University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Military instructor critical thinking preparation

(USC Thesis Other)

Military instructor critical thinking preparation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION

MILITARY INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION
by
David T. Dice

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

Copyright 2017 David T. Dice
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my family who challenged me to go on this academic
voyage and encouraged me every step of the way. Without your love, support, and an abundance
of patience, this work could not have been done! Additionally, I would like to thank the military
and civilian leaders who were supportive of my efforts.
This work is also dedicated to military instructors who train and educate American
Service members throughout the width and breadth of our forces. All of you are truly amazing.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 3
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi for your support, guidance and calming
influence as I worked my way through this doctoral program. I also wish to thank my committee
members, Dr. Melora Sundt who introduced me to the USC EdD Organizational Change and
Leadership doctoral program, and Dr. Allen Munro for sage advice as I worked on my
dissertation. Thank you all!
I would be remiss if I did not also thank my classmates from Cohort 1 in the OCL
program. We were, and will always remain, the first cohort. All of you taught me to appreciate
your collective wisdom, drive to succeed and professionalism. You all inspired me to succeed in
this, our joint endeavor. Fight On!

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 4
Table of Contents
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Goal 12
Related Literature 12
Importance of the Evaluation 13
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 14
Stakeholder Group for Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal 15
Purpose of the Project and Questions 16
Methodological Framework 16
Definitions 17
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 19
Critical Thinking Literature Review 20
Knowledge and Skills 24
Knowledge Types 24
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 24
Procedural Knowledge Influence 26
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 27
Stakeholder Motivation Influence 28
Motivation Influences 28
Expectancy Value Theory 29
Utility Value Theory 29
Self-Efficacy Theory 30
Organizational Influences 30
Cultural Models 31
Shared Information 32
Cultural Settings 32
Resources 33
Incentives 34
Accountability Systems 34
Summary 34
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Purpose of the Project 37
Conceptual Framework 37
Participating Stakeholders 38
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale 39
Survey Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale 39
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale 39
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale 39
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 40
Interview and Focus Group Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 40
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 5
Data Collection and Instrumentation 41
Surveys 41
Observation 42
Interviews 43
Data Analysis 44
Credibility and Trustworthiness 45
Validity and Reliability 46
Ethics 46
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 50
Results and findings 50
Research Question 1: Instructor Current Status 50
Survey, Observation and Interview Knowledge 51
Results 51
Knowledge Types 51
Conceptual Knowledge 51
Procedural Knowledge 54
Metacognitive Knowledge 55
Instructor Knowledge Themes 56
Survey, Observation and Interview Motivation 57
Results 57
Motivation Types 57
Expectancy Value 58
Utility Value 59
Self-Efficacy 59
Survey, Organization and Interview Organization 61
Cultural Model Influence Results 61
Cultural Setting Influence Results 62
Instructor Themes 66
Summary 67
Chapter Five: Recommendations 70
Knowledge Recommendations 70
Conceptual Knowledge 70
Procedural Knowledge 71
Metacognitive Knowledge 72
Motivation Recommendations 75
Expectancy Value 76
Utility Value 77
Self-Efficacy 77
Organization Recommendations 79
Cultural Model 80
Cultural Setting 81
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 83
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 83
Organizational mission, Goal, and Need 84
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 85
Level 3: Behavior 87
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 6
Critical Behaviors 87
Required Drivers 87
Monitoring 89
Level 2: Learning 89
Learning goals 89
Program 89
Components of learning 90
Level 1: Reaction 91
Reaction Methods 91
Evaluation Tools 92
During and Immediately following the program implementation 92
Delayed for a period after the program implementation 93
Summary 94
Limitations and Delimitations 94
Conclusion 95
References 97
Appendix A: Survey Instrument 102
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 105
Appendix C: Interview Instrument 107
Appendix D: Informed Consent/Information Sheet 109
Appendix E: Recruitment Letter 111

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 14
Table 2: Knowledge, Motivation, Organization 36
Table 3: Research Design Matrix 47
Table 4: Summary of Survey Question Responses 68
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 73
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 78
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 82
Table 8: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 86
Table 9: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 87
Table 10: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 88
Table 11: Components of Learning for the Program 90
Table 12: Components to Measure Instructor Reactions to the Program 92

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Military Critical thinking Model 25
Figure 2: Critical Thinking Study Conceptual Framework 38
Figure 3: Responses to Survey Item 1 Institution Teaching Effectiveness for Instructors 52
Figure 4: Responses to Survey Item 2 Instructor Confidence to Define Critical Thinking 53
Figure 5: Responses to Survey Item 6 Instructors Taught How to Teach Critical Thinking 55
Figure 6: Response to Survey Item 4 Instructors Find Critical Thinking Useful 58
Figure 7: Response to Survey Item 9 Teaching Critical Thinking is Difficult to Accomplish 60
Figure 8: Response to Survey Item 5 Instructors Encouraged to Reflect on Critical Thinking 63
Figure 9: Response to Survey Item 7 Instructor Preparation was Sufficient 64
Figure 10: Response to Survey Item 8 Instructors Critical Thinking was Validated 65
Figure 11: Kirkpatrick New World Model 84

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 9
Abstract
In this dissertation, I investigated how military instructors were prepared to teach critical
thinking to officer students on a military institution, and I developed recommendations for
improving instructor preparation. Several surveys revealed that senior military leaders
considered it important that officers employed critical thinking skills to improve their
performance in generating and executing plans, especially in tactical contexts. Two educational
technology resources guided this study’s process, findings, and recommendations. Clark and
Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) model was used to identify and
classify current organizational performance areas discovered through data collection and
analysis. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) work, focused on methods organizations could
use to evaluate organizational training programs to improve them, was used to produce
recommendations for the improvement of military instructor preparation for teaching critical
thinking. No claims were made for the generalizability to other knowledge domains or
instructional contexts. Three areas recommended for organizational improvement included
making critical thinking skill teaching an organizational leader priority, constructing a critical
thinking skill class to teach instructors how to learn, apply and teach critical thinking skills, and
the allocation of time for instructors to teach critical thinking skills to their students.
Keywords: instructors, critical thinking, improvement

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice and Purpose
The teaching of critical thinking skills to students has occurred since the time of Plato
and Aristotle and continues on in today’s military and civilian academic settings. The teaching
of this skill is important because it provides a process that can be used by students to consider
internal thinking fallacies and biases and external factors before reaching and implementing a
solution (Facione, 2010). While critical thinking courses are usually offered within Liberal Arts
curricula, courses also appear in Business, Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and
Medical courses (Halpern, 1998) and most civilian universities that teach this subject require
their teachers to be prepared. However, there are some military and civilian teachers who
receive little or no preparation to be effective instructors (Hannel & Hannel, 1998).
Facione (2010) observed that the process to improve instructor training is not an easy task
because of the depth of the subject and complex nature of the material. The challenges related to
civilian critical thinking teacher preparation reflect the challenges to train military instructors
who instruct two small groups per year comprised of fifteen officers from the United Sates and
Allied nations and produce a total of approximately nine-hundred-eighty officer graduates per
year.
My study’s objective is to discern if military instructors selected to teach critical thinking
skills could define and discuss the ways they could apply it to solve military problems. The
problem is that senior leaders believe there is an instructor preparation problem but there is little
to no data to support their conclusions. The proof that senior leaders believe there is an
instructional problem is based on the results of an annual survey of military senior leaders
(Hatfield, Steele, Riley, Keller-Glaze and Fallesen, 2011). A key area the survey covered was
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 11
the importance of critical thinking instruction and the benefit it had on military leader
development. This survey canvassed 1,400 senior leaders and revealed that 34% of them
believed that critical thinking and problem-solving skills were lacking due to an absence of
proper instruction (Hatfield et al., 2011). Fischer, Spiker and Riedel (2009) believed that solving
this problem was significant because improving critical thinking instructor preparation is
applicable to all academic institutions.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization that is the focus of this study is an American military Officer Course
taught on a military installation. Specifically, the objective of the dissertation is to discern if
instructors selected by the military to teach critical thinking skills are properly prepared and can
define and discuss the ways the skills can be applied to solve complex problems. There are 38
instructors selected to teach the Officer Course (OC) when fully manned and they typically are
male, range in age from 28 to 32 and have an average of eight years of military experience
(DOT, 2015).
The mission of the Directorate of Training (DOT) is to provide officers with expertise
and instruction for the military and operational force to develop agile and adaptive leaders
(MCoE, 2015). A course of instruction that is taught in the pursuit of accomplishing the stated
mission is the Officer Course (OC) that is mandated by Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC, 2002). Training and Doctrine Command instructions stipulate that the Directorate of
Training organizational performance goal is to ensure that 100% of instructors are prepared and
certified TRADOC (2013) to teach all subjects contained within the Officer Course Program of
Instruction (POI). Instructors are taught military subject material, to include critical thinking, by
current instructors and then required to pass a comprehensive Officer Course entrance exam to
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 12
receive final certification from a panel of senior instructors before they can teach (TRADOC,
2013).
Organizational Performance Goal
The Directorate of Training organizational primary performance goal is to ensure by
June 2017 that 100% of military instructors are prepared to teach critical thinking skills, along
with additional subjects, contained within the institutions program of instruction (POI). The
institution’s secondary performance goal is to teach instructors techniques to integrate critical
thinking processes into tactical planning and execution. Specifically, the school uses the
Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) model to guide instructors and students through
tactical and operational planning steps. Critical thinking, as prescribed by Paul and Elder (2006),
is to be applied to check on their thinking and reasoning as they progress through the model to
generate solutions. The achievement of the certification goal is verified by the conduct of
internal instructor preparation audits conducted by senior instructor team leaders.
Related literature
It is important for the military to train and prepare its instructors to teach critical thinking
skills because failure to meet this requirement could result in their students making decisions that
are not carefully thought out with the consequences of their actions possibly resulting in disaster
(Facione, 2010). In two separate Centers for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army
Leadership (CASAL) surveys conducted by Hatfield et al. (2011) and Riley, Hatfield, Paddock,
and Fallesen (2013) questions about critical thinking instruction were included. Responses
revealed leaders’ concerns that critical thinking preparation and belief that instruction was
insufficient. Angelo (1995) expanded upon these findings when he addressed current critical
thinking instruction challenges and concluded critical thinking instruction improvement begins
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 13
with the individual instructor. A study conducted by Hannel and Hannel (1998) recommended
that civilian critical thinking instruction be improved by generating a practical strategy and Allen
(2009) was more direct in his assessment of military practices. Allen thought for critical
thinking to be taught correctly, and improved upon, instructors should have a understating of the
subject and able to define it and discuss the ways it could be applied to solve complex problems.
Importance of the Evaluation
Critical thinking preparation of military instructor is important to solve for a variety of
reasons. First, Halpern (1998) suggested improving instructor capability and subject
understanding directly benefited their students, whom once taught, could better mentally handle
difficult operational situations and heightens their overall cultural awareness. This statement is
supported by Facione (2010) who stressed that it is imperative military officers be taught to think
and consider in their planning other nations’ cultures, customs, social and economic factors
before plan implementation. Fischer, Spiker, and Riedel (2009) observed that students applying
critical thinking skills increased the likelihood for military success exponentially in differing
environments.
Second, the Service needs to ensure instructor critical thinking teaching skill preparation
because this subject is taught also to host nation officers. The teaching of critical thinking to
host nation officers can encourage them to expand mentally and consider ideas and concepts
beyond the rhetoric and single mindedness pushed upon them by opposing hostile forces. By
military instructors being able to define and describe critical thinking multiple application uses
and imparting this information to host officers, the result could possibly reinforce their
commitment as allies and diminish the likelihood of their becoming insurgent recruits and
fighting against U.S. forces (Facione, 2010).
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 14
Third, another important element of instructor improvement is that after teaching their
students they can apply metrics to student learning to discern if learning truly has occurred. Last,
military officers, if taught correctly, can apply critical thinking skills taught beyond tactical and
operational boundaries to chart out logical steps required to realize personal goals. Based upon
my readings active strategic planning by them could result in continuous Service career
progression, increased likelihood of being retained by Service leaders and future civilian
employment opportunity.
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
There are three stakeholders groups that directly contribute to and benefit from the
achievement of the organization’s goal (see Table 1). The first is the Chief of Class Curriculums
and Programs of Instruction who is responsible for monitoring the preparation of instructors,
recording instructor progress and verifying instructor final preparation to teach. The second
stakeholder group consists of the military instructors that teach all required officer subjects in
general and critical thinking skills in particular. The last stakeholder group is the students
themselves, who have a vested interest in instructor preparation because the quality of instruction
they receive will determine if they are able to perform their future assigned duties and remain
competitive for continued promotion and advancement.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Organizational Mission

The mission of the Directorate of Training is to provide instruction for the institution to
develop agile and adaptive leaders.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 15

Organizational Performance Goal

The Directorate of Training organizational performance goal is to ensure by June 2017 that
100% of instructors are prepared and certified to teach all subjects contained within the
Program of Instruction (POI). The achievement of this goal will be measured by the results of
internal audits conducted by the Chief of Class Curriculums.

Instructors

By June 2017, 100% of
instructors will be prepared
to define, describe and
demonstrate their ability of
critical thinking skills and
apply them to solve military
problems.

Chief

By June 2017, the Chief of
Class Curriculums and
Programs of Instruction will
conduct a review to
determine if 100% of
instructors are prepared to
teach critical thinking skills
to students.

Students

By Jan 2018 military officer
students will demonstrate their
level of critical thinking
skill learning by applying
these skills to graded
exercises.

