TEACHING CRITICAL
THINKING SKILLS:
INCREASING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF
INSTRUCTION
Research conducted by:
John T. Lamerato
Supervisor: Dr. Keena Bradley
University of St. Thomas Houston
ABSTRACT
 American schools are struggling to keep up with International
competition. Over the past decade, there have been a wide variety of
efforts to help improve schools. These plans have focused on
demanding that teachers be highly qualified, creating a core curriculum,
and increasing accountability through standardized testing. So far,
improvements have been slower than what was expected. Current
research shows that what students truly need to be successful are
critical thinking skills. Multiple methods of instruction of critical thinking
skills exist. The goal of my research is to provide evidence delineating
which method is the most productive. My subjects will be my current
students, seniors at an urban high school near San Diego, CA.
HYPOTHESIS
 Direct instruction produces the greatest measurable gains in critical
thinking skills for male students who are seniors in high school
DESIGN + MEASURE
 The study is quantitative action research, utilizing true experimental
design research techniques.
 The instrument I used to measure the treatments of this action
research was the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Test (practice edition).
The test consisted of approximately 30 questions. Participants will be
assessed on the number of questions that they score correctly. The
scores from the pre-test will be compared against the numbers of the
post-test to check for any trends. If there are clear cut results, the test
results will lend evidence towards which mode of instruction is the
most effective.
METHOD
 Prior to any critical thinking instruction, senior students were randomly
assigned to four separate groups of 20 by the registrar. On the first
meeting of the classes, each group was given the Watson Glaser Critical
Thinking Test as a pre-test. The scores were used to establish a baseline
for the analysis of the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. Over
the next four weeks, three of the groups were provided with a different
style of critical thinking instruction (direct instruction, random
scenarios, modeling) twice a week for 15 minutes at a time. The fourth
group served as the control and was not given any formal critical
thinking instruction. At the end of four weeks, each group again took
the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Test as the post-test.
FINDINGS
Variable
Group
Direct
Treatment
Control
Pre-test
M
35.75
36.45
SD
7.46
7.14
Post-test
M
39.40
37.10
SD
6.37
6.86
Random
Treatment
Control
36.70
36.45
8.58
7.14
37.70
37.10
6.67
6.86
Modeling
Treatment
Control
37.60
36.45
7.30
7.14
38.85
37.10
6.57
6.86
Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment (n = 20) and Control (n = 20) Groups at Pre-test and Post-test
Note:
Direct = direct critical thinking instruction
Random = critical thinking instruction using random scenarios
Modeling = critical thinking using modeling
FINDINGS
 The mean for students with direct instruction increased by 10.2% over
the pre-test. The other treatments also saw increases of 2.7% for
random scenarios and 3.3% for modeling. The control group also saw
an increase of 1.7%, but the difference was less than all of the
treatments.
 The almost 4 point increase in the mean of the direct instruction group
on the post-test was more than double any of the other instructional
methods. It should be noted that all of the means were at least
marginally improved on the post-test.
FINDINGS
 The standard deviations ranged from 6.37 – 6.86, all within the accepted
deviation.
 The significant findings indicate that critical thinking instruction does
have a positive impact on improving students’ critical thinking skills. The
improvement observed is likely a real improvement that could be
observed in the larger population. Specifically, direct instruction was
shown to be the most effective style of critical thinking instruction.
STRENGTHS
 My study was unique in that it focused on three specific styles of critical
thinking instruction (direct, modeling, random scenarios) and included a
control group. Using multiple styles opened up the possibility for finding
out not only if critical thinking instruction produced positive results, but
which specific style had the most impact.
 An additional strength of this study is the ease of potential replication.
The assessment instrument, The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Test is
a nationally recognized exam and is easily accessible. All three forms of
critical thinking instruction were outlined and all were taught four the
same period of time (15 minutes). No additional training was required
to teach the three critical thinking styles.
WEAKNESSES
 The first limitation was fairly atypical when compared with similar
studies. A notable limitation was the lack of female students involved in
the study.
 Previous research also indicates that the limited number of time spent
instructing students in the current study may also appear to be a
limitation. This limitation was due to the time constraints of a high
school setting and the limit of resources to conduct the research on a
larger scale.
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Teachers should primarily focus on direct instruction when teaching
students critical thinking skills
 Students need to be trained to complete tasks that cannot be
completed by computers and using direct instruction to teach critical
thinking skills is an important first step.
REFERENCES
Balcean, Phillip L. (2011).The Pedagogy of Critical Thinking: Object Design Implications.
U.S.-China Education Review, 8,354 – 363.
Broom, Catherine (2011). From critical thinking to critical being. History Teacher 24, (2),
16 – 27.
Case, Roland & Wright, Ian (2007).Taking seriously the teaching of critical thinking.
Canadian Social Studies 32, 22 – 23.
Choy, S. Chee (2012). Reflective thinking and teaching practices: A precursor for
incorporating critical thinking into the classroom. International Journal of Instruction
5, (1), 167 – 182.
Clifton, Gill (2012). Supporting the development of critical thinking: Lessons for widening
participation.Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 14, (2), 29 – 39.
Crenshaw, Phillip (2011). Producing Intellectual Labor in the Classroom:The Utilization of a
Critical Thinking Model to Help Students Take Command of Their Thinking.
Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8, (3), 14.
REFERENCES
Daniel, Mare-France & Lafortune, Louise (2005). Modeling the Development Process of
Dialogical Thinking. Communication Education, 54, (4), 334-354.
El Hassan, Karma & Madhum, Ghida (2007). Validating the Watson-Glaser critical thinking
appraisal. Higher Education (54), 361-383.
Elder, Linda & Paul, Richard (2010). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential for
cultivation of intellectual skills. Journal of Developmental Education 34, (2), 38-39.
Enabulele, Augustine (2011). Critical thinking in secondary language arts: Teacher
perceptions and relevant strategies. Journal of Classroom Interaction 47, (2,) 7 -12.
Gearon, Christopher J. (September 17, 2012). “High School Students Need to Think, Not
Memorize.” US News. http://www.usnews.com/education/highschools/articles/2012/09/
17/high-school students.html
REFERENCES
Kenny, Charles. (August 19, 2012). “ The Real Reason Why Schools Stink.”
BusinessWeek.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-19/the-real-reason-americas-schoolsstink. html
Marin, Lisa M. & Halpern, Diane F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in
adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and
Creativity 6, (1), 7 – 21.
Roberts, Terry. (2012). Teaching Critical Thinking: Using Seminars. Eye on Education,
76.
Snyder, Lisa Gueldenzoph & Snyder, Mark J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and
problem solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 50, (2), 90-99.
Spring, Joel. (2010). American Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.