).

Writing essays or research reports is another way to engage students in critical thinking in a

general science course. It is shown to be effective in helping students to identify problems in

context, to consider influences, to analyze appropriate data and evidence, to make inferences, to

make sound decisions, and to evaluate relevant elements (Bunce and VandenPlas 2006;

Russell 2004).

The Study

The context for our study relied upon learning activities that engage students in argumen-

tation and reflective learning. We adapted both Moon’s and King

’s notions of critical

thinking, defining it as the type of reasoning skill that requires students not only to acquire

knowledge of scientific phenomena (e.g., natural disasters) but also to apply this knowledge.

Thus, for our purposes critical thinking skills refer to the ability to identify issues, analyze

data and evidence, make judgments, critically and reflectively evaluate relevant elements,

and draw conclusions. More specifically, the purposes of this study were twofold: (1) to

examine the levels of critical thinking exhibited in individual reports over the semester and

(2) to explore the effect of active learning on undergraduate students’ critical thinking.

The students’ critical thinking skills were articulated in individual and group artifacts as

they engaged in learning activities dealing with authentic science-related problems. They

were involved in solving specific, real-life, natural disaster problems in small groups after which they produced individual reports that analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated the prob-

lems discussed during the group work. Thus, we implemented active learning by incorpo-

rating three primary instructional support mechanisms: group-based learning with authentic

tasks, scaffolding, and the preparation of written individual reports.

Activities were designed to engage students in several collaborative group activities as a

means to encourage understanding of the concepts and integration of prior knowledge while

dealing with the geoscience issues of a natural disaster. We provided two types of support in our

instructional materials: procedural scaffolding , which makes explicit the sequence of activities

for complex tasks (Kim 2009) and cognitive scaffolding , which helped learners reason throughcomplex problems and guided them in what to consider (Hannafin et al. 1999). For instance,

students were asked to consider several perspectives that dealt with the authentic problems; and

they were required to respond to questions and provide reasoning for the decisions they made.

In addition to group activities using authentic problems and scaffolding, a series of individ-

ual assignments was designed to promote critical and reflective thinking. For example, students

were asked to write an individual report that provided their own decisions regarding a situation

226 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235


5/13

and the reasoning behind their decisions. By engaging in this individual assignment after group

work, students were encouraged to review their own thinking about the problem, which could

help to analyze and synthesize group decisions. One learning activity (“Hurricane Smith”)

involved a scenario where students were appointed as Special Aides for Disaster Management

to the office of the Mayor of their specific community. The students were required to articulatetheir analysis of the hurricane situation, make suggestions about the evacuation decision with

data, and propose decisions with justification.

Method

Participants and Context of the Study

The research participants were undergraduate students from an introductory geoscience course

at a large, northeastern public university. One hundred seventy-three students were enrolled,

and 155 of them agreed to participate in the study, which had been approved by the human

subjects research board at the University. The study context involved two multifaceted and

intentionally designed instructional modules – Active Learning Modules I & II — on natural

disasters. Each module was implemented over three 1.5 hour sessions as part of hurricane and

global warming units. These sessions were conducted during class time twice weekly.

The two learning modules share the following design elements (Kim 2009): they (a) use

current events and situations as contexts for the activities; (b) provide visible supports, or

scaffolds, for student thinking; and (c) provide opportunities for students to engage in peer

discussions and collaborative activities. The first module, developed by a research teamincluding experts from the fields of Instructional Design and Earth Sciences, presented a real-

life complex problem related to hurricanes. This scenario is titled “Hurricane Smith” and

revolves around decision-making processes for an evacuation plan in the event of an imminent

hurricane The second module is titled “Bangladesh Global Warming” and is composed of a

structure similar to the first module, presenting an authentic problem associated with global

warming. Each module was implemented over a week during which group activities were

conducted. After the group activities were completed, students were asked to write an individual

report at the end of the module, which as explained above, required students to show clear links

to research and data and to provide justification for all their conclusions.

Procedures

The two active learning modules were implemented during weeks 6 and week 12 of the semester

term. The instructional materials and associated handouts were distributed to all participants; and

participants were randomly divided into groups for the in-class learning activities, which were

designed for groups of four or five participants. For example, in the Hurricane Smith module, four

students were assigned to each group (six groups working on commerce, disability, emergency,

infrastructure, media, and school group), and then students from each group were gathered within

the larger location-based community groups (e.g., the community of Hilton Head) to discuss their decisions. Students were required to prepare their individual reports.