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
The collaborative efforts of all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal and compliance to annually certify that 100% of military instructors are
prepared and certified to teach subjects contained within the Officer Course (OC) program of
Instruction (POI). Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study were 38 military
instructors. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the Chief of Class Curriculums and Programs
of Instruction, is that 100% of instructors will be able to define and describe critical thinking
skill application by June 2017. Compliance procedures include activities such as the review of
individual instructor files to ensure critical thinking skill preparation has occurred, the Service
instructor validation system will be used to record instructor critical thinking teaching prowess
and shortfall areas will be corrected to ensure 100% of instructors are prepared to teach critical
thinking skill materials.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of my project is to conduct a modified knowledge, motivation and
organization (KMO) influence analysis of my organization concerning the preparation of
military critical thinking instructors. While a complete influence analysis would focus on all
stakeholders for practical purposes the stakeholder group focused and analyzed in my study are
instructors teaching critical thinking skills. There are two primary research questions that my
study focuses on:
1. What is the current status of military instructor knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources with regard to demonstrating their ability to define and
describe critical thinking skill application to solve military problems?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
A qualitative study method approach was used to evaluate military instructor abilities to
define and describe critical thinking skill preparation in relation to their performance goal in the
areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational resources as prescribed by Clark and Estes
(2008). They will be evaluated by using surveys, observations and focused interviews
furthermore, research-based solutions will be recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive
manner.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 17
Definitions
Provided in this section are the definitions used in the study.
Critical Thinking
As defined by Paul and Elder (2006), and used by military institutions, is an activity that
examines and assesses cognitive thinking processes with the objective, or goal, by the participant
to enhance it.
Junior Officers
Are officers of Air Force, Army and Marine Corps with rank from Lieutenant to Captain.
Officer Course (OC)
For the purposes of this paper is a program containing critical thinking skills, along with
other military subjects, being taught to junior officers.
Program of instruction (POI)
Is a primary document that covers a course, provides a general description of the course
content, the duration of instruction, the methods of instruction and delivery. It also lists
resources required.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about instructor preparation to
teach critical thinking in the Directorate of Training (DOT) Officer Course (OC). Additionally,
the organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the review of the evaluation
framework were provided. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the
scope of the study. Topics covered will include core critical thinking skills, critical thinking
instructor disposition, and military instructor preparation and civilian academic instructor
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 18
preparation best practices. Chapter Three details the choice of participants, data collection and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are described and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
solutions, based on data and literature for closing perceived KMO influences as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature in Chapter Two includes factors to consider for military
instructor critical thinking (CT) skill preparation that result in their being able to define and
describe the ways it can be applied to solve problems. The first section is comprised of an
historical discussion of critical thinking, its definition, application and approaches to teaching it.
The second section addresses knowledge and skill types that include conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive influences. The third section discusses stakeholder motivation influences that
include expectancy, utility and self-efficacy theories. The chapter ends with an analysis of
organizational barriers concerning cultural models and settings impeding military instructor
critical thinking skill development.
In Chapter One I discussed the challenges related to military critical thinking instructor
preparation and that this paper’s objective is to discern if instructors selected by the institution to
teach critical thinking skills can define and discuss the ways it can be applied to solve complex
problems. The proof that this is a problem is based upon a survey (CASAL, 2011) conducted of
1,400 senior leaders that revealed that 34% of them believed that critical thinking and problem-
solving skills were lacking due to an absence of proper instruction (Hatfield, Steele, Riley &
Keller-Glaze, 2011). Solving this problem of practice can further the achievement of the
organization’s overall goal to insure all instructors are prepared to teach institution course
materials. In generating content material for Chapter Two, the review of literature, factors that
impede instructor preparation goals will be determined and discussed.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) work concerning performance improvement emphasized three
organizational performance areas consisting of knowledge, motivation and organization (KMO).
Specifically, knowledge focused on an individual’s ability to know how to do something,
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 20
motivation sought to determine if an individual possessed the internal and psychological
processes to achieve, and organization examined influences that could impede goal achievement
and possibly impacted the first two elements discussed. Additionally, the authors contended that
these three KMO elemental areas were where root causes of organizational problems resided
(Clark & Estes, 2008). After study practitioners launched their data collection instruments,
collected and analyzed retrieved data, it was presumed that one, two, or perhaps all three, of
Clarks and Este’s (2008) organizational influence areas would reveal where they had been
impacted. Once identified, organizational leaders would then implement KMO solutions to
mitigate, or to solve identified and validated organizational performance problems.
Critical Thinking Literature Review
Survey results suggested that it was time to review and improve military instructor
critical thinking preparation. In two separate Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of
Army Leadership (CASAL) surveys conducted in 2011 (Hatfield, et al., 2011) and (Riley,
Hatfield, Paddock, & Fallesen, 2013) critical thinking was included and instructor preparation
inferred as essential for success. What follows are recommendations for military critical
thinking skill instructor preparation improvement based on information drawn from multiple
civilian and military teaching expert opinions. I identified seven research-based important tasks
to consider in working to improve military instructor critical thinking preparation.
The first task is to create an environment that is conducive for instructors to learn about
critical thinking. Tuckman (2003) mentioned the importance the environment has upon
encouraging desirable behaviors in all learners and Burbach (2004) discussed how small-group
instruction and case study teaching approaches could be used to facilitate critical thinking
activities. Carr (1988) also discussed the importance of the environment and its impact upon not
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 21
only learning but also its influence upon student desires to apply what they had learned. An ideal
environment would be free of ridicule from both the teacher and fellow students and allow for
initial mistakes to be made by all participants that could be examined by the group to discover
corrections and best approaches for solving military problems. Another factor when considering
the environment for critical thinking instructor preparation is to ensure that all comments and
discussions are non-attributional so that participants feel free to express their opinions and
thoughts without fear of retribution. This non-attributional approach was something both
instructors and students may not have been used to initially, but was important to establish if any
viable critical thinking skill training and education was to occur (Facione, 2010).
The second task, once the environment had been established, could introduce to
instructors some of the cognitive barriers that might have prevented them or their students from
learning about critical thinking skills. Some cognitive barriers to instructor learning discussed by
Gerras (2007) included individual biases, assumptions and heuristics. Once barriers were
identified, discussed and mitigated it then became a challenge for the instructor to be constantly
aware of their impact if allowed to surface and to filter them out in their cognitive processing and
critical thinking skill application and teaching endeavors. Additionally, the awareness and
management of these barriers could help instructors reach learning clarity and also improve their
argument analysis skill techniques (Bensley, et al., 2010).
A third task is to clearly define for them what critical thinking is, and to discuss how it
can be applied to solve military problems. There exists many definitions of critical thinking and
I have summarized what Scriven and Paul (1987) discussed in their presentation at the Annual
International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform. In their opinion critical
thinking was a cognitive process that required experience and skill in observing activities,
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 22
collecting information, analyzing data and conceptualizing ideas while reducing fallacies and
false assumptions so that viable solutions could be generated. It will be interesting to see how
instructors define critical thinking and to see if their definitions are rooted in credible sourcing or
self-generated. Additionally, the pursuit of this information might reveal that there is an
established critical thinking definition that all instructors use, credibly sourced or not.
The fourth task is for instructors to learn how to apply critical thinking skills to solve
military problems. This endeavor requires instructors to think about how they and their students
might use unconventional approaches as a means to solve military problems. Dietz and
Schroeder (2012) discussed the importance of instructors and students learning about doctrinal
solutions, approaches accepted by the military culture at large, and the possibility that once
critical thinking was applied solutions might fall outside of normal doctrinal parameters. The
authors also discussed the importance for instructors to encourage their students to put aside
normal military problem solving methods and approach problem solving with an out-of-the-box
mentality to reach viable solutions.
Fifth, the military can review best practices on how to teach instructors critical thinking
skills that can be used by them to teach their own students. Information on this subject was
drawn from civilian works like that generated by Hannel and Hannel (1998) which listed a
seven-step process for teaching critical thinking that stressed using a Socratic questioning
approach to stimulate student discussion by drawing upon their individual experiences to share
with their fellow students. For military students, these shared experiences could range from
combat, non-combat and civilian experiences. Carr (1988) addressed the importance of creating
an environment that was conducive to student and instructor critical thinking application and
inquiry. For military instructors learning critical thinking skills, the creation of a non-attribution
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 23
environment is essential to making them feel at ease so that they will express honest and candid
remarks without fear of retribution. Additionally, teaching critical thinking to military
instructors can focus not only on teaching them skill application techniques but also
collaborative application approaches that had been proven to be beneficial in planning and
executing military operations as validated by Straus, et al. (2013) in a study sponsored by
RAND.
The sixth task, another element that could be used in military instructor critical thinking
skill success achievement was the employment of skill measuring devices to prove to them they
had learned and were appropriately applying critical thinking skills. Miri and Uri (2007)
discussed two measuring devices that could help in this evaluative endeavor. The first was the
California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) test that was used to measure
instructor/student disposition for learning critical thinking. The second, the California Critical
Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) was usually administered after critical thinking skill instruction
had been taught to determine individual skill application mastery. Facione (1991) suggested
using the CCTST as both a pre-test and post-test to produce data to quantify learning.
Lastly, military critical thinking instructor preparation could allow for instructor learning
application and reinforcement. Hannel and Hannel (1998) in their Seven Steps to Teach Critical
Thinking discussed in step six that after instruction had been received abilities to apply critical
thinking skills in new and differing environments should occur. Instructors could collaborate or
witness critical thinking skills in action by observing and critiquing other instructor efforts. To
help them in their analysis instructors could keep in mind information generated by Facione
(2010) where he discussed critical thinking fallacies, heuristics and other inhibitors that could
creep into individual thought processing and produce faulty logic.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 24
Knowledge and Skills
The teaching of critical thinking skills according to Facione (2010) was important
because it provided a process that could be used by students to consider internal thinking
fallacies and biases and external factors before reaching and implementing a solution. The
literature reviewed in this section focuses on knowledge related influences that are pertinent to
the achievement of my stakeholder goal. The stakeholder groups for this paper are military
instructors whose goal is to be able to define and describe the benefits of critical thinking skill
application. The following section addresses knowledge skills and influences that can be applied
to instructors learning critical thinking skills and teaching methods.
Knowledge Types. There are three knowledge types that I discuss in this section based
upon information gleaned from Rueda (2011), Clark and Estes (2008), and Krathwohl and
Anderson (2010), concerning conceptual, procedural and metacognitive influences. Specifically,
conceptual knowledge occurred when an individual had knowledge of theories, principles and
generalizations concerning a specific subject. Procedural knowledge was exhibited when an
individual knew how to perform a task and metacognitive knowledge occurred when a person
was self-aware of their cognition and metacognitive knowledge.
Conceptual knowledge influences. Conceptual knowledge was defined by Rueda (2011)
as the ability for a person to have knowledge of the principles and theories of a particular subject
or area. One central question for this study is if instructors know how to define critical thinking.
The organization that I am studying and its instructors were using some of the critical thinking
techniques espoused by Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2006). Specifically, the institution
provided to instructors information concerning critical thinking concepts and tools that discussed
what critical thinking was, a checklist for reasoning and a guide to help them in their individual,
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 25
or collective, analysis of articles and arguments of persuasion. Additionally, the author’s work
provided instructors and students with elements of thought comprised within a model. A
derivative of that model was created by Gerras (2008) and is provided below (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. This model was a derivative of the Paul and Elder (2006) element of thought process
model that was designed for use by practitioners with awareness of critical thinking intellectual
standards.
Critical thinking has no limits as to the contexts to which it can be applied to for the
following reasons. First, critical thinking was within the Army human dimension concept
(Training and Doctrine Command, 2014) where it was discussed as a key element in soldier
cognition processing for decision making in both the institutional and tactical environments.
Furthermore, the Army’s human dimension white paper (2014) expanded upon this description
and stated that critical thinking and its application could help military leaders understand and
make better decisions when operating in different cultural settings. Second, Angelo (1995)
discussed critical thinking and its application to student learning in high schools and the use of
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 26
classroom assessment techniques (CATs) to help them reflect and describe their learning
experiences. Last, Dike, Kochan, Reed and Ross (2006) discussed that critical thinking is a skill
that could be taught form grade levels K-12 and across multiple professional vocations.
Instructors need to have knowledge of the principles and theories of critical thinking
skills for two specific reasons. First, instructors need knowledge of critical thinking skills so
they can teach this subject to their students. Second, instructors need to know there are different
methods used to teach critical thinking skills. Failure to achieve these objectives could result in
students making decisions not carefully thought out with the consequences of their actions
possibly resulting in disaster (Facione, 2010). A study conducted by Hannel and Hannel (1998)
recommended that civilian critical thinking instruction be improved by generating a practical
strategy. Allen (2009) was direct in his assessment of Army practices and asserted for critical
thinking to be taught correctly and improved upon, instructors should have a understating of the
subject that entails their being able to define it and discuss the ways it could be applied to solve
military problems. Additionally, conceptual knowledge awareness was significant because it
could help instructors shape their own mental models as discussed by Cohen (2001) and
provided them with a defined purpose, intent and procedural sequencing in not only their own
personal thinking about critical thinking skill meaning and application but provided insight into
student thinking processes. Allen and Gerras (2009) discussed that critical thinking awareness
was important for instructors to know because it could encourage them to actively review,
modify and improve their thinking processes by engaging in reflection.
Procedural knowledge influences. Procedural knowledge was defined by Rueda (2011)
as a person having knowledge of how to do something and in this case it was instructors having
the knowledge and ability to teach critical thinking skill application. Instructors need to know
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 27
how to incorporate critical thinking skills into military curriculum subjects. It is important for
them to know how to teach this subject for four reasons. First, Fliegel and Holland (2013)
discussed that it was important for instructors to know how to incorporate critical thinking into
other curriculum subjects so that their students could appreciate the many and varied ways
critical thinking could be applied. Second, it was important for instructors to actively know how
to engage their students in critical thinking skill application discussions because it could
encourage them to be personally invested in the learning process as discussed by Angelo (1995).
Third, an instructor possessing enhanced procedural knowledge concerning how critical thinking
could be taught was important because it could see them embrace, as suggested by Burbach,
Matkin and Fritz (2004), journal writing, small group and case study analysis. Instructor use of
these varied critical thinking teaching venues could provide them and their students a variety of
learning platforms they might enhance to improve their critical thinking procedural thought
processing skills. Last, procedural knowledge concerning how critical thinking could be taught
was important for instructors to know because it was not an easy subject to teach and according
to Allen and Gerras (2009) required teaching skill amplification beyond many common core
subject teaching techniques.
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Metacognitive knowledge according to Rueda
(2011) was a person’s awareness of their own cognition processes and their knowing when and
why and how to do something. Instructors need to be aware of their own cognition processes
and their knowing when, why and how to use critical thinking skills. Additionally, instructors
need to know how to reflect on their ability to teach critical thinking. A study conducted by
Behar-Horenstein, Schneider-Mitchell and Graff (2009) discussed three points concerning
critical thinking development worth considering and applying to instructor critical thinking
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 28
reflection. The first point the authors made was that it was important for instructors to know
how to reflect upon their own critical thinking teaching effectiveness so that they could modify
their approaches to maximize their effectiveness as teachers. The second point the authors
suggested was the use of learning journals by instructors as essential because it could record their
thoughts and development of their own metacognitive critical thinking skills. Furthermore, these
journals could provide them with information that they could use to discern any influences in
their or student learning methodologies. The third point Behar-Horenstein, Schneider-Mitchell
and Graff (2009) discussed the benefits of revealing instructor learning influences, which once
known, could help focus their efforts to mitigate them and result in their being better teachers.
Lastly, Individuals and groups that receive critical thinking skill instruction, according to
Bensley, Crowe, Bernhardt, Buckner and Allman (2010), improved in overall skill areas and
decisions made by them were said to be of a higher quality and increased their likelihood of
achieving desired results. Helsdingen, Bosch, Gog, Merriënboer, and Jeroen (2010) conducted
studies where participants with, and without, critical thinking instruction were provided
problems to solve. The results of their study demonstrated that participants that had critical
thinking skill abilities tended to solve more problems correctly than their counter-parts.
Stakeholder Motivation Influences
Motivation influences. This section focuses on motivation related influences that are
pertinent to the achievement of military instructor critical thinking preparation and teaching
success. Richard Mayer (2011) discussed motivation in his book and defined it as an individual’s
internal desire to direct their behavior to achieve an identified goal. Motivation that is realized,
either internally or externally by instructors, could provide the impetus for them to teach critical
thinking skill material to the best of their ability and perhaps even at a higher level than “normal”
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 29
military subjects. The attainment and sustainment of this level of motivation in teaching critical
thinking and student application is important because of its impact ability on all thought
processing endeavors by all practitioners. Specifically, I discuss in this section the importance of
expectancy value, utility value and self-efficacy theories for instructors.
Expectancy Value Theory. Eccles (2006) described expectancy value theory (EVT) as
being exhibited when, once an individual determined that a subject had value, they become
motivated to learn a new skill or task. Pintrich (2003) reinforced this thought and furthered it by
suggesting that in addition to value, if an individual understood the overall task and skill utility it
too could add to their expectancy for learning success. For the purposes of the study it is
important for military instructors to be motivated to complete two tasks. First, they must be able
to know how and why defining critical thinking is important and secondly they must be able to
describe the value of critical thinking skill application.
Utility Value Theory. Utility value application by instructors is important for three
reasons. First, it is important for instructors to be able to define and describe the benefits of
critical thinking application because senior leaders believe that the teaching of critical thinking to
organizational personnel can lead to them making better decisions. Second, it is important for
instructors to understand and apply the utility value theory to teaching a subject according to
Rueda (2011) because it could be used to instill in instructors the importance of learning about a
subject, in this case, critical thinking skills. Third, utility value comprehension was important for
instructors, according to Pintrich (2003), because it could assist them in identifying teaching
goals before starting a task. Last, utility value comprehension by instructors as discussed by
Kivunja (2015) could help them mitigate their making arbitrary decisions that were not based
upon rational cognitive reasoning.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 30
Self-Efficacy Theory. Rueda (2011) defined self-efficacy theory as an individual’s
opinion and judgment of their capabilities to plan and execute tasks successfully. The attainment
of success was perceived by many theorists as impetus for instilling confidence and could
perpetuate individual motivational drive. Additionally, Bandura (2000) suggested that
individuals who possessed a strong desire for knowledge learning and sharing were more likely
to achieve higher self-efficacy. There are three important reasons for instructors to be successful
in achieving self-efficacy goals. First, it was important for instructors, according to Bandura
(2000), to have the confidence and knowledge to be able to define a subject, like critical
thinking, and describe the ways that it could be applied. The accomplishing of these two feats
provided a rudimentary base from which additional subject knowledge could be built upon.
Second, an important method for reinforcing instructor self-efficacy was to provide them with
timely feedback concerning how they were progressing in their learning critical thinking skills
(Pajares, 2006). Furthermore, Borgogni, Russo and Latham (2009) suggested that feedback was
important in the learning process and should be balanced in its discussion of both performance
strengths and weakness along with remarks on how instructors could go about realizing overall
self-efficacy improvement. Last, it was important for instructors to realize that their, or their
students, achieving self-efficacy beliefs could serve as an influencer to motivation (Pajares,
2006).
Organizational Influences

