Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

DOI 10.1007/s10755-012-9236-x

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, we

designed 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
K. Kim (*)
Diplomatic Language Services, Arlington, VA, USA
e-mail: kyoungna@gmail.com
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

224

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

2000; National Research Council 1996). Dealing with complex problems requires students
to engage in active critical thinking processes, which include purposeful, reasoned, and goaldirected 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 education 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 when
courses 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 learning 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 an
undergraduate 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

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

225

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 providing 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, decisionmaking, 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 processeshow 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
Moons considerations, King (1995) suggested that critical thinking includes skills and the specific
process of analyzing the presented arguments, making inferences, drawing logical conclusions, and
critically 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 Hoopers study (2003) incorporated critical-thinking tasks by
using 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

226

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

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 students 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 argumentation and reflective learning. We adapted both Moons and Kings 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 problems discussed during the group work. Thus, we implemented active learning by incorporating 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 through
complex 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 individual 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

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

227

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 articulate
their 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 & IIon 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 team
including experts from the fields of Instructional Design and Earth Sciences, presented a reallife 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

228

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

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 ones 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 students
who 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 Score

Analysis for Individual reports I & II

Percentage Mean Performance

Individual reports
subcategory

Raw Scores

Subcategory Dimensions

Mean Scores Percentage

Mean
Scores

SD

1. Identifying problems

4.67

68.34

2. Evaluating decisions

4.05

75.66

Range
Low

High

19.36

16.7

100

12.28

36.0

100

Individual reports I (n0131)

3. Developing and
3.66
justifying own decisions
4. Communication

4.46

Individual reports II (n0125)

Total score for each subcategory06. Total scores for

each Individual reports I&II024
and 36, respectively. n0105:
participants for both reports. Total score0100.

1. Selection of impacts

4.86

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

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

229

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 (n0105) (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)03.53, p0.001, r0.45) than individual report I (M068.34, SE01.89), with a gain in
students percentage mean scores from individual reports I (M068.34) 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 Square
analysis. 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 Comparison
Results from Individual report I to
Individual report II

Individual
reports

Mean
difference

SD

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Cohen d

7.31

21.20

3.53

104

(.00*)

0.45

n0105. p<.05

II

230

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

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

Low

Medium

High

Total

Total
Medium

High

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 %

Count

12

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 %

Count

11

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 %

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.

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 from
level (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 Cramers 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 2 (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

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

231

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 incorporated in the design of active learning can facilitate students engaging in critical thinking in the
context 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 influenced 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 preand 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- and
quasi-reflective stages, thus leading to most student thinking being characterized as developing. 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 development 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 youre getting more different viewpoints, so when youre 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 [smallgroup problem-solving activities] put me in realistic situations and offered new perspectives.

232

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

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 cognitively
engaged, 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 environments 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). Tsuis 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 students
in 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 you
have 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.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

233

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 instructional
design 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
1

Developing
2

Mastering
4

1. Identifies decisions appropriately from group and community discussions

Fails to provide any introduction to Clearly identifies issues raised in
important issues raised in either
group and community
discussion or only presents one of discussions.
the issues.
May summarize the most

important questions raised in

both groups and provide own
perspective.
2. Identifies and presents evaluation of group and community decisions
Offers own evaluation without
Provides own evaluation based on
any reference to group or
group and community discussions
community discussions
Does not provide reasoning or
Acknowledges differences/

evidence to support evaluation

similarities with group and
community perspectives

Clearly recognizes and

summarizes the embedded and
implicit danger and impact of
Hurricane Smith.
Identifies integral relationships
essential to analyzing this
issue.

Clearly states evaluation of

group and community
discussions
Acknowledges differences/
similarities with group and
community perspectives
Provides reasoning/evidence
for own evaluation

3. Provides a clear and appropriate solution.

Offers an unclear or simplistic
Offers a generally clear solution/ Offers a solution/position that
solution or position.
position although gaps may exist.
demonstrates sophisticated,
integrative thought and is
developed clearly.
Presents position based on
Presents own position such that it Presents position in such a
group/community discussions
includes some original thinking
way that it demonstrates
without any indication of own
that acknowledges, refutes,
ownership for constructing
consideration
synthesizes or extends assertions
knowledge or framing
from group/community, although
original questions, while
some aspects may have been
integrating and acknowledging
adopted.
other influences.

234

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

References
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to Learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning
sciences (pp. 443459). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning
environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475488).
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), 160169.
Chapman, B. S. (2001, Nov). Emphasizing concepts and reasoning skills in introductory college molecular
cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 11571176.
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. 335354).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 525.
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), 2138.
Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the
literature 19912000. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 746762.
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, 303313.
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, 6974.
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. 115140). 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), 6594.
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), 1317.
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' criticalthinking skills: Pushing the boundaries of higher-order thinking. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 29(5), 348352.
Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of
BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155186.
Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 6178.
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, 3841.
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,141160. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McConnell, D. A. (2005). How students think: Implications for learning in introductory Geoscience Courses.
Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 462470.
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.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:223235

235

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. 3957). 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), 126970.
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 environments (pp. 149163). 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), 4048.
Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in HigherEducation, 40(2), 185200.
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case
studies. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 749763.
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), 4045.