Data Analysis

To examine the changes in student critical thinking through active learning, we applied

quantitative analyses. A data set that included students’ individual reports from the modules

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235 227


6/13

was analyzed to gauge changes in critical thinking abilities over time, that is, across the two

written reports. A collaborative research team developed a coding scheme for critical thinking (see

Appendix A) that was used to analyze the reports. The critical thinking level was scored based on

rubrics and included four subcategories to evaluate students’ ability in 1) identifying problems

while considering social context; 2) evaluating group and community decisions; 3) developing a perspective by justifying one’s own decisions, presenting evidence/data, and integrating issues;

and 4) communicating effectively. For each subcategory, the rubric was further broken down into

three levels of critical thinking that were termed “emerging,” “developing,” and “mastering.”

In an effort to ensure the raters’ scoring reliability, four raters from the research team

assessed 10 % of the same two sets of students’ individual reports (n 015; 10 % of total N).

After establishing a high inter-rater reliability ( .97) between the raters, four raters worked on

the scoring job separately, which included two raters assessing the set of individual report I

and two other raters assessing the set of individual report II.

Results

The results of the data analyses are presented according to the following categories: (a)

evidence of critical thinking in student reports, (b) mean performance on the two individual

reports, and (c) changes in critical thinking over time.

The Evidence of Critical Thinking

For the first module (Hurricane Smith), data from 131 students was collected (based on studentswho agreed to participate in the study as well as those who submitted individual reports); and

the mean score of performance on the individual reports was 27.74 out of a total of 30. This

shows that students’ average critical thinking level fell in the category of Developing for all four

subcategories. Mean scores for the four subcategories are presented in Table 1. The category for

Table 1 Summary of ScoreAnalysis for Individual reports I & II

Total score for each sub-

category06. Total scores for

each Individual reports I&II024

and 36, respectively. α ° n0105:

participants for both reports. To-

tal score0100.

Individual reports

subcategory

Raw Scores Percentage Mean Performance α °

Subcategory Dimensions Mean Scores PercentageMean

Scores

SD RangeLow High

Individual reports I (n0131)

1. Identifying problems 4.67 68.34 19.36 16.7 100

2. Evaluating decisions 4.05

3. Developing and

justifying own decisions

3.66

4. Communication 4.46

Individual reports II (n0125)

1. Selection of impacts 4.86 75.66 12.28 36.0 100

2. Selection of supporting

material

4.06

3. Presentation of data 4.61

4. Quality of integration 4.32

5. Self-reflection 4.35

6. Language & Mechanics 5.09

228 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235


7/13

“Developing own perspective by justifying decisions…” was low compared to the other three

subcategories (Mean03.66), even though this score is rated at the same Developing level.

For the second module (Bangladesh Global Warming) 125 students participated, and the mean

performance score on the individual reports was 27.30 out of total 36 (see Table 1). This shows that

students’ average critical thinking level fell in the category of Developing for all six subcategories.Even though there was little difference among the mean scores for the six subcategories, the

category for “2. Selection of supporting material” was slightly lower (Mean04.06) compared to the

other five subcategories, even though this score was rated at the same Developing level.

For both reports students’ average critical thinking levels fell in the category of Developing

for all subcategories (e.g., identifying problems while considering social context, developing a

perspective, justifying own decisions, presenting evidence/data, and integrating issues, etc.).

Summary of Mean Performance

To identify whether or not there were any significant differences for the students ’ average

performance between the two reports, raw scores based on each rubric were converted to

percentage mean scores, as their total scores were different (Total024 and 36, respectively).

These converted percentage mean scores from the students who submitted two individual

reports were analyzed with a paired-t test (n 0105) (see Table 2 for means and standard

deviations). The range of scores was from 16.7 to 100 in individual report I (Hurricane

Smith) and from 36.1 to 100 in individual report II (Bangladesh Global Warming).