Examined in this section were military organizational barrier impacts as discussed by
Clark and Estes (2008) and specifically focused on cultural models, settings, resources,
incentives and accountability systems that impacted instructor critical thinking preparation that
must be overcome to realize success. Culture was defined in this study along the lines exposed
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 31
by Clark and Estes (2008) as the core values and beliefs an organization possessed that
influenced all leader and instructor/employee actions and decisions. What follows is a
discussion of organizational cultural models in general and specifically, human potential, socio-
technical and total quality management models that can be employed to discover organization
barriers impacting critical thinking instructor preparation. Then, four areas will be discussed
concerning tools, processes, procedures and the value of shared information that is applicable to
all models and necessary for cultural model and setting barrier reduction achievement. Lastly,
this section concludes with a short dialogue regarding organizational cultural settings followed
by discussions focused on organizational cultural environments and barriers.
Cultural Models. Cultural models can be applied and settings improved for military
critical thinking instructors, students and organizations by aligning them to mitigate barriers and
establish the best learning environment possible. Specifically, models can be applied to identify
and mitigate four cultural challenges. First, models can be applied to reduce military instructor
resistance to their learning about critical thinking skills. Second, models can be applied to
inform instructors of critical thinking skill application benefits to reduce their cultural distrust or
misperceptions of it. Third, models can be applied to best determine how to include critical
thinking skill teaching as part of the regular curriculum. Last, models can be applied to present
cultural setting influences to demonstrate to instructors military subject areas where critical
thinking can be implemented and integrated to solve military course tactical and operational
problems. Three cultural models are presented and one, or several, can be applied to improve
instructor, student and organizational performance and reduce organizational barriers.
Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996) discussed these barriers in their work concerning the creation
of sustainable organizations. Specifically, they discussed human potential, socio-technical and
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 32
total quality management as three models/methods that if adopted by organizations could see
them experience intellectual growth, improved interpersonal interaction ability, and overall
improved capabilities to deal with organizational processes and change propositions. Ideally,
cultural models would present data and information on how the military institution I am studying
is currently preparing military instructors to teach critical thinking skills and also provide insight
into recommended operational change improvements along the lines discussed by Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001).
Shared Information. According to Kecskes (2008) the sharing of information was a
critical action to ensuring model execution success and was a leader responsibility. If
information sharing was not occurring the author recommended that leaders explore why and
take immediate actions to rectify the situation. This advice is applicable to ensuring critical
thinking instructor preparation and L.G. Snyder and Snyder (2008) suggested that shared
experiences of instructors could help them to reach full learning potential. Additionally, the
sharing of information could be used to inspire instructors and students to work collaboratively
to ensure their preconceived biases and assumptions were restrained to allow critical thinking a
chance to cognitively germinate.
Cultural Settings
It is important to understand the cultural settings of military critical thinking instructors
and their students in order to identify barriers that maybe interfering with their ability to teach
and learn at an optimal level. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) in their discussion concerning
cultural settings suggested that variations may be found among inhabitants, and in this case,
military critical thinking instructors operating within their classroom environments by
interpreting data collected through interviews and/or observations. Furthermore, cultural setting
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 33
activities as described by instructors in focused interviews was either validated or refuted by data
collected through instructor classroom activity observation. Additionally, Bernardo (2014)
discussed the importance of looking at an organization population in a holistic manner to ensure
that the many and varied facets of an organization were examined and analyzed to discover
current, and possibly future, influences that might hinder organizational operational
optimization. What follows is a discussion concerning organizational cultural environments and
cultural barrier examination.
Resources
Types of resources provided to instructors by the institution could include the following
materials. First, the Planner’s Handbook for Operational Design (2011) contained an Appendix
C section titled, “Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking: a Fundamental Guide For
Strategic Leaders,” provided useful information concerning critical thinking application
considerations. Considerations encompassed clarity of concern approaches, points of view
determination, assumption impacts and inference influences along with other topics that could be
useful for instructors and students to consider during their attempts to inject critical thinking skill
application into solving military tactical and operational problems. Furthermore, the appendix
contained a model that could be reproduced and posted on classroom walls to help students
reinforce critical thinking processes and considerations visually as they work to solve military
problems or in their analysis of subjects outside military contextual parameters. Second, a
plethora of written material existed and video critical thinking material online that could be
supplied to instructors to allow them to diversify their teaching approaches and to help them
retain student interest. Last, the organization could allow instructors to introduce their students
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 34
to critical thinking skills out of context by letting them view legal, automobile sales associate and
political venues and analyze them for faulty logic or poorly constructed arguments.
Incentives
The organization had several methods in place to incentivize critical thinking instructor
performance. First, instructors, as those responsible for training them, were formally evaluated
on their teaching performance annually and military promotion boards reviewed their
performance to either retain competent instructors, or to terminate those whose teaching
performance was sub-standard. Second, the institution had the ability to identify the best
instructors based upon student graduation rates, class grade point averages and student, faculty
and leader evaluation reports and other means that could lead to instructor promotion in rank and
assignments of greater responsibility.
Accountability Systems
Organizational accountability for preparing instructors was fairly straightforward in that
the staff and faculty group initially taught them, per military regulations, the assorted military
subjects that they were responsible for teaching to include critical thinking skills. Failure to
prepare instructors adequately, or the retention of sub-standard performers, could lead to overall
organizational failure to successfully produce qualified instructors which in-turn were expected
to teach and produce qualified school graduates.
Summary
In this chapter literature was reviewed by applying knowledge, motivation and
organization (KMO) lenses to material as prescribed by Clark and Estes (2008) to examine their
applicability to the study problem concerning military instructor ability to define and describe
critical thinking skills to solve complex problems. Based upon initial analysis of material it was
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 35
questionable if military instructors could currently perform critical thinking skill teaching tasks
and the solving of this problem was important because it would enable military institutions and
instructors to achieve military teaching requirements. Furthermore, the solving of this problem
enabled officers equipped with critical thinking skills to make better tactical and operational
decisions based upon logic application. The review of critical thinking empirical research
materials revealed critical thinking best practices being conducted by civilian scholastic
institutions that I believed could be adopted by military schools to mitigate or solve current
military critical thinking skill instructor influences. A discussion of possible KMO influences
impacting military instructor performance was provided in the following section.
The first influence resided within the knowledge conceptual arena and concerned military
instructor ability to define and describe critical thinking skill application. The second knowledge
influence was procedural and focused on instructor need to know how to incorporate critical
thinking into other military curriculum subjects. The last knowledge influence was
metacognitive and sought to discover if instructors knew how to reflect on their own
effectiveness in the classroom. In regards to motivation influences the first examined was
applicable to instructor expectancy value and focused on instructor ability to describe critical
thinking value. The second motivational influence examined utility value application and
questioned if instructors could describe how to apply critical thinking skills to solve complex
problems. The last motivational influence focused on instructor self-efficacy and questioned
instructor ability to define critical thinking. The final section concerned organizational
considerations and sought to discover influences created by the existence of cultural model and
setting barriers. The KMO influences discussed in this chapter are summarized below (see Table
2). These influences were the focus of chapter three and through the use of qualitative methods
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 36
surveys, interviews, observations and literature reviews were conducted to collect data for
examination and analysis to either validate, or refute, influence existence and impacts on military
critical thinking instructors.
Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational (KMO) Influences on Military
Instructor Critical Thinking Preparation:
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Declarative:
Conceptual:
Instructors needed
knowledge of critical
thinking so they could
define what it is when
teaching this subject to their
students.

Conceptual:
Instructors needed to know
there were different methods
used to teach CT.
Expectancy Value-
Instructors needed to be
able to determine and
understand the value of
critical thinking.
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There was a general resistance
of military instructors for
learning about critical thinking
skills.

Procedural:
Instructors needed to know
how to apply critical thinking
skills to solve military
problems.

Utility Value- Instructors
needed to be able to
describe the benefits of
critical thinking.

Cultural Model Influence 2:
There was a culture of distrust
by instructors concerning the
benefits of critical thinking
skills.

Metacognitive: Instructors
needed to know how to reflect
on their ability to teach critical
thinking so that they might
improve.

Self-Efficacy – Instructors
needed to be confident in
their ability to define what
critical thinking is.

Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Instructors were overwhelmed
by other course teaching
responsibilities and this kept
them from investing effort into
integrating CT into their
courses.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
A lack of role models within
the institution who integrated
CT topics into courses.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project
The study’s purpose was to examine military instructor critical thinking skill preparation
to discern if instructors selected to teach critical thinking skills could define it and discuss the
ways it could be applied to solve complex problems.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for my study concerning military critical thinking (CT)
instructor preparation was based upon a review of literature, as discussed by Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) and Maxwell (2013), to shape and provide focus for the study. Factors that influenced
my studies conceptual design included literature reviews and my own cursory observations and
limited interactions with military critical thinking instructors. After collecting data from focused
individual interviews and classroom observations I applied Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge,
motivation an organizational (KMO) lenses to the data during analysis to determine KMO
relationships, impacts and influences upon instructors.
The review of literature suggested that in preparing instructors to teach critical thinking
they should know how to define and apply it and be informed how their individual biases and
assumptions could impede their ability to reach accurate solutions/conclusions. Additionally,
their preparation should provide them with differing ways to teach CT, inform them what/how
metrics can be applied to validate student subject comprehension and introduce them to a variety
of critical thinking models that can help them learn differing application approaches.
I conducted my survey, observation and formal interviews of instructors and analyzed the
data using the conceptual framework presented below (see Figure 2) that represented my
thoughts and path going forward to ascertain instructor critical thinking skill realities.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 38

