Quitadamo, I. J., Kurtz, M. J.

(2007) Learning to Improve: Writing to Increase Critical Thinking

Performance in General Education Biology. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 6, 140-154

Paper Abstract:
Increasingly, national stakeholders express concern that U.S. college graduates cannot adequately solve
problems and think critically. As a set of cognitive abilities, critical thinking skills provide students with
tangible academic, personal, and professional benefits that may ultimately address these concerns. As an
instructional method, writing has long been perceived as a way to improve critical thinking. In the current
study, the researchers compared critical thinking performance of students who experienced a laboratory
writing treatment with those who experienced traditional quiz-based laboratory in a general education
biology course. The effects of writing were determined within the context of multiple covariables. Results
indicated that the writing group significantly improved critical thinking skills whereas the nonwriting
group did not. Specifically, analysis and inference skills increased significantly in the writing group but
not the nonwriting group. Writing students also showed greater gains in evaluation skills; however,
these were not significant. In addition to writing, prior critical thinking skill and instructor
significantly affected critical thinking performance, whereas other covariables such as gender,
ethnicity, and age were not significant. With improved critical thinking skill, general education
biology students will be better prepared to solve problems as engaged and productive citizens.
Summary of the literature review/background:
The study is all about critical thinking, but there are many different ways to define critical
thinking. This research paper uses the Delphi definition of critical thinking which is a “process of
purposeful self-regulatory judgment that drives problem solving and decision making,” for it gives a
holistic approach to critical thinking. This definition includes being able to analyze, infer, and evaluate.
Biology was a natural content area to study for this, due to the integral nature of the scientific method.

Research question
There are more and more people taking science classes in colleges both within science majors and
non-science majors. With this increase in enrollment, there needs to be a way make students that may not
be science majors to think critically about science. Biology instructors are looking for ways to allow these
people to think critically, and this study uses writing about science as a technique.

“Does writing in laboratory affect critical thinking performance in general education biology? Does the
development of analysis, inference, and evaluation skills differ between students who experience writing
versus those who experience traditional laboratory instruction? What measurable effect do factors like
gender, ethnicity, and prior thinking skill have on changes in critical thinking in general education
biology? If critical thinking skills change during an academic quarter, when does that take place?”

Research design (independent variables)

There were two groups used for the study as one group was exposed to writing through
completing essays and weekly assignments while the other group was only exposed to tests/quizzes. Both
of these treatments were used in the laboratory section of the class. Small group design was intentionally
used in the writing treatment based on prior research, it was also used in the non-writing treatment, but
the extent was up to instructor discretion.

Performance measure (dependent variables)

Students scores were analyzed using an end of the term exam and essays throughout the term.
The CCTST measures cognitive skills of analysis, inference, evaluation, induction, and deduction, with
results expressed as raw scores or national percentile equivalents based on a normal sample. The CCTST
is a 45 minute assessment consisting of 34 questions to assess cognitive and meta-cognitive critical
thinking skills, and was delivered as a pre and post-test to measure growth.

Research results
Students who were in the writing group increased their critical thinking ability from the 45th
percentile to the 52nd percentile while the non writing group dropped to the 40th percentile. The writing
treatment accounted for an overall growth of 1.18 on the CCTST versus the -0.52 change in the non-
writing group. The writing group also exhibited significant changes in analysis and inference skills, but
not evaluation skills. Even though critical thinking scores were influenced by writing, they were not
affected by factors such as gender, ethnicity, class standing, or age.
Additionally, a thesis-based essay rubric evaluated students’ weekly essays. While the most
growth in critical thinking in essays was shown in week 1, development of critical thinking skills was
evident across the 7 week lab course.
Implications research
Research based evidence provides a framework to how effective current teaching methods are in
a classroom. Being able to conduct research can allow growth to occur in a classroom. As seen in the
study, research has shown that students who wrote a lot in the subject had a greater critical thinking
ability in comparison to those who did not write. This can be applied to a classroom in both college and
high school. Having classrooms that focus on writing and critical thinking better prepares students for
college from an intro to Biology class to upper level courses. Additionally, it could implicate that even
integrating small weekly writing assignments could increase critical thinking skills in a classroom when
used in conjunction with traditional testing.

Questions/Concerns Regarding the Reading:

It mentions it used an intro to Biology class for it so typically the students are younger. What
would happen if they began this study with an upper level bio class that has not been exposed to critical
thinking? Would age of the whole class and difficulty of the course impact results? What if other classes
with differing “scientific methods” (engineering has “engineering design process”) had been compared?