On average, participants performed higher on individual report II (M075.66, SE01.20, t

(104)0−3.53, p0.001, r 0.45) than individual report I (M068.34, SE01.89), with a gain in

students’ percentage mean scores from individual reports I (M

0

68.34) to individual report II(M075.66), which was significant at the .05 level with a p-value of .001 (see Table 2). These

findings show that there were improvements (7.31 points) in students’ percentage mean

scores from individual report I (M068.34) to individual report II (M075.66), which was

significant at the .05 level with a medium effect size (0.45).

Changes in Critical Thinking Level

To investigate whether or not there was a significant association between changes in students’

critical thinking abilities and the two assigned individual reports, the three critical thinking

levels of 105 students who submitted both individual reports were used to conduct a Chi Squareanalysis. A median split technique was employed to assign the two individual report scores into

three critical thinking levels. For individual report I scores ranging from 1 to 70 were assigned

to the ‘Low’ level (1), from 71 to 82 to the ‘Medium’ level, and from 83 to 100 to the ‘High’

level. For individual report II, 1 to 75 (Low), 76 to 82 (Medium), 83 to 100 (High) levels were

assigned. These three levels were used to conduct a Chi-square analysis.

Table 3 presents the category of critical thinking level for individual reports I and II. Overall,

for individual report I, out of a total of 105 students, almost 50 % (n056) of the students scored at

the ‘Low’ level for critical thinking, 21 students (20 %) scored at the ‘Medium’ level, and 28

Table 2 Paired ComparisonResults from Individual report I to

Individual report II

n0105. p


8/13

students (27 %) in ‘

High’

level. For individual report II, 53 (51 %), 21 (20 %), and 31 (30 %)students scored at the Low, Medium, and High level respectively. This result indicates that almost

50 % of the students scored at the ‘Low’ critical thinking level for both of the Individual reports

and the other 50 % of students scored at either ‘Medium’ or ‘High’ critical thinking levels.

In terms of students’ critical thinking level changes over time, we present the following

summary. Out of 105 students, overall almost 50 % of students (n047) stayed at the same level

of critical thinking. In contrast, the critical thinking level for 31 students (30 %) increased from

individual report I to individual report II, including 13 students from ‘Low (L)’ level to

‘medium (M)’ level, 13 students from low level (L) to high level ‘(H)’, and 5 students from

medium level (M) to high level (H). However, eleven students’ critical thinking level (10 %)

score decreased, which included 12 students from level (M) to level (L) and 11 students fromlevel (H) to level (L).Those 11 students who dropped down from level (H) to level (L) would be

of particular interest for further examination to explain the drop in performance. As both

variables have more than two categories (three levels for each variable), the Cramer ’s V statistic

(.16) was used to determine if the change in critical thinking level between the two individual

reports was statistically significant. Overall, there was no significant association between

students’ critical thinking levels for the individual report I and II õ2 (4)0.16, p0.25, indicating

that there was no significant change between two critical thinking level changes over time.

Discussion

This study addressed the need for dealing with common challenges to enhance student critical

thinking in a large undergraduate science class. Three active learning strategies were proposed

as supportive mechanisms to enhance student critical thinking: small-group learning with

authentic tasks, scaffolding, and individual writing. Emphasizing a principled approach to the

Table 3 Cross tabulation of Three Critical Thinking Level Groups for Two Individual reports

GROUP_GW Total

Low Medium High

GROUP_HS Low Count 30 13 13 56

% within GROUP_HS 53.6 % 23.2 % 23.2 % 100.0 %

% within GROUP_GW 56.6 % 61.9 % 41.9 % 53.3 %

% of Total 28.6 % 12.4 % 12.4 % 53.3 %

Medium Count 12 4 5 21

% within GROUP_HS 57.1 % 19.0 % 23.8 % 100.0 %

% within GROUP_GW 22.6 % 19.0 % 16.1 % 20.0 %

% of Total 11.4 % 3.8 % 4.8 % 20.0 %

High Count 11 4 13 28

% within GROUP_HS 39.3 % 14.3 % 46.4 % 100.0 %% within GROUP_GW 20.8 % 19.0 % 41.9 % 26.7 %

% of Total 10.5 % 3.8 % 12.4 % 26.7 %

Total Count 53 21 31 105

% within GROUP_HS 50.5 % 20.0 % 29.5 % 100.0 %

% within GROUP_GW 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

% of Total 50.5 % 20.0 % 29.5 % 100.0 %

Total n0105.