Figure 2. Critical Thinking Study Conceptual Framework that demonstrates KMO interfacing.
Participating Stakeholders
Data collection methods used in the study included the survey of 38 instructors,
classroom teaching observations of 4 instructors, and individual interviews of 7 instructors.
Stakeholders selected for the study were governed by two criteria the first being that they were
military instructors teaching critical thinking skills to military officer students. Secondly, that
they had at least one rotation of critical thinking skill teaching experience. Data collected from
the instructors was used to inform the study to answer the two central research questions listed
below.
1. What was the current status of military instructor knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources with regard to demonstrating their ability to define and
describe critical thinking skill application to solve military problems?
2. What were the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 39
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion for instructor survey selection was to verify they were
currently teaching critical thinking skills.
Criterion 2. The second criterion for instructor observation selection verified they had at
least one rotation of critical thinking skill teaching experience.
Survey Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
The population I identified for my study consisted of 38 officer instructors in total and I
was able to survey all of these individuals. I gained access to the instructors by approaching the
Director of Training that manages them and explained to him who I was and the purpose of my
study. After I gained permission to interact with the instructors, I met with several senior
instructors and informed them of the study’s purpose and the importance their contribution could
have for preparing future military critical thinking instructors. Additionally, I shared with them
senior leader correspondence that revealed the importance they attribute for young officers to
acquire critical thinking skills so that they can make better decisions and I reiterated the
important role instructors play in ensuring critical thinking skill learning occurs.
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion for instructor observation selection was to verify they
were currently teaching critical thinking skills.
Criterion 2. The second criterion for instructor observation selection verified they had at
least one rotation of critical thinking skill teaching experience.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
The population I identified for my study consisted of 38 officer instructors in total and I
was able to observe 4 of them teaching in a classroom setting. I purposefully mixed the
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 40
observation group sample with individuals who had 6 - 11 months critical thinking teaching
experience and those that have 1 year or more experience. The purpose of having two groups
was to discern their critical thinking skill knowledge and teaching level differences. To gain
access to these instructors I approached the Director of Training that manages them and
explained who I was and the purpose of my study. After gaining permission to interact with the
instructors, I met with them and informed them of the study’s purpose and the importance their
contribution could have for preparing future military critical thinking instructors. Additionally, I
shared with them senior leader correspondence that revealed the importance they attribute for
young officers to acquire critical thinking skills so that they can make better decisions and
reiterated the important role instructors play in ensuring critical thinking skill learning occurs.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion for instructor interview selection was to verify they were
currently teaching critical thinking skills.
Criterion 2. The second criterion for instructor observation selection verified they had at
least one rotation of critical thinking skill teaching experience.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The population I identified for my study consisted of 38 officer instructors in total and I
conducted 7 focused individual interviews. I purposefully mixed the observation group sample
with individuals who had 6 - 11 months critical thinking teaching experience and those that have
1 year or more experience. The purpose of having two groups was to discern their critical
thinking skill knowledge and teaching level differences. To gain access to these instructors I
approached the Director of Training that manages them and explained who I was and purpose of
my study. I gained permission to interact with the instructors and I met with them and informed
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 41
them of the study’s purpose and the importance their contribution could have for preparing future
military critical thinking instructors. Additionally, I shared with them senior leader
correspondence that revealed the importance they attribute for young officers to acquire critical
thinking skills so that they can make better decisions and reiterated the important role instructors
play in ensuring critical thinking skill learning occurs.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data collection procedures included the identification of 38 instructor stakeholders and
determining that surveys, observations and individual interviews would be the best methods to
use to collect data. Prior to data collection efforts commencing I was required to gain approval
from the University of Southern California internal review board (IRB), a process that took four
weeks to achieve. Additionally, because my stakeholder group consisted of military instructors,
I was required to process through a military review board that took five weeks to achieve. Once
I was cleared to begin collecting data, it took me four weeks to coordinate and achieve it.
In the conduct of my qualitative study I first surveyed, then conducted instructor
classroom observations, and lastly, focused interviews to collect data to answer and inform my
research questions. The application of a qualitative study approach achieved my understanding
of how each instructor was prepared to teach critical thinking skills and uncovered their personal
perspectives and views on their experiences with the military institution they worked for. As I
collected and reflected on their data, both as individuals and as a collective body, I applied
knowledge, motivation and organizational lenses to evaluate goal influences (see Table 3).
Surveys
There were 38 instructors that met the criteria listed above and identified by the
organization as potential survey participants. All 38 individuals participated in the survey. The
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 42
survey was available for instructor input for a 2-week duration and consisted of 11 questions.
Ten of the questions were answered on a Likert scale consisting of responses of strongly agrees,
agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. The eleventh question required participants to
write their answer to the question of what the biggest challenge was for them to integrate critical
thinking into their teaching. The survey instrument is provided for a more in-depth review (see
Appendix A). All questions were delineated into the Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational
influences in alignment with Clark and Estes (2008).
Observation
There were 4 observations lasting 1 hour in duration of instructors teaching military
subjects in their classroom environments. The courses taught by them consisted of defensive
operations, placement of weapon systems, a critical thinking forum and defensive logistical
planning operations. The observation protocol is provided for a more in-depth review (see
Appendix B). All instructors observed and referred to in the study Hill, Jones, Kraft, and Smith
are done so with fictitious names to protect their confidentiality. I was a total observer, though
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) are skeptical of any researcher being either a total observer or
participant. The reason that I viewed them in a classroom environment was because it provided
a stable climate setting, good lighting and the ability to observe, hear and record instructor and
student interactions with reduced distractions or interference. Additionally, I was interested in
conducting cross walks of instructor survey responses to observed instructor teaching activities
to see the correlation between the two data sets. I observed instructors soliciting student
opinions on problems and circumstances where they believed they could apply critical thinking
skills to solve military problems. Furthermore, I witnessed instructors facilitating and
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 43
encouraging student interactions when questions arose and the instructors answered them and
worked to ensure student comprehension of solutions that were generated.
Interviews
There were 7 instructors interviewed in a private setting for a 1-hour duration. The
purpose of these interviews was to gain firsthand information of how they were prepared to teach
critical thinking skills. The interview protocol is provided for a more in-depth review (see
Appendix C). All instructors cited in this study Albert, Barnes, Charles, Danner, Edwards,
Frankel and Garner were done so with fictitious names to protect their confidentiality. I used a
semi-structured qualitative individual interview process to collect data from 7 critical thinking
instructors from a total population of 38 individuals.
All of the instructors met the study criterion and possessed the following shared
commonalties. They each had gone through the career program earlier in their careers as
students, had commands of units in a time of war, were selected specifically to serve as
instructors, agreed that teaching was a great responsibility, and learned from their students on a
daily basis.
I conducted cross walks of instructor survey responses and observed instructor teaching
activities to provide additional areas of inquiry for the interview process and to see the
correlation between the three data sets. The semi-structured approach was best for my situation
because I had some prior knowledge of instructor critical thinking opinions that enabled me to
obtain rich and descriptive information that allowed me to gain insight into their understandings
of critical thinking and how to teach it.
I used an empty office in a location away from other instructors for the conduct of the
interviews to ensure privacy and met respondent confidentiality concerns. The participants spent
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 44
one hour with me to discuss 10 questions derived from my conceptual framework and contained
within the knowledge, motivation and organizational influence areas of interest (see Appendix C
for questions asked during focused interview sessions). I believed that 10 main questions, along
with multiple probes, was sufficient given the time and because as a respondent answers I
wanted to encourage them to give me rich and descriptive answers that allowed me to gain
insights required to inform the study.
Data Analysis
For surveys, observations and interviews data analysis began during data collection. The
survey was cross-sectional and the first instrument I used to collect instructor data from. I was
interested in their responses to the Likert scale I employed to see where the majority of answers
resided. The raw data was used to generate the mean, median, and standard deviation results.
One question on the survey was a write in question and it provided a rich body of knowledge that
revealed instructor challenges in their efforts to teach critical thinking skills. The answering of
this question provided multiple themes. Furthermore, I wrote analytic memos after each
interview and each observation. I documented my thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions
about the data in relation to my conceptual framework and research questions. Once I left the
field, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, I used open coding,
looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework. During
the second phase of analysis empirical and a prior codes were aggregated into analytic/axial
codes. In the third phase of data analysis I identified pattern codes and themes that emerged in
relation to the conceptual framework and study questions. I conducted a literature review for
evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 45
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Some of the strategies I employed in my study to increase the odds of credibility
occurring were to first design all survey, observations and interview questions and actively
reflected on them concerning their relevance and connections to the two main study research
questions. The research questions sought to discover if military instructors could correctly
define and apply critical thinking skills to solve problems. Additionally, as I conducted surveys,
interviews and observations of instructors I applied some of the suggestions by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) to reinforce my studies validity by employing four methods. First, I worked to
comprehend the perspectives of the instructors and view their world as holistically as I could to
understand the contextual environment that they operated in. Second, I conducted my
observations of instructors in their classrooms that were natural settings for them and their
teaching critical thinking skills to their students. Third, I made use of reflection and self-
monitoring to remain cognizant of my own biases and assumptions and worked to keep them
from interfering with my interactions with instructors, data collection and data analysis activities.
Lastly, I used surveys, observations and individual interviews to achieve data triangulation that
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss as contributors to my study achieving overall internal
validity.
Instilling trustworthiness in the study was reflected and pertinent to my previous
discussion in the ethics section but added to that was the approval from both the University of
Southern California’s IRB review board and the Army Human Research Protections Office
(AHRPO). These boards were essential for ensuring that I remained cognizant my role in the
study, honest in the presentation of all data and ensured that all participants in the study were
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 46
treated along ethical, IRB, AHRPO, and collaborative institutional training initiative (CITI)
guidelines.
Validity and Reliability
As I conducted my survey, observations and interviews of the instructors I applied a key
suggestion by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) to conduct all facets of my study in an ethical manner
to increase study validity. Furthermore, by using the survey, observations and individual
interviews a triangulation was formed that Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed and contributed
to the overall internal validity of my study. My committee, prior to data collection instrument
implementation, reviewed all survey and interview questions to ensure their alignment with my
study premise. Survey and interview data collection instruments were specifically designed to
complement and strengthen respondent answer selection reliability and measurement. Data
collection validity was reinforced when participants interviewed for the study reviewed and
validated their individual interview transcripts for accuracy.
Ethics
As a qualitative researcher I focused on meaning and understanding in order to answer
the study’s two main research questions concerning if military instructors could correctly define
and apply critical thinking skills to solve problems To achieve this, it was important to make
ethical choices when conducting my study because so much of the data collection entailed
observing and interviewing military instructor participants and informed consent forms were
given to all participants. According to Glesne (2011), informed consent was necessary to ensure
the participants were aware that their participation was voluntary, all the discussions were kept
confidential and they could withdraw at any point without penalty. To ensure the safety of the
participants I abided by the federal requirements regarding research and any other requirements
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 47
imposed by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) in the
conduct of my study. Confidentiality was extremely important for my study participants and I
safeguarded their information through encryption, restricting access and physically securing their
data to meet this requirement. Prior to the interviews commencing I did two important things.
First, I informed the participants about my current role within the organization and that my work
is in a separate and distinct sector from theirs and what my interest and purpose is for conducting
the study. Second, I obtained their consent to audio record the interviews and provided them
with transcripts of the interviews to allow them the opportunity to review them to ensure they
reflected accurately what they wanted to communicate. I reminded the participants I would not
provide any incentives so as not to coerce them, however, at the conclusion of the study I did
send them a thank you card to express my appreciation for their participating in the study.
Table 3
Research Design Matrix
Research Questions Overall Approach Sampling Data Collection
Methods
What was the current
status of military
instructor knowledge,
motivation, and
organizational
resources with regard
to demonstrating their
ability to define and
describe critical
thinking skill
application to solve
military problems?

Qualitative: A survey
and interview process
was used to
determine if an
instructor could
provide a definition
of critical thinking.
This was a
descriptive research
study.
Non-probability
sampling was used
and incorporated to
select critical
thinking instructors
from a populace
(N=38) to serve as
study participants.
Thirty-eight military
instructors taught
critical thinking at
one military
installation school
and 7 were selected
Thirty-eight
instructors were
surveyed and 7
interviewed on a one-
on-one basis and
assured the responses
they gave to
questions and their
expressed opinions
would remain
confidential.
Examples of critical
thinking questions
that were posed to
instructors included if
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 48
Research Questions Overall Approach Sampling Data Collection
Methods
for interviews. they could define
critical thinking, how
they derived their
definition of critical
thinking and if they
felt their definition
corresponded with
other instructors.
Factors that were
explored included
instructors being
junior military
officers, student
population being
taught consisted of
junior officers and
critical thinking as a
stated teaching
requirement was
verified by interview.

What were the
recommendations for
organizational
practice in the areas
of knowledge,
motivation, and
organizational
resources?

Qualitative: A survey
and interview was
conducted to
determine
recommendations for
organizational
practice in the areas
of knowledge,
motivation, and
organizational
resources.

Non-probability
sampling was used
and incorporated to
select critical
thinking instructors
from a populace
(N=38) served as
study participants.
Thirty-eight military
instructors taught
critical thinking at
one military
installation school

Thirty-eight
instructors were
surveyed and 7
interviewed on a one-
on-one basis and
assured that any
responses they gave
to questions and their
expressed opinions
would remain
confidential.
Specifically, they
were asked to
describe how critical
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 49
Research Questions Overall Approach

This was a
descriptive research
study.
Sampling

and 7 were selected
for interviews.
Data Collection
Methods

thinking could be
applied to solve
problems.
Factors that were
explored included
instructors being
junior military
officers, student
population being
taught consisted of
junior officers and
critical thinking as a
stated teaching
requirement was
verified by interview.
Note: Interviews lasted 1hr in duration for each participant and were hand and voice recorded.
To triangulate and add validity to the overall study surveys, observations and interviews, of
instructor teaching were used.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter of my qualitative study I examined 38 military instructors critical thinking
skill preparation to discern if they could define it and discuss ways it could be applied to solve
complex problems. The methods I used to collect data and inform my research questions in the
conduct of my study were surveys, instructor classroom observations and focused interviews.
Furthermore, as I collected and analyzed data I applied Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge,
motivation and organizational influence lens to achieve a deeper and richer meaning of the data
and to assess current practices and to provide foundations to build recommendations upon.
There were two research questions that were central to my study.
Research Question 1: What was the current status of military instructor knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources with regard to demonstrating their ability to define and
describe critical thinking skill application to solve military problems?
Research Question 2: What were the recommendations for organizational practice in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Results and Findings
Presented in the section are the results and findings of the survey, observations and
interviews that I conducted during the data collection phase of the study. This information, along
with work presented in the literature review section, and knowledge, motivation and
organizational considerations, were combined to answer the first research question.
Research Question 1: Instructor Current Status
Survey questions, observations and interviews focused on determining the current status
of military instructor knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources with regard to
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 51
demonstrating their ability to define and describe critical thinking skill application to solve
military problems.
Survey, Observation and Interview Knowledge
Results
After analyzing the survey data at least half of the instructors believe that the method the
institution’s faculty instructor group used to teach them critical thinking skills was conducive to
their learning the subject. Interviews of instructors revealed that they could define critical
thinking but a standard definition was not presented. Instructor survey responses and interview
comments concerning if they were taught how to teach critical thinking skills suggested that half
of them believed they were taught how to teach critical thinking.
Knowledge types
Three knowledge types are found in this section as defined by Rueda (2011) they are:
conceptual knowledge as the ability for a person to have had knowledge of the principles and
theories of a particular subject or area; procedural knowledge, where a person had knowledge of
how to do something; and metacognitive knowledge where a person possessed an awareness of
their own cognition processes and their knowing when and why and how to do something.
Conceptual knowledge. Two conceptual knowledge (declarative) influences were of
interest to me in the conduct of the study. First, instructors needed to have knowledge of critical
thinking so they could define it for themselves, and when teaching this subject, define it for their
students. Secondly, instructors needed to know that there were different methods they could use
to teach critical thinking because authors discussed in the literature review section of this study
felt some critical thinking models were easier for students to learn and use than others.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 52
Conceptual knowledge data collection. The first two survey questions were
specifically designed to collect data on conceptual knowledge influences impacting instructor
critical thinking. The first important conceptual knowledge question asked instructors if the
method used by the institution to teach them critical thinking skills was conducive to their
learning it. There were 23 instructors, or approximately 60%, who agreed that the method used
by the institution was effective. The mean was 7.6, median 4, with a standard deviation of 7.7
for this data set (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Frequency of responses: N = 38.
The second survey question focused on conceptual knowledge asked instructors if they
were confident in their ability to define critical thinking. Instructor responses to this question
were that 84% of them felt confident that they could define critical thinking. The mean was 7.6,
median 4, with a standard deviation of 7.9 for this data set (see Figure 4).
1
2
12
19
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 3. The Method The Instituion Used To Teach Me About Critcal
Thinking Skill Was Conducive To My Learninig This Subject.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 53

Figure 4. Frequency of responses: N = 38.

Interviews with instructors revealed that they did not possess a standard critical thinking
definition, or definitive source for providing a definition however, they could define it. Barnes
defined critical thinking as, “A deliberate process using purposeful judgment and analysis to
determine what to think or how to act.” Garner defined it as, “Analyzing and evaluating
information to come to a logical conclusion.” When queried by me, some of the definitions
provided by the instructors were obtained from their initial training with the faculty instructor
group, from self-study, or other sources, before they started their teaching assignments.
I observed three instructors teaching military subjects that inserted critical thinking
contextually into them. However, instructor Kraft, purposefully taught a class with critical
thinking foundational attributes, and offered a definition for critical thinking to his students. He
told them that critical thinking was a, “Purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe
or do.” He asked his students to remember this definition and its implications in discussing a
question he presented for them to consider. The question he posed was, “Will your kids be able
to do the same job as you in the future.” The asking of this question sparked many discussions
0
4
2
14
18
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 4. I Am Confident In My Ability To Define Critical Thinking.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 54
among students as to what the future job market would be like along with their surmising what
type of skill sets would be needed to work and survive in a future job market. Kraft was an
active facilitator and kept the group’s discussions aligned with the topic and encouraged them to
think deeply about future societal effects that could either benefit, or hinder, their children
securing jobs.
Procedural knowledge. Survey question six asked instructors if they were taught how to
teach critical thinking skills to military officers and 50% responded on the survey that they had
with 29% remaining neutral. Instructors I observed teaching discussed critical thinking attributes
with their students, such as biases and assumptions, and cautioned them to be aware of them
when working to solve tactical problems sets. The tactical problems the students worked on
required them to plan and execute defensive operations and as they worked these problems the
instructor constantly quizzed them on their thought processes. There were several instances
where students assumed material resources would be supplied and the instructor, serving as a
devil’s advocate, asked them what they would do if they never materialized. Instructor interview
comments on this topic suggested that most of them felt that they were taught how to teach
critical thinking and other courses they attended, along with their military experiences, helped
reinforce their learning of the subject. The mean was 7.6, median 6, with a standard deviation of
4.39 for this data set (see Figure 5).
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 55

Figure 5. Frequency of responses: N = 38.

Metacognitive knowledge. Survey question five asked if instructors knew how to reflect
on their ability to teach critical thinking.
Metacognitive knowledge data collection. Instructor responses to this question in
interview sessions provided the following comments. Instructor Barnes said:
So institutionally, once again I'm going to refer back to the faculty instructor group program,
which was just one week course, but for me was the enlightenment, the light bulb moment if
you will, of really taking a step back and looking at my own way of thinking about problems
and how I go about solving them. Also, it started me looking at how other people see things
because they see things with a slightly different perspective and comparing those views.
This resulted, or can result in, in me maybe adjusting my own processes based upon that
information.

2
6
11
13
6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 5. I Was Taught How To Teach Critcal Thinking Skills To Militray
Officers.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 56
This view was reinforced and expanded upon by instructor Garner who stated:
We were, and are, encouraged to incorporate our military experiences and doctrine and to
infuse those two into our classroom learning and teaching. To not only analyze a problem
and provide a book solution but to give real-life examples where we did and did not do
things according to doctrine. So, we are highly encouraged to take our personal
experiences look at what we did right and wrong, because not every unit in the force does
everything by doctrine, and look for solutions that are tangible and can be of use for us
and the students we teach.
A differing opinion was presented by Instructor Albert who said, “Instructor reflection was more
of an individual effort than an organizational one” and this opinion was echoed by instructor
Danner when he said, “Unfortunately I would say that there aren't that many formal mechanisms
to encourage that type of thinking whether in a formal process or in counseling.” Rounding out
these opinions was instructor Frankel’s when he stated, “Not by the organization but by
individual effort.”
Instructor Knowledge Themes
Two instructor knowledge centric themes resulted from information extracted from
survey question 11 that asked them what their biggest challenge for integrating critical thinking
into their teaching was and from instructor interviews. The themes are listed below:
Practical exercise creation
Instructor answers to survey question eleven revealed their desire for the organization to
design and provide practical exercises to help them and students learn how to apply critical
thinking to solve military problems. Additionally, instructors requested for practical exercises to
be designed to help them establish standards for student performance and grading.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 57
Teaching methods
Several instructors interviewed said they were exposed to Paul and Elder’s approach to
learning and teaching critical thinking skills during faculty instructor group training, and through
self-study, have expanded their learning and understanding of critical thinking. Furthermore,
when interviewed several of them expressed the desire for the organization to formally introduce
them to different critical thinking skill learning models and teaching methods.
Survey, Observation and Interview Motivation
Results
The analysis of the majority of data collected through the survey, instructor observed
classes and interviews revealed that instructors saw the value of using critical thinking to solve
military problems. Additionally, the overall consensus of instructors surveyed and interviewed
was that teaching critical thinking skills was not hard for them to accomplish. Furthermore, after
reviewing and analyzing survey and interview data it appeared that instructors were of the belief
that their students saw the value in using critical thinking skills to solve military problems and
they were motivated to use them.
Motivation Types
Three motivation types are found in this section: expectancy value theory was described
by Eccles (2006) as being exhibited when, once an individual determines that a subject has
value, they become motivated to learn a new skill or task; utility value theory according to Rueda
(2011) could be used to instill in instructors the importance of learning about a subject, in this
case, critical thinking skills; self-efficacy theory was defined by Rueda (2011) as an individual’s
opinion and judgment of their capabilities to plan and execute tasks successfully.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 58
Expectancy value. When instructors were surveyed and answered question four if they
found critical thinking useful for solving military problems 95% of them said they did. The mean
was 7.6, median 1, with a standard deviation of 9.73 for this data set (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Frequency of responses: N= 38.
Instructors I observed teaching classes did encourage their students to apply critical thinking into
their planning and execution processes to increase the odds of their producing a right, or better,
plan for overall mission success.
When interviewed, all seven instructors said that they realized expectancy value traits
when they were taught critical thinking skills by the faculty instructor group. Edwards said “I
think it's useful because it probably is best used in association with doctrine and previous tactical
operational experiences to reach a solid critical thinking solution.” Garner expanded upon this
belief when he stated:
I think it's very useful for life in general because usually the problems were facing have life
or death consequences so we must solve it the most efficient way possible. A lot of that goes
back to understanding a problem, looking at the logical steps that lead to a solution and not
0
1 1
15
21
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 6. I Find Critcal Thinking Is Useful For Solving Military
Problems.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 59
having to re-create the wheel where you solve the right problem instead of wasting a lot of
time and energy solving something that you're not actually after.
Furthermore, their belief in skill value was reinforced as they began to use critical thinking skills
to solve their own problems successfully and assisted students undertaking work to solve tactical
problem sets and course modules.
Utility value. Instructors needed to be able to describe the benefits of critical thinking to
help them become self-motivated to use it and if they were going to be successful in getting their
students to use it.
Utility value data collection. The analysis of the majority of data collected through the
survey, instructor observed classes and interviews revealed that instructors saw the value of
using critical thinking to solve military problems and encouraged their students to learn its value
through military planning application. When asked if he valued critical thinking Albert
responded, “I think everyone's going to say they value critical thinking.”
Self-Efficacy. Instructors needed to be able to define what critical thinking was.
Self-Efficacy data collection. Survey question nine focused on motivation self-efficacy
influences and asked instructor if teaching critical thinking was difficult for them to accomplish.
Survey results revealed that 47% of instructors felt that teaching critical thinking was not
difficult. The mean was 7.6, median 8, with a standard deviation of 4.15 for this data set (see
Figure 7).
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 60
8
10
12
7
1
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 7. Teaching Critcal Thinking Is Difficult For Me To Accomplish.

Figure 7. Frequency of responses: N = 38.

Respondents were asked in the survey to write their answer to what the biggest challenge for
them was for integrating critical thinking into their teaching. An answer provided centered on
motivational influences divulged the following information. One of the instructors wrote:
Desire by the instructor to take the time to get away from PowerPoint and whiteboards.
Often, instructors simply teach what has to be taught and do not see the purpose in trying
to expand the learning of the class into realms which may not be measured/measureable
in the near future but could have great effect in a few years.
Interview responses to this question revealed six instructors did not find teaching
critical thinking hard to achieve. Edwards said the following:
As a generalization no. If you look across the broad and diverse population of students that
we have there is some challenge to teaching some of them because their backgrounds are so
different but it just means we have to work harder to find a path everyone can follow.
However, because of these different backgrounds and points of view, some people do not
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 61
have the knowledge base to think in depth and that can be a friction point to teaching the
subject.
Instructor Garner agreed and voiced this opinion about teaching Troop Leading Procedures
(TLP) and MDMP planning processes:
I don't think it's difficult to teach per se because most of the processes we teach to students
are supported by TLPs and the MDMP process which helps them break down a problem,
look at the different factors and then come up with a best solution. If there is a difficulty, it is
that students are young in their career and do not have a great deal experience or knowledge
to rely upon to generate solutions.
Frankel made a comment that was universally agreed upon by all instructors interviewed when
he stated, “It depends. In my opinion, there are some students that are more receptive than others
and just trying to convey the message and get them thinking on the right path sometimes is a
little challenging.”
Survey, Observation and Interview Organization
Organizational influences in this study included cultural models that defined the values,
norms and practices that instructors exhibited in the conduct of learning and teaching. Also,
included were cultural settings that were important to understand for critical thinking instructors
in order to identify barriers that might have been interfering with their ability to learn and teach
at an optimal level.
Cultural model influence results. Survey question three focused upon instructor
opinions if they felt the institution taught them how critical thinking could be applied to solve
tactical problems. The survey response to this question showed that 81% of instructors did
believe the institution taught them. All seven of interviewed participant’s responses to this
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 62
question were in agreement that the institution taught them how to apply critical thinking to
solve tactical problems. Several of the instructors interviewed mentioned being introduced by
the institution to the adult learning model as an instructor guide to help them understand how
their students learned. One instructor specifically mentioned the faculty instructor groups use of
Blooms Taxonomy to help them conceptualize their and their students’ possible approaches for
learning critical thinking skill processes. An interesting point during the interviews arose when I
specifically asked instructors who taught them their critical thinking skills. Five instructors
answered both the faculty instructor group and the instructor certification process taught them.
One instructor said only the faculty instructor group taught him and one stated that he learned
critical thinking during the instructor certification process.
Cultural settings influence results. After reviewing and analyzing survey and
interview data it appeared that instructors were of the opinion that the preparation the institution
provided for them to teach critical thinking was sufficient. Additionally, based on my review of
survey and interview data it appeared that instructors were of the opinion that the military
institution validated by observation their ability to teach critical thinking skills to military officer
students.
Survey question five focused on organizational influences concerning instructor critical
thinking and asked them if the military institution encouraged them to reflect upon their learning
of critical thinking skills. Survey results showed that 71% of instructors agreed that the
institution does encourage them to reflect upon their learning of critical thinking skills. The
mean was 7.6, median 7, with a standard deviation of 7.36 for this data set (see Figure 8).
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 63

Figure 8. Frequency of responses: N = 38.
When interviewed, instructor Garner provided this response to this question:
We were, and are, encouraged to incorporate our military experiences and doctrine and to
infuse those two into our classroom learning and teaching. To not only analyze a problem
and provide a book solution but to give real-life examples where we did and did not do
things according to doctrine. So, we are highly encouraged to take our personal
experiences look at what we did right and wrong, because not every unit in the force does
everything by doctrine, and look for solutions that are tangible and can be of use for us
and the students we teach.
A differing opinion was presented by Instructor Albert who said, “Instructor reflection was more
of an individual effort than organizational one” and this was echoed by instructor Danner when
he said, “Unfortunately I would say that there aren't that many formal mechanisms to encourage
that type of thinking whether in a formal process or in counseling.” Rounding out these opinions
was instructor Frankel’s statement of, “Not by the organization but by individual effort.”
2 2
7
20
7
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 8. I Am Encouraged To Reflect Upon My Learning Of Critcal
Thinking Skills.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 64
The data collected in this section suggested that while the survey results showed 71% of
instructors believed the institution encouraged instructors to reflect on their learning of critical
thinking the interviews revealed that not all instructors were in agreement.
Survey question seven was specifically designed to discover organizational influences on
instructor critical thinking asked them if they believed the preparation they were given by the
institution to teach critical thinking was sufficient. Survey results for this question revealed that
58% of them thought so. The mean was 7.4, median 7, with a standard deviation of 4.72 for this
data set (see Figure 9).

Figure 9. Frequency of responses: N = 38.
Interview results provided some insights into how instructors interpreted this question
As demonstrated by Edwards when he said the following:
I think it was sufficient because it covered were we can go in doctrine to seek guidance and it
provided a handrail that can be used across problem sets and for the teaching of those
problem sets to students. Also, I've been given enough latitude as an instructor to inject my
2
7
6
15
7
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 9. The Preparation I Recieved To Teach Critcal Thinking Skills
Was Sufficient.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 65
experience, and current events if they are relevant, to teaching subjects to students. So, I
think it's efficient because it provided a baseline that established right and left limits, but
allows flexibility enough for me to integrate other problems and solutions into my teaching.
Instructor Charles sated:
I think I was set up for success to be able to display critical thinking and teach it to the
students. It is kind of like the art and science with the art and science being controlled instead
of all over the map. I can apply references to what I was taught and I can apply this
knowledge in the classroom using concrete examples with the adult learning model as a
guide.
The last question specifically designed to discover organizational influences on instructor
critical thinking, survey question eight, asked them if the military institution validated by
observation their ability to teach critical thinking to military officer students. Survey results for
this question revealed that 39% of them thought so with 31% disagreeing. The mean was 7.6,
median 6, with a standard deviation of 3.78 for this data set (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Frequency of responses: N = 38.
6 6
11
12
3
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Insrcutors
Response
Figure 10. The Military Instituion Validated By Observation My Ability
To Teach Critcal Thinking To Officer Students.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 66
Three instructors interviewed for this question provided the following insights. Instructor
Edwards stated:
It was validated primarily through the instructor certification process and the five
certification briefs. My level of understanding of critical thinking and other subjects was
demonstrated through my briefing of the Bush Hill exercise that is part of our
instructor certification training.
Instructor Danner said:
The organization has a very deliberate certification process. Now that I think upon it, it
just kind of evolved as I taught classes and was observed by the team lead as I questioned
students upon their learning and understanding of subjects. A third instructor, Garner
stated he was validated:
Through the instructor certification program which usually lasts about six weeks with
five main blocks of instruction where they had to demonstrate an understanding of
doctrine and their ability to communicate doctrine so that they could teach it to students.
Instructor Themes
Two instructor organization centric themes resulted from information extracted from
survey question eleven that asked them what their biggest challenge for integrating critical
thinking into their teaching was and from instructor interviews. The themes are listed below:
Institutional preparation
Survey question seven focused on cultural settings and resourcing asked instructors if
they believed the preparation they were given by the institution to teach critical thinking was
sufficient. The survey showed that 58% of them and those instructors interviewed concurred with
that finding.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 67
Accountability
Survey question eight was specifically designed to discover organizational accountability
systems by asking instructor if the military institution validated by observation their ability to
teach critical thinking to military officer students. Survey results showed that 39% of instructors
agreed their teaching was validated and all interviewed instructors said their teaching was
validated.
Summary
In this chapter of my qualitative study I examined 38 military instructors critical thinking
skill preparation to discern if they could define it and discuss the ways it could be applied to
solve complex problems. Data analysis revealed that instructors could define critical thinking,
could apply it to solve military problems and wished for a class dedicated to teaching them the
subject. Additionally, data analysis revealed that instructors felt that they were not taught how to
reflect upon their own critical thinking, nor allocated sufficient time to teach the subject to their
students. While these results were not all inclusive, they were insightful.
The methods I used to collect data and inform my research questions in the conduct of
my study were surveys, instructor classroom observations and focused interviews. All data
collected and analyzed was applied to Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation and
organizational influence lens and study methodology approaches. Furthermore, data collection
and analysis aligned with the critical thinking study conceptual framework model discussed in
Chapter Three to achieve a deeper and richer meaning of the data to identify problem areas and
provide foundational material to build organizational recommendations upon for Chapter Five.
Chapter Five recommendations were generated by analyzing all data collected and validation
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 68
achieved by comparing answers to survey (see Table 4), observation and interview questions for
consistency and reliability.
Table 4
Summary of Survey Question Responses
Question Strongly
Disagree
Disagree

Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
1. The method the
institution used to me
teach me about critical
thinking skills was
conducive to my
learning this subject.
2.6% 5.2% 31.5% 50% 10.5%
2. I am confident in my
ability to define critical
thinking.
0% 10.5% 5.2% 36.8% 47.3%
3. The military
institution taught me
how critical thinking
could be applied to solve
tactical problems.
Please circle one
response.
5.2% 5.2% 7.8% 52.6% 28.9%
4. I find critical thinking
is useful for solving
military problems.
0% 2.6% 2.6% 39.4% 55.2%
5. The military
institution encourages
me to reflect upon my
learning of critical
thinking skills.
5.2% 5.2% 18.4% 52.6% 18.4%
6. I was taught how to
teach critical thinking
skills to military
officers.
5.2% 15.7% 28.9% 34.2% 15.7%
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 69
Question Strongly
Disagree
Disagree

Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
7. I believe that the
preparation I was given
by the institution to
teach critical thinking
was sufficient.
5.4% 18.9% 16.2% 40.5% 18.9%
8. The military
institution validated by
observation my ability to
teach critical thinking to
military officer students.
15.7% 15.7% 28.9% 31.5% 7.8%
9. Teaching critical
thinking is difficult for
me to accomplish.
21% 26.3% 31.5% 18.4% 2.6%
10. My students see the
value of using critical
thinking to solve
military problems.