230 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235


9/13

design and evaluation of a learning environment that supports students’ active engagement in

processes of critical thinking, this study focused on the effects of these active learning strategies.

The students' performance showed statistically significant improvements in scores between

individual reports I and II. This supports the belief that the instructional approaches incorpo-

rated in the design of active learning can facilitate students engaging in critical thinking in thecontext of authentic problem solving. The finding confirms the previous studies on the effects

of external supports designed to help learners engage in articulation and a reflective process in

open-ended learning environments by providing the means to make the ongoing processes

visible (Lajoie et al. 2001). The use of scaffolding was expected to support student thinking as

they engaged in complex problems (Hannafin et al. 1999; Ge and Land 2003).

However, our findings also showed that the students' thinking level did not move beyond the

category of "developing" over the semester. This finding could be explained by the results of

previous research suggesting that the development and refinement of critical thinking is influ-

enced by multiple factors including epistemological readiness (e.g., Brookfield 1987; King and

Kitchener 1994), the amount of time devoted to engaging in critical thinking tasks (e.g., Lynch

and Wolcott 2001), and the availability of sustained opportunities to engage in critical thinking

tasks (Gellin 2003; www.ctlt.wsu.edu; Andriessen 2006). In terms of epistemological readiness,

King and Kitchener (1994) argued that many traditional college age students tend to hold pre-

and quasi-reflective epistemological assumptions about knowledge and knowing: that is, they

may tend to assume that all problems are well structured and have definite answers or that, if they

acknowledge that problems are ill-structured, they are unable to see how evidence enables an

appropriate conclusion. Students tend to progress in their epistemological sophistication from

freshman to senior years; however, because our context was a large enrollment general education

undergraduate course, it is possible that the profile of the students falls largely into the pre- andquasi-reflective stages, thus leading to most student thinking being characterized as “develop-

ing”. Another possible explanation for the lack of change could be the relatively short time

assigned between two modules, as well as the use of only two modules within the entire course.

In reference to the “Steps for Better Thinking” developmental model, Lynch and Wolcott (2001)

stated: “It is unrealistic to believe that experience in a single course can produce major changes in

complex skills” (p. 7). Based on the findings of this study and other previous research, we

suggest two curricular implications for the development of students' critical thinking abilities: (a)

integrating critical thinking skills into complex, student-centered environments across the

curriculum within the educational program and (b) assessing students' critical thinking develop-

ment in diverse disciplines (Lynch and Wolcott 2001; www.ctlt.wsu.edu; Andriessen 2006).In our study the active learning environment employed small-group learning with authentic

tasks. These strategies may have helped students to be engaged cognitively, resulting in

enhanced student learning and critical thinking. In addition to report scores, we gathered survey

and interview data, which suggested the active learning strategies served a role in enhancing

student engagement in various facets of critical thinking that are required in the geoscience field:

applying, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing what they learned to solve real-life problems.

Students reported small-group learning to be helpful in developing their ability to approach the

problem from various perspectives and to apply scientific concepts to real-world problems by

giving them a chance to share ideas, give feedback, and consider alternative views and multiple perspectives (Kim 2009). The following excerpts from interviews illustrate these points: “…I

think in group activities you’re getting more different viewpoints, so when you’re actually

talking about something, other people are giving their own feedback, so you are learning couple

of times more….”, “…having the group discussion and being able to compare your responses

and even get a new perspective from somebody in the class is very helpful”, “…They [small-

group problem-solving activities] put me in realistic situations and offered new perspectives…”.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235 231

http://www.ctlt.wsu.edu/http://www.ctlt.wsu.edu/http://www.ctlt.wsu.edu/http://www.ctlt.wsu.edu/


10/13

In support of this notion, Blumenfeld et al. (2006) noted that it helps students to be more

cognitively engaged when learning environments employ specific learning sciences principles such

as authenticity and collaboration. The concept of cognitive engagement includes “students’

willingness to invest and exert effort in learning, while employing the necessary cognitive,

metacognitive, and volitional strategies that promote understanding” (p.475). While cognitivelyengaged, students think deeply about the content and construct an understanding that entails

integration and application of the key ideas of the discipline. The “authenticity” of learning

environments that involves connections to the real world and to practice can enhance student

interest and engagement in their learning. In addition, promoting collaboration in learning environ-

ments may encourage students’ motivation and cognitive engagement (Blumenfeld, et. al.). When

students are productively engaged in explaining, clarifying, debating, and critiquing their ideas,

collaboration can lead to cognitive engagement. Thus, employing small-group learning with

authentic tasks as a part of the active learning strategies in this study was expected to support

students’ cognitive engagement, resulting in enhanced student learning and critical thinking.