0% 5.2% 23.6% 52.6% 18.4%

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 70
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
As discussed in Chapter 2 the teaching of critical thinking skills according to Facione (2010)
was important because it provided a process that could be used by students to consider internal
thinking fallacies and biases and external factors before reaching and implementing a
solution. The literature reviewed in this section focused on knowledge related influences that
were pertinent to the achievement of my stakeholder’s goal. The stakeholder groups for this
paper were military instructors whose goal was to be able to define and describe the benefits of
critical thinking skill application. Specifically, I analyzed and reviewed civilian and military
literature sources to discern which best practices could be transferred to achieve the instructor
goal. The following section discusses knowledge skills and influences that could be applied to
instructors learning critical thinking skills and teaching methods.
Knowledge Recommendations
Conceptual knowledge. There are two recommendations to solve identified problem
areas. First, it is recommended that a common understanding of critical thinking be taught and
established by the faculty instructor group (FIG). Additionally, although instructors did provide
a definition for critical thinking in interviews, as discussed in Chapter Four, a common definition
needs to be instituted in order to meet organizational instructor proficiency standardization goals
and to inculcate a group shared definition.
Conceptual knowledge was defined by Rueda (2011) as the ability for a person to have
knowledge of the principles and theories of a particular subject or area. Instructors can realize
conceptual knowledge when they know the principles and theories that govern critical thinking
thought processes. Informal interviews with several critical thinking instructors revealed that
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 71
they possessed some critical thinking knowledge, but defined it differently. There are two key
principles that could be applied to critical thinking instructor conceptual knowledge
learning. First, according to Dembo and Eaton (2000) and Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2009)
self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, if implemented, could enhance conceptual
knowledge, learning and performance. Secondly, as critical thinking instructors gain knowledge
and prowess of differing teaching methods their self-efficacy achievement can be strengthened
through modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors to improve their self-efficacy, learning,
and performance (Denler, et al (2009).
Procedural knowledge. I recommend senior instructors teach critical thinking skill
application to novice instructors and encouraged them to practice these skills to ingrain in them
its use as a viable option for solving military problems. Secondly, there was an indication that
instructors knew how to teach critical thinking to large groups and it is recommended that
instructors be taught by the faculty instructor group differing critical thinking instructional
methods so they can evaluate large group, instructor facilitated, small group and collaborative
approaches to discern the pros and cons of each in fostering learning, interaction and
collaborative solution generation. Once learned, these teaching method approaches could be
used by instructors to evaluate case study and military tactical problem solution generation
efforts. It was believed by civilian and military critical thinking authors that once its usefulness
was realized by instructors that it would serve to self-motivate them to seek and use additional
instructional/learning methods for themselves and their students.
Procedural knowledge defined by Rueda (2011) was a person having knowledge of how
to do something and in this case it was instructors having the knowledge and ability to teach
critical thinking skill application. Critical thinking instructors, in accordance with organizational
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 72
stated goals, need procedural knowledge on how to apply critical thinking skills to solve military
problems. Informal interviews and observations of critical thinking instructors revealed that
some of them had the ability to perform this task, but it is questionable if the majority of them
could. The goal is for instructors to achieve procedural knowledge attainment and be able to
demonstrate how to incorporate critical thinking skills into military curriculum subjects. The
guiding principle for goal attainment achievement is for them to develop mastery. Schraw
(2006) maintains that mastery occurs when individuals acquire component skills integrating
them with practice and learning to apply those skills to solve problems.
Metacognitive knowledge. My recommendation is that instructors to be taught by the
faculty instructor group possible critical thinking reflection techniques such as journal or other
record tracking device methods so that they can review and evaluate their personal critical
thinking learning progresses, knowledge attainment and critical thinking skill application value.
Metacognitive knowledge according to Rueda (2011) was a person’s awareness of their
own cognition processes and their knowing when and why and how to do something. Instructors
need to be aware of their own cognition processes and their knowing when, why and how to use
critical thinking skills. Furthermore, instructors need to know, according to Eccles (2006) and
Pintrich (2003), the importance of critical thinking to help them develop positive perspectives on
its value. Critical thinking instructors need metacognitive knowledge to reflect on their ability to
teach critical thinking so that they can improve. Informal interviews with several critical
thinking instructors revealed that some of the instructors might have had an idea of what
reflection was but it was questionable if the majority of them knew or put it into practice. A
principle goal is to provide instructors opportunities to engage in guided self-monitoring and
self-assessment along the lines discussed by Baker, Day, and Salas (2006).
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 73
Three knowledge types were discussed in this section based upon analysis by Rueda
(2011) and Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual, procedural and metacognitive influences. Table 5
provides information concerning assumed knowledge influences, assessment of assumed
knowledge priority, the principal and citations underpinning suggested strategies and context-
specific recommendations to mitigate or solve identified knowledge influences.
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence:
Need

Priority
(Y,N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

Declarative:
Conceptual:
Instructors needed knowledge of
critical thinking so they could
define it. (SE)

Y

Self-regulatory
strategies, including
goal setting, enhance
learning and
performance (Dembo
& Eaton, 2000;
Denler, et al., 2014).

There was an
indication through
informal interviews
that instructors
have some critical
thinking knowledge
but define it
differently. A
common
understanding of
critical thinking
and its definition
could be
established through
training in
order to meet
organizational
instructor
proficiency goals
and to enhance
instructor learning
and performance.

Conceptual:
Instructors needed to know there
are different methods used to learn

Y

Modeling to-be-
learned strategies or
behaviors improves
self-efficacy,
learning, and

Instructors should
be taught differing
critical thinking
instructional
methods and be
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 74
Assumed Knowledge Influence:
Need

critical thinking skills. (SE)
Priority
(Y,N)
Principle and
Citation

performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).

Context-Specific
Recommendation

able to evaluate
large group,
instructor
facilitated, small
group and
collaborative
approaches to
discern the pros
and cons of each.
Additionally, these
methods could be
applied to case
study and military
tactical problem
work to determine
which approach is
best suited to
overall learning
success. It was
believed by
civilian/military
critical thinking
practitioners that
once critical
thinking usefulness
was realized by
instructors that it
would serve to self-
motivate them to
seek and use
additional
instructional/learni
ng methods for
themselves and
their students.

Procedural:
Instructors needed to know how to
apply critical thinking skills to
solve military problems. (IP)

Y

To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have

There was an
indication through
informal interviews
that critical
thinking was not
being
systematically
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 75
Assumed Knowledge Influence:
Need
Priority
(Y,N)
Principle and
Citation

learned (Schraw,
2006).
Context-Specific
Recommendation

applied to solve
military tactical
problems. It was
recommended that
critical thinking
application be
taught, encouraged
and practiced to
ingrain it as a
viable option to use
to solve military
problems.

Metacognitive: Instructors needed
to know how to reflect on their
ability to learn critical thinking so
that they could improve.

Y

Rationales included a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of the
work or learning
could help learners
develop positive
values (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003). #2.
Provide opportunities
for learners to
engage in guided
self-monitoring and
self-assessment
(Baker, D. P., Day,
R., & Salas, E.,
2006).

Recommendation
was instructors be
taught critical
thinking reflection
techniques such as
journal or other
record tracking
device methods so
that they could
review their
personal critical
thinking learning,
knowledge, growth
to access critical
thinking
application value.

Motivation Recommendations
This section focused on motivation related influences that were pertinent to the
achievement of military instructor critical thinking preparation and learning success as
previously discussed in Chapter 2. Richard Mayer (2011) discussed motivation in his book and
defined it as an individual’s internal desire to direct their behavior to achieve an identified goal.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 76
Motivation that is achieved, either internally or externally, by instructors can provide the impetus
for instructors to learn critical thinking skill material to the best of their ability and perhaps even
at a higher level than “normal” military subjects. The attainment and sustainment of this level of
motivation in learning critical thinking and instructor application is important because of its
potential impact on instructor thought processing endeavors that can lead to best solution
generation by them in solving/teaching critical thinking skills. Specifically, I discuss in this
section the importance of expectancy and utility values and self-efficacy theories for instructor
motivation and learning (See Table 6).
Expectancy value theory. I recommend that instructors continue to be taught by senior
instructors, through tactical and case study analysis, the value of critical thinking for producing
better solutions. Additionally, I recommend that instructors be required to analyze historical
tactical and case study scenarios where the absence of critical thinking skills resulted in less than
stellar solutions.
Eccles (2006) described expectancy value theory (EVT) as being exhibited when, once an
individual determines that a subject has value, they become motivated to learn a new skill or
task. Pintrich (2003) reinforced this thought and furthered it by suggesting that in addition to
value, if an individual understood the overall task and skill utility, it too can add to their
expectancy for learning success. This advice applies to military instructors because they need to
learn and stay motivated to learn critical thinking skill application value if they are to meet
organizational instructor subject proficiency goals. Informal interviews with instructors had
revealed that some of them had grasped critical thinking skill learning value but it was
questionable if the majority of them had. The principle that I applied to expectancy value
attainment stemmed from the works of both Eccles ( 2006) and Pintrich (2003) focused upon the
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 77
rationale that the importance and utility value of work, or learning, could help instructors become
motivated to develop positive critical thinking skill value comprehension and appreciation.
Utility value theory. My recommendation is that instructors be taught by senior
instructors the utility value of critical thinking skill application through both tactical and case
study analysis and apply these skills in actually solving tactical and case study problems to
reinforce utility value understanding.
Utility value application by instructors is important for instructors to understand and
apply in learning a subject because, according to Rueda (2011), it could be used to instill in
instructors the importance and benefits of a subject, in this case, critical thinking. Additionally,
military instructors need to learn and comprehend the value of critical thinking skill application
if they are to believe in its value and demonstrate to their students its utility for solving military
tactical and operational problems. Informal interviews with instructors revealed that some of
them believed that critical thinking skill application had some utility value for solving military
tactical and case study problems but it is questionable if the majority of them did. The primary
principle that I think applies to instilling instructor critical thinking utility value is based on the
work of Schraw (2006) and focuses on instructors developing subject mastery through acquiring
component skills, practice integrating them and their knowing when to apply what they learned
to solve problems they are presented with.
Self-efficacy theory. I recommend the faculty instructor group teach and encourage
instructors to learn the differing cognitive models they can apply to learn and reinforce critical
thinking endeavors. Furthermore, I suggest prompt and timely feedback be supplied by trainers
to instructors as they learn about critical thinking skills to help mitigate learning problem areas
and strengthen correct subject comprehension to increase instructor self-efficacy.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 78
Rueda (2011) defined self-efficacy theory as an individual’s, in this instance instructor's,
opinion and judgment of their capabilities to plan and execute tasks, which was further refined in
this paper as critical thinking skills, successfully. Additionally, Bandura (2000) suggested that
individuals who possessed a strong desire for knowledge learning and sharing were more likely
to achieve higher self-efficacy. Informal interviews with instructors revealed that some of them
did not believe that they were capable of learning critical thinking skills because of the
complexity of the subject. The primary principle that I think applies to instilling instructor
confidence and belief in their abilities to learn and use critical thinking skills centers upon their
receiving constructive feedback and modeling as they learn about this subject from the staff and
faculty development group to increase their self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006).
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Need

Priority
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation

Expectancy Value- Instructors
needed to be able to determine
and understand the value of
critical thinking so that they
could teach it.

Y

Rationales included a
discussion of the
importance and utility
value of work or
learning could help
learners develop
positive
values (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).

Recommend that
instructors
determine and
understand the
value of critical
thinking.

Utility Value- Instructors
needed to be able to describe
the benefits of critical thinking
and

Y

To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply

Instructors
continue to be
taught by the
faculty instructor
group and shown
the benefits of

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 79
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Need

able to demonstrate it.
Priority
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

what they have learned
(Schraw, 2006).
Context-Specific
Recommendation

critical thinking
skill application.
through education,
training.

Self-Efficacy – Instructors
needed to be able to define
what critical thinking is.

Y

Feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).

Models be applied
to establish a
critical thinking
definition
paradigm.

Organization Recommendations
Examined in this section, and previously discussed in Chapter 2, are military
organizational influence impacts as discussed by Clark and Estes (2008) that specifically focus
on cultural models, settings, resources, incentives and accountability systems that impact
instructor critical thinking preparation that must be overcome to realize success (See Table
7). Culture is defined in this study along the lines exposed by Clark and Estes (2008) as the core
values and beliefs an organization possesses that influence all leader and instructor/employee
actions and decisions. What follows is a discussion of organizational cultural models in general
and specifically, human potential, socio-technical and total quality management models that can
be employed to discover organization barriers impacting critical thinking instructor
preparation. Then, four areas from Chapter 2 will be discussed concerning tools, processes,
procedures and the value of shared information that is applicable to all models and necessary for
cultural model and setting influence reduction achievement. Lastly, this section concludes with a
short dialogue regarding organizational cultural settings followed by discussions focused on
organizational cultural environments and barriers.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 80
Cultural model influence 1. My recommendation is that the institution continues to
teach and demonstrate to instructors the relevance of learning critical thinking skills and work to
reduce resistance manifestations.
There was a general perception of resistance of military instructors for learning about
critical thinking skills. Informal interviews with instructors revealed that some of them did not
desire to teach this subject because they did not have the time to do so. The principle I applied to
reduce instructor resistance barriers was espoused by (Knowles, 1980) that asserted adults were
more motivated to participate (and learn) when they see the relevance of information, a request,
or task (the “why”) to their own circumstances. Additionally, this principle was supported by
Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996) in their work concerning the creation of sustainable
organizational cultural models that could be applied to mitigate personnel learning barriers.
Cultural model influence 2. I recommend the institution instill in instructors critical
thinking learning, application value and reinforce learning through feedback combined with
merit recognition. Additionally, Snyder and Snyder (2008) suggested that shared experiences
between instructors could help them reinforce and validate subject usefulness and I recommend
that instructors conduct this practice.
There was not a culture of instructor distrust concerning the benefits of critical thinking
skills. A principle I applied to discover this information stemmed from the work of Buckingham
and Coffman (1999); Harter, Schmidt, Killham and Asplund (2006) and Schlossberg (1989) that
focused on attitudes of employees, in this case instructors, particularly feeling that they mattered
and that their work was valued by their organizational leaders.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 81
Cultural setting influence 1. My recommendation is that the institution ensure that
instructors are provided adequate class time and appropriate resources to learn and teach critical
thinking skills (see Table 7).
Instructors are working to operational capacity, due to other course teaching
responsibilities, and this keeps them from overly investing additional effort into integrating
critical thinking into their courses. Informal interviews with several instructors revealed that
most of them felt challenged by teaching core class loads they were required to teach and
therefore, they could not allocate additional time for inserting critical thinking skills specifically
into military tactical problems. The primary principle I am applying to solve this problem
centers upon ensuring instructor resourcing needs are met that correlates to increased student
learning outcomes (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003).
Cultural setting influence 2. My recommendation is that the institution provide
instructors with critical thinking material resourcing (see Table 7).
There is a lack of resourcing provided by the institution to support critical thinking topics
integration into courses. Informal interviews with several instructors revealed that the majority
of them did not have critical thinking practical exercise and model material to help them teach
this subject to their students. The primary principle I applied to solve this problem was created
by Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003) that centered upon organizations ensuring resourcing
needs were being met and was correlational with increased student learning outcomes.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 82
Table 7 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Need
Priority
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
There is a general
perception of
resistance of military
instructors for
learning about critical
thinking skills.
Y Adults are more
motivated to
participate (and learn)
when they see the
relevance of
information, a
request, or task (the
“why”) to their own
circumstances. They
are goal oriented
(Knowles, 1980).
Institution continue to
teach and
demonstrate to
instructors the
relevance of critical
thinking information
for the benefit of their
students to avoid
resistance barriers to
learning this subject.
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
There is a culture of
trust by instructors
concerning the
benefits of critical
thinking skills.
Y Employee attitudes,
particularly feeling as
though they matter
and their work makes
a difference, are
correlated with
numerous
organizational
outputs (Buckingham
and Coffman, 1999;
Harter, Schmidt,
Killham & Asplund,
2006; Schlossberg,
1989).
Institution continue to
instill in instructors
critical thinking
learning, application
value and reinforce
their learning through
feedback combined
with merit
recognition.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Instructors were
overwhelmed by
other course teaching
responsibilities and
this kept them from
investing effort into
Y

Insuring staff’s
resource needs are
met is correlated with
increased student
learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).

Institution ensured
that instructors were
provided adequate
class time and
appropriate resources
to learn how to teach
critical thinking skills
which incorporated
newly acquired
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 83

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) consists of four levels that are level one
reaction, level two learning, level three behavior and level four results (see Figure 11). This
study applies level two learning considerations as a reinforcing lens to the study’s KMO data
construction and collection tools. Specifically, survey and interview qualitative data collection
questions focused on instructor answers to level two ability areas as suggested by Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) that asked them to reflect upon their knowledge, skill, attitude,
confidence and motivation for learning and teaching critical thinking skills.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick model (2016) levels were used to construct the study’s implementation and
evaluation plans to mitigate or solve identified organizational problem areas. Specifically, level
three presented recommendations for instructor preparation improvement in areas discussed by
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) concerning the education they received from the faculty
instructor group and senior instructors which focused on their learning and applying critical
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Need
integrating critical
thinking into their
courses.
Priority
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

principles into daily
teaching
responsibilities.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Instructors lack
resourcing to teach
critical thinking
skills.
Y Insuring staff’s
resource needs are
being met is
correlated with
increased student
learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Institution provide
instructors with
critical thinking
resourcing.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 84
thinking skills for teaching. Recommended in this section to the organization were ways to
improve their efforts to support, reinforce and encourage instructor learning and teaching
performance. Level four focused on results and examined the degree to which instructors
achieved organizational instructor preparation goals and objectives and recommended solutions
to identified problems. Furthermore, this section recommended to the organization methods that
could be implemented to monitor and measure instructor critical thinking learning and teaching
performance.

Figure 11. Kirkpatrick New World Model

Organizational Mission, Goal, and Need
The mission of the Directorate of Training was to provide instruction for the institution to
develop mentally agile and adaptive leaders and its performance goal was to ensure by June 2017
that 100% of instructors were prepared and certified to teach all subjects contained within the
Program of Instruction (POI). Critical Thinking was embedded within the POI and it was
expected by the institution that 100% of instructors would be able to demonstrate their ability to
define, describe and apply critical thinking skills to solve military problems.
Indicators derived from instructor surveys and classroom observations data collection and
analysis revealed that they felt confident in their abilities of having learned critical thinking skills
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 85
and the ways that it could be applied to solve military problems, but necessarily differing
methods they could employ to teach it to their students.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
I believed there were external and internal outcomes the organization could achieve in
improving military instructor critical thinking skill preparation (see Table 8). My belief was
based upon information derived from stakeholder objectives and goals, review of literature, and
challenges revealed by looking at the organization through knowledge, management and
organizational (KMO) lenses.
There are three external outcomes I recommend for the organization to achieve along the
lines discussed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016). First, I recommend that the organization
request the faculty instructor group to specifically list critical thinking as a course to be taught.
Second, I recommend the faculty instructor group to strive to teach all instructors critical
thinking skills. Lastly, instructor learning and comprehension of critical thinking skills should
be validated both at the beginning, middle and end of the faculty instructor group training
program to insure instructors have learned the rudimentary aspects of this complex subject.
In regards to internal outcomes I concur with authors in the literature review section of
this study that highly recommend instructors who teach critical thinking skills learn how to
reflect upon their own learning of this complex subject. They each expressed the opinion that
though active reflection instructors could begin to comprehend the complexities of critical
thinking skill learning and by conducting reflection could increase their abilities to teach it to
their students. Furthermore, I recommend that instructors collaborate among themselves and
share best practices for the learning and teaching of critical thinking skills. For this action to
occur instructors needed to be afforded, and take time, to conduct this action as recommended in
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 86
prior sections of this paper by multiple authors to increase individual instructor and group
learning.
Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metrics Methods
External Outcomes
1. Faculty instructor
group specifically tasked
with teaching critical
thinking
1. Critical thinking skill listed as
a class subject is an inspectable
item
1. Verify through command
inspections

2. All instructors taught
critical thinking skills by
the faculty instructor
group during the
instructor-training course

2. All instructors validated by
faculty instructor group critical
thinking instruction occurrence

2. Conduct surveys of
instructors and classroom visits
to faculty instructor group
training sessions

3. Instructor learning and
comprehension of critical
thinking skills validated

3. Instruments to check and
validate instructor critical skill
learning/comprehension
introduced

3. Beginning, middle and end of
course quizzes and case study
specifically designed to check
critical thinking skill levels
implemented
Outcome Metrics Methods
Internal Outcomes
1. Instructors reflect and
refine their critical
thinking skills
1. Instructors self-report
progress with senior instructor
monitoring actions taken
1. Instructors are taught critical
thinking skill reflection and
improvement methods by senior
instructors

2. Senior instructors
interact with junior
instructors to improve
their critical thinking skill
abilities

2. Training journal kept on each
instructor used to record
interactions

2. Coaching and mentoring
sessions conducted individually
and collectively to foster
learning

3. Instructors collaborate
together to improve
critical thinking skill
learning and
comprehension

3. Record collaborative meetings
by executive summary
3. Formal instructor critical
thinking skill collaboration
meetings held monthly
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 87
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders for this study were the military instructors that had
the requirement to learn critical thinking skills. To succeed in this endeavor they should have
been able to exhibit three behaviors (see Table 9). First, they should have been able to define
what critical thinking was. Second, they should have been able to demonstrate how critical
thinking could be applied to solve military problems. Lastly, they should have actively recorded
and reflected upon their critical thinking skill prowess.
Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metrics Methods Timing
1. Defined critical
thinking
1. Number of
instructors able to
define
1. Established a
standardized critical
thinking definition
1. Next monthly
instructor planning
meeting
2. Applied critical
thinking to solve
military problems
2. Quantity of
problems solved by
critical thinking
application
2. Presented military
tactical problems
requiring critical
thinking to solve
2. Next monthly
instructor planning
meeting
3. Reflected upon
critical thinking
knowledge
3. Recorded actively
occurrences
3. Journals established
to track reflection
episodes
3. Introduced
concept to
instructors in next
monthly planning
meeting

Required drivers. Once instructors received initial training from the faculty instructor
group it is critical for instructors to remain engaged in the process of learning to improve their
critical thinking skills (see Table 10). There are three drivers, reinforcing, encouraging and
rewarding discussed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) that could be used for this purpose.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 88
The first driver is labeled reinforcement and I have a recommendation for strengthening
instructor critical thinking skill learning. I recommend instructors read joint staff publication
Annex C (2011). This annex provided a working definition of critical thinking, discussed facets
of the subject that could be used to solve military problems and provided reinforcement to
instructor prior learning. The second driver focuses on encouragement and instructors could
receive this psychological boost from senior instructors, coaches and mentors. The impact that
this driver could have on improving instructor morale and psyche cannot be underestimated and
requires leader oversight to ensure its implementation. The last driver focuses on rewarding
instructors who take the time to improve their critical thinking skill abilities. This could be
achieved by recording their efforts on formal personnel reports and by issuing spot reports that
could be administered at any time to draw attention to exceptional instructor duty performance.
Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported 1, 2, 3
Reinforcing
The Joint Staff (J-7) Pub ANX C
contains critical thinking skill
material, could serve as a reference
and provides a working definition
for critical thinking
Continuous 1,2,3
Issue instructors military problems
that require critical thinking skill
application to solve
Continuous 1,2,3,
Encouraging Continuous 1,2,3
Senior instructor, coach and mentor
input on instructor critical thinking
skill efforts used to encourage

Rewarding Monthly 1,2,3
Senior instructors will provide
reports on instructor critical
thinking skill progress

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 89
Monitoring. The monitoring of instructors after they receive initial critical thinking skill
training is crucial because, as discussed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), it helps to verify
that knowledge and skills acquired in training are transferred to active practice. Monitoring
could be accomplished by assigning senior instructors bi-weekly tasks of interacting and
observing instructor critical thinking activities. If knowledge influence impairment are revealed
during senior instructor observations then remedial training to refresh and reinforce junior
instructor critical thinking skill abilities could be realized by requesting faculty instructor group
assistance.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The learning goals for instructor critical thinking are:
1. Instructors will be able to define critical thinking. (Declarative knowledge – conceptual)
2. Instructors will know the different methods used to learn critical thinking skills.
(Declarative knowledge – conceptual)
3. Instructors will know how to apply critical thinking skills to solve military problems.
(Procedural knowledge)
4. Instructors will know how to reflect on their ability to learn critical thinking so that they
may improve. (Metacognitive knowledge)
5. Instructors will know how to determine and understand the value of critical thinking so
that they are able to teach it. (Expectancy value)
6. Instructors will describe the benefits of critical thinking and be able to demonstrate it.
(Utility value)
Program. Achieving instructor goals listed above are possible with a new critical
thinking program of instruction of four hours duration that encapsulates the four levels and ideas
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 90
of the Kirkpatrick (2016) new world model as its design blueprint. This program would also
seek to incorporate critical thinking skill dimensions discussed in the joint staff publication and
the work of Paul and Elder (2006). It would be imperative to secure senior leader support and
resourcing to bring the program to fruition. Instructors would require active teaching, coaching,
and mentoring to ensure their own critical thinking processes continued and are correct and all
organizational leaders should view their teaching of this complex subject as valuable. If
instructors require additional critical thinking skill expertise, beyond the scope and capabilities
of the faculty instructor group, they would be able to interface with outside military and
academic educational experts. Due to recent military community interest in the human
dimension and cognitive development, plus a directive to expand the officer program of
instruction, the timing is excellent to introduce this proposal for a critical thinking skill course.
Components of learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) discussed in Level 2 five
components of learning that entailed knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence and commitment.
These traits could be instilled in instructors during faculty instructor group initial critical
thinking training sessions, practical application exercises and reinforced by senior instructors to
guide and correct instructor actions as necessary on the job. I provide recommendations for
instructor components of leaning for the program in the methods, activities and timing sections
in the table below (see Table 11).
Table 11
Components of Learning for the Program
Methods and Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Faculty instructor group validates instructor
abilities to define and apply critical
thinking skills with formative quizzes
Initial training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 91
Senior instructors validate instructors
abilities on the job through observation and
questioning
Continuous
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Critical thinking value instilled during
initial training problem solving exercises
Initial training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the
job.”

Instilled in instructors during initial training
formative quizzes and reinforced on the job
with mentorship
Initial training and on-the-job
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Instilled in instructors during initial training
and reinforced by organizational
supervisory leader performance review
Initial training and on-the-job

Level 1: Reaction
Reaction methods. Reaction of military instructors to critical thinking instruction they
receive during faculty instructor group and critical thinking skill training could be observed, as
discussed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), both as individuals learning the subject and
during sessions where they were expected to participate as part of a collaborative team. The
strength of observations conducted by the faculty instructor group is that they will not be
conducted just once by a single individual, but in several iterations by several different
instructors. These observations can be recorded in writing as formal evaluations and then
inserted into the new instructor’s academic file that is retained by the institution. The training
conducted for institutor critical thinking skill training will emulate the faculty instructor group
approach. Methods and tools for instructor observation, along with the timing of their
implementation, is shown below (see Table 12).

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 92
Table 12
Components to Measure Instructor Reactions to the Program
Methods and Tools Timing
Engagement
Instructors observed During faculty instructor group training
Instructors observed During instructor critical thinking skill training
Relevance
Feedback/evaluations provided to instructors During and after faculty instructor group
training
Feedback/evaluations provided to instructors During and after instructor critical thinking
skill training
Customer Satisfaction
1. Course after action review conducted a. Faculty instructor group training course
conclusion
b. At instructor critical thinking skill training
course conclusion
2. After course survey issued a. One month after instructor faculty instructor
group training
b. One month after instructor critical thinking
skill training

Evaluation Tools. After Action Reviews (AAR) will be conducted for both the faculty
instructor group and instructor critical thinking skill training sessions to capture instructor-
student comments and thoughts about the critical thinking skill materials and techniques they
were introduced and trained on. An online survey will be created and used to gather critical
thinking skill implementation and information data from instructors. This survey will be issued
during instructor first teaching mid-cycle, at 4 weeks, to determine their experiences with
teaching critical thinking skills to their officer students and provide recommendations for
training improvement.
During and immediately following the program implementation. After Action
Reviews (AAR) will be conducted at the end of both faculty instructor and instructor critical
thinking skill training sessions to capture instructor-student comments and thoughts about the
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 93
critical thinking skill materials and techniques they were introduced to and trained on. An online
survey will be issued out a month later during instructors first teaching cycle to determine their
experiences with teaching critical thinking skills to their officer students and their
recommendation for training improvements.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The timing of survey
evaluations of instructors will occur 4 to 6 weeks after they receive their critical thinking training
from the faculty instructor group. The survey’s purpose is to determine, as suggested by
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), institutional support given to instructors, relevance of the
training they received to the teaching they are conducting and a check on their retention of
critical thinking knowledge. Additionally, the conduct of instructor performance mid-term
reviews will provide instructors a forum to discuss and reflect on their overall critical thinking
capabilities to determine learning, or performance influences, where additional institutional
support could be implemented to correct, reinforce, or inculcate new critical thinking learning
and teaching methods and techniques.
Data Analysis and Reporting. A senior instructor leads each instructor section and it will
be their responsibility to track Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick Level 4 (results) internal and external
objectives for all instructors. Internal objectives consist of instructors reflecting, collaborating
and taking time dedicated to critical thinking skill learning reinforcement activities. Senior
instructors are also charged with monitoring and collaborating with faculty instructor group
personnel to accomplish the external objective of validating all instructor critical thinking skill
learning and providing additional educational training venues if warranted.
I recommend every quarter for senior instructors, instructors and faculty instructor group
personnel to meet in a formal setting to review and evaluate the achievement of Level 4 internal
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 94
and external critical thinking skill goals and to provide recommendations for best practice
improvement.
Summary

I used the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model and the four levels
within it, consisting of level 1 reaction, level 2: learning, level 3: behavior and level 4: results, to
form my thoughts as I planned, recommended an implementation strategy and suggested
evaluation techniques focused upon improving instructor critical thinking skill preparation for
organizational leader consideration. The use of the model levels in reverse order helped me to
determine from the outset what I wanted to achieve and served as a touchstone throughout my
planning processes as I proceeded through the model levels.

Limitations and Delimitations
The foundation of my study resided on my conceptual framework which was built upon
extensive literature reviews of critical thinking skill preparation material and upon informal
discussions that I had with several military critical thinking instructors. This was not a
generalizable study and should not be interpreted as such. This study had two limitations that I
shall now address. First, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013) talked about the
importance for qualitative studies to be done over a long length of time but, because of the nature
of the EdD program, the time spent with participants and observing them was relatively short by
author standards and thus limiting. Second, the aforementioned authors also discussed and
encouraged researchers to conduct follow-on interviews to clarify data points and to ask
additional questions of participants to reinforce the overall validity and credibility of the study.
While some follow-up observations and additional questions were possible, these processes were
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 95
not repeated very often due to time constraints to gain greater understanding of the participants
in their contextual environments.
The delimitations of the study were based upon the following factors. First, though the
total population of military critical thinking instructors may be small at 38, selecting all of them
to survey, 4 for observation and 7 for focused interviews provided a sufficient sample for
understanding the issues facing this group. Second, because the research questions served as the
foundation of the study they were specific and allowed for a concentrated effort to extract data
over a short duration of time. Third, the study participants were accessible to a point, and this
allowed for follow-on questions to clarify interview and observation phenomena. Lastly, I had a
research committee that provided their collaborative expertise, feedback and course corrections
that guided my actions and helped me in the planning, executing and completing my study.
Conclusion
The organization had a requirement to prepare instructors to teach critical thinking skills,
along with other military subjects, and was searching for a way to do so. This study revealed the
following information. First, instructors did know how to define critical thinking, they just did
so differently. Second, instructors were confident in their abilities to apply critical thinking to
solve military problems and they found it useful for doing so. Lastly, instructors were confident
in their understanding of critical thinking, but not in their ability to teach it to others.
This study provided organizational leaders and instructor stakeholders a viable solution
that does not require an inordinate amount of additional resourcing but would require all
stakeholders to be actively involved to ensure plan execution success. The implementation of a
plan focused upon the preparation of military instructors to teach critical thinking skills brings
this subject to the forefront. It addressed senior leaders’ desire for their instructors to learn, and
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 96
be able to teach, this subject to the officer corps so they make the best decisions possible to
achieve mission success with minimal damage and casualties.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 97
References
Allen, C. D., & Gerras, S. J. (2009). Developing creative and critical thinkers. Military Review,
89(6), 77.
Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1),
6-7.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Schneider-Mitchell, G., & Graff, R. (2009). Promoting the teaching of
critical thinking skills through faculty development. Journal of Dental Education, 73(6),
665.
Bensley, D. A., Crowe, D. S., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. L. (2010). Teaching and
assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of
Psychology, 37(2), 91-96.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Burbach, M. E., Matkin, G. S., & Fritz, S. M. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in an
introductory leadership course utilizing active learning strategies: A confirmatory study.
College Student Journal, 38(3), 482.
Clark, Richard E. 1940- (Richard Edward), & Estes, F., 1950. (2008). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Charlotte, N.C: Information
Age Pub Inc.
Cohen, M. S., & Thompson, B. B. (2001). Training teams to take initiative: Critical thinking in
novel situations. (pp. 251-291) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 98
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
Dietz, A. S., & Schroeder, E. A. (2012). Integrating critical thinking in the US Army: Decision

support red teams. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2012(136), 29-

40.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
Hhtp:// www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/

Ernst, J., & Monroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on students' critical
thinking skills and disposition toward critical thinking. Environmental Education
Research, 10(4), 507-522.
Facione, P. A. (2010). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment,

Measured Reasons and The California Academic Press: Millbrae, CA.