In terms of factors fostering critical thinking development, some previous studies have

focused on students’ perception of learning environments in support of their learning and

critical thinking in higher education. However, few studies on critical thinking among college

students have examined the impact of instructional factors (Tsui 2002). Tsui’s study (1999)

revealed that self-assessed growth in critical thinking is positively related to such instructional

factors as conducting independent research, working on a group project, giving a class

presentation, and taking essay exams (Tsui 1999; 2002). Based on the evidence derived from

the case studies, the findings of her study suggested that the development of critical thinking is

likely to be linked to an emphasis on writing and rewriting as well as class discussion (Tsui

2002). Therefore, investigating the effects of specific instructional strategies using direct indicators and observational data is needed because studies addressing classroom experiences

with active learning tend to rely on self-reported data (Tsui 2002). Our research was designed

and implemented in an ecologically-valid instructional context with the goal of observing and

assessing critical thinking using indicators tied to instructional products, rather than self-report

instruments.

Individual reports, employed as a means of student engagement in the critical thinking

process, may have played an important role in facilitating student ability to construct arguments

by encouraging them to use data and evidence for their decision and reasoning (Takeo et al.

2002). Writing scientific arguments is a complex task, which requires use of a set of complex

cognitive skills (Takeo et al. 2002). Yet, prior studies have suggested that undergraduate studentsin introductory sciences courses are often limited in their ability to write responses to essay

questions as well as to construct arguments (Bunce and VandenPlas 2006; Takeo et al. 2002).

Making the need for connecting data to theoretical assertions explicit in scientific writing can

encourage students to use data and evidence (Takeo et al. 2002). Student use of question prompts

provided as scaffolding in this study may have assisted them to connect evidence and data to their

claims (Ge and Land 2003; Mayer 1999). Data from interviews and surveys revealed that the

question prompts afforded opportunities for engaging in critical thinking such as evaluating

resources and making justifications, which in turn may have assisted them in constructing

arguments in their individual reports. Examples of students’

comments include: “…

When youhave to assess ‘why something is important ’ or, ‘which is most important ’, that is going to

improve your critical thinking.”, “I think that [question prompts] is very helpful in order to lay

things out, really rate what you think would be just an impact.” Further research is suggested for a

more extensive investigation on the effects of scaffolding in facilitating the subcategories of the

critical thinking process including identifying the situation, considering multiple perspectives,

justifying reasoning, and connecting evidence and data to claims.

232 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235


11/13

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings of our study could inform instructors and instructional

designers about how to use active learning strategies to address the needs and

challenges of undergraduate science education and to ensure appropriate instructionaldesign supports for advancing critical thinking and scientific thinking within such

contexts. Further research should investigate how each strategy supports students'

active engagement in a higher level of thinking and constructive knowledge-building

process.

Acknowledgement This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation

under Grant Number 0607995. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Appendix A

Table 4 Sample of Scoring Rubric for Individual Essay

Emerging Developing Mastering

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Identifies decisions appropriately from group and community discussions

• Fails to provide any introduction toimportant issues raised in either discussion or only presents one of the issues.

• Clearly identifies issues raised ingroup and communitydiscussions.

• Clearly recognizes andsummarizes the embedded andimplicit danger and impact of Hurricane Smith.

• May summarize the most important questions raised in

both groups and provide own perspective.

• Identifies integral relationshipsessential to analyzing thisissue.

2. Identifies and presents evaluation of group and community decisions

• Offers own evaluation without

any reference to group or community discussions

• Provides own evaluation based on

group and community discussions

• Clearly states evaluation of

group and communitydiscussions

• Does not provide reasoning or evidence to support evaluation

• Acknowledges differences/ similarities with group andcommunity perspectives

• Acknowledges differences/ similarities with group andcommunity perspectives

• Provides reasoning/evidencefor own evaluation

3. Provides a clear and appropriate solution.

• Offers an unclear or simplisticsolution or position.

• Offers a generally clear solution/ position although gaps may exist.

• Offers a solution/position that demonstrates sophisticated,integrative thought and isdeveloped clearly.

• Presents position based ongroup/community discussionswithout any indication of ownconsideration

• Presents own position such that it includes some original thinkingthat acknowledges, refutes,synthesizes or extends assertionsfrom group/community, althoughsome aspects may have beenadopted.

• Presents position in such a way that it demonstratesownership for constructingknowledge or framingoriginal questions, whileintegrating and acknowledgingother influences.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235 233


12/13

References

Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to Learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning

sciences (pp. 443 – 459). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learningenvironments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475 – 488).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of

thinking and acting . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bunce, D., & VandenPlas, J. R. (2006). Student recognition and construction of quality chemistry essay

responses. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7 (3), 160 – 169.

Chapman, B. S. (2001, Nov). Emphasizing concepts and reasoning skills in introductory college molecular

cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1157 – 1176.

Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Designing challenges

and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335 –

354).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5 – 25.

Ge, X., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question

prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21 – 38.

Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the

literature 1991 – 2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 746 – 762.

Gupta, G. (2005). Improving students' critical-thinking, logic, and problem-solving skills. Journal of College

Science Teaching, 34(4), 48.

Hager, P., Sleet, R., Logan, P., & Hooper, M. (2003). Teaching critical thinking in undergraduate science

courses. Science Education, 12, 303 – 313.

Halpern, D. F. (1999, Winter). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and

dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 80, 69 – 74.Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and

models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of

instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115 – 140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving

learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65 – 94.

Kim, K. (2009). Exploring undergraduate students' active learning for enhancing their critical thinking and

learning in a large class. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(11), 3380934.

King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking.

Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13 – 17.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting

intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kronberg, J. R., & Griffin, M. S. (2000). Analysis problems-A means to developing students' critical-thinking skills: Pushing the boundaries of higher-order thinking. Journal of College Science

Teaching, 29(5), 348 – 352.

Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of

BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155 – 186.

Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61 – 78.

Lynch, C. L., & Wolcott, S. K. (2001). Helping your students develop critical thinking skills. IDEA Paper #37 .

Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions: Faculty can play a key role in

fostering critical thinking among students using web communication tools. Educational Quarterly, 4, 38 – 41.

Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth, (Eds.), In C. M.

Reigeluth, (Ed), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory,Volume II. pp,141 – 160. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McConnell, D. A. (2005). How students think: Implications for learning in introductory Geoscience Courses.

Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 462 – 470.

Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge,

Taylor & Francis Group.

National Education Goals Panel (1991). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners.

Washington, DC: U.S. Printing Office.

234 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235


13/13

National Research Council (1996). From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics,

engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,

and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world . Santa Rosa, CA:

Foundation for Critical Thinking.Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking

research with practice (pp. 39 – 57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Shepard, L. A. (2011). Impact of undergraduate

science course innovations on learning. Science, 331(6022), 1269 – 70.

Russell, A. A. (2004). Calibrated peer review: A writing and critical-thinking instructional tool. In Y. S. George

(Ed.), Invention and impact: Building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and

mathematics (STEM) education. American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC.

Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of schooling.

In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environ-

ments (pp. 149 – 163). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking: A draft statement for the National Council for

Excellence in Critical Thinking. Retrieved December 8, 2009 from the Foundation for Critical Thinking.http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/defining.html

Takeo, A., Prothero, W. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2002). Applying analysis to assess the quality of university

oceanography students’ scientific writing. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 40 – 48.

Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in HigherEducation, 40(2), 185 – 200.

Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case

studies. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 749 – 763.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Yuretich, R. F. (2004). Encouraging critical thinking. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 40 – 45.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223 – 235 235
http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/defining.htmlhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/University/defining.html

Documents

05. Effects of Active Learning on Enhancing Student Critical Thinking in an Undergraduate General Science Course