Fischer, S. C., Spiker, V. A., & Riedel, S. L. (2009). Critical thinking training for Army officers.

Volume 2: A model of critical thinking (No. RR-1882). ANACAPA Sciences Inc

Santa Barbara CA.

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gelder, T. v. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College
Teaching, 53(1), 41-46.
Gerras, S. J. (2008). Thinking critically about critical thinking: A fundamental guide for strategic

leaders. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: US Army War College, 9.
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 99

Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming

qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Halpern, D. F. (2002). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Routledge.

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills,

structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.

Hannel, G. I., & Hannel, L. (1998). The seven steps to critical thinking: A practical application

of critical thinking skills. NASSP Bulletin, 82(598), 87-93.

Hatfield, J., Steele, J. P., Riley, R., Keller-Glaze, H., & Fallesen, J. J. (2011). 2010 Center for

army leadership annual survey of army leadership (CASAL): Army education. ICF

International Inc. Fairfax VA.

Joint Staff Publication (2011). Planner’s handbook for operational design. Joint Staff, J-7 Joint
and Coalition Warfighting. Suffolk, VA.
Karagöl, İ., & Bekmezci, S. (2015). Investigating academic achievements and critical thinking

dispositions of teacher candidates. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 86-

92.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training.
Kowalczyk, N., & Leggett, T. D. (2005). Teaching critical-thinking skills through group-based

learning. Radiologic Technology, 77(1), 24.

Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. wittrock and the revision of

bloom's taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.

Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) Directorate of Training. (2015, June). Retrieved from

http://www.benning.army.mil/MCoE/dot/

Maneuver Center of Excellence (AMCoE). (2015, June). Mission of the directorate of

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 100
training. Retrieved from

http://www.benning.army.mil/MCoE/dot/

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents:

Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1-13.

Marine Corps Detachment Fort Benning. (2015, April). Retrieved from

http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/usmc/mccc.html

Maxwell, J. A., 1941. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking competency standards. Foundation for Critical

Thinking.

Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, Conn: IAP –

Information Age Pub., Inc.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in

learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.

Riley, R., Hatfield, J., Paddock, A., & Fallesen, J. J. (2013). 2012 Center for army leadership

annual survey of army leadership (CASAL): Main findings. ICF International Inc

Fairfax VA.

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right

solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 101
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. Handbook of educational psychology,
2, 245-260.
Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Critical thinking as defined by the National Council for

Excellence in Critical Thinking. The Critical Thinking Community. Recuperado de:

http://www. criticalthinking. org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.

Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The

Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90-99.

Training and Doctrine Command. (2002). Institutional leader training and education. TRADOC

Regulation 380-10.

Training and Doctrine Command. (2013). Staff and faculty development. TRADOC Pamphlet

380-70-3.

Training and Doctrine Command. (2014). Distance education. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1.

Training and Doctrine Command (2014). The u.s. army human dimension concept.
TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7.
Tuckman, B. W. (2003). The effect of learning and motivation strategies training on college
students achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 430-437.
United States Army (2014). The human dimension white paper: A framework for optimizing
human performance. United States Army Combined Arms Center. Leavenworth, KS.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 102
APPENDIX A
Survey Instrument
Survey Protocol
I administered an online survey of 38 identified critical thinking instructors and allowed
them several days to complete it. There were eleven questions on the survey instrument and
directly tied to my conceptual framework. The questions were further delineated into the
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational influence areas designed by Clark and Estes (2008).
The survey instrument was validated and refined by expert review prior to it being activated
online.
Survey Introduction to Respondents
My name is Dave Dice and I am a graduate student at the University of Southern
California. I would like to thank you for taking the time to take my survey that is comprised of
10 questions and is focused upon learning about your background and opinions concerning
critical thinking skills. The responses you provide to 10 questions will provide me with insight
on your opinions and beliefs concerning the critical thinking skill preparation. The University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) has approved this research study and
survey and all responses you provide will be kept confidential and anonymous. If at any time
you need clarification concerning a question on the survey please ask me. Before you begin do
you have any questions of me?
Survey Questions
Background:
My name is Dave Dice and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. I
would like to thank you for taking the time to take my survey that is comprised of 11 questions
and is focused upon learning about your background and opinions concerning critical thinking
skills. The responses you provide to the 11 questions will provide me with insight on your
opinions and beliefs concerning the critical thinking skill preparation.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 103
Instructions:
Please check the box with an “X” that best corresponds to your answer for questions 1-10 below
and write your answer for question 11. Thank you for your assistance with this project.

1. The method the institution used to me teach me about critical thinking skills was conducive
to my learning this subject.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

2. I am confident in my ability to define critical thinking.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

3. The military institution taught me how critical thinking could be applied to solve tactical
problems. Please circle one response.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

4. I find critical thinking is useful for solving military problems.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

5. The military institution encourages me to reflect upon my learning of critical thinking skills.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 104
6. I was taught how to teach critical thinking skills to military officers.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

7. I believe that the preparation I was given by the institution to teach critical thinking was
sufficient.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

8. The military institution validated by observation my ability to teach critical thinking to
military officer students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

9. Teaching critical thinking is difficult for me to accomplish.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

10. My students see the value of using critical thinking to solve military problems.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

11. The biggest challenge for integrating critical thinking into my teaching is? Please write your
answer to this question below.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 105
APPENDIX B
Observation Protocol
There were 38 instructors who taught critical thinking skills at the military institution I
collected data from and I selected 4 of them through purposeful selection to participate in my
study. Once selected, I sat down with them individually and informed them that I would like to
come to their classrooms for 1 hour to observe them teaching critical thinking skills to military
officer students. Additionally, I asked for and received their consent prior to conducting my
observations. I wanted to observe instructors as they taught critical thinking skills to their
students and used field notes to record my initial observations. I worked to ensure my notes
were accurate, organized and stayed focused upon my research questions. Keeping my research
questions in mind, I observed an instructor providing to their students an easily understood
definition of critical thinking and their giving examples of how critical thinking could be applied
to solve military problems. Additionally, observed instructors soliciting from students their
opinions on problems and circumstances where critical thinking could be applied to solve
military problems. Specifically, some critical thinking mission application topic areas included,
weapon and ammo planning, soldier physical load considerations, food, water and power
generation management. Furthermore, as they teach these topic areas do instructors facilitate
and encourage student interaction and collaborative learning. Finally, when student questions
arise, do instructors answer them and work to ensure student comprehension.
The observational data that I collected and recorded in my field notes was both
descriptive and reflective in nature. Descriptive in that I recorded the setting, student and
instructor positioning, class size, military branches present, instructor and student behaviors,
conversations and other exhibited behaviors. Afterwards, I took some time to reflect upon the
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 106
material I gathered from my observations and met again with instructors to go over what I
observed and obtained their opinions of my observations and if I interpreted their teaching
actions correctly.
Observation Focus
1. Conceptual: Because instructors need knowledge of critical thinking so they can define what it
is when teaching this subject to their students are they doing so? Are instructors collectively
presenting the same critical thinking definition or are they different?

2. Conceptual: Instructors need to know there are different methods used to teach critical
thinking. Are they using different methods to teach their students or are they all using the same
basic approach?

3. Procedural: Instructors need to know how to apply critical thinking skills to solve military
problems. Are the instructors demonstrating to their students’ techniques and opportunities
where critical thinking can be applied to solve military problems? Are the students presented
military situations where they can practice critical thinking skill application?

4. Metacognitive: Instructors need to know how to reflect on their ability to teach critical
thinking so that they may improve. Are they doing this? If so, how do they go about reflection
and what benefits have they derived from it? If the instructors are not using reflection, why are
they not doing so? Do instructors encourage students to apply the military critical thinking
model to solve tactical problems? When students ask questions concerning critical thinking
application can the instructors provide appropriate answers? Do instructors facilitate discussions
concerning critical thinking among their students? Are students encouraged or discouraged by
the instructor to present out-of-the-box ideas and solutions? Are students encouraged by
instructors to reflect upon their learning and application of critical thinking skills?

5. Each instructor/facilitator will according to TRADOC Pamphlet 380-70-3:
• Thoroughly study and be well -versed in the material prior to presenting the
lessons.
• Manage the instruction and maintain an environment conducive to student
learning.
• Supervise and guide the learning process.
• Provide immediate feedback on student performance.
• Be alert to students having difficulty and intercede as appropriate.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 107
APPENDIX C
Interview Instrument
Interview Protocol

During the conduct of the 7 individual interview processes I obtained consent from
participants to use audio recording devices to ensure the accuracy of recording the responses to
questions provided by them. The information, once gathered, was then transcribed and reviewed
with the individual participant for them to verify and to ensure the opinions and beliefs that they
shared were reflected accurately in the document. All information provided by the participants
was safeguarded and remained confidential and anonymous. The scheduled duration for all
interviews was 1hr and responses requiring clarification, or that warranted further exploration,
were addressed in follow-on interviews.
Interview Introduction to Respondents
My name is Dave Dice and I am a graduate student at the University of Southern
California. I would like to thank you for taking the time to be interviewed by me. There are 10
questions guiding this interview that are focused upon learning about your background and
opinions concerning critical thinking skills. The responses to questions you give will provide me
with insight on your opinions and beliefs concerning the critical thinking skill preparation you
received by the military. The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
has approved this research study and interview and all responses you provide will be kept
confidential and anonymous. If at any time you need clarification concerning a question during
the interview, please ask me. Before we begin do you have any questions?
Interview Questions

1. How do you define critical thinking? (K-C1)
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 108
2. Where did you learn about critical thinking? (K-C2)
3. How can critical thinking be applied to solve tactical problems? (K-P1)
4. Why do you, or do you not, find critical thinking useful for solving military problems? (M-UV1)
5. How does the military institution encourage you to reflect upon your learning of critical thinking
skills? (O-Pro1)
6. How were you taught to teach critical thinking skills to military officers? (K-P3)
7. Why do you, or do you not, believe that the preparation you were given by the institution to
teach critical thinking was sufficient? (O-Pro2)
8. How did the military institution validate your ability to teach critical thinking to military officer
students? (O-Pro3)
9. Is teaching critical thinking difficult for you to accomplish? (M-SE1)
10. What do you think is your student’s opinions are concerning the value of using critical thinking
to solve military problems? (M-UV2)

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 109
APPENDIX D
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
USC Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

MILITARY INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study’s objective is to discern how military instructors selected to teach critical
thinking skills define and discuss the ways critical thinking can be applied to solve complex
problems.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a survey, observed
teaching in a classroom setting for approximately 1hr. and individually interviewed. All
interviews will focus on critical thinking application activity and be audio-recorded, transcribed
and submitted to you to verify statement accuracy prior to being used as data material in the
study. If you decide that you do not wish to be audio-recorded you can still participate in the
study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential,
except if necessary to protect your rights or welfare (for example, if you are injured and need
emergency care). A Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained from the Federal
Government for this study to help protect your privacy. This certificate means that the
researchers can resist the release of information about your participation to people who are not
connected with the study, including courts. The Certificate of Confidentiality will not be used to
prevent disclosure to local authorities of child abuse and neglect, or harm to self or others. The
members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 110
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact principle
investigator David T. Dice at (404) 915-1656, email: ddice@usc.edu or faculty sponsor Dr. Kim
Hirabayashi at (213) 740-3470, email: hirabaya@usc.edu at the University of California, Rossier
School of Education, Waite Phillips Hall, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

INSTRUCTOR CRITICAL THINKING PREPARATION 111
APPENDIX E
Recruitment Letter
The purpose of this research study is to discern how Maneuver Center of Excellence
(MCoE), Maneuver Captains Career Course (MCCC military instructors selected to teach critical
thinking skills define and discuss the ways critical thinking can be applied to solve complex
military problems. David T. Dice will conduct this research study and is a doctoral candidate
from the University of California, Rossier School of Education, Waite Phillips Hall, 3470
Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you
will be asked to participate in a survey, observed teaching in a classroom setting and individually
interviewed. All classroom teaching observations and interviews are designed to last 1hour in
duration and will focus on critical thinking application activity. Interviews will be audio-
recorded, transcribed and submitted to you to verify statement accuracy prior to being used as
data material in the study. For further information please contact David T. Dice at (404) 915-
1656 or email ddice@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In this dissertation, I investigated how military instructors were prepared to teach critical thinking to officer students on a military institution, and I developed recommendations for improving instructor preparation. Several surveys revealed that senior military leaders considered it important that officers employed critical thinking skills to improve their performance in generating and executing plans, especially in tactical contexts. Two educational technology resources guided this study’s process, findings, and recommendations. Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) model was used to identify and classify current organizational performance areas discovered through data collection and analysis. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) work, focused on methods organizations could use to evaluate organizational training programs to improve them, was used to produce recommendations for the improvement of military instructor preparation for teaching critical thinking. No claims were made for the generalizability to other knowledge domains or instructional contexts. Three areas recommended for organizational improvement included making critical thinking skill teaching an organizational leader priority, constructing a critical thinking skill class to teach instructors how to learn, apply and teach critical thinking skills, and the allocation of time for instructors to teach critical thinking skills to their students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teaching literary criticism: a curriculum with an emphasis on religion

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership demographics in a military organization: perspectives on diversity and inclusion from minority female officers

PDF

The underrepresentation of women in the engineering element of STEM occupations and influencers contributing to the persistent gap

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Attracting younger generations to the local church: Deep roots, selective seeds, and preparing a new soil

PDF

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

PDF

A comparsion of traditional face-to-face simulation versus virtual simulation in the development of critical thinking skills, satisfaction, and self-confidence in undergraduate nursing students

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors impacting faculty research productivity at a highly-ranked university

PDF

Effective communication during organizational change: a gap analysis

PDF

Health care disparities and the influence of nurse leader cultural competency: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

PDF

Evaluation of thesis completion in a graduate blended learning program

Asset Metadata

Creator Dice, David T. (author)

Core Title Military instructor critical thinking preparation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 06/20/2017

Defense Date 06/20/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag critical thinking,improvement,instructors,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Munro, Allen (committee member), Sundt, Melora (committee member)

Creator Email ddice@usc.edu,dvd.dice@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-388031

Unique identifier UC11259227

Identifier etd-DiceDavidT-5439.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-388031 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DiceDavidT-5439.pdf

Dmrecord 388031

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dice, David T.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA