University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT 1

CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT IN THE
21ST CENTURY COLLEGE CLASSROOM

By

Kimberlyn Greene

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

December 2018
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

2
Acknowledgements
“Shit or get off the pot.”

This is my favorite quote from my father, James Greene. As an adolescent I always thought it
was humorous but I never fully understood its value until this dissertation process. If I was
going to write the dissertation I needed to commit to it. It took me eight years to finish the Ed.D.
program, and about 5 of those years I spent figuring out if and when I was going to finally make
this project a priority. I suppose I am a stubborn learner.

The process was challenging, isolating, and did I mention challenging…and isolating? And
during that time, I had the unwavering support of some of the best faculty who challenged me to
do more, think deeper, and encouraged me throughout the process, even when my commitment
was waning and my writing was on a steady plateau and sometimes a decline…or let me be
real—nonexistent. I had to be willing to commit, as in fully commit, my time, attention, and
energy to the dissertation process. As in, all.the.way.

My ability to commit and execute (a.k.a. write this dissertation) was the result of a network of
support—individuals who graciously gave me what I needed throughout this journey, and
oftentimes gave when I couldn’t reciprocate. I relied on others to guide me in refining my ideas,
provide clarity, and inspire me to stay committed. Thank you to my fabulous committee
members who always responded with compassion and intellectual inspiration. You comprised
my innovation team.

CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

3
Dr. Julie Slayton: You are a gem of a human being. I am so thankful our paths crossed in 2011
during Inquiry and you agreed to be on my committee in 2012 and chair my committee in 2015.
Thank you for your unconditional, unwavering support. More importantly, thank you for calling
me out on my s***. When I was in the process of finally recommitting to the dissertation in
summer 2017 you told me that my lack of progress wasn’t rooted in my ability to write, but up to
this point in time I wasn’t willing to do the work. My immediate thought was, “No way. That’s
not it.” Oh, how denial and lack of ownership blinded me! Soon thereafter, I realized
you.were.so.right. I needed to receive and process those words because they were what finally
motivated me to recommit. Throughout this process your relentless compassion and guidance
provided the necessary support when I needed it most. Every time I asked to meet, you warmly
replied, “Of course!” I presented question after question, you responded with genuine interest
and care. I then “upgraded” my request for your time by asking to meet multiple times per week,
and you gave me your time during the work week and the weekend. Thank you for supporting
me, challenging me, and guiding me through this unreal journey. I appreciate you more than
you’ll ever know.

Dr. John Pascarella: Thank you for your support and insight. Your feedback during my
proposal defense was invaluable. I referred to your proposal defense notes time and time again
as I worked through the rough spots of my dissertation. I also want to acknowledge your time
and effort in meeting with me to discuss my conceptual framework. I remember you were the
first person who told me that I could write my own definitions for the terms and concepts I used
in my dissertation. I remember in that moment being so shocked yet feeling so empowered to
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

4
take control of this project and put my own spin on how I conveyed the topics I was most
passionate about. Thank you for your encouragement and inspiration.

Dr. Helena Seli: Your Learning class was one of the most influential courses I took during the
Ed.D. program. During your class I always appreciated your enthusiasm for the material and
your passion in delivering the course content. You were excited to teach us, work with us, and
inspire us to find value and purpose in the material. (I referred to some of my class notes and
used both the Anderson et al. (2001) and Mayer (2011) texts to write some of my dissertation!) I
am so appreciative of my time as your student. Thank you for agreeing to serve on my
committee.

In addition to my innovation team, I heavily relied on my support team. These beautiful souls:
provided encouragement when I questioned my desire to keep going, expressed empathy as they
gave me the emotional and physical space I needed to become absorbed in the dissertating
process and leave all other responsibilities to the wayside, and reminded me that what I was
doing with the dissertation was purposeful, the sacrifice of time and energy was finite.

Family: My forever support system, my people. Thank you for your understanding and
unconditional encouragement during this process, especially as it was unlike anything I could
have anticipated. You rode the dissertation roller coaster with me during my innumerable
emotional ups and downs. You asked how I was doing, regularly checked up on my writing
process, and shared with me your wisdom when I was feeling especially down. I appreciate each
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

5
of you for accepting that while I haven’t been as physically present as I would like you
understood that my absence did not equate to your value in my life. I love you all.

Friends: Thank you for loving me for what I could offer. Spending quality time with you during
this process filled my cup, giving me the motivation to continue. In particular, during the last
year of my program our relationships were especially strained as I had to modify plans,
reschedule, or cancel altogether, and communication efforts in general were intermittent on my
end at best. And amidst all of this, you understood and responded with endless enthusiasm for
my dissertation process. Your texts, calls, and Bitmojis boosted my spirits and inspired me to
keep going. Thank you.

I share all of this to express gratitude for the team that supported me through this journey. I
couldn’t have done this without each of you. I also want to remind my future self to remain
humble. This process wasn’t easy. I stumbled time and time again, however, I eventually found
my momentum and finally made it. And lastly, I want to honor the journey and the
accomplishment.

My biggest takeaways from this process: 1) Be confident when advocating for what I need, 2)
Accept failure as a catalyst for learning, reprioritizing, and change, 3) Be willing to do the work.
If I want something and prioritize it, it will happen. (Growth mindset at its best!)

I’m ready to commit to new adventures. Peace out, Dissertation.
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

6
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how instructors supported undergraduate
students’ critical thinking skill development within the context of a digital literacy course. This
study aimed to gain an understanding of what one digital literacy course intended to do, and
specifically, how instructors’ beliefs about critical thinking were reflected in the ways in which
the curriculum design and instructional delivery intentionally supported students’ learning as
evident in the scaffolding tools utilized to construct meaning. The following research question
informed the study: How do undergraduate digital literacy courses, as implemented by
instructors, foster students’ development of critical thinking skills. Data was collected and
analyzed according to the two sub-research questions addressing course design and instructional
delivery.
This qualitative multi-case study examined two instructors teaching different sections of
the same undergraduate digital literacy course. Five classroom observations and two interviews
were conducted for each instructor. Course documents from in-class sessions and the online
course wiki were collected. The analysis revealed four major findings: 1) The course design
presumed students could engage in critical thinking although there was no explicit support for
students to develop these skills; 2) The course was not enacted to overtly develop critical
thinking skills; 3) The faculty did not demonstrate an awareness of how to develop students’
critical thinking skills through course design and course enactment; 4) The instructors’ belief
systems regarding their role in supporting students’ learning led to differences in scaffolding
techniques and course enactment.

CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

7
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 2
Abstract 6
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 12
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 16
Significance of the Study 17
Organization of the Study 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review 20
Instructor Beliefs 21
Instructor-Centered Versus Student-Centered Teaching 22
Importance of overt communication regarding student learning outcomes 24
Instructor Beliefs Regarding Critical Thinking 25
Instructor beliefs regarding critical thinking within the university context 26
Critical Thinking 30
Critical Thinking Defined 30
Critical Thinking and Course Design 31
Critical thinking and assignment design 34
Critical Thinking and Instructional Delivery 35
Sociocultural Learning Theory 38
Constructivism 39
Zone of Proximal Development 40
ZPD and scaffolding 41
Types of scaffolding 43
Sociocultural Instructional Strategies 44
Digital Literacy 46
Digital Literacy Defined 47
Digital Literacy Course Design 48
Digital literacy assignment design 49
Digital Literacy Instructional Approaches 50
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

8
Conceptual Framework 51
Instructor Beliefs and Critical Thinking Curriculum 54
Critical Thinking Course Design and Implementation 58
Scaffolding Within a Digital Literacy Course 60
Interaction of Instructor Beliefs, Critical Thinking Curriculum, and Scaffolding 62
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 64
Research Design 64
Sample Population 67
Setting 67
Participants 68
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 69
Interviews 70
Observations 72
Artifacts 73
Data Analysis Procedures 74
Ethics 78
Limitations and Delimitations 80
Limitations 80
Delimitations 80
Credibility and Trustworthiness 81
Conclusion 83
Chapter Four: Findings 84
Description of the University of Ample Sunshine 85
Case Study 1: Brian 86
Finding 1: Course Design Required Students Engage Higher Order Thinking Skills 88
Theme 1: The structure of interaction during class time as described in the syllabus
implied that students would engage in critical thinking without providing the
support for the development of those skills 88
Theme 2: The projects expected students to engage in critical thinking without
providing the support for the development of those skills 93
Theme 3: The course wiki assumed students knew how to engage in critical
thinking without providing support for the development of those skills 98
Finding 2: Instructional Opportunities Required Students to Deploy Critical Thinking 107
Case Study 2: Marcus 115
Finding 1: Course Design Required Students be able to Deploy Higher Order Thinking
Skills 118
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

9
Theme 1: The structure of interaction during class time as described in the syllabus
implied that students would engage in critical thinking without providing the
support for the development of those skills 118
Theme 2: The projects expected students to engage in critical thinking without
providing the support for the development of those skills 120
Theme 3: The course wiki assumed students knew how to engage in critical
thinking with limited support for the development of those skills 125
Finding 2: Instructional Opportunities Required Students to Deploy Critical Thinking 130
Cross-Case Analysis 142
Course Design 143
Course Implementation 145
Course Design and Implementation 148
Instructor Beliefs 151
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations 161
Summary of Findings 162
Implications and Recommendations 166
Practice 167
Policy 171
Research 173
Conclusion 176
References 177
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

10

List of Tables

Table 1. Qualitative data collected………………………………………………........ 69

CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

11
List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework………………………………………………............. 55
Figure 2. An explanation of the peer review assignment from week 6 of the DL 100
wiki…………………………………………………………........................... 106
Figure 3. Week 3 assignment page from DL 100 wiki…………………………............ 128

CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

12
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In this chapter, I will explain the background of the problem to set the context for the
study. I will then present the statement of the problem, the purpose, and significance of the study.
In doing so, I outline the parameters of why I chose my topic and the research-grounded
rationale for how I chose to focus my study. The ultimate goal of this dissertation is to explore
instructors
1
’ efforts to foster students’ development of critical thinking and the associated
implications for curriculum design and enactment.
Background of the Problem
Educational institutions are responsible for producing skilled graduates who can actively
and productively contribute to society (Bok, 2006; Spellings, 2006). Within the context of the
21st century, the ways in which educational institutions teach students to become productive
members of society must remain sensitive to the unique demands facing the current student
population. Furthermore, employers’ expectations for graduates with diversified skillsets
confound the challenge of how to appropriately prepare graduates. As the student population
continues to diversify due to increasing educational access (Spellings, 2006), educational
institutions must determine their response to these competing needs and identify their
responsibility in creating student-centered learning opportunities that empower students to be
successful members of civil society.
From an employment perspective, what constitutes appropriate training in the 21st
century is inherently different than the 20th century (Binkley et al., 2012; Dede 2010; Miller,
2007; Oblinger & Rush, 1997). While the majority of jobs in the 20th century required routine

1
I use the language of “instructor” because this study examined the curriculum within the field of higher education.
Although a variety of terms have been and often are used to describe the individual who teaches in undergraduate
classrooms, for simplicity and consistency I selected “instructor.” When I refer to multiple instructors I use the
terms “instructors” and “faculty” interchangeably.
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

13
labor skills designed to meet industrial era standards, the 21st century is associated with an
increase in career fields requiring complex thinking that cannot be performed through
automation (Miller, 2007). Employers identify critical thinking as one of the top four most
important skills for future employees graduating from high school, two-year colleges, and four-
year colleges, with critical thinking identified as a “very important” skill specifically for four-
year college graduates (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). While employers expect educational
institutions to develop these skills, the results from global assessments demonstrate that the U.S.
is not properly preparing its graduates. The results from the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) reveal that United States’ students are underperforming in comparison to
their global peers (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2009)
highlighting critical thinking and problem solving as key areas for development.
Providing appropriate education and training for students to have the necessary skillsets
to be effective members of the 21st century workforce is essential. Within the educational
pipeline, higher education is a powerful and essential resource in supporting students’
development of the skills expected by employers (Spellings, 2006). One of the ways in which
higher education can address these concerns is at the course level. The college curriculum
reflects the institution’s educational priorities. If the university expects their students to graduate
with the critical thinking skills in order to meet society and employers’ demands, then the
institution is responsible for developing these skillsets. However, whether higher education
institutions play a role in fostering critical thinking skill development has mixed empirical
support. One perspective posits critical thinking as a universal skill that is an integral component
of lifelong learning (Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995). Students today are expected
to develop deep understandings of content areas and embrace an interdisciplinary perspective,
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

14
making connections across academic discipline content (Dwyer, Miller, & Payne, 2006). Thus,
critical thinking is viewed as a significant educational priority when examining how to prepare
students to be productive and effective citizens within the global, national, and local contexts. In
contrast, the findings from Huber and Kuncel (2016) suggest that critical thinking instruction
does not significantly impact the critical thinking skill development that naturally occurs as the
result of completing a college degree. Therefore, from this perspective, creating specific
opportunities to develop critical thinking skill development is futile and an inefficient use of time
and resources. The findings from Huber and Kuncel (2016) imply that college curriculum and
instruction could be focused on developing other skillsets that benefit students. However, the
findings of this study are not disaggregated by student characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status that are associated as significant factors influencing students’ educational
experiences (Bensimon, 2005; Halpern, 2001). Therefore, understanding the extent to which
higher education curriculum is designed and enacted for all students to have equal access to
develop critical thinking skills remains unknown. While empirical support provides contrasting
views of the role of higher education in developing critical thinking skills, there are additional
opportunities to further explore the extent to which education should make critical thinking a
priority before making a definitive decision regarding critical thinking skill development. Thus,
colleges and universities have a responsibility to examine their curricular practices and identify
how and to what extent they are preparing their graduates to develop critical thinking.
Instructors, and specifically, instructors’ beliefs, have a direct impact on curriculum
design and enactment (Bartolomé, 2004; Day, Kington, Stobart, & Sammons, 2006; Kember,
1997; Torff, 2005). While instructor beliefs are unconscious, they directly influence the
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

15
instructor’s response to his
2
students and are reflective of his assumptions about his students’
skillsets. However, research is limited when examining instructors’ beliefs regarding critical
thinking skills, and specifically how this looks within the context of course design and
instructional delivery (Halx & Reybold, 2006; Torff, 2005, 2006). Therefore, if universities are
a place for students to develop critical thinking then universities need to not only explicitly
indicate that developing critical thinking skills is their responsibility and priority, they must also
understand how to provide equitable support for students in the construction of this skillset.
When examining the influence of the academic content area on the teaching of critical
thinking, empirical studies suggest academic discipline may impact how the learning is designed
and enacted for critical thinking. Previous studies suggest that the types of tasks, expectations
for student engagement, as well as the andragogical methods differ according to the discipline
(Jones, 2007; Moore, 2011). Thus, empirical data is available for exploring critical thinking
within the context of more traditional subject areas such as history, economics, philosophy, and
literary studies. When exploring curriculum within the 21st century new academic disciplines
such as “digital literacy” are present. The field of digital literacy reflects the ubiquitous nature of
technology and explores implications for learning and communication. If it is the responsibility
of educators and educational institutions to teach students how to be critical consumers of
information (Knight Commission, 2009) then exploring critical thinking within this academic
context provides opportunities to contribute to this burgeoning field.
As educational institutions are tasked with educating and preparing graduates to be
productive members of society, it is in the students’ best interests for institutions to prioritize

2
For the purposes of this dissertation given the two participants are both males I opt to use “he” instead of another
pronoun. I use “instructor” with the understanding that the reference applies across gender. I made a language
choice for consistency purposes.
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

16
critical thinking skill development. Curricular studies in the college context must continue to
explore best practices for meeting the diverse learning needs of 21st century learners (Bok, 2006;
Office of Educational Technology, 2010). Ultimately, higher education has a responsibility to
enact efforts to provide supportive, appropriate, and student-centered learning experiences that
prepare graduates to become critical thinkers and productive members of society.
Statement of the Problem
Instructors’ efforts to develop students’ critical thinking skills are grounded in their belief
systems, and evidence of their beliefs is available in the ways in which instructors design and
deliver instruction. Instructor beliefs also directly impact instructors’ roles and responsibilities
in supporting student’s learning (Bartolomé, 2004; Bensimon, 2005; Day et al., 2006, Kennedy,
2004). While faculty are commonly not trained to teach critical thinking, those who consider
this skill a learning priority teach critical thinking according to their own definitions and
understanding of this concept (Halx & Reybold, 2006), and in doing so the belief system is the
unconscious driver of the instructor’s actions. Previous research on critical thinking instructional
methods identified potential strategies associated with gains in critical thinking. However, there
is limited research exploring the relationship between instructors’ beliefs of critical thinking
skills and andragogy (Halx & Reybold, 2006; Torff, 2005, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
While previous studies have explored critical thinking and instructional methods, there is
limited research connecting critical thinking curriculum with the instructor’s belief system.
Exploring how instructors design and enact the curriculum for the goal of developing critical
thinking provides insight into the interaction between an instructor’s beliefs and his actions.
This study was designed to explore the influence of instructor beliefs on critical thinking course
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

17
design and instructional delivery within the context of a digital literacy course. The research
question addressed in this study was:
• How do undergraduate digital literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster
students’ development of critical thinking skills?
In order to address this question, evidence was collected and analyzed according to two
associated research questions addressing course design and enactment. The research sub-
questions were:
o How does the structure of the course, as evident in the syllabus and assignments,
provide opportunities to foster critical thinking skill development?
o How does the delivery of instruction provide opportunities to foster critical
thinking skill development?
Significance of the Study
This study is important because it provides insight into curricular decisions, and
specifically the intentionality with which a course is designed and enacted. Instructor beliefs are
particularly influential as the belief system is unconsciously influencing what the instructor does
and the student-instructor interaction. Examining the instructor’s beliefs about critical thinking
reveals insights into his role as the instructor and responsibility to develop critical thinking skills.
Additionally, this study provides evidence regarding elements of the curriculum design and
instructional delivery that communicate specific expectations for students. Thus, future college
and university departments might be interested in examining the extent to which their respective
instructors’ beliefs drive how critical thinking skill development is incorporated and supported
within course design and enactment.
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

18
The majority of critical thinking literature utilizes quantitative methods and standardized
measurement tools (Tsui, 2002). This study contributes to the limited qualitative studies
available. Due to its qualitative nature, this study provided evidence regarding the instructor’s
design and enactment process, specifically the extent to which critical thinking was a desired
outcome. Additionally, this study provided information regarding whether and how the
instructor supported, or did not support, his students’ learning experiences. This evidence is
beneficial for any instructor wanting to improve his practice.
Lastly, digital literacy curriculum is a burgeoning field of study. Exploring how the
course and projects were designed to support critical thinking within the context of a digital
literacy course provides evidence of the ways in which instructors think and plan curriculum, and
may be of interest for future digital literacy curriculum development. Furthermore, the ways in
which critical thinking is understood, designed and implemented by digital literacy faculty may
be unique to the digital literacy field as critical thinking development may differ according to the
subject area (Jones, 2007; Moore, 2011). This study also discussed the use of specific
scaffolding tools aimed to support students’ learning. College and university departments or
digital literacy instructors may be interested in how the use of specific instructional practices and
resources supported or thwarted the impact of these tools.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provided the
background and context for this study. It presented the dilemma facing higher education
regarding how to provide educational experiences for students that address subject area
knowledge with 21st century skills such as critical thinking. The purpose and significance of the
study was to examine curricular practices, specifically, how course design and enactment within
CRITICAL THINKING DEVELOPMENT

19
the context of a digital literacy course can provide students with opportunities to develop their
critical thinking skills.
Chapter two provides a literature review and the conceptual framework I used to guide
the study. First, the study presents the research relating to instructor beliefs and the role they
played in course design and instructional delivery. Then I review critical thinking course design
and andragogy exploring ways in which critical thinking skill development could be infused
throughout the course. Next, I discuss the ways the use of scaffolding tools could provide
student-centered learning opportunities for students as they engaged in novel learning
opportunities. Finally, I present the conceptual framework demonstrating my tentative theory of
how courses could be designed and enacted to support students’ critical thinking development.
Chapter three describes the research study design and the methods I utilized for data
collection and analysis. I also describe the data sources and present the research plan I followed
when devising this multi-case study. I conclude the chapter by addressing the limitations,
delimitations, credibility, ethics, and trustworthiness elements associated with this study.
Chapter four presents the findings and applicable themes. Two case studies, one for each
instructor, are presented according to the two findings and the three applicable themes. The
chapter concludes with the presentation of the four cross-case analysis findings.
Chapter five reviews the findings from the two case studies and presents implications and
recommendations for this study. The recommendations are organized according to practice,
policy, and research.

20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This study examined two digital literacy instructors who taught different sections of the
same undergraduate course, and asked the following question: How do undergraduate digital
literacy courses as implemented by instructors foster students’ development of critical thinking
skills? In order to answer this question, I drew on four bodies of literature in educational theory
and research: instructor beliefs, critical thinking, scaffolding, and digital literacy.
In light of my research question, the goal of this literature review is to examine how
instructor beliefs, critical thinking, scaffolding, and digital literacy play a role in the learning
experience. The instructor beliefs literature provides insight into the instructors’ course design
and enactment decisions, specifically how these decisions reflect their beliefs about students’
capacities to learn and their own responsibility in facilitating the learning experience. The
critical thinking literature presents the definition of critical thinking utilized in this study as well
as the ways in which critical thinking can be incorporated within the course design and
instructional delivery. In order to understand how instructors guide students’ learning, I present
the literature addressing sociocultural theory and its associated scaffolding method. Also
included are different types of scaffolding tools that instructors may utilize to facilitate students’
learning. Lastly, I synthesize the data literacy literature so I could anticipate and understand the
types of activities and assignments specific to this academic discipline. The digital literacy
research broadened my understanding of the ways in which the scaffolding tools could be
incorporated to support students’ learning within the context of a digital literacy course.
Through the literature presented in this chapter I gained insight into instructors’
intentionality to develop critical thinking skills as they designed and implemented their
respective digital literacy course, ultimately influencing the development of my conceptual

21
framework. I begin with an exploration of instructors’ beliefs and the impact on the learning
experience. Next, I discuss evidence of critical thinking course design and instructional delivery.
I then present evidence of scaffolded learning tools and explore what a digital literacy curriculum
looks like. Finally, I articulate the relationships of these concepts within my conceptual
framework.
Instructor Beliefs
As my research question focused on the relationship between instructor’s beliefs
regarding the development of students’ critical thinking skills, curriculum design, and
instructional delivery, it was essential that I explore the literature on instructor beliefs. As
suggested by Kennedy (2004), the relationship between beliefs and actions within an educational
context has andragogical implications. An instructor’s belief system influences the way in which
the instructor designs and enacts a course, directly impacting students’ experiences (Bartolomé,
2004; Day et al., 2006; Kember, 1997; Torff, 2005). The belief system is associated with the
unconscious beliefs affecting the individual’s respective personal and professional identities that
are comprised of unique biographies, experiences, and contexts (Day et al., 2006). There is
much debate as to whether the instructor’s beliefs are static or dynamic, and the exact ways in
which the combination of biography, experience and context interact (Day et al., 2006).
However, there is consensus regarding the direct role belief systems play on how instructors,
design and enact curriculum, as well as engage with students (Bartolomé, 2004; Bensimon, 2005;
Day et al., 2006, Kennedy, 2004). Specifically, a belief system translates into how the instructor
teaches, the ways in which he believes students learn, and how he engages with students
(Bensimon, 2005; Kember, 1997; Kennedy, 2004; Van Kan, Ponte, & Verloop, 2013). The
following sections discuss instructor belief systems as presented in instructor-centered versus

22
student-centered approaches, belief systems interacting with critical thinking, and conclude with
a discussion regarding the literature exploring instructor beliefs regarding critical thinking within
the university context.
Instructor-Centered Versus Student-Centered Teaching
An instructor’s general theories about student learning, student motivation, the
instructor’s role, and what the instructor identifies as essential academic content are reflective of
the instructor’s belief framework (Kennedy, 2004). One approach to exploring instructors’
beliefs, especially the instructor’s role in the educational context, is to categorize belief systems
according to two main approaches: instructor-centered and student-centered (Kember, 1997;
Kember & Kwan, 2000; Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2010). Instructor-centered approaches
perceive teaching as disseminating academic content, with the student as the passive recipient of
this information. In contrast student-centered teaching focuses on the students’ learning
processes, with an emphasis on student learning outcomes, the use of active learning strategies,
and the role of the instructor as guiding students through the learning experience (Kember,
1997). The instructor’s belief system influences the teaching approach utilized to achieve
specific student learning outcomes and in turn this affects how the instructor interprets classroom
situations (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Kennedy, 2004). Thus, evidence of the
instructor’s belief system can be gleaned from the teaching approach and the ways in which the
instructor enacts the curriculum.
The current educational preference is to transition from the traditional instructor-centered
approaches to belief systems that promote student-centered learning environments (Kember &
Kwan, 2000; Light, Calkins, Luna, & Drane, 2009). Therefore, if an educational institution is
concerned with improving teaching quality then it is argued that the focus is not merely on

23
adjusting teaching strategies, and instead, modifying belief systems to include student-centered
ways of thinking about teaching and learning. While Kember (1997) cautions that the university
has limited ability to influence instructors’ belief systems, the result of the research from Light et
al. (2009) provide evidence that a year-long university-sponsored program emphasizing student-
centered approaches had a positive effect on pre-tenure faculty adopting a more student-centered
teaching framework. Therefore, if the educational institution aims to emphasize a specific way
of teaching then the university’s plan should include aspects that challenge instructors to adopt a
specific belief system that is reflective of this approach (Kember & Kwan, 2000; Light et al.,
2009). Deep, longstanding andragogical change does not result from the introduction of new
teaching methods. From an institutional standpoint, this means that if institutions prioritize
specific learning outcomes then institutions must advocate for instructors to adopt a belief
system reflective of the priorities of the institution. In the absence of changes in belief system,
the new teaching methods recommended by the institution will be inconsistently adopted, and
oftentimes implemented at a surface-level at best. If student-centered belief systems are the
preferred educational approach, as the educational environment remains sensitive to the needs of
the students, then it is in the educational institution’s best interest to adopt initiatives that
challenge instructors to mirror student-centered belief systems.
When instructors discuss their teaching, they do so in ways that reflect how they think
about their practice, and in doing so they reveal aspects of their belief system (Kember, 1997;
Kennedy, 2004). The ways in which belief systems are enacted provides evidence regarding
what the instructor does during class time, the content he selects to address, the way he navigates
the student-instructor and student-student interactions, and the methods he utilizes to facilitate
the learning experience. Essential to learning is the instructor-student interaction (Cohen,

24
Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003). Specifically, the ways in which the instructor tailors the learning
reflects the instructor’s beliefs about his students’ abilities and his own ability to teach (Cohen et
al., 2003). The instructor’s ability to create student-centered learning environments depends on
the extent to which he actively incorporates student feedback (Cohen et al., 2003). Thus, the
ways in which instructors design, enact, and modify the curriculum is reflective of their beliefs
regarding how students learn and their responsibility to guide students through the learning
experience.
In their study exploring instructor beliefs during course enactment, Aguirre and Speer
(2000) proposed that belief systems impact the selection and prioritization of goals during
instruction time. When there are shifts in goals, as instructors adapt to students’ questions or
learning challenges, then these changes also reflect the instructor’s belief system (Kennedy,
2004). Shifts in goals during the course enactment reflect aspects of an instructor’s belief system
regarding how students learn, his teaching methods, and subject area expertise (Aguirre & Speer,
2000). Thus, there are multiple data points for understanding an instructor’s belief system.
Kember (1997) noted that while instructors may verbally express a particular belief system, the
ways in which the instructor enacts the course may not align with characteristics associated with
the espoused belief system. It is imperative to remain sensitive to how instructors express their
belief system and the ways in which the instructor actively engages the class during class-time.
Importance of overt communication regarding student learning outcomes. There is
concern regarding the implications of when instructors’ beliefs regarding learning and teaching
do not align with students’ beliefs about teaching and learning. When this misalignment occurs,
a student may be forced to engage in ways of learning that are not preferred or familiar for the
student (Virtanen & Yindblom-Ylänne, 2010). In this context, certain students are placed at an

25
academic disadvantage in comparison to their peers who have learning preferences that mirror
the teaching’s belief system. Consequently, the faculty should include explicit instruction about
the learning outcomes and the approaches he will enact in order to ensure the students have a
clear understanding of what they will learn and how the learning process will be facilitated. If an
instructor’s belief system emphasizes an active learning environment, then it is imperative that
the instructor includes overt communication and expectations regarding the active learning
strategies the students are expected to employ and develop during the course (Virtanen &
Yindblom-Ylänne, 2010). In doing so, explicit communication helps the students understand
and become more aware of the learning expectations.
Instructor Beliefs Regarding Critical Thinking
While researchers agree that instructors’ beliefs impact student outcomes, there is limited
research examining the specific intersection of instructors’ belief systems on their approach to
supporting students’ critical thinking development. In order to address the research questions of
this study it is imperative to understand how instructors’ belief systems impact the ways in which
instructors design and enact curriculum to address complex thinking. An examination of the
research literature addressing instructors’ belief systems regarding critical thinking yielded
limited results. The following discussion addresses the general overlap of instructor beliefs and
critical thinking followed by a presentation of the research where these concepts intersect within
the university context.
The decisions affecting how instructors design and enact the curriculum reflect their
assumptions about their students’ skillsets (Aguirre & Speer, 2000; Kennedy, 2004; Torff, 2005,
2006). In light of the findings of Torff (2005, 2006) there is evidence suggesting that instructors’
belief systems also include assumptions about students’ abilities to engage in critical thinking.

26
Torff (2005, 2006) discovered that among secondary school educators these belief systems were
impacted by whether the instructor perceived a student as a “high advantage” or “low advantage”
learner. Once the secondary instructors were actively teaching in the classroom, they often
shared the sentiment that high critical thinking activities are best utilized with high advantage
learners and were not appropriate for low advantage learners (Torff, 2006). The instructors’
belief systems shifted from preservice education program to post-preservice education program,
rarely shifting again once the instructor was in the classroom. The instructors appeared to
embrace a more student-centered and equitable belief system at the beginning of their preservice
education program. Once instructors were in the classroom their belief system shifted to a more
restricted approach. This is of particular importance for higher education instructors because the
potentially inequitable learning environments existing in K-12 schools disadvantage students
once they are in higher education settings. Instructors’ beliefs regarding students’ capacity for
critical thinking impacts the course design and enactment, and higher education faculty must be
sensitive to the varying skillsets their students may possess as a result of their K-12 education.
Instructor beliefs regarding critical thinking within the university context. Concerns
regarding teaching methods in the U.S. are prevalent within the context of primary and
secondary institutions in comparison to the minimal emphasis in higher education. Thus,
research evidence exploring instructor beliefs regarding critical thinking within a university
context is limited. Furthermore, as Kember (1997) noted, university faculty oftentimes view
themselves as separate from their K-12 teaching counterparts. Exploring andragogical
3
concerns

3
Andragogy is a term associated with the adult learning, coined by Alexander Kapp (1833) and made popular by the
U.S. educator Malcom Knowles (1980, 1984). Knowles advocated for this term in order to differentiate the learning
methods used with adults from those associated with teaching children. While the term “pedagogy” is currently
more commonly used to address teaching methods with any population, I used the term “andragogy” to identify the
learning methods applied within the context of higher education.

27
within higher education especially as they relate to critical thinking skills is imperative to
understanding the learning experiences for undergraduate students. An examination of the
research literature exploring the intersection of instructor beliefs, critical thinking, and higher
education presented minimal results; therefore, I am presenting the two articles I found regarding
the interaction of these three aspects.
In understanding the role of university instructors’ belief systems regarding critical
thinking, Halx and Reybold (2006) and Tsui (2001) conducted qualitative studies for a deep dive
into how and why instructors taught critical thinking in specific ways. Halx and Reybold (2006)
explored the relationship between faculty perceptions of critical thinking and the respective
andragogical implications of these beliefs. In order to achieve this aim, the researchers
conducted a case study with eight faculty at a private liberal arts college. The analysis of their
interview data revealed that instructors taught and utilized strategies they thought were in
alignment with their critical thinking definition. However, since critical thinking definitions
differed amongst the instructors, the instructors disagreed as to whether critical thinking had to
be taught in conjunction with specific academic content or if critical thinking could be taught on
its own. This meant the instructors were designing and enacting curriculum according to their
respective critical thinking definition. In light of the absence of a universal critical thinking
definition, instructors’ belief systems became particularly influential in understanding how an
instructor’s unique set of beliefs impact how a course was designed and enacted. The findings
also suggested that one responsibility of the instructor was to motivate the students to engage in
critical thinking. Instructors reported students’ lack of interest in engaging in critical thought,
therefore the instructor oftentimes became a motivating force within the classroom. Lastly, the
findings reinforced evidence from previous instructor belief studies that students must be active

28
in the learning process, specifically, students must recognize their own beliefs as opinions and be
open to challenging their own viewpoints (Halx & Reybold, 2006). The researchers concluded
with a reminder that university instructors are typically not trained how to teach, and instead they
are enacting the curriculum in ways that mirror their personal learning experiences. Thus, if
teaching quality is a university-wide concern then it is the university’s responsibility to provide
specific teaching support for instructors. Furthermore, if critical thinking remains a priority of
the educational institution, then the university must provide the necessary leadership and
structure for instructor support. Instructors’ perceptions of critical thinking affect how they
define critical thinking, the student-instructor interaction, and the teaching methods employed.
Similar to the characteristics associated with teaching critical thinking discovered by
Halx and Reybold, Tsui (2001) identified key themes associated with the college faculty’s sense
of self-efficacy in teaching critical thinking. Specifically, Tsui aimed to examine the faculty’s
beliefs related to instructional self-efficacy in developing students’ critical thinking skill. In
order to achieve this aim, Tsui assumed that multiple factors, separate from the student, influence
students’ critical thinking development. The researcher visited four purposely selected higher
education institutions across the U.S. and collected data from classroom observations and semi-
structured interviews. At least five students, five faculty, and one administrator at each campus
was interviewed, for a total of 55 interviews in combination with 28 classroom observations.
The purposeful sampling provided the researcher with the ability to collect data from institutions
with an equal distribution according to admission selectivity and institutional growth in critical
thinking as measured by the national longitudinal study through the Cooperative Institutional

29
Research Program (CIRP).
4
Tsui found that multiple aspects of the student-instructor experience
affected the degree and extent to which critical thinking was facilitated and supported in the
classroom context. Three elements in particular influenced how critical thinking was taught:
faculty’s belief in students’ potential to develop critical thinking skills, instructors’ interest and
enthusiasm with critical thinking development, and a learning context centered on active learning
instructional techniques.
Findings from Tsui’s (2001) study suggested instructors displayed varying levels of self-
efficacy regarding whether they could effectively teach critical thinking. Instructors who felt
comfortable with their critical thinking knowledge were open to teaching this concept to their
students. Others opted to participate in critical thinking instruction only if they had the support
from the instructional colleagues. Opportunities to collaborate with instructors regarding
effective andragogical approaches contributed to whether critical thinking instruction was
included in a course. Active learning methods such as class discussions, student presentations,
and small group activities characterized the learning environments where critical thinking was
implemented. Furthermore, when critical thinking was emphasized, the classrooms were often
organized into circular formats instead of the traditional row and column setup. Elements such
as university-facilitated instructional support and instructor peer support also affected whether
critical thinking was incorporated in the learning environment (Tsui, 2001). However, one
element omitted from the study was whether the institutions explicitly identified critical thinking
as an institutional priority with accompanying resources allocated for supporting faculty in
developing the skills to support students’ critical thinking development. This type of support and

4
Implemented in 1966, CIRP is the largest empirical study of higher education with including data from 1,900
institutions, 15 million students, and 300,000 faculty (Higher Education Research Institute, 2012). CIRP is
administered by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

30
instructor empowerment could be influential in the faculty’s level of self-efficacy in developing
critical thinking skills. In light of the research findings derived from these two studies, Halx and
Reybold (2006) and Tsui (2001) provide evidence that a discernible link exists between
instructors’ belief systems and the methods and content implemented in order to develop college
students’ critical thinking skills.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking transcends all academic disciplines and is often identified as a cognitive
competency reflected within the general intellectual outcomes of higher education (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1995). In order to answer a research question focusing on the
way instructor beliefs regarding critical thinking development played out in curriculum design
and instructional delivery, it was necessary to examine the literature demonstrating the ways in
which critical thinking skill development is supported through course design and instructional
delivery and assignment design. I begin by defining critical thinking. I then discuss critical
thinking in relation to course design. Finally, I present literature related to critical thinking and
instructional delivery.
Critical Thinking Defined
Higher order thinking skills refer to the hierarchy associated with levels of increasing
cognitive demand (Anderson et al., 2001). Through the utilization and development of higher
order thinking skills as outlined by Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwol (1956) and
reorganized by Anderson et al. (2001) students develop critical thinking skills. The three most
complex skills of analyzing, evaluating, and creating are often associated with critical thinking as
they avoid the rote memorization and recall associated with lower cognitive demands (Bloom et
al., 1956; Ennis, 1993). Drawing on the work of Bloom et al. (1956), and in light of subsequent

31
research conducted by Ennis (1993), for the purposes of this study critical thinking will be
defined as the higher order thinking skills of analyzing, evaluating, and creating information.
5

The term “higher order thinking skills” is frequently viewed as synonymous with “critical
thinking” (Halpern, 2001) therefore I use “higher order thinking” synonymously with “critical
thinking.”
Critical Thinking and Course Design
Critical thinking development is affected independently by both classroom and non-
classroom experiences (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In his meta-analysis of 13 qualitative
research articles addressing conceptions of teaching, Kember (1997) determined curriculum
design, teaching approaches, and students’ learning approaches are some of the factors affecting
postsecondary teaching.
A significant amount of the critical thinking research literature suggests that critical
thinking development is dependent on the duration of the course or instructional time (McMillan,
1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In contrast, Solon (2007) discovered that critical thinking
development can occur as a result of limited instruction. Solon (2007) conducted a study of 51
undergraduate students enrolled at a community college introductory psychology course taught
by the same instructor. The quasi-experimental design included a treatment and control group
with one class receiving 10 hours of explicit in class instruction combined with 20 hours of
critical thinking-related homework assignments, along with a control group that did not receive
this additional instruction. The Cornell Z critical thinking measurement tool was administered
before and after the critical thinking intervention. This assessment was devised by Ennis,

5
I recognize that critical thinking is more fluid in nature. However, for the purposes of this study, I utilize a skills-
based definition to identify critical thinking. Furthermore, my study did not explore whether students were engaged
in the act of critical thinking; instead I looked at the ways in which the course was set up to promote opportunities
for critical thinking.

32
Millman, and Tomko (1985) to evaluate induction, credibility, deduction, and assumption
identification abilities among high school students, college students and adults. Although it was
determined that the experimental group experienced significant gains in critical thinking
development compared to the control group, Ennis (1993) cautions against using the same
assessment measure for the pretest and posttest due to user familiarity when administering the
same assessment after the intervention. While the results are not conclusive, the findings suggest
that explicit critical thinking instruction incorporated within a course may contribute to a growth
in students’ critical thinking skills development.
One of the concerns regarding methodological design utilized in Solon’s (2007) study
was the use of the Cornell Z measurement tool. Previous studies suggesting critical thinking
development required more than one semester of instruction utilized other measurement tools
such as the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Cornell Test of Critical Thinking, and
the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (Flowers, Pascarella & Pierson, 2000;
McMillan, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini, Springer & Nora, 1995; Tsui, 2002).
By using a different and newer measurement tool, the reliability and validity of the measurement
tool was not as substantiated as more readily implemented methods. However, what remains
influential about Solon’s study is its contribution to the limited yet developing empirical body of
research exploring critical thinking development during shorter durations of time such as one
semester.
Although Solon (2007) suggested that critical thinking instruction could be beneficial
within shorter durations, there were some methodological concerns addressing the limited course
type and institutional context impacting the generalizability of the results. The course type might
have influenced the results of this study as the students were enrolled in an introductory

33
psychology course, therefore, they were already exposed to the importance of critical thinking as
this was an element included within the curriculum. Including explicit critical thinking
instruction within a non-psychology course might not have the same effect as the students might
not be predisposed to critical thinking skills as a curricular priority and learning outcome unless
stated in the course syllabus. Thus, the type of course might affect how students develop critical
thinking skills.
Halpern (2001) suggested that courses intending to develop critical thinking included
elements such as clearly articulated skills the students will develop as a result of the course,
instruction addressing these skills, and assessment of the extent to which students met the goals
of the course. Learning outcomes are key tools in communicating the instructor’s expectations
regarding how students are expected to engage in the course and the types of learning they will
encounter. Specifically, learning outcomes communicate the learning task, the process or plan
for the learning experience, and how the student will demonstrate their learning (Mayer, 2011).
Including learning outcomes in the design of a class where critical thinking is expected to be
developed is key to supporting students’ critical thinking development (Abrami et al., 2008;
Cargas, Williams, & Rosenberg, 2017). The benefit of learning outcomes is that students are
aware of what they are expected to learn and how their learning will be measured.
Courses that support critical thinking development may be designed utilizing various
formats. Ennis (1989) identified four classifications of critical thinking course design: 1) general
approach (critical thinking is taught separate from subject instruction, 2) infusion (critical
thinking abilities are explicitly included in the learning objectives), 3) immersion (critical
thinking abilities are not explicit); 4) mixed model (the general approach combined with either
the infusion or immersion approach). Abrami et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 117

34
critical thinking studies, totaling 20,698 students and utilized Ennis’s (1989) course design
classification framework. The mixed method approach by which critical thinking is taught
independently within a course had the most significant effect on critical thinking development.
The absence of critical thinking as an explicit learning objective resulted in the smallest critical
thinking gains. The researchers identified an overarching theme regarding the need to explicitly
incorporate critical thinking into the course objectives in order to develop this specific skill set.
Similarly, the findings from Marin and Halpern (2010) support explicitly critical thinking design
and implementation. The researchers conducted a study where two populations of students
received one of two critical thinking course design models that utilized explicit critical thinking
instruction or implicit critical thinking instruction. Larger gains in critical thinking development
were associated with explicit critical thinking instruction. These findings confirm the evidence
from Pithers and Soden’s (2010) review of critical thinking literature which suggests that critical
thinking should be included as a learning objective of the course. Furthermore, instructors who
received special critical thinking training or had their course implementation regularly observed
produced the most significant impact on critical thinking. Courses that listed critical thinking
objectives in syllabi but did not implement critical thinking into instructional design had the
smallest impact. In other words, merely crafting learning objectives does not lead to critical
thinking development, as the structural design of the course must be aligned with its
implementation.
Critical thinking and assignment design. A subsection of course design includes the
assignments and projects instructors expect students to complete. These projects are an
extension of the learning goals for the course, therefore the assignments have a direct impact on
the students’ learning experiences. Examining assignment design provides opportunities to

35
explore opportunities of how critical thinking is incorporated at the micro-level of teaching and
learning (Renaud & Murray, 2007).
Moore (2011) conducted an ethnographic study of 18 faculty members to examine the
importance of critical thinking with the instructor’s respective discipline and the types of
assignments included in philosophy, history, and literary studies. Moore (2011) discovered that
the academic discipline affects teaching andragogy and the purpose of critical thinking
assignments. For example, Moore found that amongst the philosophy instructors an open-ended
writing assignment required students to analyze a text. In contrast, the literature professors
expected students to analyze a topic without reliance on primary texts and instead from a
conceptual standpoint. Thus, this study suggests how critical thinking is incorporated into course
assignments differ according to academic discipline and course context.
Critical thinking is a complex construct affiliated with a diverse set of definitions and
empirical research studies (Abrami et al., 2008; Terezini et al., 1995). The course design, the
instructional methodologies utilized, and associated assignments affect students’ experiences in
developing critical thinking skills. Based on the results of initial studies, additional
contemporary qualitative research designs are necessary to explore the implications of critical
thinking instruction within the 21st century college classroom.
Critical Thinking and Instructional Delivery
While a course can be designed to overtly or implicitly develop critical thinking skills,
the instructor’s instructional methods impact how critical thinking development is supported in
the classroom. Given the connection between curriculum design and instructors’ andragogical
beliefs, this information suggests that instructors’ teaching beliefs will affect how courses are
implemented to develop critical thinking skills. In light of the disagreement regarding the

36
corresponding impact of course design and duration on critical thinking development, there is
similarly limited consensus regarding the impact of instructional approaches on critical thinking
development (Abrami et al., 2008; McMillan, 1987; Tsui, 2002). McMillan (1987) conducted a
meta-analysis of 27 studies examining the effect of instructional methods, courses and programs,
and college attendance on college students’ critical thinking and ultimately concluded that
instructional methodologies had little effect on critical thinking skill development when
compared to the impact of college attendance. The results from Abrami et al. (2008), Facione,
Sanchez, Facione, and Gainen (1995), and Tsui (1999) contradict McMillan’s findings as all
three studies found that classroom experiences do in fact have a significant impact on critical
thinking development. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) note that McMillan’s (1987) synthesis
does not take a zero effect size into consideration when reviewing the multiple studies.
Therefore, when McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, and Smith (1986) reviewed McMillan’s work they
discovered that instruction emphasizing discussion or specific problem-solving tasks may
contribute to an increase in critical thinking. Similar to Abrami et al. (2008) and Facione et al.
(1995), Terenzini et al. (1995) found that critical thinking correlated with specific classroom
instructional approaches. Elements affecting the learning experience and specifically critical
thinking development include the extent to which faculty encourage or incorporate student ideas,
the cognitive level of student participants during instruction, and the amount of peer interaction
(Terenzini et al., 1995).
Similarly, Tsui’s (1999) quantitative study examined the intersection of course subject
area, instructional techniques, and self-reported growth in critical thinking. Tsui (1999)
discovered that instructional methods may have a slightly more influential role on the
development of critical thinking skills than the course subject area. In light of this finding, it is

37
worth mentioning that instructional techniques such as instructor-critiqued paper, independent
research project, group project, class presentation and essay exam were all positively associated
with critical thinking development. The critical thinking instructional strategies identified by
Tsui (1999) align with the findings from Abrami et al. (2015) suggesting active learning and
student-centered strategies were most closely associated with critical thinking development.
Critical thinking skills were most significantly affected by three types of instructional delivery
strategies: types of dialogue (critical dialogue, debates, whole class and small group discussions),
authentic problems (students addressing problems, role playing), mentoring (one-on-one
instructor-student interaction, peer-led dyads, internships).
While there is evidence of the potential impact of specific instructional studies on critical
thinking development, it is important to note the limitations of many empirical studies.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reviewed empirical research studies examining critical thinking
instruction. Most studies reviewed occurred during the 1990s and included pretest and posttest
design, utilizing standardized cognitive measurement tools, but did not include a control group.
In their meta-analysis Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) noted the absence of a consistent practice
or set of practices regarding critical thinking skill instruction across studies. Additionally, many
quantitative studies lacked a comparison group, thereby contributing to concerns regarding
whether the gains in critical thinking are the result of the instructional experience or some other
factor. Potential factors influencing the critical thinking development reported in studies
reviewed by Pascarella and Tereznini (2005) and Ennis (1995) include whether critical thinking
development occurred as a result of maturation, the impact of a learning experience from a
separate course influenced critical thinking development, or the realization that the results were
misconstrued because the same version of the assessment tool was administered in the pretest

38
and posttest. These findings serve as a reminder that non-classroom experiences, and
experiences extending beyond one class setting, may have a direct influence on students’ critical
thinking development.
The university maintains a role in the critical thinking development that occurs within the
college classroom. The institutional context, specifically the type of institution, correlates with
students’ critical thinking development. In their exploration of computer and email use on
cognitive development in students at 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions, Flowers et al.
(2000) examined quantitative data from 23 institutions during fall semester of 1992 and spring
semester of 1993, which encompassed 2,685 total student participants. The researchers
determined that computer and email use by students in 4-year colleges had little to no impact on
cognitive development (specifically, reading comprehension, math, and critical thinking). In
contrast for students attending 2-year institutions, computer use in classrooms had a significant
impact on cognitive outcomes. Specifically, the extent to which a course required students to
utilize computers within the learning environment affected critical thinking. This study suggests
varying implications for technology such as email and computers based on specific student
populations and institutional context. Additional influences affecting cognitive development
include the learning environment, institutional context, role of non-classroom experiences such
as extracurricular activities and social relationships.
Sociocultural Learning Theory
As I was understanding the role instructors’ beliefs played in the way they approached
developing students’ critical thinking skills through the course design and instructional delivery,
it was necessary to explore literature related to the way learners should be supported during the
instructor-student interaction associated with the use of critical thinking skills. I explored

39
constructivist and sociocultural learning theories as they are grounded in the assumption that
learning is the result of the construction of knowledge and requires the use of sophisticated
cognitive processes (Schunk, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978) that are associated with the concept of
critical thinking. In this section I address constructivism and the Zone of Proximal Development
and conclude with an overview of instructional strategies that encourage scaffolded learning
support.
Constructivism
The theoretical framework for this study is sociocultural learning theory. As a theory of
development, Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory is rooted in constructivism. This belief
suggests learners construct their own understandings and learning is not automatically acquired
through natural maturation and development (Schunk, 2004). This theoretical perspective
identifies the learner as an active participant thus, this approach is aligned with student-centered
teaching belief systems.
Constructivism advocates for teaching that is structured to appropriately challenge
students’ thinking and knowledge development. From a constructivist perspective, active
learning involves opportunities where students engage in learning that is directed by the students,
such as problem-solving, open-ended problems, and collaborative learning, devoid of
memorization and repetition-oriented activities (Anthony, 1996). Furthermore, active learning is
also associated with the student’s level of mental effort. Thus, curriculum design should be
aligned with the mental efforts of students. Meaning, if the curriculum expects students to
engage in complex thinking then the curriculum and its enactment should provide opportunities
for students to monitor and develop the necessary skills (Anthony, 1996). The findings from
Anthony (1996) remind educators that active learning activities do not always equate to active

40
learning opportunities for students. For example, creating opportunities for students to engage in
activities provides contexts for students to develop necessary skills, yet it is essential students are
taught how to learn and specifically the ways in which the students can use that knowledge to
construct meaning (Anthony, 1996). Students’ ability to construct meaning is directly impacted
by their respective interpretations of learning activities and use of learning strategies. Moreover,
active learning activities do not equate to students’ constructing meaning as the student may
utilize passive learning approaches that ultimately impede students’ abilities to engage in long-
term knowledge construction. Thus, in order for life-long knowledge construction to occur it is
essential for students to experience active intellectual engagement throughout the learning
process (Anthony, 1996). The key to providing appropriate learning opportunities requires an
instructor’s overt and intentional support.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory differs from other constructivist theorists due to the
emphasis on the influence of the social context (Schunk, 2004). Specifically, Vygotsky’s social
constructivist theoretical approach suggests social interactions serve as catalysts for learning
(Vygotsky, 1978; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). Vygotsky (1978) argued that children learn lower
mental functions on their own and learn more complex processes through social interactions with
more knowledgeable others. Guidance from more knowledgeable others such as instructors and
peers are key factors influencing a student’s learning experience.
Zone of Proximal Development
A key concept of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is the zone of proximal development
(ZPD). An individual is limited on the lower end of ability by what he or she can do
independently. The zone of proximal development is the distance between what can be

41
accomplished independently and the level of potential development possible through adult
guidance or with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978).
Students’ learning experiences in the ZPD are affected by social interactions with an
instructor and peers as the individual works on a task that could not be completed independently
(Doolittle, 1997; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978). Advanced development occurs
when the student is able to complete the task without assistance. The ZPD identifies the skills
are developing as these skills require the intervention and support of a more capable other. Thus,
Tharp and Gallimore (1989) define “teaching” as “assisting performance through the ZPD.
Teaching can be said to occur when assistance is offered at points in the ZPD at which
performance requires assistance” (p. 31).
ZPD and scaffolding. Although Vygotsky did not include scaffolding in his theoretical
framework, it is a frequently utilized teaching tool for sociocultural learning educators that
involves controlling elements of the activity that are beyond the learner’s abilities (Schunk,
2004). The key to ensuring successful use of scaffolding involves keeping learners engaged
within their zone of proximal development while also remaining challenged within the learning
context (Schunk, 2004).
Deed and Edwards (2011) recommended the use of scaffolding to encourage active
learning with technology-based learning contexts such as web blogs. Digital literacy courses
provide students with the opportunity to extend their experience and familiarity with print-based
text to include additional mediums such as websites, images, videos, webinars, electronic
databases, and website search engines. Unfiltered and unmonitored access to such extensive
information leads to concerns regarding navigating, discerning, and utilizing these resources
(Hill & Hannifin, 2001). However, MacGregor and Lou (2004) found scaffolding effective in

42
assisting learners with website design and knowledge acquisition. Zheng, Flygare, and Dahl
(2009) explored how to support learning in “ill structured environments” (p. 196) where learning
occurs in open-ended problems without a predefined methodology or procedure. In their quasi-
experimental study, Zheng et al. (2009) determined the use of scaffolding in the college
classroom had a positive influence on supporting students’ learning in diverse classroom setting.
Accordingly, students reported negative learning experiences when material was presented in a
method similar to students’ preferred learning styles but without scaffolded support; thus, in this
study students’ identified scaffolding as the preferred learning support tool.
An important consideration when planning scaffolded instruction are the types of
cognitive activities for which to scaffold. Tharp and Gallimore (1989) identify scaffolding for
two “cognitive structures” that include structures of explanation and structures for cognitive
activity (p. 65). Structures of explanation “organize perception in new ways” so the learner is
introduced to a specific idea (p. 65). An example is a chemistry instructor who explains to the
class the purpose of today’s experiment is to test a particular scientific principle, such as the
temperature fluctuates as gases expand. In the structure of explanation, the instructor is
providing scaffolded opportunities for students to combine old and new information. Structures
for cognitive activity present ways in which to think about a particular process, such as a recall
rhyme for a mathematical task or steps in how to decode a polysyllabic word. Cognitive
structures organize the content (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) in ways that make the information
more accessible for the learner. Scaffolding is a powerful instructional tool and Rose and Gravel
(2012) suggest to not limit scaffolding to specific tasks. Instead, scaffolding is particularly
powerful when it extends beyond the confines of a task and is utilized for cognitive skill
development (Rose & Gravel, 2012).

43
Types of scaffolding. Scaffolding provides instructional support so the learning
experience is not overwhelming for the learner. For the purposes of this study scaffolding was
defined as a “…process that enables [a student] to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a
goal which would be beyond [a student’s] unassisted efforts” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976, p.
90). While evidence of scaffolding traditionally includes the interaction between a student and a
more knowledgeable other, findings from newer research studies have suggested an expansion of
this definition to include peer collaboration as well as interaction with formalized learning tools
such as software and technology tools (Tharp & Gallimore, 2001; Yelland & Masters, 2007).
Furthermore, to assist with the data collection and analysis process I looked for evidence of
specific scaffolding types. Yelland and Masters (2007) categorized scaffolds into three
categories: cognitive, technical, and affective.
Cognitive scaffolds are specific learning approaches and tools implemented to support
conceptual and procedural knowledge, commonly associated with supporting higher order
thinking development (Yelland & Masters, 2007). Cognitive scaffolds may include visual aids
such as graphic organizers, outlines, and maps (Hill & Hannafin, 2001). Within a
technologically-oriented context the inclusion of cognitive scaffolds such as mini-lessons
throughout the exploration of a complex topic and supplemental explanations for abstract ideas
were found to support students’ learning experiences (Zheng et al., 2009).
Technical scaffolds include computer-based assistance that has the potential to impact the
learning environment (Yelland & Masters, 2007). This can include specific computer features
that assist the user in understanding the task and may also include a computer program or online
tutor (Yelland & Masters, 2007), videogames, learning management systems, and simulation
tools (Melero, Hernandez-Leo & Blat, 2012). Technical scaffolds may also include the help

44
function within a computer application or a navigational map for a website (Hill & Hannafin,
2001).
Lastly, affective scaffolds address motivational support to encourage on-task behaviors
during a challenging learning process. Instructional techniques such as utilizing open-ended
problems (Zheng et al., 2009), use of reciprocal teaching, and peer collaboration (Schunk, 2004)
are examples of affective scaffolds. Guiding students through various digital-based activities
such as website design (MacGregor & Lou, 2004) and blogging (Deed & Edwards, 2011) are
opportunities for scaffolded instruction.
Scaffolds provide cues for exploring the learning environment. They represent the
various instructional and learning strategies implemented to support the student’s learning.
Sociocultural Instructional Strategies
From a sociocultural perspective, educators aim to provide contextualized learning
opportunities involving the application of knowledge and skills to real-world tasks. Thus,
authentic engagement where students engage with tasks associated with real-life applications is
key. Decontextualized learning occurs when students engage with learning smaller elements of a
concept without an understanding of the larger picture, which minimizes the potential for
mastery and retention (Doolittle, 1997).
One of the strengths of Vygotsky’s learning theory is its applicability and feasibility.
Examples of educational applications include instructional scaffolding, reciprocal teaching, peer
collaborations and apprenticeships (Schunk, 2004). Instructional strategies such as scaffolding,
reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration and apprenticeships are common examples of the
application of sociocultural theory in the classroom (Schunk, 2004). Authentic activities
combined with the use of scaffolding are powerful instructional tools. Wass, Harland, and

45
Mercer (2011) conducted a longitudinal three-year study exploring students’ experiences of
learning to think critically as zoology undergraduates. The study utilized the zone of proximal
development to explore how students’ critical thinking developed over time, along with the
instructional methods implemented to supporting critical thinking development. This qualitative
study of 26 undergraduates found that from the students’ perspective, limited critical thinking
development occurred during the first year of the program. Although instruction during the first
year was scaffolded through support materials such as handouts, textbooks, and computer
simulations the emphasis on memorizing information limited students’ critical thinking skill
development. During the second and third year of the study students’ engagement with research
opportunities, and emphasis on writing assignments scaffolded the learning experience and
encouraged students’ critical thinking development. Instructional strategies such as
conversations with instructors and with peers were essential to scaffolding the learning
environment within a student’s zone of proximal development. The findings from this
qualitative study suggest critical thinking does not occur when the instruction emphasizes
learning factual information. While it is important to keep the learning experience within the
ZPD, it is also equally essential to examine the type of assignments and learning tasks students
are expected to complete.
Doolittle (1997) also recommends teaching approaches that use authentic activities
exploring concepts in their entirety through intrinsically engaging instruction, as well as
activities that necessitate social and verbal interaction. Instruction with a sociocultural lens is
also possible through the use of scaffolding, activities that incorporate students’ current
development, and opportunities for students to demonstrate their independent learning
achievements. The findings from Wass et al. (2011) reaffirm these instructional

46
recommendations as students reported a significant growth in critical thinking during research-
based tasks versus basic rote memory tasks.
While traditional learning theorists perceive the learner as secondary or as a passive
recipient of information, constructivist theory suggests the learner is active in the learning
process. Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory provides a theoretical framework emphasizing
learning as socially situated and learning environments that provide developmentally appropriate
activities and models.
Digital Literacy
As higher education faces national and global demands for college graduates who are
skilled critical thinkers (Miller, 2007; Spellings, 2006) it is imperative to understand the ways in
which the college curriculum provides opportunities for students to develop these skills. I was
interested in examining how the curriculum was evolving to reflect the changing needs of the
21st century workforce as institutions sought to meet employer demands for critical thinking-
oriented graduates. Furthermore, with the advent of digital literacy departments in higher
education settings, the digital literacy field was evolving and consequently curriculum studies in
the United States addressing this newer academic field were limited (ICT, 2010; Pascarella,
2006). Thus, I was interested in how students’ critical thinking skill development was fostered
within the context of a digital literacy course.
Digital literacy courses provide rich learning environments for devising learning
opportunities utilizing constructivist approaches. Within a digital literacy context, knowledge is
constructed rather than inherently possessed, and consequently students are expected to utilize
available tools and seek assistance from educators and more knowledgeable others when solving
a problem (Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Robison, 2009). This approach to learning

47
within a digital literacy context is tied to the social production of knowledge that is at the heart of
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. Similarly, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna (1998) argued for
the importance of digital literacy learning occurring within social contexts as learning
opportunities that are sensitive to the needs of all students in the classroom provide a
constructive and supportive learning environment.
A universal definition of digital literacy does not exist. Similar derivations and related
concepts referring to technology use include media literacy, multimedia literacy, information
communications technology, etcetera. Empirical studies and general commentary regarding
technology inconsistently use a variety of terms (Bawden, 2008). With regard to the definition
of digital literacy included within this study, technology and media are incorporated as elements
within the general concept of digital literacy (Bawden, 2008). Therefore, the review and analysis
of empirical studies that follows will include a variety of terms that are incorporated within the
overarching concept of digital literacy as discussed in the introductory chapter of this study.
Digital Literacy Defined
Numerous authors note that a variety of literacies exist, such as media literacy,
multimedia literacy, and digital literacy, and the various meanings often overlap (Bawden, 2008;
Hobbs, 2010; Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). The Information and Communications Technologies
Advisory Committee utilized the term “digital literacy” as the comprehensive phrase for new
media literacies in California’s ICT action pan (ICT, 2010). Therefore, this research study aligns
its terminology with the state’s ICT policy terminology. While digital literacy is discussed in
primary and second schools there is burgeoning evidence that this type of curriculum also exists
in college settings (ICT, 2010). For the purposes of this study the term digital literacy will adopt
the definition as outlined by Martin and Grudziecki (2006):

48
The awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital tools and
facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyze and synthesize digital
resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with
others, in the context of specific life situations, in order to enable constructive social
action; and to reflect upon this process. (p. 255)
Digital literacy content is more than basic knowledge of technology tool use. Instead digital
literacy addresses how the digital content is utilized to express ideas and communicate messages.
The emphasis is on how individuals utilize digital content and not the simplistic act of acquiring
specific technical skills (Clayton-Pedersen & O’Neill, 2005; Hill & Hannafin, 2001).
Digital literacy courses provide a lesser explored academic context for examining critical
thinking skill development and as Moore (2011) noted, the academic subject area may have a
direct impact on how critical thinking skill development is addressed. Therefore, I sought to
understand how instructors think about scaffolding, the design elements they incorporate and the
tools they use during class-time, to foster opportunities for critical thinking development within
the digital literacy curriculum. The following sections describe evidence of digital literacy
course design and instructional strategies as this information guided me in understanding the
design and implementation of the digital literacy courses I observed in this study. In turn, during
the analysis process I was able to identify the specific scaffolding tools utilized within the
context of a digital literacy course.
Digital Literacy Course Design
Digital literacy courses are designed to contribute to students’ learning, especially in the
development of analysis skills. Hobbs and Frost (2003) conducted a quasi-experimental study
comparing two 11th grade English media/communication courses. The students in the treatment

49
group received instruction regarding how to critically analyze media messages, whereas the
control group did not. Students in the treatment group displayed increases in writing quality and
critical reading skills. These findings suggest instruction within a digital literacy context can
improve students’ analysis skill development. While this study occurred in a high school
classroom, the results provide support for general digital literacy curriculum development.
Furthermore, the results from this study align with the recommendations from Collins et al.
(2011) who recommend designing courses to include opportunities to examine and evaluate the
message of media, create media, and understand how media messages deliver meaning.
Mihaildis (2009) conducted a similar study exploring analysis skill development within a
college setting. This mixed methods study of 239 undergraduates at the University of Maryland
explored the impact of media literacy education on students’ media analysis skills and general
perspectives of media’s role and influence in society. Mihaildis (2009) discovered that students
who completed the media literacy course achieved increased rates of comprehension, evaluation,
and analysis skills in relation to various media forms. Analysis of the data also reveals the
importance of requiring course design to include opportunities to make connections between
media, democracy, and citizenship to assist students in aligning the instructional experience with
their personal experience. These findings suggest digital literacy instruction can be effectively
incorporated within the curriculum with positive results in supporting skill development.
Digital literacy assignment design. Limited research is available regarding digital
literacy assignment design, and what is available is situated in the K-12 teaching context. An
exploration of the available research sheds light on some options for digital literacy assignments
applicable for postsecondary institutions.

50
Effective assignment design includes a range of tasks from video games to creating
multimedia projects. Ehrmann (1995) recommends educational strategies such as incorporating
project-based learning, providing students with assignment options, and including assignments
can be continuously revised can contribute to an effective learning experience. Greenhow,
Robelia and Hughes (2009) noted that web-based tools can be powerful instructional tools that
allow students the opportunity to engage in learning at a self-directed pace. Deed and Edwards
(2011) examined the active learning that occurred within an academic setting when students
participated in an unrestricted blog, which was student-facilitated and not overseen by the
instructor. The researchers specifically sought to examine students’ willingness to participate in
the active construction of knowledge captured through the dialogue included in the blog. The
results from their qualitative case study suggest students may struggle to engage in complex skill
analysis in an unrestricted environment. Deed and Edwards (2011) recommend future studies
examine the impact of scaffolding in online environments.
Digital Literacy Instructional Approaches
Andragogy is an influential factor affecting student learning and course design.
Instructional andragogy emphasizing technology use offers instructors multiple modalities for
presenting new information and for communicating feedback (Clayton-Pederson & O’Neill,
2005). Czerniewicz and Brown (2010) surveyed over 10,000 college students and conducted
focus groups to identify students’ technology preferences. Their findings suggest students
preferred face-face interactions with instructors combined with supportive technology-based
tools such as PowerPoint and Blackboard.
A significant portion of the 21st century learning and digital literacy studies occur in the
K-12 educational context. However, as national and state educational legislature suggests (ICT

51
Advisory Committee, 2010; OET, 2010) higher education institutions are partners in the digital
literacy initiatives, and university educators can learn from empirical findings from K-12
contexts. Clayton-Pederson and O’Neill (2005) recommend K-12 and postsecondary institutions
align educational outcomes to support the learning experience for students when they arrive to
college. The data analysis included in Voogt’s (2010) study provides insight regarding
instructional approaches that can be applicable to both college and K-12 instruction. Voogt
(2010) conducted a secondary analysis of the extensive data collected from the Second
Information Technology in Education Study (SITES) in 2006. SITES is an international study
regarding andragogical practices and information and communication technology (ICT) use in
grade eight math and science classrooms in 22 countries worldwide. The United States did not
participate in this SITES study. Voogt (2010) compared andragogical practices of extensive
ICT-using science instructors to their non-extensive ICT-using colleagues. The ICT-using
instructors often included instructional andragogical approaches supporting lifelong learning and
also co-taught and collaborated with instructor peers. ICT-instructors frequently utilized a
student-centered teaching philosophy differing from the traditional instructor-centered approach.
Examples of a student-centered teaching philosophy include working in small heterogeneous
groups, providing multiple activity options, offering activity options selected by the students, and
incorporating activities that require finding solutions to novel problems (Voogt, 2010). Thus,
digital literacy courses provide rich environments for implementing student-centered curriculum
and instructional strategies.
Conceptual Framework
In this section I present my conceptual framework that provided the overall framework
for this study. Maxwell (2013) suggests that the conceptual framework for a study is the

52
researcher’s tentative theory regarding the interplay of specific constructs. I drew from the
research literature in order to present my assumptions and expectations regarding the
relationships amongst the constructs that emerged from these bodies of literature. I built my
tentative theory of how courses are designed and enacted to foster opportunities to develop
critical thinking skills based on instructor beliefs, critical thinking, and scaffolding literature.
The following sections discuss how my conceptual framework shifted from the beginning of the
study to the end, an overview of the revised conceptual framework graphic, and the research
literature that influenced the way I thought about key topics.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that qualitative research assumes reality is “holistic,
multidimensional, and ever-changing” (p. 242). In alignment with the iterative nature of
qualitative research I examined whether my tentative theory accurately captured what I
discovered during the analysis process, adjusting my original conceptual framework based on my
findings from the cross-case analysis. It became evident during the analysis process that the
respective belief systems of each instructor I studied impacted how the instructors enacted the
course. In light of my findings I modified my original conceptual framework to include the
concept of instructor beliefs so that the framework more accurately represented the ways in
which instructors approached the development of critical thinking skills.
This study sought to understand how instructors designed and enacted digital literacy
courses to foster opportunities to develop critical thinking skills. In order to answer the research
question, I drew from critical thinking, sociocultural learning theory, and digital literacy
research, and ultimately added the instructor’s beliefs literature to construct my theory of the
way in which digital literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster students’
development of critical thinking skills. The literature I consulted led me to think there were

53
opportunities within the intended and enacted curriculum in which an instructor could support
students’ critical thinking development. Utilizing a constructivist theoretical approach, I argued
that as students engaged in critical thinking their ability to deploy critical thinking was
contingent upon whether the course was designed with the expectation for students to use critical
thinking skills, the instructor’s approach to implementing the course in ways that scaffolded the
development of these skills in order to construct meaning, and the instructor’s beliefs regarding
critical thinking that impacted the course design and implementation. I believed this was
especially important when presenting equitable learning opportunities for all students to develop
critical thinking skills.
When instructors present learning opportunities I believe their efforts to develop critical
thinking skills are rooted in their belief systems which in turn affect the ways in which
instructors design the course and deliver instruction. If instructors believe it is their
responsibility to support the development of critical thinking skills and know how to do so they
will incorporate scaffolding tools to support the construction of meaning, and in particular the
development of critical thinking skills. When instructors do not believe they have a
responsibility to support critical thinking skill development or do not know how to do so they
will not include scaffolds within the course design or enactment, and as a result it is less likely
students have the necessary tools to construct knowledge as they aim to develop critical thinking
skills. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for this study illustrating the relationships
amongst instructor beliefs, critical thinking course design and instruction, and scaffolding. An
important aspect of my conceptual framework is the presence of bidirectional arrows. These
signify that concepts interact with one another through a forward and reverse motion. While an
instructor’s beliefs regarding critical thinking impact how the instructor designs and implements

54
a course, there is a reverse interaction that emerges as a result of the students’ learning needs, as
evident in the students’ completed assignments and projects. If an instructor believes it is his
responsibility to develop critical thinking skills and knows how to do so, then the instructor will
monitor students’ learning and adjust his use of scaffolds, modifying and adding scaffolded tools
as appropriate. In turn, the students’ feedback informs how the instructor revises the course
design and implementation in ways that reflect the learning needs but in alignment with the
instructor’s belief system regarding critical thinking skill development. The enactment of this
framework explains how instructors’ belief systems regarding critical thinking skill development
inform the extent to which faculty use scaffolded learning tools within the course design and
instructional delivery to support the construction of knowledge and specifically critical thinking
skill development. In the subsequent section I first explore how instructors’ beliefs regarding
critical thinking impact the instructor’s sense of responsibility to develop these skills. Next, I
present how instructors can design and enact a course to provide opportunities for students to
develop critical thinking skills. I then discuss how an instructor uses scaffolding tools to aid in
the construction of meaning and ultimately the development of critical thinking skills. Finally, I
conceptualize how the enactment of this framework leads to learning environments focused on
critical thinking skill development.

55

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework. When courses are designed and enacted with the
expectation students will use critical thinking skills, the course design and enactment
reflect the instructor’s beliefs about critical thinking skill development as evidenced by
the scaffolding tools utilized.

Instructor Beliefs and Critical Thinking Curriculum
The ways in which instructors design and enact courses reflect instructors’ belief
systems, and ultimately influence the students’ learning experiences (Bensimon, 2005; Kember,
1997; Kennedy, 2004;). I argue that instructors who effectively develop critical thinking skills
abide by a student-centered belief system that prioritizes these skills, believes in the critical
thinking capacity of all students, and also has a sense of responsibility to guide students in the
development of these skills. Instructors who have a student-centered belief system emphasize
student learning outcomes and design the curriculum according to what is beneficial for the
students’ learning experiences (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan, 2000). Drawing on instructors’
beliefs and critical thinking literature, instructors’ belief systems include expectations for what
students are capable of achieving, especially as the expectations relate to complex thinking (Halx
& Reybold, 2006; Torff, 2005, 2006; Tusi, 2001). If instructors believe students can engage in

56
critical thinking then they will prioritize teaching critical thinking and are more likely to enact
active learning opportunities where the students practice the use of these skills (Tsui, 2001).
Furthermore, if instructors believe they are responsible to guide students through a learning
experience that involves critical thinking then they will present opportunities to do so through
student-centered approaches (Halx & Reybold, 2006; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Tsui, 2001). In
order for the instructor to design and enact the curriculum to develop critical thinking requires
the instructor knows the appropriate andragogy to facilitate critical thinking skill development.
An instructor’s belief system not only influences the course design and implementation
but also reflects the instructor’s responsibility to develop these skills. There are multiple ways in
which the instructor combines his belief regarding the importance of critical thinking and the
extent to which he is responsible for developing students’ critical thinking skills. Although the
following is not an exhaustive list, I describe three potential ways for critical thinking and belief
systems to interact. Exploring these options helps me understand what is happening for faculty
as they approach teaching critical thinking as each situation impacts the design, instructional
delivery, and use of scaffolding to construct meaning.
One way an instructor could approach his role in developing critical thinking is to have a
student-centered belief system reflecting the belief that all students should engage in developing
critical thinking skills and he is responsible to guide students in the development of these skills.
He advocates for his students to develop analyzing, evaluating, and creating skills and overtly
communicates this expectation as evident in the learning outcomes of the syllabus, stated within
the assignment descriptions, and communicated during class time. He would also utilize active
learning strategies that engage the students in complex thinking such as problem-solving and
whole class discussions exploring real-world challenges. Furthermore, this instructor would

57
foster opportunities to develop critical thinking skills by designing the course and incorporating
instructional methods that provide opportunities for students to incrementally develop these
skills through the use of instructional scaffolds. In contrast to this instructor, another possibility
includes an instructor that believes all students should engage in critical thinking although he is
not responsible in guiding students through the development of these skills. For this instructor,
critical thinking is important, however, he believes students will develop the necessary skills on
their own without overt instructor support. While he may include opportunities for students to
practice analyzing, evaluating, and creating, he does not support students in the development of
these skills and therefore the course design and enactment may provide learning contexts for
students to use their critical thinking skills without scaffolding the learning environment to
encourage students to develop critical thinking skills where they construct meaning. The course
design and instructional activities may expect students to use critical thinking but are not
designed or enacted to provide opportunities to learn these skills in ways that are reflective of the
students’ learning needs and abilities. Lastly, it is possible that an instructor does not believe all
students should engage in critical thinking skills therefore he does not have a responsibility to
address these skills. This instructor may not prioritize critical thinking or believe in his students’
capacity to develop these skills, and in addition, he may advocate that students will develop the
necessary skills on their own. As a result, the course design and enactment would be devoid of
critical thinking expectations, opportunities to engage in complex thinking, and scaffolding tools
to encourage constructing meaning. In the last two scenarios where the instructor does not have
a sense of responsibility to develop critical thinking, the instructor may not prioritize critical
thinking or know how to develop these skills. Consequently, he will not include scaffolded
learning opportunities to engage in critical thinking where knowledge or meaning is constructed

58
within the course design and instruction, and as a result it is less likely students will have the
necessary tools to develop critical thinking skills on their own. In situations when an instructor
does not believe it is their responsibility to assist students in developing critical thinking then the
responsibility to develop these skills lies with the students, which in turn contributes to an
inequitable learning environment as not all students may be well positioned to independently
develop these skills.
The instructor’s belief system plays a significant role in the way the instructor designs
and enacts the curriculum, and by extension, the use of scaffolding tools to construct meaning. I
argue that to be effective in developing students’ critical thinking skills an instructor needs a
student-centered belief system that prioritizes the development of critical thinking skills for all
students and the instructor is responsible for guiding students through these learning experiences.
Critical Thinking Course Design and Implementation
Course design and implementation reflect the instructor’s belief system (Kember, 1997;
Kember & Kwan, 2000; Kennedy, 2004). I argue that if instructors believe it is their
responsibility to develop critical thinking skills, they incorporate specific critical thinking-
focused strategies into the course design and instructional delivery. Courses that support critical
thinking can be designed to follow multiple formats, including general, infusion, immersion, and
mixed (Ennis, 1989). The research literature suggests that the mixed method approach, where
critical thinking is taught independently and explicitly within a course, has the most significant
impact on critical thinking development (Abrami et al., 2008). Furthermore, gains in students’
critical thinking occur when the course explicitly includes learning outcomes within the design
that articulate the expectation for students to develop critical thinking (Abrami et al., 2008;
Pithers & Soden, 2010). Implicit expectations regarding the development of critical thinking are

59
not associated with gains in critical thinking skills (Abrami et al., 2008). Thus, when instructors
explicitly articulate their expectations regarding critical thinking within the course design they
enhance the likelihood students will develop the necessary skills.
Enacting the course design leads to opportunities to develop specific skills via
instructional delivery. Instructors actively engage students in critical thinking skill development
via course enactment, thus instructional methods have a particularly influential role on the
development of critical thinking skills (Tsui, 1999). Aligning the course design expectations
with instructional implementation is necessary for developing critical thinking (Pithers & Soden,
2010). Critical thinking-oriented strategies rooted in a student-centered framework include
critical dialogue (students explore a question and discuss it with peers in smaller groups or with
the whole class), mentoring (students work with a more knowledgeable or advanced peer or
instructor), authentic instruction (students solve real-world problems that are of interest), case
studies, and role-playing (Abrami et al., 2015). The research suggests there are multiple active
learning strategies to encourage critical thinking skills (Anthony 1996). The combination of
authentic instruction and dialogue are particularly powerful, however, authentic instruction and
dialogue combined with mentoring produced the most significant effects on students’ critical
thinking skills (Abrami et al., 2015). The intended and enacted curriculum should reflect the
same prioritization and expectation of critical thinking skill development.
Instructors who are effective at teaching critical thinking skill development would
intentionally include active learning strategies within the course design and instructional
delivery. Ideally the course would reflect a mixed critical thinking course design, where critical
thinking is explicitly taught within the course content. I would expect to see elements within the
course design such as a syllabus and grading rubrics listing learning outcomes that specify

60
expectations regarding critical thinking. Instructors would explicitly communicate in the
syllabus and course materials the expectation students would develop critical thinking and in turn
they would discuss the expectations regarding critical thinking during class time. The course
would include design elements that promoted active learning such as independent research
projects, group projects, or essay exams. Additionally, the instructional delivery would enact
what was listed in the syllabus via student-centered andragogical methods. These elements
would ideally address the influential combination of authentic instruction, dialogue, and
mentoring. Thus, the course would be enacted to include a combination of in-class critical
discussions, projects and conversations addressing real-world issues, and the opportunity for
students to work in learning environments that combined students with others who could model
the desired thinking and provide feedback if necessary. Instructors that believe critical thinking
is a priority and have a sense of responsibility to develop these skills, design and enact
curriculum in ways that promote the development of critical thinking.
Scaffolding Within a Digital Literacy Course
Drawing on Vygotsky (1978) and sociocultural learning theory, in order for students to
be able to acquire critical thinking skills when they do not have the necessary tools to do so on
their own, instructors must provide instructional supports to guide students through the learning
process. The role of the instructor is to be the more knowledgeable other that is able to influence
the students’ learning experiences through the use of developmentally appropriate instructional
supports. In light of the research literature addressing the Zone of Proximal Development and
constructivism, I argue that if instructors have a student-centered belief system that prioritizes
critical thinking then instructors will include scaffolding tools within the course design and
enactment to construct meaning and facilitate the development of critical thinking. The quality of

61
the scaffold is dependent on the interaction between the instructor and student, especially in how
the instructor makes use of the scaffold (Zheng et al., 2009) as well as the cognitive effort and
intellectual engagement of the student (Anthony, 1996).
Within the context of a digital literacy classroom, students engage in critical
examinations of media through the use of specific technology tools (Clayton-Pedersen &
O’Neill, 2005; Hill & Hannafin, 2001). Consequently, higher order thinking skills, such as
critical thinking, are often associated with the content and assignments included within a digital
literacy course. Digital literacy curriculum is designed with the expectation students learn how
to intentionally utilize media and technology to communicate messages (Clayton-Pedersen &
O’Neill, 2005; Hill & Hannafin, 2001). Students are expected to engage in digital literacy
content via inquiry-based labs, debates, and problem-solving activities (Clayton-Pederson &
O’Neill, 2005) where the instructor utilizes technology as a learning scaffold. Thus, within a
digital literacy course, scaffolding tools are not limited to interaction with an individual but also
include the resources the instructor provides, such as technical and cognitive scaffolds
6
(Yelland
& Masters, 2007). When scaffolding tools are applied within a digital literacy context the more
knowledgeable other can be an instructor, peer, or a piece of technology (Hill & Hannafin, 2001;
Yelland & Masters, 2007). Instructors intentionally design and use cognitive and technical
scaffolds to support critical thinking skill development that enables students to construct
knowledge or meaning.

6
For this study I used cognitive and technical scaffolds, omitting affective scaffolding. Affective scaffolding tools
are utilized as motivational support to encourage on-task behaviors (Yelland & Masters, 2007). Since I did not
examine the student-perspective in this study it would not be appropriate to include the impact of the instruction on
students’ on-task behavior. The conceptual framework was limited to the use of cognitive and technical scaffolds.

62
Instructors who are effective at teaching critical thinking skill development within the
context of a digital literacy course utilize technical and cognitive scaffolds in ways that are
sensitive to the students’ learning needs in order to support students’ construction of knowledge.
Technical scaffolds include resources such as videos, calculators, and computer-based resources
that encompass learning management systems and course wikis (Yelland & Masters, 2007).
Cognitive scaffolded tools include graphic organizers, outlines, and maps, and may also involve
mini-lessons to support the exploration of a complex topic and supplemental explanations for
abstract ideas (Yelland & Masters, 2007). The ways in which the instructor intentionally uses
the scaffolds to construct meaning demonstrates the instructor’s awareness of his students’
learning needs. Instructors who prioritize providing equitable learning opportunities for all
students as they develop critical thinking skills use scaffolds to construct meaning within the
course design and instructional delivery.
Interaction of Instructor Beliefs, Critical Thinking Curriculum, and Scaffolding
I argue that instructors’ beliefs regarding critical thinking influence the ways in which
the course is designed and enacted to provide opportunities for students to develop critical
thinking. The instructor utilizes scaffolding tools to construct meaning within the course design
and instructional delivery that are in alignment with his belief systems and modifies his use of
these tools to reflect his students’ learning needs. Evidence of the belief system is derived from
the extent to which the instructor utilizes scaffolds in response to students’ learning needs. If an
instructor has a student-centered belief system, prioritizes critical thinking skills, and utilizes
scaffolds to reflect the students’ learning needs as they construct meaning then he demonstrates
that he has a responsibility to support critical thinking skill development. Inherent in this

63
argument is the assumption that faculty who incorporate critical thinking within their belief
system know how to develop these skills.

64
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study sought to understand how undergraduate digital literacy courses could be
implemented to provide opportunities to foster the development of students’ critical thinking
skills. Specifically, the goal was to understand how the intersection of course design, teaching
methods, and teacher beliefs impact critical thinking development at the University of Ample
Sunshine. In this chapter I describe the qualitative research methodology that I used for this
study. The following question served as the foundation for the research design: How do digital
literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster students’ development of critical thinking
skills?
Research Design
I chose a qualitative study as I wanted to understand how critical thinking skill
development was incorporated within the design and implementation of a digital literacy course.
Qualitative studies examine a phenomenon as it occurs naturally in the real world and provide
the opportunity for systematic data collection to explore a topic with significant depth (Patton,
2002). Though a qualitative study provides a rich description of the particular phenomenon the
emphasis is not on generalizing findings across time and space. Instead, the emphasis is on the
depth of understanding (Creswell, 2009, 2013). I was interested in exploring the specific
phenomenon of critical thinking skill development, therefore a qualitative study presented the
most appropriate framework to explore this topic in depth. As a result of the qualitative nature, I
utilized open-ended research questions, focused on a single concept, and collected information
from a variety of data collection processes during a specific period of time.
Qualitative studies have distinct characteristics that guide the empirical design.
According to Creswell (2013) qualitative studies are guided by the philosophical assumptions

65
within an interpretive framework. Four philosophical assumptions exist including ontological,
epistemological, axiological, and methodological. Ontological assumptions address the nature of
reality, with qualitative researchers accepting that multiple realities exist (Creswell, 2013).
Within the context of this study, multiple perspectives became evident through the data analysis
process where I identified the instructors’ differing perspectives regarding how and why they
designed and implemented the digital literacy curriculum to support critical thinking skill
development. While my conceptual framework influenced how I thought about the data, I
acknowledge that my data collection and analysis processes were unique to my conceptual
framework. Therefore, my analysis and findings are specific to how I approached the study, and I
acknowledge that alternate perspectives and findings exist. Epistemological assumptions
concern the researcher’s effort to become as immersed in the natural setting as possible
(Creswell, 2013). I collected data from multiple sources in an effort to provide a rich and robust
dataset that presented the course as accurately as possible. I interviewed the instructors,
observed multiple class sessions, and collected course artifacts so I could understand and explore
the intended and enacted curriculum. The axiological assumptions include the researcher’s
values and biases that influence the narrative and the data analysis process (Creswell, 2013). I
implemented strategies to address the two main validity threats concerning researcher bias and
reactivity which are discussed further in the credibility and trustworthiness sections below.
Lastly the methodological assumptions address the researcher’s experience in collecting and
analyzing data. I further explore this in the “Delimitations” section.
Methodological assumptions of qualitative research describe the inquiry process as
inductive and evolving (Creswell, 2013). The inductive nature of the qualitative research
experience results in the development of theories directly impacted by the research findings

66
(Harding, 2013). After implementing the data collection plan for my study, I engaged in an
analysis process where I transitioned from observations garnered from the data to generating
ideas in response to my research questions. In doing so I acquired a greater understanding of the
problem through the research process and consequently modified my research questions. The
four philosophical assumptions affect the qualitative research design, specifically how the
problem is presented, the formulation of the research questions, and the implementation design.
This qualitative study provided a holistic account of a particular phenomenon or concept,
specifically critical thinking skill development. The goal of this study was to utilize the themes
and patterns derived from the data analysis to contribute to a greater understanding of the
broader curricular and instructional approaches regarding how critical thinking skill development
was implemented within higher education contexts. A case study provides a rich exploration of
one unit or program (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). As such, a strong case study design may
be defined as particularistic and context-specific (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 2009). The nature of
the research problem and this study’s research questions necessitated a case study inquiry
method in that the case study structure offered an empirical approach for identifying and
exploring the nuances involved in advancing the knowledge of critical thinking development
within the higher education digital literacy curriculum. I opted for a collective case study, also
known as a multi-case study, in that I use multiple case studies to examine one issue (Creswell,
2013). A multiple case study design was implemented in order to gain the depth of insight
needed to address the research questions. Thus, data was collected for two different instructors
regarding how they approached the course design and implementation for their respective digital
literacy course. As a result of creating multiple case studies I was able to compare and contrast

67
different approaches and methods within course design and instructional implementation, that
resulted in a more robust data set and analysis than had I presented a single case study.
The unit of analysis for the study was the undergraduate digital literacy course, therefore
the course served as the unit of analysis for this study. By focusing the data collection on the
course the scope of examination and analysis were limited to the finite data available from the
course syllabi, classroom observations, interviews and course assignments. The limited data
sources were affected by time and activity and confined to one academic department, therefore
contributing the bounded nature of the case study. Specifically, this case study was bound by
time and type, with an examination of the specific lower division digital literacy courses during
the time period of one semester.
Sample Population
Setting
The University of Ample Sunshine (UAS) was purposefully selected as the site for this
research study. Five years prior to the implementation of this study, the university experienced
significant administrative leadership changes including a new university president and provost.
In December 2011 under the direction of the university’s new leadership, the UAS president and
the UAS Board of Trustees adopted a revised strategic vision for the university. The revised
plan included a three-part framework for the university’s educational curriculum, of which two
initiatives incorporated key elements of this research study: the importance and influence of
technology, especially the connection to digital and multimedia literacy, as well as the need for
students to develop critical thinking skillsets to effectively compete in the current global context
(UAS, Strategic Vision, 2011). The university’s strategic vision prioritized key elements of this

68
study, including digital literacy and critical thinking within the undergraduate curriculum,
therefore UAS was purposefully selected as the research site.
The UAS Digital Literacy (DL) department offered the majority of the university’s digital
literacy courses as evidenced by the department’s mission and course offerings, therefore I
focused my recruitment efforts with the DL department. The DL department was founded in
1998 as a research unit focusing on the exploration of educational programming within the areas
of networked, media, and digital literacies. However, the department had since developed into a
research center and academic department, offering bachelor of arts and doctor of philosophy
programs, as well as undergraduate minors, an honors program, and a graduate certificate. I
opted to target my recruitment efforts on the UAS Digital Literacy department as a result of the
robust digital literacy undergraduate course offerings available. Additionally, the lower division
courses were of particular interest as the student population would most likely attract lower
division students since these courses were included within the university general education
curriculum. Examining introductory, lower division courses was of interest as I assumed the
instructors would design and enact curriculum in ways that reflected a sensitivity to the students
who were more likely in earlier critical thinking development stages.
Participants
Patton (2002) notes that when samples are selected because they meet specific criteria the
researcher is using criterion sampling. In focusing my recruitment efforts on one academic
department I utilized purposeful sampling Merriam (2009) in order to explore digital literacy
course design at UAS. I began by meeting with the DL department chair to ask for her support
and address her questions and concerns. While the department chair supported my study, she
asked that I not contact the DL adjunct faculty due to workload and compensation concerns.

69
While there were four lower division courses, I prioritized collecting data on two sections of the
same DL lower division course so I could gather greater insight into the course design and
implementation of a specific course. This limitation combined with the department chair’s
request that I only work with full-time faculty limited my recruitment efforts to the two faculty
teaching the two sections of DL 100- Introduction to Digital Studies
7
. I emailed the two DL 100
faculty to ask for their participation and both agreed to participate in my study.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
The purpose of this study was to examine how instructors supported undergraduate
students’ critical thinking skill development within the context of a digital literacy course. As I
discussed in my conceptual framework I was interested in exploring how the interplay of course
design, instructional methods, and instructor belief systems provided opportunities to foster
critical thinking development (Merriam, 2009).
Table 1
Qualitative Data Collected
Teachers Number
of Formal
Interviews
Formal
interview
duration
Number
of
Informal
Interviews
(time)
Number of
Classroom
Observation
Days
Number of
Classroom
Observation
Hours
Types of
Artifacts
Collected
Brian 2 Approximately
1 hour to 1
hour and 10
minutes
2

5 days Range: 1 hour
and 40
minutes to 1
hour and 47
minutes
min
Syllabus,
Online
wiki
Marcus 2 Approximately
1 hour and 4
minutes to 1
hour 12
minutes

3 5 days Approximately
1 hour and 45
minutes to 1
hour and 54
minutes
Syllabus,
Online
wiki, in-
class
handouts

7
DL 100 is a pseudonym.

70
Note. Table 1 displays the type and quantity of data collected for each teacher.

In qualitative inquiry the researcher serves as the research instrument (Creswell, 2013;
Patton, 2002). I applied a constructivist approach as I implemented an instrumental case study.
In doing so, I utilized research tools that could appropriately capture the multiple approaches to
how digital literacy courses were designed and implemented. The tools utilized in this study
explored the DL 100 course design and instructional methods in relation to critical thinking skill
development.
In order to address the overarching question of How do digital literacy courses, as
implemented by instructors, foster students’ development of critical thinking skills?, data was
collected from faculty interviews, classroom observations, and artifacts including syllabi, the
course wiki, and any handout distributed in class (See Table 1). Utilizing multiple forms of data
provided the opportunity to identify shared themes that span all data sources (Creswell, 2013).
Furthermore, using multiple data sources assisted with triangulating the findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). For the purposes of data collection, I supplemented the overarching research
question with two sub-questions: 1) How does the structure of the course provide opportunities
to foster critical thinking skill development? and 2) How does the delivery of instruction provide
opportunities to foster critical thinking skill development? To answer the first sub-question
addressing, I analyzed data from the course syllabus, instructor interviews, classroom
observations, and artifacts. I used data from instructor interviews, classroom observations, and
artifacts to explore the second sub-question.
Interviews
The first data set included instructor interviews regarding the individual’s respective
section of the DL 100 course. Previous studies note that instructor expertise, familiarity with

71
course content and pedagogy affect course design and instructional methods (Mentkowski &
Strait, 1983; Moore, 2011; Tsui, 2001; Tsui, 2002; Voogt, 2010). In light of this research, and
in order to understand the instructor’s intentionality regarding how and why they approached the
enacted and intended DL 100 curriculum, I opted to interview both instructors twice, once before
at the start of the semester and again following the final observation. All interviews were
scheduled for 1-hour. The initial interview focused on collecting data that emphasized the
course design, including the course’s learning objectives, assignment design and selection. I
opted to interview the instructors a second time so I could ask any clarifying questions I had as a
result of the observations. The second interview emphasized the decisions surrounding
assignment design and the use of specific instructional approaches. Additionally, I periodically
informally interviewed the faculty after the completion of a class session to clarify something I
observed. Occasionally the instructor would meet with students immediately after class was
dismissed therefore I engaged in these post-class informal interviews if the instructor had an
opportunity to speak with me. These short, informal post-observation conversations allowed me
to ask clarifying questions about the types of activities and specific instructional approaches I
observed.
The two formal interviews utilized a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol that
I devised for this specific study. The purpose in using the semi-structured interview protocol
was to standardize the wording so all interviewees responded to the same set of questions,
thereby increasing the comparability of responses (Patton, 2002). The questions explored the
intentionality in structuring and devising a digital literacy course, as well as the specific
instructional methods utilized and the assignment purposes. With the permission of the
participant I audio recorded and took notes during each interview and took notes during the

72
interviews. I collected approximately 2o hours of interview data with each instructor and I
transcribed this data for the analysis process.
Observations
In order to gain a better understanding of how DL 100 was implemented I observed
multiple sessions of each class section and recorded data using an observation protocol I
designed for this study. The protocol was created using the research literature and my
conceptual framework in order to create a product that would assist in collecting the types of data
that would address my research questions. The field notes and observation cues were organized
according to the research literature addressing digital literacy courses and critical thinking. The
nature of the research questions required an onlooker perspective during the observation process.
This perspective inhibits the researcher from socially interacting with the participants in order to
remain neutral and record an accurate depiction of the relationships occurring in this public space
(Patton, 2002). As a result, I observed the classroom instruction but did not interact with the
students or instructor, as I recorded my notes using the protocol.
Prior to using my observation protocol for this study, I opted to pilot the protocol to
ensure it could be applied to DL 100 appropriately and would collect and organize the types of
information that would help me in addressing my research questions. Additionally, I wanted to
increase my familiarity in using the observation protocol. Creswell (2013) suggested piloting
protocols are options if the researcher has access and the opportunity to do so. After receiving
confirmation from Marcus that he would participate in my research study I informally met with
him for approximately 15 minutes to introduce my study, learn about the general structure of DL
100, and ask for his permission to observe his class so I could have a better sense of how the
class was implemented. I piloted the observation protocol during one full, one hour and 50-

73
minute, class session. After this classroom observation experience I realized that the types of
prompts included in the observation protocol draft were beneficial during the data collection
process, however, I needed greater experience in using the protocol in order to ensure I collected
the various types of data needed. During future observations, I realized I needed to pay more
attention to how many students were in the classroom, noting which students participated, as
well as increasing the frequency in which I recorded the time throughout the observation period.
I also confirmed I would type my observation notes instead of hand-writing them as I could more
accurately record information.
Each digital literacy course was formally observed for five class sessions. DL 100 was
offered once per week and scheduled for 1 hour and 50 minutes. I observed Brian and Marcus
once per week for five consecutive weeks. The five observations completed for each DL 100
section averaged approximately 1 hour 40 minutes to 1 hour 50 minutes and resulted in about 9
observation hours in each section. At the start of each observation, I drew a diagram of the room
to document the location of the students and the instructor. During the observation I recorded
narrative field notes using the observation protocol to document the action in the classroom. I
took note of which students participated in class, what the students were doing if they were not
responding to the instructor’s questions, the types of questions the instructor asked the student-
teacher dialogue, as well as the instructional tools utilized. Following an observation session, I
reviewed my notes and followed up with Marcus or Brian if I had questions via post-observation
informal interviews.
Artifacts
I collected course-related artifacts as these data sources provided evidence regarding the
course and assignment design. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note the importance of identifying

74
whether the data sources are primary or secondary sources. All artifacts collected were primary
sources as they were directly generated by the instructor for DL 100, and therefore I could use
them as evidence for exploring the extent to which students were expected to deploy complex
thinking skills and the extent to which faculty supported the development of these skills. I
collected documents such as course syllabi, class handouts, and content from the course wiki.
The artifacts provided insight regarding the course design and the instructional delivery, and the
extent to which critical thinking skill development was a focus.
Data Analysis Procedures
According to Patton (2002) the purpose of the study guides the analysis process. In turn
the goal of analysis is to make sense of the data and ultimately answer the research question
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For my study I opted for a multi-case study approach, where I
devised two case studies, one for each instructor, and then compared and contrasted the findings
from each study during the cross-case analysis. In doing so I was able to engage in a deep
examination of the research data and explore the extent to which the findings were shared or
differed amongst each instructor. This multi-case study process followed an inductive
qualitative design where the data analysis illuminated patterns and themes regarding an
intrinsically bounded system (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002).
Each case study was designed according to Patton’s (2002) three-step case study
construction model. The first phase included collecting the raw case data from each DL 100
course, including the instructor interviews, narrative field notes from the classroom observations,
and documents. I began assembling the data for both instructors by transcribing the interview
audio recordings and organizing the observation notes and documents so they could be

75
accessible during the analysis process. I stored all data in a password protected file on my
computer.
After organizing the raw data, I began the second phase of the case study where I devised
a case record for each instructor. I opted to analyze the data for one DL instructor at a time. A
case record is created by organizing and classifying the data (Patton, 2002). During this process
I used a combination of coding and analytic memos to assist me with identifying pertinent
information as I analyzed the data sources. I began by using Dedoose, an online digital analysis
software, to engage in in vivo coding. As I read the data I used analytic tools suggested by
Corbin and Strauss (2008) to identify pertinent information to my study. I applied the following
strategies: questioning, making comparisons, looking at language, and drawing upon personal
experience. Each of these strategies provided a specific insight into the data and assisted me
with identifying the relevant data elements that addressed my research questions. I then selected
specific terms and phrasing from the data sources to use as my codes, thereby engaging in in
vivo coding. Examples of the in vivo codes I used included “digital use,” “analyzing,” and
“interconnectedness.” In doing so I broke the data into smaller, more manageable pieces of
information which I then incorporated into analytic memos.
As I started reflecting on the potential meaning of the in vivo codes I captured my
thoughts and insights via analytic memos. I wrote analytic memos for each interview and
classroom observation, and one comprehensive memo for the course artifacts. As Saldaña
(2009) noted, analytic memos are similar to journal entries, and include the researcher’s
reflections and any emerging patterns. Harding (2013) suggested completing a thorough, line-
by-line, reading of all transcripts to be analyzed. I followed Harding’s suggestion and began this
critically reflective process by reading through the data source one time through. I immediately

76
wrote responses to each of the research sub-questions based on my initial reactions to the
reading. The sub-questions addressed how the course design and instruction, therefore I
organized my analysis according to the data that addressed the course design and the
instructional delivery categories. During my second read I again utilized the analytic tools
suggested by Corbin and Strauss (2008) and noted any a priori codes that I gleaned from the
conceptual framework. I derived the a priori codes from the research literature and in alignment
from my sub-questions addressing the course design and instructional delivery. Examples of the
a priori codes included, “beliefs,” “students’ abilities,” scaffolding tools.” These tools guided
how I engaged with the data sources, using a combination of a priori and in vivo codes to mark
any phrases or words that could be significant in answering my research questions. Following
this second read, I wrote an analytic memo exploring my thoughts in response to each research
sub-question and noted the corresponding evidence. I then completed a subsequent read of the
same data source and wrote a second response to each research question, noting the date of the
memo, as well as the specific text that supported or contradicted what I gleaned from the data.
I analyzed the data sources in a specific sequence, beginning with the observations,
interviews, and concluding with document analysis. From the classroom observation analysis, I
noted how the instructor scaffolded the in-class learning experience, specifically how he
interacted with the students and the tools utilized to engage students in the learning process.
From the instructor interviews I was able to examine the instructor’s decision-making process
regarding the course design and instructional delivery, exploring the factors influencing what he
planned to do and why he prioritized those elements. As a result of this process I realized how
the instructor’s beliefs regarding students’ critical thinking skills regularly influenced how the
instructor enacted the course and the instructional tools utilized. The classroom observations and

77
instructor interviews provided evidence regarding the extent to which instructors’ intentionally
supported students’ critical thinking development. The document analysis provided evidence of
whether the tools utilized had the potential to scaffold the students’ complex thinking
development. By analyzing the observations, interviews, and documents in a specific order I
was able to see how the course was enacted and then explore the intended curriculum,
specifically the instructors’ intentionality in designing and implementing the course. Once all
data sources for one instructor were analyzed I wrote a final analytic memo that summarized my
findings in response to the research sub-questions for one instructor. I then repeated this same
analytic memo writing process for all data sources for the second instructor.
Once I completed the case record for each instructor I engaged in the final step of the
case study process by writing the case study narrative. In order to write the narrative, I compiled
the findings from the memos and identified the larger patterns and salient points gleaned from
the analysis process. I discussed the findings and correlating evidence for each instructor,
presenting the information as themes and subthemes in relation to the research sub-questions.
In addition to presenting two case studies, the final stage of the analysis process for this
study included a cross-case analysis where I compared and contrasted the findings for each
instructor. This allowed me to gain deeper insight into the data in relation to my research
questions and also had a direct impact on my conceptual framework. During the analysis of the
instructor interviews I noticed evidence of the instructor’s belief system impacting why and how
each instructor enacted their course. In response to the interview question asking the instructors
to identify and explain their instructional methodology choices each instructor gave examples of
the strategies they use and why. When explaining why they choose to use those methodologies
the instructors reflected on their beliefs about their students’ skillsets. Analysis of the

78
observation data correlated with the interview data, reaffirming the significance of the
instructor’s belief systems on the ways in which the faculty enacted the course. Similarly, the
instructional delivery and the course design were directly shaped by the complex thinking the
instructors expected the students to do. Thus, I realized the significance of the instructor’s
beliefs regarding students’ critical thinking skills and opted to incorporate this concept within my
conceptual framework. The cross-case analysis presented the final findings from analysis
process as themes and sub-themes in relation to the research questions.
Ethics
In order to strengthen validity and reliability the researcher must address potential ethical
concerns with the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In light of these concerns, I created
interview and observation protocols in light of Patton’s (2002) “Ethical Issues Checklist.” I
enacted specific measures before and after data collection as well as during analysis to support
confidentiality for my study and protect the participants’ safety.
Before conducting my study, I submitted a research study application to the UAS
Institutional Review Board and after receiving my approval I began soliciting support from the
university faculty. When I contacted the potential participants, I shared my study’s IRB
approved disclosure form via email attachment so the faculty were aware of the purpose of the
study, voluntary nature of the instructors’ participation, the potential risks of participating in my
study, and my plan for maintaining confidentiality of records via password-protected file on my
computer. The two instructors I contacted voluntarily consented to participate. Once the
instructors agreed to participate I also shared the disclosure information sheet in person,
reiterated that their participation would not be compensated but that their participation would

79
contribute to a gaining understanding about the role of critical thinking skill development, and
offered to answer any questions they had about the study.
During and after the data collection I enacted measures to support confidentiality. I
maintained the confidentiality of the participants by using pseudo names for all instructors and
assigning numbers to the students during my observations. Since my study focused on the
instructors’ actions and thought processes there was no potential harm to the students. To ensure
the students’ comfort with my presence, the instructors allowed me class time to introduce
myself and my study at the beginning of the semester so I could address students’ potential
questions. As a final safeguard, I opted to communicate with my dissertation chair throughout
the data collection process to review my interview and observation experiences, discussing any
questions I had about the types of data I was collecting.
The ethical practices of this study reflected my ethical standards as the principal
researcher. It was my responsibility to engage in the data collection and analysis processes with
a neutral perspective. In order to do so, I regularly discussed my analysis and findings with my
dissertation chair to verify whether I was jeopardizing the data with some level of bias or
judgment. The instructors trusted me and supported my study to the extent that they invited me
to complete as many observations as needed and connect with them after the conclusion of the
formal data collection process if I required additional interview opportunities. The instructors’
trust in me and my study procedures reinforced my care for the participants and intention to do
my due diligence to present collect and present the data with the highest degree of accuracy
possible. The combination of intentional planning via IRB approved research study and
maintaining clear communication with the participants and my dissertation chair provided a
structured environment for enacting an ethical research process to the best of my ability.

80
enacting a research study that was sensitive to their needs while remaining true to the research
questions.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Generalizability and truthfulness may directly affect the findings of this study. The study
was generalizable only to the UAS DL 100 course and therefore could not be generalized outside
of the study. While I collected a rich data set all data sources were connected to one semester
and did not represent a long-term data collection process to examine the extent to which the
findings applied to future iterations of the DL 100 course. Additionally, I was unable to control
the truthfulness of the participants’ responses. My potential participant pool only included two
instructors with varying degrees of DL 100 instructional experience. Therefore, the differences
of the instructors’ teaching experience may have affected their familiarity with the course
concepts and awareness of teaching and learning strategies.
Delimitations
As the sole researcher for this qualitative study the analysis and findings are dependent
on my knowledge and biases. I designed the interview and observation protocols and collected
the data during the in-class observations. Therefore, the instrument tools and their use were
directly dependent on my training and skills. As a novice researcher the protocols and data
collected was bounded by my limited research experience. Although I modified the conceptual
framework to include teacher beliefs this was done after the data collection process. Had I
realized the importance of teacher beliefs earlier I would have asked additional specific teacher
belief-related questions during the interviews that would have given me more insight into the
instructors’ thought processes regarding the DL 100 course design and enactment. Additionally,

81
during the interviews I opted to use a semi-structured interview protocol and therefore I asked
additional questions of one instructor and not the other, impacting the type of interview data
collected from each instructor. Similarly, during the classroom observations I missed some
observational data as I could not capture all of the student-faculty dialogue as well as the
students’ perceived level of in-class engagement. Due to the nature of the classroom set-up I
often sat in the same location of the classroom during whole class discussions and therefore
could only capture the dialogue that was closest to me.
Lastly, this qualitative study is bounded to DL 100 offered by UAS. The course design
and implementation are unique to the course, therefore the results regarding course design and
implementation cannot be applied to all digital literacy courses.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility and validity of a qualitative study is dependent on the researcher’s
competency (Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2002). Since I was the sole researcher of this study the
analysis and findings are reflective of my perceptions and biases, I implemented strategies to
address the two main validity threats concerning researcher bias and reactivity. Research bias is
concerned with the selection of data to fit my existing theory and preconceptions while reactivity
addressed the influence I, as the researcher, had on the setting or individuals studied.
I implemented specific strategies to strengthen the validity of my analysis and findings.
The strategies utilized were selected from those recommended by Maxwell (2013) and include
member checks, triangulation, rich data, comparison, and peer review. During the interviews I
used member checking to verify the accuracy of my understanding and to minimize researcher
bias and reactivity. During all four interviews I verified with the instructor whether my
understanding of the instructor’s response was accurate. I used triangulation to minimize the

82
potential for skewed analysis. The multiple data points provide the opportunity to triangulate the
data and discover important themes in light of the research questions while ultimately
contributing to the strength of the study (Patton, 2002). I opted to collect data from three
sources, interviews, observations, and documents, in order to explore the ways in which bias or
error may exist and triangulate in terms of validity threats. With each data source there was
concern for potential invalidity: interviews and documents could be affected by self-reporting
bias and the observations could have been affected by my assumptions affecting how I perceived
the data. The interviews and documents could have provided a limited presentation regarding
how the instructor self-reported the ways in which he organized the intended curriculum. The
observations, however, presented evidence as to how the instructor enacted the curriculum.
Therefore, while the interviews and documents presented a glimpse into what the teachers said
they did in-class, through observations of the in-class instruction I was able to collect evidence
regarding how their curricular plans were implemented. By remaining aware of the potential
bias of each data source I was able to triangulate the data in terms of validity threats.
The triangulation process was possible due to the rich data collected. In Table 1 above I
presented an audit trail detailing the data collected to demonstrate the credibility of the study. I
conducted four interviews, two with each instructor, that lasted for about an hour each and I
analyzed the transcriptions for each interview. Additionally, I observed five classes of each
course for the entire 1 hour and 50-minute class session. I opted to observe multiple class
sessions in order to ensure the data I collected was robust enough to represent the variety of
learning experiences occurring in the classroom. My insight during the data collection and
analysis processes was directly affected by professional background in teaching. I am
empathetic to the demands of course design and implementation, and as a result, I was sensitive

83
to the presence of specific learning and instructional strategies that were included within the
course design and implementation.
Finally, I utilized the comparison and peer review strategies to minimize researcher bias
and reactivity. I opted for a cross-case analysis design, thereby comparing the analysis of two
case studies. In doing so I was able to increase the potential for internal generalizability of my
findings. I also regularly discussed my analysis process with my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie
Slayton. In doing so, she provided insight and asked clarifying questions to ensure that I was
limiting my influence in the ways I understood the data. She also suggested alternative ways of
understanding the data that challenged me to confirm or revise my analysis. Using
triangulation, rich data, comparison, and peer review strategies provided additional opportunities
to make connections amongst data and strengthen confidence in the insights I gleaned during the
research process.
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to address a andragogical and curricular research gap within
the context of the collegiate classroom by combining contemporary digital literacy course design
with the traditional learning objective of critical thinking development. Two DL 100 courses
served as the units of analysis for this multi-case study. I collected data from the interviews,
classroom observations, and course documents. During data analysis I engaged in an inductive
process where I transitioned from specific observations to generating ideas in response to my
research questions. In order to make sense of these thoughts I applied these ideas to my
conceptual framework. My conceptual framework influenced how I thought about the data and
provided additional perspectives.

84
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to explore how instructors fostered opportunities for
critical thinking skill development within the context of an undergraduate digital literacy course.
Specifically, this study aimed to understand the extent to which instructors approached the
course design and instructional delivery in ways that supported students in the development of
these skills. The first three chapters discussed the literature surrounding instructor beliefs,
critical thinking course design and enactment, scaffolding and constructivism, and digital
literacy. I identified, collected, and analyzed data in ways that were responsive and in alignment
with my research question and sub-questions addressing critical thinking skill development
within the context of a digital literacy course. In this chapter I present the findings to the
research question and organized according to the research sub-questions.
This dissertation was a qualitative study utilizing a multi-case study approach to compare
the two cases. The case studies were comprised of two undergraduate instructors who taught
separate sections of the same undergraduate lower division digital literacy course at the same
university. For both courses I collected data from classroom observations, instructor interviews,
and course artifacts such as syllabi, course wikis, and student project examples. I completed five
observations, for a total of 9 observation hours, for each course section.
The following section includes a brief description of the university and the DL 100
course serving as the unit of analysis for this study. In the subsequent sections I provide an
analysis and discussion regarding the findings of each case study followed by the final section of
the chapter where I present a cross-case analysis of the two case studies.

85
Description of the University of Ample Sunshine
The study was conducted at the University of Ample Sunshine (UAS) located on the west
coast of the United States. During the 2015-2016 academic year UAS enrolled approximately
18,800 undergraduate students (Office of Institutional Research, 2016). The university offered
bachelor’s degrees, post bachelor’s degrees, certificates, master’s degrees, post-master’s
certificates, and doctoral degrees. Eight-eight percent of the first-time, first-year freshmen in fall
2015 were within the top 10th of their high school graduating class and 59.2% of the first-time,
first-year freshmen had a high school grade point average of at least 3.75. The courses were
taught by approximately 4,000 full-time faculty, of whom approximately 1,000 were tenured,
with a student to faculty ratio of approximately 8:1.
This study examined two sections of the same digital literacy course, DL 100-
Introduction to Digital Studies. This introductory course did not have course prerequisites and
maintained an open enrollment status for students from every undergraduate major. Both
sections of the course enrolled predominantly first and second year students from a wide array of
majors ranging from media arts and communication to architecture and business. Each class
section was held in the same classroom once per week for 1 hour and 50 minutes. The
classroom’s physical organization was comprised of a large square table in the center of the
room where approximately ten students could sit. Computer stations lined three walls of the
perimeter of the room, with the fourth wall serving as the location for the projection screen.
Students who sat at the computer stations in lieu of sitting at the center table, turned their chair to
face the front of the room. The faculty member always began the course sitting at the head of the
center table and would conduct the class from a sitting or standing position. All students in both
sections of the course brought laptops with them to class. The front of the room included a

86
computer desk and desktop computer located to the left side, with the projector screen displayed
in the center.
Case Study 1: Brian
Brian was a non-tenure track assistant professor at UAS for one year having previously
worked as a part-time lecturer and full-time staff member at UAS. Prior to his professional
experience with the university he worked as a director and producer of short films and music
videos and ran his own production company. Brian previously co-taught DL 100 for one
semester and at the time of this study he was teaching the course on his own for the first time.
Brian said his department presented him with a predominantly standardized DL 100 syllabus,
permitting him to make minimal modifications to the course. In response to how much
flexibility he was given Brian responded, “Almost none. I’m really plugging into a course that
exists. We’ll see moving forward. I’ve tried to simplify it at least towards the end.” During an
interview Brian explained he “simplif[ied]” the course by removing a 5-minute presentation
occurring at the end of the semester that was included in the syllabus template. Brian believed
he had limited permission to alter the course design according to his preferences and alluded to
the fact that the department assumed the standardized syllabus provided the appropriate structure
for faculty to implement its contents. Brian explained the absence of department oversight:
No one’s checking on me. And part of that is a good thing because it’s like, here’s all the
materials. Oh okay, I just need to learn a few things I don’t know so well…[However]
there aren’t like pre-planned presentations you have to use.
Although Brian made minimal modifications to the course he acknowledged that he was not fully
comfortable in advocating for specific changes as he had limited experience teaching the course.
“At this point I don’t feel like I’m an expert in this course so I’m interested in seeing how it

87
plays out and see where it needs to go in my opinion.” Thus, while Brian preferred to make
additional changes he was open to implementing the course as currently designed and implying
he would suggest future modifications.
For the remainder of this section I present two findings and three themes that emerged in
response to the overarching research question that asked, how do undergraduate digital literacy
courses, as implemented by instructors, foster opportunities to develop students’ critical thinking
skills? I organized my analysis according to course design and instructional delivery, the topics
comprising my two sub-questions. First, I offer the answer to the first sub-question regarding the
course design, which I present as one finding with three themes. This first finding suggests that
DL 100 utilized an immersion course framework as evident in the course design that expected
students to engage in higher order thinking skills without intentionally supporting students in the
development of these skills. The three themes further unpack the concept of course design by
presenting evidence from the syllabus, projects and course wiki. The first theme suggests the
structure of the interaction during class time as described in the syllabus implied students would
engage in critical thinking without support. The second theme proposes the projects were
designed with the expectation students would engage in critical thinking without support. The
third theme associated with the course design is the course wiki assumed students could engage
in critical thinking without support. I then present the answer to my second research question
addressing the delivery of instruction. The second finding proposes that during instructional
opportunities Brian expected students to deploy critical thinking skills although he did not
overtly develop students’ critical thinking skills. Brian did not intentionally scaffold the learning
environment for critical thinking skill development which in turn ultimately undermined the

88
students’ ability to make meaning. The subsequent section addresses the research and provides a
discussion of the findings and any applicable themes.
Finding 1: Course Design Required Students Engage Higher Order Thinking Skills
The DL 100 course design required that students be able to engage in higher order
thinking. However, Brian did not approach the course design in a way that intentionally
supported students’ development or deepening of critical thinking skills. While, critical thinking
instruction may be incorporated into the curriculum in a myriad of ways (Abrami et al., 2008;
Abrami et al., 2015; Ennis, 1989; Tsui, 2001, 2002), the approach enacted by the course, and by
extension, by Brian, was to embed course content and critical thinking skills. Ennis (1989)
classified critical thinking instruction into four categories, general, infusion, immersion and
mixed. DL 100 reflected an immersion course design where subject content and critical thinking
were combined, and critical thinking was not explicitly taught. Evidence of the immersion
design framework approach was apparent in the DL 100 syllabus, instructor interviews, and
classroom observations. The data gleaned from these three sources suggested that the course
design required students to utilize higher order thinking skills however the instructor did not
approach the course design in a way that overtly develop students’ critical thinking skills, nor did
he utilize scaffolded tools. Instead, the structure of interaction, the projects, and the course wiki
provide evidence that each element required students to deploy critical thinking but did not
overtly support students in the development of these skills.
Theme 1: The structure of interaction during class time as described in the syllabus
implied that students would engage in critical thinking without providing the support
for the development of those skills. One way the immersion of critical thinking was reflected in

89
DL 100 was the syllabus that communicated the expectations for students to be prepared to
engage in the material using higher order thinking skills. For example, the syllabus stated,
Be prepared to speak critically about your work, your classmate’s work, and ongoing
dialogues in new media, other disciplines and critical subjects that interest you. During
critiques we will view/read/discuss work produced for the class and in-class engagement
is particularly emphasized.
The language in the syllabus implied a shared understanding regarding what speaking critically
meant and that the students had the ability to do this. Similarly, the statement that students
would engage in critiques implied the students knew what a critique was and how to do this
activity. A critique requires students to challenge or question the present topic, which is an
activity frequently associated with teaching strategies that engage students in critical thinking
(Tsui, 2002; Abrami et al., 2015). Brian stated he had limited influence over the syllabus
therefore he did not believe he was empowered to make significant modifications to the course
design. The inclusion of these expectations in the syllabus can be associated with Brian’s
support of these expectations, as he was willing to make a minor modification to the number of
projects, yet he did not opt to alter the types of thinking expected from students enrolled in the
course. He opted to retain the descriptions of the in-class activities presented in the syllabus that
required students to engage in complex cognitive thinking but did not provide information or
explain how the students were to develop these skills. Thus, critical thinking was expected to
occur within the immersive course framework rather than an explicit context where Brian would
have provided information regarding the process in which students would develop the necessary
skills.

90
The immersive course framework was reinforced when Brian discussed his expectations
for students’ classroom participation during an interview. His expectations aligned with those
communicated in the syllabus regarding in-class engagement. Brian stated his expectation for
students to develop critical thinking skills through conversations in-class as they reviewed
project drafts from current students and project examples from previous students. Brian
explained,
…for instance, all the critical thinking is in the analysis of what’s been created or in the
examples of what we’re looking at. I want them to be able to see what’s there, describe
what’s there, start unpacking how it has been created, like literally created, what were the
decisions that were made- design, content, meaning- behind what they want the audience
to have. I want them to understand from that level, but I also want them to express their
opinion as to what they might shift about it, what they think they can improve it in their
mind’s eye. Now whether or not they like it, that’s irrelevant…
In his statement, “all the critical thinking is in the analysis of what’s been created or in the
examples of what we’re looking at” Brian expressed his belief that students engaged in critical
thinking by participating in the class activities. This belief was later reiterated during the
interview when he stated, “in that process you develop critical thinking skills.” In alignment
with an immersive approach, Brian assumed students developed the necessary skills through
participation in activities that implicitly expected the use of critical thinking skills. He did not
prioritize intentionally utilizing scaffolds to guide students in incrementally developing the
necessary skills so that they would be able to constructed meaning. He assumed the learning
occurred as the result of participation in the activities which does not align with the work of
Anthony (1996) that suggested students’ participation in activities, in the absence of quality

91
intellectual engagement, is not associated with long-term knowledge construction. Thus, in this
example, Brian considered student participation alone as sufficient instructional support. In the
absence of intentionally guiding students through the necessary thinking skill development Brian
communicated he was not responsible for or did not know how to intentionally guide students in
constructing meaning through the use of critical thinking skills. He continued to explain his
expectations for how students engaged in the act of analysis during class time stating,
I want them to be able to see what’s there, describe what’s there, start unpacking how it
has been created, like literally created, what were the decisions that were made- design,
content, meaning- behind what they want the audience to have.
Identifying the goal of a project implied the use of analysis skills in that students needed the
ability to look at an issue and reduce it to its core argument. Additionally, students also had to
use evaluating skills when they presented and substantiated their opinion regarding the goal of
the image, the creator’s methods, and alternative approaches. Analyzing and evaluating skills
are associated with the act of critical thinking (Anderson et al., 2001). The expectation for
students to enact higher order thinking skills, suggested students were required to use critical
thinking skills in DL 100. While students were provided opportunities to practice these complex
cognitive skills in an effort to construct knowledge they were expected to arrive to class with at
least a basic understanding of the analysis and evaluation skills necessary to examine the creation
of media. He acknowledged that the complexity of these activities would challenge students
however he did not provide an explanation for how he planned to support students to develop
these skills. Again, he assumed that through participation in various activities students would
enact critical thinking skills. In the absence of explicit instruction as to how to engage in these
complex tasks the course was enacted with an immersive course design.

92
In addition, Brian communicated his expectation that students would engage in complex
thinking during an in-class session. For example, while introducing the skills necessary to
complete an upcoming assignment Brian stated to the class,
When you’re a creator and not just a consumer you have to make all sorts of choices in
these projects…why am I choosing this font? This color? Why am I affecting the image?
You can’t do it just because it looks good. That doesn’t fly. I want you using some of the
stuff we talk about and discuss. You’re going to defend it. You should cite just like
anyone else. Some of you are better at this than others…During week 4 [your] image
[assignment] is due. I’ll give you some readings regarding how to think through the
assignments. It’s three weeks from today. Any questions?
Brian communicated to the students that they would think critically as they created their class
projects, engaging in the complex thinking skills of analysis and justification. Brian
acknowledged that simply stating whether the students liked a project was not sufficient, thereby
communicating the expectation that students were to actively engage in the construction of
knowledge. Instead he expected them to apply what they learned in class, stating “[use] some of
the stuff we talk about.” He required them to explain and support their design choices by
incorporating the reading and media theory, and in doing so, the students engaged in the complex
cognitive acts of analysis and evaluation. Brian indirectly acknowledged that not all students
were equally well positioned to complete these complex tasks as evident in his decision to
provide reading material as a form of a cognitive scaffold to support students in constructing
meaning. In doing so, he communicated an awareness that students needed additional context
and information in order to complete the tasks. However, he assumed students would know how
to properly use the readings to support their learning and articulate their argument. Creating

93
learning contexts that do not teach students how to develop the necessary critical thinking skills
through the use of scaffolded tools merely provides access to learning strategies but does not
account for students understanding how to use the strategy in ways that construct meaning
(Anthony, 1996). Consistent with sociocultural theory, the student-instructor interaction is key
in this context for modeling how to use these readings to provide the necessary skill development
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). The absence of intentional support while students were engaged in
complex thinking reaffirmed the classification of DL 100 as an immersive course.
Theme 2: The projects expected students to engage in critical thinking without
providing the support for the development of those skills. Incorporating learning outcomes is
associated with supporting students’ critical thinking development (Abrami et al., 2008; Halpern,
2001; Pithers & Soden, 2010) however, learning outcomes were absent from the DL 100
syllabus. Consequently, the omission of clearly articulated learning outcomes implied the
syllabus lacked a support system for students to understand the instructor’s expectations for
thinking and development as they completed the four DL 100 projects. The absence of learning
outcomes suggested a gap in communication between what the instructor expected the students
to do and the types of learning the students were expected to accomplish through the completion
of the projects. This disconnect has consequences for students in that not all students are well
positioned to engage in the types of thinking required by the course (Halpern, 2001). Learning
outcomes are a form of instructional support, and ultimately empower students from all academic
backgrounds as outcomes communicate the learning expectations as well as inform the students
of the types of thinking they will utilize and develop.
Although learning outcomes were omitted, Anderson et al. (2001) suggested that
evaluation criteria provide evidence of the types of cognitive processes students will engage in

94
throughout the course. While evaluation criteria are not a substitute for learning outcomes they
communicate the types of skills and quality of assignments the instructor expects students to
deploy and produce, therefore the criteria serve as support for students’ learning. The evaluation
criteria listed in the DL 100 syllabus included four categories: Conceptual Core, Research
Component, Form and Content, and Creative Realization. The Conceptual Core category listed
the elements needed to present a clear message within a project. The Research Component
addressed the depth and breadth of research resources referenced and utilized to develop the
assignment. The Form and Content criteria included the elements associated with presenting a
cohesive design while Creative Realization addressed the skills associated with applying design
principles in an innovative and novel manner. While each category contained three specific
evaluation statements all evaluation criteria shared an expectation for students to demonstrate the
use of higher order thinking skills. The following sections analyze select evaluation criteria from
the Conceptual Core and Form and Content categories that I selected as representative of the
complex thinking expected across categories.
Within the Conceptual Core category, the evaluation criteria of “the project’s controlling
idea must be apparent” suggested the expectation for students to engage in higher order thinking.
Anderson et al. (2001) suggested an examination of the verb and noun phrases utilized in a
learning objective or assessment criteria identifies the cognitive processes. Without additional
context or explanation, the notion of an apparent “controlling idea” was ambiguous and ill
defined. While an explicit definition was absent it could be inferred that the purpose of this
evaluation criteria was to determine the extent to which the student selected and communicated

95
his
8
desired message through the assignment. The importance of communicating the project’s
message was affirmed by the instructor during an interview. While discussing how he
approached the evaluation process Brian explained, “I always tell them I’m not grading them on
the final beauty of whatever it is they’re making. It’s about whether they can prove their theory
or incorporate the concepts in such a way that it makes sense.” Brian’s commentary suggested
that a central focus of the evaluation process was determining the students’ ability to
communicate the central message of their project and to substantiate their position while
presenting a cohesive argument. The ability to present an argument required students to analyze
the concepts discussed in class and evaluate the material to determine the point of view they
would like to communicate. In order to analyze concepts students had to use cognitive skills
associated with what Anderson et al. (2001), refer to as “attributing,” a subtheme of analyzing,
where students determine a point of view. Once students deconstructed the topic they devised
their own perspective or the “controlling idea” for the project. This process required students to
create a novel product, thereby enacting skills within the “producing” subtheme, affiliated with
the most complex cognitive category of “creating” (Anderson et al., 2001). To communicate the
“controlling idea” of the project, the student articulated his theme through the creation of a text-
image composition and in doing so they demonstrated the higher order thinking skills of
analyzing and creating. The evaluation criteria included in the syllabus assumed students were
capable of deploying the necessary critical thinking skills.
These complex cognitive skills were further apparent in the project descriptions included
in the wiki. The first design assignment of the semester required students to create a text-image

8
For the purposes of this dissertation I opted to use “he” and “his” when referring to the student in pronoun and
possessive pronoun forms. Since the two instructor participants of this study were males I opted for consistency
when referring to students in singular form. I use “student” with the understanding that the reference applies across
all genders.

96
composite accompanied by a written analysis statement, referred to as a Statement of Approach.
The written analysis was explained in the online DL 100 wiki as:
A 3-paragraph (minimum) Statement of Approach that addresses: the significance of the
project (why you chose the image(s) and the subject matter of project); an analysis of
how the work critiques broader cultural themes and social practices, with an explanation
of the “historical significance” of the foundational image(s) (engage your own research
and the theoretical issues discussed in the course); and your strategies of visual
interpretation (the design choices you made and how they transmit meaning).
As communicated in the description of the Statement of Approach students were expected to
write their critical analysis of the “broader cultural themes and social practices.” In order to
present the “historical significance” of an image, students had to determine the author’s point of
view, bias, and values communicated in the image. According to Anderson et al. (2001) these
skills were associated with “attributing,” a subtheme of the “Analyze” category. Additionally,
students were required to provide a rationale for their approach and design choices. Devising the
project’s message and determining the ideas and approaches best suited to communicate the
message were skills associated with “designing,” a subtheme of the “create” category that
encapsulates the most complex cognitive skills. Thus, within the first DL 100 project of the
semester students were expected to utilize the higher order thinking skills of analyzing and
creating.
Similar to the Conceptual Core category, the evaluation criteria within the Form and
Content category required students to engage in complex thinking. Specifically, the evaluation
criteria outlining the expectation that “the project’s design decisions must be deliberate,
controlled, and defensible.” was selected as a statement representative of the complex cognitive

97
processes students were expected to demonstrate throughout the course. As students engage in
complex thinking they often utilize multiple higher order thinking skills to complete a task
(Anderson et al., 2001). The evaluation criteria expecting students to have “deliberate,
controlled, and defensible” design decisions necessitated the use of multiple higher order
thinking skills such as analyzing and creating. The ability to have a clear project design required
students to be able to analyze the purpose of the project, then identify the specific approach, and
articulate a rationale. For the student to select the design approaches he wanted to use, he had to
differentiate amongst the design options to determine which would be best for their specific
project. “Differentiating” is a subtheme of the “Analyze” category and associated with the
ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant material (Anderson et al., 2001). Once the student
identified their preferred approach they decided how to incorporate the design approach within
their project. In doing so they were producing a final product and consequently engaging in the
higher order thinking skill of creating.
Critical thinking research suggests that effective critical thinking instruction includes a
combination of opportunities for students to explore, engage, and practice a skill followed by
experiences where students transfer the knowledge to a novel context (Halpern, 2001; Marin &
Halpern, 2010). Brian frequently designed learning opportunities for students to practice
utilizing specific skills. While students were expected to produce projects where the design
decisions were “deliberate, controlled, and defensible” Brian provided in class opportunities to
practice these skills through whole class discussions. Brian explained how he saw critical
thinking practiced and developed during in-class analysis activities, stating during an interview:
It’s about what do you think was the goal behind the creator and what did they do to

98
achieve that goal and how do you think they could have done that differently. And in that
process you develop critical thinking skills, you’re forced to describe that.
The ability to identify “the goal behind the creator and what did they do to achieve that goal”
necessitated analysis skills. Students reviewed a piece of media and utilized their knowledge of
media theory combined with design techniques learned in class to complete the task. Through
the engagement in these activities students practiced analysis. Furthermore, students had to
explain what the creator “could have done…differently.” The act of identifying what the
creators could have changed required students to evaluate the creator’s methods, utilizing their
knowledge of media theory and design principles to determine areas for improvement. As a
result of this mental activity the students engaged in evaluation. Analysis and evaluation are
complex thinking skills (Anderson et al., 2001). The purpose of the in-class analysis activities
was for students to practice the analysis skills they would utilize when creating their own
projects. Thus, the in-class activities served as cognitive scaffolds for students to practice the
skills they would use during the projects in order to construct meaning. Through the Statement
of Approach written assignment, students articulated the intention behind their project by
explaining their thought process and providing a rationale for their decisions. In class, the
students practiced the analysis and evaluation skills needed to create their individual projects.
The Statement of Approach provided a written representation and explanation of what the
student did during their project, thereby students articulated the complex skills practiced in class
and applied during the creation of their own projects. Thus, the Form and Content evaluation
criteria reflected the students’ development of critical thinking skills as they completed
individual projects.

99
While aspects of the course were designed for students to practice in-class the complex
skills necessary for their own projects, there was a lack of intentionality to overtly develop those
skills. Brian alluded to his implicit approach to developing critical thinking skills by stating,
“…in that process you develop critical thinking skills.” He assumed that through the act of
participating in these activities and assignments students would acquire or develop the necessary
critical thinking skills. Yet as research studies have demonstrated, critical thinking is best
developed through intentional instructional action as students construct meaning (Abrami et al.,
2008; Halpern, 1999, 2001). While the course design suggested students would engage in
scaffolded instructional supports as evident with the cognitive scaffolds included in the in-class
dialogue opportunities and the Statement of Approach activity, the lack of intentionally guiding
students through the process of constructing meaning through these tasks presented an
environment where not all students may have been successful. Creating opportunities for
students to engage in specific activities provides the space, yet not the structure, for students to
engage in these skills. Explicit lessons addressing the process of developing the necessary skills,
such as discussing an evaluation rubric during class time so students are aware of the types of
thinking needed (Cargas et al., 2017), are associated with gains in critical thinking skill
development. When the learning expectations and skill development are implicit there is a
concern as to whether all students will be able to successfully develop the necessary skills.
Evidence from the syllabus and instructor interview communicated that Brian expected
students to engage in higher order thinking activities; however, given the immersive course
design and absent learning outcomes, he expected students to do so with minimal support and
direction. When asked about whether students could be successful in his class, Brian responded,

100
They’ll get there if they’re by themselves. I actually have a lot of faith in that you can
introduce basic concepts, the entry level pieces of information, to accomplish the task and
students will be pretty resourceful to get to the end.
Brian utilized a standardized, one-size-fits-all perspective to learning that included limited
scaffolds built into the course design and implementation. Specifically, he assumed students
would meet learning expectations on their own if he provided access to foundational concepts
and tools. In removing himself from actively seeking to understand his students learning needs
he enacted a more instructor-centered belief system. From this instructor-centered perspective
he believed the students were capable of engaging in critical thinking to the degree and manner
he expected. However, Halpern (2001) and Marin and Halpern (2010) suggest that not all
students are equally positioned to engage in learning. The challenge of supporting students’
thinking is exacerbated when an instructor is unaware of his students’ specific learning needs.
While Brian provided opportunities for students to practice critical thinking skills, he assumed
students were well positioned to engage in the learning environment. Therefore, he did not
emphasize overt instruction because he believed the structure he designed would be sufficient to
guide students through the necessary learning. Thus, Brian expected students to have the ability
to engage in critical thinking without explicit and repeated guidance. As a result, it was possible
that not all students enrolled in his course were able to develop the necessary critical thinking
skills.
Theme 3: The course wiki assumed students knew how to engage in critical thinking
without providing support for the development of those skills. The instructor’s expectation
for students to engage in critical thinking was communicated via the design of the in-class
interaction and projects, and through the course wiki. The wiki included a weekly breakdown of

101
the readings, weekly assignment information, descriptions of the five main projects to be
completed during the course and served as a repository for general course information (e.g.,
syllabus, due dates, assignment grades). The way in which Brian adopted the course design and
used the course wiki during class time communicated his expectation for students to engage in
higher order thinking skills. However, the expectation to engage in complex thinking processes
was combined with the absence of explicit support to develop the necessary skills, impeding the
likelihood that all students had the resources and knowledge.
One example of how the wiki was utilized to communicate the expectation for students to
engage in higher order thinking included the reading response descriptions. The reading
responses necessitated students apply the theoretical readings to a series of discussion questions.
The discussion questions, response guidelines, and students’ written work were located in the
wiki. The following was an example of the reading response directions as outlined in the wiki:
The RR [reading response] should interpret and analyze the issues set forth in the reading
material. More important, the RR should extend and advance the conversation set forth
in the text. A successful response will connect the readings to other issues and broader
themes…
While interpreting is associated with understanding, a lower yet foundational cognitive skill,
analyzing is a skillset included within higher order thinking skills (Anderson et al., 2001). For
students to use the reading materials to facilitate their understanding of specific issues students
must be able to differentiate relevant material, organize information, and deconstruct concepts,
skills that comprise analysis. Engaging in these complex skills within the context of a writing
assignment increases the likelihood for students to engage in critical thinking (Tsui, 1999).
Although DL 100 was an introductory digital literacy course, Brian expected students to be able

102
to engage in these complex thought processes during the first week of the semester as evident
with the first reading response assignment due during week one. In order for students to
successfully engaging in complex cognitive tasks, cognitive scaffolds such as visual aids, mini-
lessons throughout the exploration of a complex topic, and supplemental explanations for
abstract ideas are key support systems for students to construct meaning, especially within a
technology-oriented course (Zheng et al., 2009). However, the absence of these instructional
supports inhibited students’ ability to develop higher order thinking skills. Consequently, the
students had to figure out how to perform this task on their own.
In addition to the reading assignment directions outlined in the wiki, each DL 100 project
was comprised of multiple assignments requiring the use of higher order thinking skills. For the
first DL 100 project students completed the Image Assignment which required them to combine
the media theory readings with their knowledge of the design principles learned in class to create
a text-image composite. In addition to the image, the students wrote a Statement of Approach to
explain why and how they created their project. The requirements of the Statement of Approach
were outlined in the wiki.
Prepare a 3-paragraph (minimum) Statement of Approach that addresses: the significance
of the project (why you chose the image(s) and the subject matter of project); an analysis
of how the work critiques broader cultural themes and social practices, with an
explanation of the “historical significance” of the foundational image(s) (engage your
own research and the theoretical issues discussed in the course); and your strategies of
visual interpretation (the design choices you made and how they transmit meaning).
To present the “historical significance” of an image, students had to determine the author’s point
of view, bias, and values communicated in the image. According to Anderson, et al. (2001)

103
these skills were associated with “attributing,” a subtheme of the “Analyze” category. Analyzing
the image within a specific historical context required students to deconstruct an issue and
organize it in a way that communicated a specific message. Determining the project’s message
and identifying the ideas and approaches best suited to communicate the message were skills
associated with “designing,” a subtheme of the “create” category that encapsulates the most
complex cognitive skills (Anderson, et al., 2001). In doing so students were expected to engage
with authentic problems by identifying an issue, examining it, applying media theory, and
communicating a particular perspective regarding the topic. Tasks associated with authentic
problem-solving necessitate critical thinking (Abrami et al., 2015). Since DL 100 students were
required to engage in authentic problem-solving tasks they were expected to complete complex
cognitive tasks as they developed critical thinking skills. Additionally, the Statement of
Approach required students to explain their decision-making process regarding the visual
strategies they utilized. In doing so the students had to justify their choices which is an element
of evaluation and a higher order thinking skill (Anderson et al., 2001). When writing
assignments extend beyond descriptive tasks and involve analysis skills students are more likely
to engage in critical thinking (Nold, 2017; Tsui, 1999). The Statement of Approach description
included in the wiki implicitly communicated the expectation for students to engage in critical
thinking.
While the Statement of Approach engaged students in constructing knowledge through
complex cognitive tasks there was a lack of instructional support provided in the wiki. Support
systems such as the instructor modeling the desired thinking process, instructor-provided
explanations to guide students through the comprehension of abstract concepts, and discussions
regarding evaluation rubrics provide students with the opportunity to engage in complex thinking

104
in ways that are sensitive to their respective learning needs (Cargas et al., 2017; Facione &
Facione, 1996; Shim & Walczak, 2012). Due to the immersion course design of DL 100, these
instructional supports were not included as part of the course design. Expecting students to
develop critical thinking skills to construct knowledge without explicit support provides
inequitable opportunities for all students to engage in and develop critical thinking skills because
doing so places the responsibility of the learning development on the student. In doing so, the
design of the course reflects an instructor-centered approach to curriculum development as the
instructor is designing learning experiences in ways that he thinks are best for the students and
not designing learning opportunities that respond to the students’ needs (Anthony, 1996;
Kember, 1997; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). The expectation for higher order thinking skills must
be balanced with instructor-provided instructional supports (Shim & Walczak, 2012). When
there is an imbalance of the cognitive responsibility, as evident in the lack of scaffolding and
instructional support systems, then not all students are provided the same opportunity to develop
critical thinking skills.
Lastly, not only did the wiki content support the expectation for students to develop
critical thinking skills, how the instructor utilized the wiki suggested he expected students to
construct high order thinking skills through the act of completing projects and assignments.
During class sessions Brian utilized the wiki to introduce the expectations for upcoming
assignments. The following was an excerpt from a class session as Brian explained the peer
review assignment to the students, which was the final assignment associated with the Image
Assignment. Brian explained:
…Let’s go over week 5 homework. [Instructor displays wiki page on the projection
screen. Refer to Figure 2 for wiki content.] A reading response is due this Sunday night

105
and a peer review for your assigned partner is due before next class. I would read the
texts first and then that way you can include some of the readings in your [peer] review.
[For the peer review] You’re analyzing and evaluating and considering [the image
assignment] according to the theory we discussed in class. Your response should be
critical. Make direct references to the text. You will do a works cited. Read the partner’s
Statement of Approach that’s been posted. You don’t have to agree with everything that
your partner says. You’re engaging with the text, your partner’s statement, and your
partner’s project. What you’re bringing to the table forms the meaning of the review.
You’ll create a separate page [in your wiki profile] where you will include the review. I
assume you’ll be interested in reading your classmate’s review of your work so just go to
their page and read what they wrote. Next week we’ll move into video work—a remix
video.
When Brian verbally presented the peer review assignment directions he utilized words also
included in the peer review description. The expectation for the review to be “critical”
communicated the expectation that the students were to evaluate their peer’s Statement of
Approach, examining it for elements for which they agreed or disagreed, and writing a rationale.
Words such as “analyze and evaluate” directly connect with the verbs included in higher order
thinking skills (Anderson et al., 2001). As the students analyze and evaluate they were expected
to apply the media theory to their review and use the theory to substantiate their claims.
Assignments that integrate ideas, include critiques and inquiry-oriented tasks are associated with
engaging in critical thinking (Shim & Walczak, 2012).

106

Figure 2. An explanation of the peer review assignment from week 6 of the DL 100 wiki.

However, the instructor expected students to construct meaning through complex cognitive tasks
without instructional supports in place. As the instructor read the assignment directions aloud he
did not pause to ask questions, display or discuss a sample peer review, or guide students through
potential responses to the discussion questions listed in the peer review assignment (Shim &
Walczak, 2012). He presented the material and provided a summary of the assignment
expectations. In doing so, he relied on the assignment description within the wiki to provide the
support. The wiki could have served as a technical scaffold as it provided an outline for the
information the students were expected to include in their peer review. While Brian designed the
wiki content to include prompts to guide students as they wrote their review, this approach

107
provided limited instructional support. Information such as how to write the peer review, the
depth of analysis required, and how students could approach the critique was not provided.
Instructional supports such as discussing an evaluation rubric so that students understood the
type and quality of responses, instructor modeling how to approach writing a peer review, and
explicit communication regarding the learning objectives of the assignment were absent yet they
would also have been essential elements in supporting the development of students’ complex
cognitive skills (Cargas et al., 2017). The absence of these instructional supports contributed to
students not remaining equally positioned to engage in critical thinking.
The syllabus, projects, and wiki communicated Brian’s expectation for students to engage
in higher order thinking skills. In doing so, Brian provided multiple opportunities for students to
construct knowledge. However, to encourage the development of critical thinking skills in all
students, the cognitive challenge must be balanced with the instructional supports (Shim &
Walczak, 2012). The DL 100 projects and the assignments communicated the expectation for
students to engage in complex thinking, however the absence of instructional support required
students to be successful on their own.
Finding 2: Instructional Opportunities Required Students to Deploy Critical Thinking
During instructional opportunities, Brian expected students to deploy critical thinking
skills although there was a lack of intentionality to develop these skills. As suggested by a
number of studies, students are more likely to successfully engage in complex thinking via
intentionally designed activities (Anthony, 1996; Facione et al., 1995; Marin & Halpern, 2010;
Shim & Walczak, 2012). When examining the student-instructor interaction occurring in Brian’s
class it was apparent that the instructor expected students to utilize critical thinking skills
however there were not any opportunities for students to intentionally develop critical thinking

108
skills. Therefore, students were expected to develop critical thinking skills to construct meaning
in the absence of instructor-provided supports.
The expectation for students to deploy critical thinking skills was evident during
classroom observations. The class regularly engaged in group discussions in which the students
were expected to explore the meaning and intentionality of a particular image or video. During in
class discussions Brian frequently asked the students a series of questions that required complex
thinking however not all students were encouraged to participate. The following exchange
occurred during an in-class discussion and was representative of the types of discussion
questions Brian utilized with his students. In the following example, Brian displayed an image
of Columbia University student, Emma Sulkowicz, carrying a mattress. The following was an
excerpt from the conversation addressing the photograph.
Brian displays an image of Columbia University student, Emma Sulkowicz, carrying a
mattress. The image was created for the DL 100 Image Assignment and presents a
modified version of the original photograph.
B: What is this about?
S10: She carried her bed in order to protest. Others ridiculed her.
B: Everyone agree with that assessment?
S2: She was raped and carried the mattress with her.
B: What did the student do with this image? We have the woman…the student
could have just used the image with the woman and her mattress. How did
she change it to make an impact?
S1: (responds but researcher was unable to capture information)
No comment from Brian

109
S13: I think it’s… (comment inaudible)
B: What else is in the background? What does it feel like to you? What text did
the student use and why?
S9: The weight has a physical meaning—the weight of the mattress—but it’s the
weight survivors carry around with them post-incident that’s important.
B: Right. [Pause.] Is he sincere or not?
S15: I think he’s sincere.
S15: Addresses two details of the image (comment inaudible).
Some of the general student population respond: “Ah, good job”
B: What could have been done differently to make that point? She taped over
his mouth. Is he supposed to be a supporter?
S11: Student responds (unable to record response)
B: Perfect.
After displaying the image Brian posed a question asking students to engage in lower level
thinking question by asking, “What is this about?” In doing so he engaged students in a question
addressing students’ comprehension of the material, a task associated with the lower cognitive
skill level of “understanding” (Anderson et al., 2001). Once a student responded he asked the
rest of the class whether they agreed, and in doing so he was encouraging peer-to-peer
engagement as well as critical feedback which are tasks associated with critical thinking
development (Abrami et al., 2015; Tsui, 2002). However, after only one student responded
Brian did not probe students for further engagement or guide the students in ways that would
encourage the peer to peer dialogue. Consequently, there was a missed opportunity to further
engage students in peer to peer critical discourse that could have fostered opportunities for

110
students to construct meaning. Brian then proceeded to ask a similarly complex question, “How
did [the student] change [the image] to make an impact?” In order to be able to respond to
“how” questions the learner must be able to engage in analysis (Anderson et al., 2001). Two
students provided a response although Brian did not provide any feedback as to whether the
students were engaging to the degree he expected. The absence of instructor feedback created an
unclear learning environment as Brian could have used additional cognitive scaffolds, such as
modeling the desired thought processes or demonstrating metacognitive reflection (Facione &
Facione, 1996; Yelland & Masters, 2010), that would have guided students in constructing
meaning as they learned to think deeper while providing cues as to whether they were
appropriately responding. Instead of probing or providing cues Brian presented a series of lower
order thinking questions that included, “What else is in the background? What does it feel like to
you? What text did the student use and why?” In asking these questions the instructor reverted
to questioning that focused on comprehension of the message and the artistic design choices that
comprised the image. Brian’s presentation of additional lower level questions implied that the
previous two students’ responses did not address Brian’s questions. A subsequent missed
opportunity for deeper thinking occurred when Brian tried again to engage the class in complex
thinking by asking, “What could have been done differently to make that point?” The ability to
answer this question necessitated not only lower level thinking skills to comprehend the image
but also the students needed to enact complex thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation in
order to suggest design alternatives that would further extend the image’s message. One student
responded to this question however Brian did not ask the student to explain their thought process
or ask the student to substantiate their statements which were missed opportunities for peers to
learn from one another. In the absence of probing for further clarification Brian could not

111
determine the extent to which the student comprehended the material. Instead Brian accepted the
response without encouraging the student to demonstrate this thought process, thereby missing
an opportunity to scaffold the learning as students constructed meaning. While Brian provided
opportunities for students to enact critical thinking skills through the presentation of higher order
thinking questions and peer dialogue during whole class discussions, the omission of
intentionally teaching students how to think critically through the use of active learning
strategies limited students’ abilities to overtly construct knowledge.
The conversation referenced above occurred during week two of the semester, thus, Brian
expected students to engage in critical thinking from the beginning of the semester.
Furthermore, this in-class discussion example was representative of the types of conversations
and student-instructor interaction that occurred throughout the semester. Brian initiated
conversations requiring the enactment of higher order thinking skills and transitioned to lower
thinking questions when students struggled. However, he repeatedly did not ask students follow
up questions necessitating them to provide a rationale or engage in some form of metacognitive
act that would provide evidence of the quality of their critical thinking ability and model their
thought processes so others could learn from their peers. For students to participate in the in-
class discussions students had to arrive to class with a basic level of complex thinking skills or
learn how to engage in complex thinking on their own.
While the instructor expected students to utilize complex thinking, and provided
numerous opportunities to do so, during instructional time there was a lack of intentional
development of critical thinking skills. Instructional supports and instructor-generated
explanations are tools associated with assisting students in understanding abstract concepts and
consequently developing critical thinking (Shim & Walczak, 2014). Brian missed opportunities

112
to engage the students in a deeper exploration of the material utilizing strategies that would have
increased the likelihood for all students to engage in the discussion. Additionally, for the class
observation referenced above there were nineteen students in attendance and nine students
participated in this particular discussion. With only half of the class actively engaging in the
conversation the instructor was unable to gauge to the extent to which the other half of his class
comprehended the material. Critical thinking development is enhanced when classroom
discussions include the voluntary participation of all students (Tsui, 2002). In the absence of
instructional supports and with only half of the students participating it was unclear as to how the
students were developing their critical thinking skills.
Ensuring all students engaged during in class discussions was an element included in
Brian’s belief system. During an interview Brian explained his approach to in-class
participation, stating:
I am bad at calling people out and making them say something. Part of that’s because
whenever you do that they say something lame-like. They make something up because
they’re appeasing me more than engaging in the conversation. Now if there’s a student
who I know is very thoughtful but is shy but I know would love to have some air time but
just won’t insert themselves then maybe I’ll help them. I’ll help make a space for them to
talk. It’s almost like an empathy thing where I’m sensing something…like that person
has something to say but is not saying it...But if it’s some student who’s tuned out, I don’t
have time to call them out…That’s the adult aspect that I see in this situation. You can
choose to be engaged or you can choose not to be engaged. I am not responsible for
that…

113
From this interview Brian communicated his perception that students’ lack of active engagement
was a reflection of their interest or motivation. He held the opinion that calling on students to
participate resulted in poor quality responses and consequently it was evident during classroom
observations that he only expected certain students to participate. During whole class
discussions he did not encourage the participation of all students and instead responded to the
contributions of students who opted to participate. However, in doing so, he did not to recognize
that students’ disengagement may be affected by students’ ability to construct knowledge, such
as lacking an understanding of the material or being overly challenged by the content (Anthony,
1996). By opting to only engage with students who participated he perpetuated the silencing of
quieter students and therefore did not actively engage all students in the development of critical
thinking. In-class engagement is associated with gains in critical thinking (Abrami et al., 2008;
Tsui, 2002). Therefore, by not monitoring the extent to which all students engaged during class,
Brian did not intentionally support the development of all students’ critical thinking skills.
Brian enacted the course from an instructor-centered belief system. The perception that
students actively chose whether to participate during class discussions did not account for
students’ unique abilities and the role of the instructor in supporting students as they constructed
meaning. From Brian’s perspective, during class time he was responsible for creating the
structure and the environment for students to engage in tasks he presented. It was the students’
responsibility to seek those opportunities, and in creating the learning environment in this way,
Brian’s thoughts and actions were representative of an instructor-centered belief system.
Furthermore, Brian’s belief that students chose whether or not to engage during in-class
discussions was founded on the assumption that all students were capable of completing the

114
assignments. During an interview he explained how he approached the in-class discussions and
the overall implementation of the DL 100 curriculum stating:
Luckily even the students who are the lowest common denominator are pretty smart
humans. So they’ll get there if they’re by themselves. I actually have a lot of faith in that
you can introduce basic concepts (the entry level pieces of information) to accomplish the
task and students will be pretty resourceful to get to the end.
From Brian’s perspective all students had the equal ability to engage in the learning
environment. If students had questions they could ask him for assistance during class or outside
of class via office hours or email. Instructional in-class supports such as mentoring as enacted in
the forms of one-on-one instructor-student interaction and peer-to-peer dialogue, as well as
critical dialogue and small group discussions were found to be associated with gains in critical
thinking (Abrami et al., 2008). In the absence of these instructional methods students were less
likely to be well positioned to develop critical thinking skills to construct meaning. Brian
assumed students knew help-seeking behaviors and were comfortable in enacting such behaviors.
If a student failed to perform to expectations it was an effort-based issue. Brian provided
students with the instructional space to engage in the learning and it was the students’
responsibility to use the resources available to support their learning. Furthermore, Brian’s
approach to the instructional delivery reflected his belief that students were equally positioned to
engage in a learning environment emphasizing complex thinking although he acknowledged that
not all students would be able to engage in critical thinking at the same level. During an
interview, Brian expressed his opinion that not all students will be equally successful in
completing the DL 100 tasks. In reference to the critical thinking required by the activities and
projects, he explained, “Again, it’s a 100-level course. It’s tough as some people will really get

115
it and some people will really struggle by the end to be able to speak in those terms.” Brian
acknowledged that the course was a “100-level course,” implying DL 100 attracted students who
were in the earlier stages of their academic experience. The complex thinking required would be
difficult for some students, as “some people will really struggle by the end” but for Brian that
was expected, and he was not responsible to assist with mitigating that struggle. In light of his
belief that all students had the ability to complete the DL 100 assignments, the responsibility to
develop the necessary critical thinking skills resided with the student. With his statement,
“they’ll get there if they’re by themselves” communicated Brian’s belief that the student not only
had the ability to engage in complex thinking but it was the student’s responsibility to use the
resources and scaffolds provided in the course design and enactment.
While Brian expected students to utilize complex thinking, he designed and enacted DL
100 from an instructor-centered belief system (Kember, 1997). Brian’s responsibility as the
instructor was to provide the learning opportunities and tools for students to construct meaning.
As students engaged in complex learning activities, however, the students were responsible for
learning how and when to utilize those resources to support their critical thinking development.
Brian expected students to engage in complex thinking although he did not intentionally guide
students in the development of critical thinking skills during the course design and in-class
instruction.
Case Study 2: Marcus
Marcus was a non-tenure track assistant professor at UAS, having taught for 7 years at
the university at the time of the interview. He was a recipient of the university’s mentoring
award for undergraduate students. His teaching encompassed both graduate and undergraduate
courses, including a course addressing critical thinking in media. In addition to teaching,

116
Marcus’s professional background included working as a video documentarian and partnering
with a non-profit organization to raise awareness regarding the effectiveness of non-violent
alternatives.
Marcus began teaching DL 100 in fall 2011 and oftentimes taught the course both fall
and spring semesters. He previously team-taught the course twice but generally taught DL 100
as the sole instructor for his section. While Marcus was not the original author of the syllabus he
believed that as a DL 100 instructor he had the capability to adjust the assignments and readings
included in the course. He explained that the main structure of the syllabus remained consistent
but that instructors could make modifications.
The overarching theoretical course [that moves] from still image to moving image to
interactive image that was built in from the inception remains the same and probably will
never change. Probably because the facility with which the students need to
understand—still image and then everything that comes with moving images and sound,
so forth and so on…So the parameters, the architecture remains the same, the same
projects. But everyone makes it their own, which is part of the teaching experience.
Marcus modified the class to reflect his teaching style, such as the way he presented the concepts
and vocabulary, how he facilitated the in-class conversations, and the type and frequency of
instructor feedback on assignments. From Marcus’s perspective the major learning outcome for
DL 100 students was an understanding of “the social constructiveness of society and the way in
which media works to maintain or can be used to create oppositional discourses.” From
Marcus’s perspective DL 100 was a course in which the students were expected to examine the
influence media has in and on society and in that process he wanted students to explore and
develop “a sense of their own voice, but in a critical way.” The emphasis on examination of

117
“oppositional discourses” was representative of the critical thinking Marcus expected the
students to demonstrate throughout the course. The way in which Marcus enacted the course
reflected his belief system regarding his responsibility for supporting students’ learning
experiences. These elements are examined in the subsequent analysis.
For the remainder of this case study I present two findings in response to my research
question examining how digital literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster students’
development of critical thinking skills. I present the findings according to the research sub-
questions addressing course design and instructional delivery. The two findings from this second
case study mirror those included in the first case study. I present one finding with three sub-
themes that align with the findings from the first case study. The first finding suggests that DL
100 was designed with the expectation students would engage in complex thinking but did not
provide intentional instruction to support the development of critical thinking. There are three
themes associated with the course design finding that explore specific ways in which the course
was designed. These three themes address the structure of the interaction as indicated in the
syllabus, project design, and the course wiki. The first theme suggests the structure of
interaction during class time as described in the syllabus implied students would engage in
critical thinking without support. The second theme proposes the projects were designed with
the expectation students would engage in critical thinking without support. The third theme
relating to course design is the course wiki assumed students could engage in critical thinking
without support. Finally, the second finding proposes Marcus expected students to deploy
critical thinking skills during instructional time with limited intentionality to develop these skills
during class-time. Marcus occasionally scaffolded the learning environment to guide students in

118
their learning. The following sections present an examination of the evidence in support of these
findings as well as the applicable themes.
Finding 1: Course Design Required Students be able to Deploy Higher Order Thinking
Skills
Marcus taught a different section of the same course, DL 100, as Brian during the same
semester of the school year. The department dictated that all instructors teaching the same
course were expected to use the same syllabus, projects, and wiki with limited modification or
personalization. Thus, Marcus’s section of DL 100 could also be classified as an immersion
course according to Ennis’s (1989) critical thinking course design categories. Data collected
from the DL 100 syllabus, project expectations, and course wiki provided evidence regarding
why this course was taught with an immersive design. The DL 100 course design required
higher order thinking; however, Marcus did not approach the course design in a way that
intentionally developed students’ critical thinking skills, while he occasionally utilized scaffolds
to construct meaning. The following themes present why Marcus’s course was an immersion
course where subject content was emphasized, and critical thinking skills were expected to be
deployed although not intentionally developed. This presentation of this finding is organized
according to evidence from the structure of interaction outlined in the syllabus, the projects, and
the course wiki demonstrating the different ways in which the course design required students to
deploy critical thinking but did not overtly support students in the development of these skills.
Theme 1: The structure of interaction during class time as described in the syllabus
implied that students would engage in critical thinking without any support for their being
able to do so. Marcus taught his section of DL 100 using the department-provided DL 100
syllabus. Thus, the syllabus utilized the same subsections as the other DL 100 course taught by

119
Brian. For example, the course description and evaluation criteria sections describing the skills
students were expected to demonstrate during class and how their learning would be evaluated
were the same in both DL 100 syllabi. Omitted from the syllabus was information regarding the
skillsets students would learn or develop. Courses that improve students’ thinking identify the
skills students will learn as a result of the course (Halpern, 2001). As stated in the first case
study, the syllabus included a description of the knowledge students would bring to class and the
types of activities in which they would engage, however, a discussion of skillsets they would
develop as a result of this course was absent. During an interview Marcus explained his belief
regarding what students will learn from DL 100 stating:
That’s the overarching thing…A sense of their own voice, but in a critical way. Thinking
about taste and aesthetics, but more so than that, what they perceive of the world that can
be made better or can change. That goes back into our thing about digital citizenship, and
our desire to create students who are ethically aware of digital use…so I think the idea of
social constructiveness in society, and understanding their own voice, the technical skills
to create messages, and that they’re aware of the potential impact they can make. And
then the knowledge, a historical knowledge, of the way technology has changed society,
and the way in which it was been used to be also engage in issues of power, privilege,
difference. All of that…the idea of power and ideology, and media and all of what that
does to kind of shape identity and consciousness and social practice is really what this
class is all about at its foundational level.
In his explanation, Marcus expressed the purpose that students were expected to engage in a
critical examination of their perceptions and opinions to understand how “identity and
consciousness and social practice” were shaped. The act of examining information is associated

120
with the higher order thinking skill of analysis (Anderson, et al., 2001). As students engaged in
this level of analysis they had to understand the concepts and possess the ability to apply the
theory presented in class and the readings to complete the assignments. The syllabus was
designed to present the types of skillsets the students were expected to bring to the classroom and
it communicated how the students would be evaluated. However, the syllabus did not outline
what the students would learn as a result of participating in this course and also absent was a
framework for how this type of complex thinking would be supported. This was the same
situation as with Brian’s DL 100 section presented in the first case study. The syllabus content
conveyed the instructor’s expectation for students to engage in complex thinking, and in the
absence of an explicit plan as to how these skills would be developed DL 100 followed an
immersive course design.
Theme 2: Projects demanded students engage in critical thinking without any
support for the students being able to do so. The complex thinking students were expected to
demonstrate in DL 100 was not only described in the DL 100 syllabus but also inherent in the
design of the class projects. The learning expectations for the projects were communicated in the
course syllabus via the evaluation criteria and course description. The evaluation criteria were
shared amongst both DL 100 sections since they were an element of the syllabus framework.
Therefore, as previously discussed in the first case study, the knowledge and skills listed in the
evaluation criteria required students to engage in higher order thinking. The course description
also communicated the learning expectations of the projects, such as the expectation to
“investigate the close interrelationships among technology, culture and communication in order
to form a solid foundation for scholarly multimedia authoring.” The students would engage in
projects that required “scholarly multimedia authoring,” implying they would “author” or create

121
novel projects. Creating is a cognitive act associated with the most complex thinking skill level
(Anderson et al., 2001). Creating projects that were “scholarly” necessitated conducting research
and in doing so students had to analyze and evaluate multiple data sources to identify
information they could use for their projects. However, the syllabus and the other course
materials did not outline the method in which the students would engage in these tasks.
Modeling the thought process or the type of critical thinking skills students needed to complete a
particular task assists with the development of critical thinking (Facione & Facione, 1996). For
example, the type of critical thinking necessary to create a mediography, a list of the media
sources students may elect to use for a particular project, was not modeled by the professor yet it
was a multi-week assignment the students were expected to complete. Researching,
understanding, and determining which media elements could support a particular argument
required students to evaluate an extensive amount of media sources and information. In doing so
they engaged in the complex cognitive acts of analyzing and evaluating, and when these skills
are applied within the context of understanding and applying information from multiple data
sources to articulate an argument, it accentuated the critical thinking necessary to complete these
tasks.
While the projects demanded critical thinking as communicated in the first case study
there was a lack of scaffolding for the development of critical thinking to construct meaning.
Critical thinking is effectively developed when assignments requiring students to respond to
challenging questions are accompanied with support systems to guide students through the
learning process (Halpern, 2001; Shim & Walczak, 2012). There were six graded projects in DL
100 and each was comprised of a series of smaller, graded tasks. One of the major projects was
the creation of a remix video, where the students collected video footage, images, and music, and

122
repurposed them to advocate a particular message. Marcus identified this project as the most
cognitively complex due to the technical and theoretical skills needed to complete the project.
To support the development of the technical skills necessary for this task, the remix project was
scaffolded into smaller assignments spanning six weeks, with each week building in complexity,
from analyzing previous students’ remix videos, drafting a statement of approach which was
subsequently refined to serve as the remix video script, to an in-class verbal critique of students’
remix video drafts, presentation of the final remix video project, and concluding with a written
review of a peer’s remix project. Marcus explained the purpose of organizing the project as a
series of sequential tasks stating:
They’re expected to learn skills about digital literacy, [such as] compression, use of
software programs, and the contingent skills to effectively use Premiere which is the
program. They need to understand file management, how to download clips, how to
import media into a software program and how to use it effectively to create meaning.
The number one thing is how to create media…The technical proficiency and
understanding of the workflow that is involved in producing a moving image
piece…that’s why we start from the still image tech manipulation and then we move into
moving image.
Marcus explained there was significant intentionality to support students’ development of
technical and digital literacy skills. There was concern for students to be able to complete the
specific tasks needed to create the final remix video project therefore 6 weeks, more than one-
third of the semester, was allocated to provide overt scaffolded support as students developed the
necessary knowledge and skills through this process. However, this scaffolded design was
primarily for task completion and technical skill development. Simultaneously, there was an

123
expectation for students to engage with the remix video theory as they completed the technical
tasks. Marcus explained the theoretical knowledge associated with the remix video project.
On the theoretical level they have to understand how we situate remix or the practice of
remix as being aligned with rhetoric and argumentation…by manipulating found footage
into forms of expression…When you translate that into our remix theory…there is now a
lexicon of images that exist in digital space that people can use to speak. It’s not just
speaking with words, but we can also speak with images...And so for you to choose this
image over that image or that sound bite over another you’re making an argument. And
there’s a judgment in that related to the articulation of your work. So they have to think
about that. It’s not just, “let me grab this clip.” They have to think about why they are
grabbing that clip, what it says to them, how it functions in its original context to a
certain extent. And then how it can contribute to their own meaning. So with the remix
video they have to work across the registers of text, image and sound.
The ability for students to understand how to use a piece of media to contributed to their
argument was a complex cognitive task. They had to not only understand the historical
significance but also determine how to manipulate it to support their message. In doing so they
utilized cognitive skills such as understanding as well as the more complex cognitive skills of
applying, evaluating and creating. There was an expectation for students to engage in complex
thought but it was expected that as a result of students completing the series of smaller
assignments comprising the video remix project that students would be able to develop the
complex cognitive skills needed. Thus, the overtly utilized technical scaffolds were
implemented to guide students through the construction of specific digital literacy skills. The
critical thinking skills were implicitly developed as a result of participating in the assignments.

124
While Marcus provided opportunities for students to construct the necessary technical
skills he did not overtly guide students in developing critical thinking skills. Marcus identified
critical thinking as a component of the remix video, absent from the project design was a plan for
explicit instruction to develop the necessary thinking skills. Marcus explained the critical
thinking students needed for the remix video.
…When they start to get into making these things, [they consider] issues of
representation and how images are connected to power. And how they underpin larger
social structures. So all of that…And that’s a real critical thinking component of this
project. Thinking about the embodiment in the real world of these concepts that they are
exploring. And the critical thinking extends into the evaluation of the project, they have
an evaluation of the found footage they have to critically about that, they have to think
critically about that footage and how they are going to manipulate that footage to put
things together, to construct. And then doing that again across the registers of sound,
image and text. And then also evaluation. Not just of their own work like the review and
reflection but also for others, to give feedback [to their peers].
As Marcus explained, the remix video in particular had significant critical thinking expectations
associated with the project. For students to select and utilize the appropriate media required
students to engage in the deeper levels of complex thought. However, there was no
intentionality to ensure students had the ability to engage in the critical thought needed. Instead
Marcus assumed students developed the necessary skills as they “get into making these things.”
In other words, Marcus believed the development of these complex skills was a byproduct of
completing the projects and assignments. The projects were designed as a series of
interconnected assignments that served as technical scaffolds to guide students through the

125
various steps to create the final remix video. While this approach presented students with a
structured sequence of steps that comprised the video it did not explicitly provide an examination
of how to construct the necessary knowledge needed for each task or offer alternative options for
students who may struggle with the learning expectations associated with each task. Absent
from the learning experience were discussions of the specific skills students needed to complete
tasks (Halpern, 2001) and instructor modeling how to balance the cognitive challenge with the
instructional technical scaffolds (Shim & Walczak, 2012). The projects were designed so
students completed specific, smaller tasks but a structure for how students engaged in the
cognitive tasks associated with each task was missing. The video remix project was identified as
the most complex project due to the multiple layers of technical skill and cognitive demand.
However, the support systems included within the project design were implemented in order to
encourage higher product quality and deeper engagement with the topic. The DL 100 projects
required critical thinking however they were designed with a focus on scaffolding for task
completion and not for developing critical thinking, although critical thinking was an inherent
expectation.
Theme 3: The course wiki assumed students knew how to engage in critical thinking
with limited support for the development of those skills. In addition to the syllabus and
projects requiring complex skills the tasks associated with the DL 100 wiki expected students to
engage in critical thinking without explicit support for how to do so. Web-based tools can be
powerful instructional tools that allow students the opportunity to engage in learning at a self-
directed pace (Greenhow et al., 2009). Marcus’s approach to teaching DL 100 emphasized the
use of the wiki as an instructional support, specifically as a cognitive scaffold as students
constructed meaning. He explained the importance of the wiki by comparing it to the syllabus

126
and stating that the syllabus provided the “schematic of the class” however “what happens is
included in the wiki.” The wiki included instructions for the weekly assignments, required
readings, as well as support materials such as student sample projects or Prezi presentations
utilized during in-class lectures. As a result, there was consistent reference to the wiki in every
class.
While the wiki was regularly utilized in class, the instructor did not incorporate the wiki
in a way that consistently presented it as a learning scaffold to develop critical thinking skills. A
component of the week three assignments required students to articulate the purpose of their
image assignment, the first project of the semester (Figure 3). In order to complete this activity,
the students were provided with a “Topic-Question-Significance” sentence frame to articulate the
thesis statement for their upcoming image assignment. Writing a statement that accurately
captured the purpose of the assignment could be difficult for some students because doing so
necessitated synthesizing multiple readings and concepts. The act of critiquing information in
order to articulate an argument required students to analyze the media theory and topics, and
subsequently evaluate the information in order to determine the argument they wanted to make.
The ability to critique and evaluate information is associated with engaging in complex cognitive
acts (Anderson et al., 2001). Therefore, the act of writing a TQS statement necessitated complex
thinking associated with critical thinking. To complete the tasks, the three sentence frames
served as cognitive scaffolds to prompt students’ thinking and provide a structure for articulating
their ideas.
While the TQS structure was designed as a cognitive scaffold it was not utilized in a way
that positioned all students to be successful in using this instructional tool. The TQS statement
assisted students with presenting their idea however, students were not guided in how to

127
appropriately use this tool. Furthermore, communication regarding the instructor’s expectations
for the depth of thought for the final product was absent. Strategies such as providing explicit
discussion regarding the skills needed to complete a task (Abrami et al., 2008) or providing
evaluation criteria for how the activity would be evaluated (Cargas et al., 2017) provide evidence
of the skillsets needed to engage in the cognitive process and as a result are aspects associated
with supporting critical thinking development. In the absence of additional insight or support
Marcus assumed students would know how to appropriately use the TQS framework. For
Marcus, the fact that students had access to the cognitive scaffolded tool was sufficient. He did
not demonstrate how to use the TQS tool to achieve the desired outcome. In doing so, the TQS
framework was not overtly developing the critical thinking skills necessary to complete the task.
Thus, in the absence of explicit support students were expected to engage in complex thought on
their own.
The ways in which the wiki was utilized reaffirmed the wiki did not overtly develop
critical thinking. While Marcus used the wiki as a cognitive scaffold for students to engage in
the construction of knowledge there was a lack of intentionality to develop the critical thinking
skills needed to complete the tasks presented in the wiki. This was reaffirmed during class time
when Marcus reviewed the wiki pages. The following classroom observation was selected as
representative of how the instructor utilized the wiki during class time.
(The wiki is displayed on the projection screens. The instructor writes terms on the
white board.) These are terms from the Camera Lucida book: “interpolation,”
“hegemony,” “counter-hegemony,” “appropriation.” The second readings are from
Practices of Looking book and The Craft of Research. [The Craft of Research discusses]

128

Figure 3. Week 3 assignment page from DL 100 wiki.
how to conduct research. How to devise research questions, topics. The reason we ask
you to read this is because the assignment for next week is to draft your Statement of
Approach. Let’s read through this prompt together. (Marcus reads from the screen and
notes that of the list of five tasks the students have completed items two through four
which were due today. As he reviews each item he provided additional verbal
commentary with no interaction with students.) Any questions about this? (Marcus
paused for two seconds. No student response.)
The wiki content was designed as a cognitive scaffold to organize and present concepts however
the instructor’s in-class use of the wiki lacked explicit discussion regarding how to use the wiki

129
to support students’ learning. When students are learning material, it is important to scaffold for
the construction of cognitive skills and not limit scaffolding to specific tasks (Rose & Gravel,
2012). Additionally, modeling the thought processes and ways in which to use instructional
tools develops critical thinking (Facione & Facione, 1996; Halpern, 2001). As Marcus wrote a
series of complex vocabulary on the board he limited the instruction to introducing the terms.
He did not engage the class in a discussion of the definitions or model how to find the definitions
in the textbooks. Therefore, there was a lack of intentional scaffolding to demonstrate how
students would approach the task. Utilizing intentional scaffolding to model the construction of
knowledge such as how to approach a task would have encouraged the development of the
necessary cognitive skills. In the absence of in-class conversation it was implied that the students
were expected to understand the concepts on their own and use them appropriately to complete
the tasks listed in the wiki. Marcus assumed that with the prompts available in the wiki, the
students would interpret the information as Marcus intended. Explicitly explaining processes
and procedures associated with a task or modeling how to appropriately use a learning tool are
associated with activities that develop critical thinking (Facione, 1990). In contrast, Marcus used
the wiki during class time to describe the various tasks the students would complete but did not
overtly present an exploration as to how the students could use the wiki content to scaffold
knowledge construction. Elements such as TQS statements and instructional tools such as the
class wiki provided structured learning opportunities that could be enhanced in ways where the
construction of all students’ learning was encouraged. The absence of discussing and modeling
how to utilize the tools provided in the wiki created an inequitable learning environment where
only some students were well positioned to engage in the necessary critical thinking.

130
Finding 2: Instructional Opportunities Required Students to Deploy Critical Thinking
The critical thinking expectations implied in the course design were also implicit during
instructional time. Although Marcus provided multiple opportunities for students to deploy
critical thinking skills during instructional opportunities, he was inconsistent in his efforts to
intentionally foster students’ development of these skills. Marcus’s actions during class-time
communicated his understanding that students needed complex tasks presented as smaller,
manageable learning activities. However, Marcus expected students to deploy critical thinking
skills with limited intentionality to develop these skills during the classroom instruction. The
ways in which Marcus enacted the curriculum reflected his assumptions that all students arrived
to DL 100 equally positioned to achieve the same level of learning as their peers.
Marcus expected students to be able to engage in complex thinking during class time and
professed a student-centered belief system. The enactment of the course during in-class
instruction emphasized the exploration of media theory and discussions regarding the meaning
underlying images and footage. Marcus aimed to create a student-centered learning environment
in which these activities occurred. He explained the design for the in-class interaction stating:
What I like to do is give them the theory, give them a project, and then break it all down
through the discussion of the project. So that approach of kind of destabilizing that
hierarchy in the classroom is really important for me because their voice is equally
important...
The students were expected to understand the media theory from the readings and be able to
apply this information to their project’s topic. Analyzing media theory and exploring how the
theory influenced students’ projects required students to evaluate the theories and design
techniques in order to decide which theories and design techniques best aligned with their

131
project. The cognitive acts of applying and evaluating are associated with complex thinking
(Anderson et al., 2001). Since the in-class activities required higher order thinking skills any
student who participated in-class would be expected to engage in these skills.
With his statement regarding “destabilizing that hierarchy in the classroom is really
important for me because their voice is equally important,” he expressed his perception that the
classroom environment was a space where the students’ and instructor’s perspectives were of
equal value, thereby the student participation would be a recurring theme through the course
enactment and students would be given the opportunities throughout the in-class sessions to
participate and engage in the cognitive tasks. These opportunities would in turn provide Marcus
with the opportunity to ascertain the cognitive engagement of his students and he could adjust
the in-class learning experiences according to what he perceived were the students’ learning
needs. In turn, he could scaffold the learning experience in ways that were representative of his
students’ cognitive skill development. Furthermore, the act of “destabilizing” the in-class
learning environment implied students had a direct participative role that would be a consistent
element of the in-class structure. If students were participating in ways that were of equal value
to the instructor, then the instructor and the students equally shared the responsibility for
engaging in discussions and the in-class activities. He assumed he created an instructional
environment where the student and instructor voices were of equal importance and in doing so,
his expressed an approach to the course enactment was reflective of a student-centered learning
environment (Kember, 1997).
The reasoning for Marcus’s approach was further illuminated when he explained his
perception of what thinking skillsets students brought with them to the classroom.

132
What I found is that many of these students already just by their nature, and I don’t like
the term of ‘digital natives’, but the idea of growing up in such a media saturated culture
and the way they think about the world, some of them already understand a lot of these
concepts although they don’t have the vocabulary to talk about them in this arena so it’s
getting them to understand, “You already know this because you have been doing it.” So,
we’re unpacking theory, like four in the class by the first assignment, and students are
able to say “Oh, this means this and this means this.” They understand what it means to
have the message encoded with ideology, they understand what it means to see the
objectification of women so these things aren’t new. Maybe the way of talking about
them or having the space to talk about them is new.
Marcus held certain beliefs regarding the experiences and knowledge students brought to DL
100. An instructor’s beliefs influence the ways in which an instructor teaches, thinks students
learn, and engages with students (Bensimon, 2005). Marcus’s statement that “What I found is
that many of these students just by the nature…of growing up in a media saturated
culture…understand a lot of these concepts” illuminated the assumptions he made about his
student’s skillsets. The phrase, “many of these students” conveyed his belief that students shared
similar experiences and skillsets. Additionally, this phrase suggested that there was an emphasis
on designing the course and in-class activities that reflected what he thought were the skillsets of
the majority of the student population. As a result, there was the potential that the needs of those
who did not fit the profile of the majority remained undetected or not included in the
instructional design. This was reinforced by the statements that “some of them already
understand a lot of these concepts” and “you know this because you have been doing it”
implying that students had the knowledge, as well as the same level of mastery. Again, these

133
phrases illuminated Marcus’s perspective that by their innate existence, the majority of the
students enrolled in his DL 100 course shared the same experience, skillsets, and depth of
knowledge. What remains absent from this statement was an awareness or sensitivity to students
who do not fall within the majority student population.
Marcus’s emphasis on the perceived skillsets and experiences of the student majority
impacted how he guided the in-class learning experiences and the complex thinking he expected
from the students. Within the first project of the course Marcus expected students to “unpack
theory” and in doing so it was his impression that “students are able to say “oh, this means this
and this means this.” The act of “unpack[ing] theory” implied that students had to understand
the media theory presented in the readings. While Marcus did not elaborate on how the learning
environment was structured so students could understand the theory, it was implied with his
statement “this means this and this means this” that the students analyzed and organized the
theoretical knowledge in order to make connections amongst concepts. The act of organizing
information is associated with the complex cognitive act of analyzing (Anderson et al., 2001).
While he expected students to engage in complex thinking it was his perception that the students
arrived to DL 100 with the same knowledge and understanding regarding complex topics. For
example, Marcus expressed his belief that students arrived to the course with an awareness of
“what it means to have the message encoded with ideology, understand what it means to see the
objectification of women so these things aren’t new.” Understanding encoded messages implied
students comprehended the underlying or implied meanings of concepts. His belief that the
students had an awareness of these complex concepts affected how he designed the in-class
activities and his expectations for what he thought students could accomplish. It was Marcus’s
perception that all students not only were able to engage in complex thinking but since the

134
information was not “new” they arrived to the course with the same skillset. As a result of his
belief that students could engage in complex thinking to the same degree, Marcus adopted the
course design and enacted the course to include learning experiences that necessitated the
development of complex thinking and assumed all students could do so.
In alignment with Marcus’s expectation for students to engage in complex thinking he
utilized in-class instructional strategies that encouraged students to demonstrate their critical
thinking. Marcus described the strategies he used to engage students in the classroom,
expressing an emphasis on in-class discussions to examine sample projects and explore concepts.
He described his instructional methods, stating:
Every week somebody is presenting something that is made. And then we’re talking
about it collectively, a lot of the assignments are ‘show and talk’ and then the student
talks last (the student who is presenting talks last). So you have the dialogue and then
you have the student talk about what they intended to do. And you can evaluate
strategies or whether this is working or not. And I think that is really, really important to
do…And another thing I totally forgot about the strategy: looking at former student work.
That is huge to this class. That’s how every single assignment is set up. And it goes
back to the model of ‘show don’t tell.’ And getting them to think through what strategies
are effective, what’s not, what works, what doesn’t work by exploring what their peers
have done in former classes. I don’t think these courses would work without that ability,
without being able to look at what’s been done.
As Marcus explained, student presentations were a regular component of the instructional time.
A student’s project would be displayed on the projection screen and their peers were expected to
apply the theory from the readings as well as their knowledge of design concepts to understand

135
the project’s message. As students engaged in in-class analysis of a peer’s work they were
analyzing the project and evaluating the design choices. Analyzing and evaluating are skills
associated with complex thinking (Anderson et al., 2001). In response to their peers’ feedback
the presenter had to justify their design choices by “talk[ing] about what they intended to do” and
in doing so, students were engaging in an individual presentation of their work. Individual
presentations (Nold, 2017) and in-class critiques (Cargas et al., 2017; Tsui, 2002) are associated
with developing complex thinking. As students justified their design choices they were not only
demonstrating their knowledge of the material but also served as examples for their peers
regarding different ways to apply the concepts in class. Learning from peers is associated with
gains in critical thinking (Wass et al., 2011) and provides a scaffolded learning opportunity.
When students are able to engage in peer-to-peer interactions where one student is demonstrating
their thought process, the learning environment it scaffolded (Tsui, 2002; Wass et al., 2011).
When students engaged in in-class critiques of former student work they analyzed the examples
utilizing their conceptual and theoretical knowledge in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
author’s approach. Instructional strategies such as critical dialogue and whole group discussions
(Abrami et al., 2015) are associated with strategies that develop critical thinking. Thus, the
repeated use of in-class presentations and critiques provided opportunities for students to
construct knowledge and demonstrate their critical thinking. As a result, the instructional design
of DL 100 not only expected students to develop complex thinking skills but also encouraged
students to demonstrate their ability to construct meaning.
The ways in which Marcus designed the in-class experience provided students with
opportunities to demonstrate their critical thinking, however, the in-class activities did not
overtly develop critical thinking skills. The ways in which Marcus implemented in-class

136
strategies and scaffolded the learning environment affected the extent to which students could
engage in higher order thinking. While strategies such as whole class discussions and analysis
activities are elements that support students’ critical thinking development (Abrami et al., 2015),
the enactment of these strategies presented a challenge when ensuring all students were equally
well positioned to develop the necessary critical thinking skills. The following excerpt from a
classroom observation was selected as representative of the type of student-instructor interaction
that occurred during in-class discussions. During this particular conversation Marcus was in the
process of introducing the students to concepts that would provide the foundation for their
upcoming remix video project. At this point in the semester the students had selected a topic for
the video and drafted an overview for how they would present their argument. In order to guide
students through the process of refining their argument, Marcus referenced a prompt from the
wiki that listed an element of the remix video, “Critical Analysis II,” students were expected to
address. Through “Critical Analysis II” the students were expected to address the following
questions: “What is the sociocultural impact? How are systems of power, privilege and
difference maintained and/or contested?” The following is an excerpt from the in-class
conversation in response to this prompt.
M: What is the view of “beauty” in the Western world?
S4: Response inaudible.
M: Absolutely it’s not binary it’s dynamic. (T writes on the board “Signs, Sausseure,
Semiotics.”)
M: (to the class) If I have man what’s the binary?
Ss: Women.

137
M: So what society defines as woman directly affects how to define man. So a
woman is tall, thin, White. So, what happens if a woman doesn’t fit that mold?
S6: Response inaudible.
M: And then what happens?
S4: The system only allows you to be defined by one so if you’re not defined as
woman then you’re going to be defined as a man.
M: Mattie, your project addressed this. Give us one example.
S5: Women buy these products and clothes to become more like the ideal. But the
ideal is unattainable, so it creates this cycle.
M So we’re going to create 6 examples. Mattie identified one. (Marcus writes
“consumerism” on the board.) What’s another?
S: Increased justification of violence against women who don’t fit that mold. It’s not
rational but there’s increased pressure to fit that mold.
M: Let’s distill that to “violence against women.” Tom give me another one.
S8: Decreased self-esteem. (Marcus writes “self esteem” and “self-harm”)
M: Right. (Writes terms on the board.)
1. Consumerism
2. Violence
3. Self esteem
4. Self-harm
M: We need two more.
S4: Provides a response (researcher did not capture)

138
M: [summarizes student’s response] There will be a counter-hegemonic response.
Let’s write this one down.
5. Counter-hegemonic (Marcus writes on white board.)
M: We need one more. (S2 raises hand.) [S2], go ahead.
S2: When you put one person on a pedestal you create unequal expectations.
M: Social stratification.
6. Social stratification (Marcus writes on white board.)
In this example, the instructor initiated the conversation with a question addressing the meaning
of “beauty in the Western world.” This question presented a complex topic in that there were a
multitude of possible responses to the question. Potential responses could have drawn from the
class reading, students could have made connections with material from other courses, or
individuals may have had differing opinions. In this example, only one student responded before
the instructor moved on to the next task, thus limiting the complexity of thought to the response
of one student. Instead of asking if other students agreed or encouraging dialogue from the rest
of the class, as representative of strategies that develop critical thinking (Abrami et al., 2015), the
instructor summarized the student’s response, did not check for understanding nor encourage
peer to peer dialogue. In doing so, Marcus carried the cognitive load and the students were not
challenged to develop the necessary skills. In addition, Marcus did not probe to understand
whether the students were able to engage in this level of thinking. Having summarized the one
student’s response, Marcus proceeded to the next phase of the discussion by writing “Signs,
Sausseure, Semiotics” without introducing the next topic or helping students transition to the
next task. When instructors employ strategies that encourage the students’ cognitive
engagement, such as student-led in-class conversations and concept-mapping they are

139
scaffolding the learning environment for students to develop critical thinking skills (Wass et al.,
2011). In the absence of enacting opportunities to actively engage students in the building of
necessary thought processes Marcus missed opportunities to develop students’ critical thinking.
Consequently, this was an example of the instructor expecting students to engage in complex
thought without intentionally guiding students through construction of the skills. Marcus posed a
complex question within a class discussion setting that necessitated critical thinking, but in the
absence guiding students through this learning experience, this strategy lost its potential as an
instructional scaffold.
The lack of scaffolding continued with the didactic instructor-student exchange that
occurred throughout the discussion. For example, Marcus asked, “What happens if a woman
doesn’t fit that mold?” A student responded. Marcus then posed a new question, “And then what
happens?” A different student responded. This pattern of instructor-student-instructor-student
exchange occurred throughout the excerpt presented above. Essentially the question and answer
exchange occurred without follow up or encouraging participation from students who had not
provided responses. Additionally, when the instructor asked the class to create a list of issues
that could form the foundation for the remix video arguments he rephrased each student’s
response to a specific term. For example, Marcus translated the student’s response from,
“Women buy these products and clothes to become more like the ideal. But the ideal is
unattainable so it creates this cycle” to “consumerism.” This occurred again when Marcus
rephrased a student’s response of “When you put one person on a pedestal you create unequal
expectations” to “social stratification.” In each situation Marcus presented the term but did not
provide any scaffolding or insight as to how he distilled each student’s response to that specific
phrase. In doing so he imposed his ideas onto the classroom conversation and carried the

140
cognitive load without sharing the opportunity with the students. Consequently, he weakened
the extent to which the students could have engaged in this complex thinking. Incorporating
techniques such as instructors modeling the necessary thought processes or engaging the class in
metacognitive reflection activities encourage the development of critical thinking (Facione &
Facione, 1996; Halpern, 1999). In the absence of modeling or whole class metacognitive
reflection activities the students were responsible for making the connections between complex
concepts. Additionally, Marcus wrote the terms on the board but did not provide any additional
instructional supports or cognitive scaffolds to assist the class with understanding the definitions
of these terms. Instead, the instructor assumed students could recall the definitions without any
visual cues. Utilizing cognitive scaffolds such as graphic organizers provides a structured
learning experience to assist with processing new information (Shim & Walczak, 2012). In the
absence of these instructional tools to scaffold the learning environment the students carried the
responsibility for processing and comprehending complex information associated with the
critical thinking skills.
In the absence of a scaffolded learning environment the student remained responsible for
determining how to engage in the complex thinking on their own, ultimately reflecting an
instructor-centered belief system. In the in-class discussion example above, Marcus did not
overtly discuss how students could transfer from one idea to the next. As a result, Marcus
became responsible for the complex thinking occurring during the whole group discussions and
undermined the students’ ability to make these connections through an overtly guided process.
Additionally, of the 14 students in attendance only five students participated in this activity. The
small student participation was indicative of Marcus only being responsive to the thinking of a
limited number of students instead of intentionally seeking to incorporate the participation of

141
multiple students. As a result, Marcus did not implement the discussion in way that would foster
the critical thinking of the collective group. While there were initial attempts to provide a
scaffolded learning experience, such as in-class discussions and critiques, the didactic instructor-
student exchange and lack of exploratory student-focused discussions limited the instructional
impact. In the absence of a scaffolded learning experience the enactment of these teaching
methods benefited students who were well positioned to engage in this type of thinking on their
own. While the instructor regularly implemented in-class techniques that provided students
opportunities to demonstrate critical thinking there was a lack of intentionality to ensure all
students developed the necessary critical thinking skills.
Through the course design and in-class learning opportunities Marcus demonstrated an
awareness of scaffolding the construction of critical thinking through structured activities aimed
to incrementally develop the necessary skills. As a DL 100 instructor he presented numerous
contexts for students to construct complex thinking knowledge. However, in facilitating the
learning without consistently utilizing instructional supports during those activities, Marcus
reduced students’ abilities to engage in critical thinking as he carried the responsibility for
synthesizing information. As Marcus retained the responsibility for the cognitive processing as
well as disseminating information instead of guiding students in the construction of that
knowledge, Marcus enacted an instructor-centered belief system. This instructor-belief system
contradicted his professed student-centered belief system. While instructors may intend to create
student-centered learning environments, they may enact in-class strategies that do not align with
their espoused beliefs (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylänne,
2010). Remaining sensitive to the students’ learning needs required Marcus to employ strategies
that overtly provided opportunities to construct critical thinking through a scaffolded learning

142
environment. In the absence of these student-centered approaches Marcus enacted an instructor-
centered belief system.
Cross-Case Analysis
The following section explores the intersection of critical thinking as it relates to course
design and implementation, in combination with instructor beliefs regarding critical thinking
development. As outlined in my conceptual framework I argued that as students engaged in
critical thinking their ability to deploy critical thinking was contingent upon whether the course
was designed with the expectation for students to use critical thinking skills, the instructor’s
approach to implementing the course in ways that developed these skills, and the instructor’s
beliefs impacting the course design and implementation.
In the cross-case analysis I present four findings that emerged when comparing how each
instructor approached critical thinking development as evidenced via the course design and
implementation of DL 100 and the instructors’ beliefs affecting the course design and enactment.
I will discuss how Brian and Marcus approached the DL 100 course design, as well as the
differing belief systems impacting the instructors’ implementation approaches and utilization of
scaffolding techniques. The cross-case analysis will explore four patterns affecting how digital
literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster students’ development of critical thinking
skills. The first finding suggested that although DL 100 was designed with the assumption
students could engage in critical thinking there was no explicit support for students to develop
these skills. Second, both instructors implemented DL 100 using approaches that did not
explicitly develop critical thinking skills. Third, both instructors did not demonstrate an
awareness of how to develop critical thinking skills as evidenced in the course design and

143
implementation. Finally, the instructors’ beliefs regarding their role in supporting students’
learning lead to differences in scaffolding techniques and implementation approaches.
Course Design
Abrami et al. (2008) and Cargas et al. (2017) note critical thinking should be an explicit
expectation. When critical thinking is taught via an immersive course design, as with DL 100,
gains in critical thinking development are not as significant as when critical thinking
requirements are clearly outlined and explicitly taught. The data from the interviews and course
documents demonstrated that both instructors accepted the design of the course as one in which
the expectation was that students could engage in critical thinking without explicit to develop the
necessary critical thinking skills. As described in the literature, critical thinking development is
best supported when the course is intentionally designed to develop critical thinking skills
(Halpern, 2001; Marin & Halpern, 2010). The course was designed with the assumption that
students knew what types of skills were required, how to enact those skills, and in the absence of
explicit instructional support the instructors assumed students could develop these skills on their
own.
Evidence from the DL 100 course design reflected Brian’s and Marcus’s expectations
students would use critical thinking skills but did not describe or communicate how students
would develop these skills. Within Brian’s DL 100 section, Brian abided by a course design that
expected students could engage in the complex thinking needed on their own, without explicit
support. For example, the course syllabus omitted aspects such as communicating the specific
critical thinking skills students could expect to develop in the course, a description of how
students would develop specific skills, and an explanation of how the students would be assessed
in order to monitor their skill development, all of which are course design elements associated

144
with developing students’ critical thinking skills. Additionally, the syllabus included a
description of the skills the students would be expected to demonstrate but omitted descriptions
of how these skills would be developed. For example, the syllabus stated, “Be prepared to speak
critically about your work, your classmate’s work, and ongoing dialogues in new media, other
disciplines and critical subjects that interest you.” While the syllabus stated the expectation for
students to “speak critically” there was no definition of what constituted “speak[ing] critically”
nor how this skillset would be developed. In the absence of information regarding what “speak
critically” meant and how the students would meet these expectations the students had to
navigate these thinking processes without explicit guidance.
Similar to Brian, Marcus also adopted the design of the course as one in which the
expectation was that students could develop critical thinking skills within an immersive context.
While Marcus occasionally utilized scaffolding strategies the omission of explicit information
within the course design regarding how to use the scaffolds to guide students’ learning meant the
students were responsible for determining how to use those instructional tools on their own. For
example, within the DL 100 wiki Marcus included the Topic-Question-Significance scaffolded
activity. For this assignment, Marcus designed the wiki page with the following content:
You should include a statement modeled after the 3-sentence structure found in The Craft of
Research which you will read for this week:
1. TOPIC: I am studying ___.
2. QUESTION: because I want to find out what/why/how ___.
3. SIGNIFICANCE: in order to help my reader understand ___.
While the TQS framework served as a cognitive scaffold, the absence of multiple elements such
as explicit instruction on how to use the TQS framework, discussion regarding the elements of a

145
strong TQS statement, and communication regarding the evaluation criteria, resulted in the
students navigating the learning process on their own. Thus, the expectation for students to
engage in critical thinking was evident in the course design yet there was a lack of intentional
support to guide students’ critical thinking development. The DL 100 immersive course design
omitted explicit critical thinking instruction and therefore the students were responsible for the
development of these skills.
Course Implementation
The ways in which the instructors translated the course design into the enacted
curriculum provided insight into the types of learning opportunities that occurred during class
time. Specific instructional approaches are associated with encouraging critical thinking skill
development (Facione & Facione, 1996; Halpern, 1999; Tsui, 2002). When it comes to
classroom discussion, the level of student participation and the types of questions students pose
affect critical thinking development (Tsui, 2002). Providing instructional supports such as
instructor-guided discussions where students respond to progressively challenging questions
guides students through the learning process using student-centered scaffolded learning (Shim &
Walczak, 2012). Strategies such as instructor-modeled metacognitive reflection encourage
critical thinking development as students can see how instructors enact critical thinking
development strategies (Anthony, 1996; Facione & Facione, 1996; Halpern, 1999). In-class
discussions that facilitate student participation and include student-generated questioning are key
instructional elements associated with critical thinking development (Tsui, 2002). In the absence
of enacting strategies to guide students through the learning process, Brian and Marcus enacted
DL 100 in ways that did not overtly develop the necessary critical thinking skills.

146
Brian expected students to engage in complex thinking but did not monitor students’
engagement during in-class activities. Brian explained how he approached in-class participation
stating:
I am bad at calling people out and making them say something. Part of that’s because
whenever you do that they say something lame-like. They make something up because
they’re appeasing me more than engaging in the conversation. Now if there’s a student
who I know is very thoughtful but is shy but I know would love to have some air time but
just won’t insert themselves then maybe I’ll help them. I’ll help make a space for them to
talk. It’s almost like an empathy thing where I’m sensing something…like that person
has something to say but is not saying it...But if it’s some student who’s tuned out, I don’t
have time to call them out…That’s the adult aspect that I see in this situation. You can
choose to be engaged or you can choose not to be engaged. I am not responsible for
that…
Brian’s comments demonstrated a lack of awareness of the power of in-class student
engagement. Active participation during discussions provides opportunities for students to
engage in critical thinking skill development (Abrami, et al., 2015; Tsui, 2002). Furthermore,
student engagement during class time provides students with the opportunity to practice using
and developing the necessary skills, and in turn instructors’ have an awareness of students’
learning needs. Brian did not believe it was his responsibility to ensure all students participated
during class and in doing so he was not aware of the extent to which he students were developing
the necessary skills. Brian did not view in-class participation as an opportunity for students to
construct knowledge and therefore he did not prioritize ensuring all students engaged in this
learning activity. Consequently, he was not aware of the extent to which his students were

147
positioned to think critically during these in-class activities. In the absence of using in-class
discussions to overtly develop students’ critical thinking skills, not all students were provided the
opportunity or encouraged to develop these skills during class time.
Similar to Brian, Marcus enacted DL 100 using methods that expected critical thinking
skills but did not overtly guide students in the development of these skills. For example, Marcus
engaged students in whole class discussions however he did so using methods that did not
encourage the cognitive development of all students. In the absence of scaffolded instruction
where the instructor would have guided students through the necessary thought processes Marcus
often interjected and presented the information, thereby carrying the majority of the cognitive
workload. For example, Marcus asked the students to work together as a whole class to list a set
of eight social issues that could serve as potential topics for their upcoming project. The
following is an excerpt from the discussion as students volunteered their suggestions during the
whole class discussion.
S5: Women buy products and clothes to become more like the ideal.
M: Consumerism. (Instructor writes “consumerism” on the board.)
S2: When you put one person on a pedestal you create unequal expectations.
M: Let’s call that one “social stratification.” (Instructor writes “social stratification”
on the board.)
During this didactic student-instructor engagement Marcus assumed students could understand
how he translated a student’s suggestion to specific terms of “consumerism” and “social
stratification” and in the act of identifying these terms he was responsible for the cognitive load.
He missed opportunities to use instructional supports that could have guided students through the
development of these skills. Using cognitive scaffolds such as graphic organizers, metacognitive

148
reflection strategies, and modeling provide students with opportunities to see how the thinking
processes occurred, and how information builds in complexity from task to task. However,
Marcus interjected and provided the responses, eliminating the opportunity for students to see
how he transitioned from one concept to the next. Thus, Marcus provided students the
opportunity to engage in an active learning strategies such as whole class critiques however he
limited the impact of this strategy by not teaching students how to construct meaning during the
activity. While Marcus expected students to use critical thinking he did not overtly engage
students in the building of these skills. He assumed that students could engage in the critical
thinking skill development without scaffolded opportunities to construct the necessary
knowledge.
Course Design and Implementation
Shim and Walczak (2012) noted that critical thinking skill development occurs when the
cognitive challenges are balanced with instructional supports. Incorporating scaffolding
strategies within the course design and enactment guides students through the development of
critical thinking and different types of scaffolding can assist with constructing meaning in ways
that are accessible for all students (Yelland & Masters, 2007). In order to enact and maintain this
balance instructors must be cognizant of the ways to support their students’ development of
critical thinking skills.
While Brian and Marcus expected students to develop critical thinking skills they
designed and enacted DL 100 in ways that did not demonstrate an awareness of how students
build these skills. An examination of the scaffolding strategies used during the course design
and implementation provided evidence of how the instructors intended to develop students’
skillsets. A shared theme amongst both case studies suggested that while the instructors were

149
well intentioned to challenge students to engage in critical thinking, the instructors did not
consistently implement and use scaffolding strategies to develop critical thinking skills.
Brian accepted the design and enacted DL 100 in ways that expected students would be
able to use critical thinking skills but did not develop these skills. For example, Brian frequently
designed and utilized the DL 100 wiki as a technical scaffold, however, he did not use the wiki in
a way that overtly guided students through the complex thinking needed for the assignments.
Thus, he weakened the potential impact of the wiki to scaffold students’ learning. During class
time, Brian explained the expectations for the Peer Review assignment, relying on the wiki
content to scaffold the learning. As the wiki page was displayed on the projection screen, Brian
described the assignment. He stated the following to the class:
A reading response is due this Sunday night and a peer review for your assigned partner
is due before next class. I would read the texts first and then that way you can include
some of the readings in your [peer] review. [For the peer review] You’re analyzing and
evaluating and considering [the image assignment] according to the theory we discussed
in class. Your response should be critical. Make direct references to the text. You will do
a works cited. Read the partner’s Statement of Approach that’s been posted. You don’t
have to agree with everything that your partner says. You’re engaging with the text, your
partner’s statement, and your partner’s project.
The dialogue referenced above demonstrated the in-class support Brian provided as the students
were about to engage in their first attempt at writing a peer review. In this instance the wiki page
presented a description of the assignment (Figure 2 above) and a series of question prompts the
students were expected to address. Thus, the wiki was designed as a technical scaffold as it
presented the larger task of the peer review as series of smaller, more manageable tasks, as

150
evident with the inclusion of the prompts. However, the wiki could have served as a more
powerful scaffold if Brian intentionally utilized this instructional tool to demonstrate the type of
thinking skills required to complete the assignment, thereby assisting students in the construction
of knowledge. In the absence of discussing the elements of a strong peer review or the
evaluation criteria he would use to assess the assignment, Brian expected the students to learn
how to use the wiki as a technical scaffold on their own. In doing so, he expected the students to
independently develop the necessary critical thinking skills to complete the peer review writing
assignment. While the wiki was an example of how Brian intended to scaffold the learning
environment, the absence of explicit instruction regarding how to use the scaffold as an
instructional tool to construct knowledge resulted in transferring the responsibility of the
development of the critical thinking skills from the instructor to the student. Brian expected the
instructional tools he designed to guide students through the learning process without providing
explicit guidance in how to use the tools to develop the necessary critical thinking. The ways in
which Brian adopted the course design and enacted DL 100 are representative of his lack of
awareness regarding the strategies in which to guide students’ critical thinking development.
Similarly, Marcus adopted the course design and enacted DL 100 with the assumption
that all students were equally positioned to engage in the necessary critical thinking. During an
interview, Marcus explained how students developed critical thinking skills stating:
…And this is another part that helps them become critical thinkers, is that they have to
learn the kind of lexicon. They have to learn the vocabulary and the words that
contribute to scholarly language. I’m telling you these terms so you can break them
down so you can use them in your write-ups, your statements of approach, your ideations,
and speak in the language that we use to describe all of this stuff.

151
For Marcus, one element contributing to critical thinking skill development was students’
understanding of vocabulary. He intentionally approached vocabulary development so that
students could transition from understanding vocabulary through “break[ing] [the terms] down”
to applying new vocabulary within assignments and subsequent activities. In doing so he
communicated an awareness that learning “lexicon” was complex and required a combination of
thinking processes that were best presented in manageable phases. Thus, Marcus designed and
enacted vocabulary activities to build in complexity as students constructed meaning. However,
the way in which Marcus facilitated the process of learning vocabulary was rooted in the
assumption that students could develop the necessary skills through implicit expectations to
engage in critical thinking. In stating to the students that they would “break [the vocabulary]
down” Marcus communicated his belief that the students were capable of engaging in complex
vocabulary activities on their own. This was evident in the didactic class time exchange
referenced earlier in the case study where Marcus presented terms related to the students’ ideas
but did not explain nor model the thinking processes he utilized in distilling the phrases. As a
result, Marcus repeatedly omitted potential scaffolded instructional opportunities to develop
critical thinking and in doing so the students were responsible for navigating the learning
environment on their own without instructional supports to balance the construction of these
skills. While Marcus believed DL 100 expected students to use and develop critical thinking
skills, he did not overtly design or enact the development of these skills, and in doing so he did
not demonstrate an awareness of how students build critical thinking skills.
Instructor Beliefs
Instructors’ belief systems are reflected the ways they design and implement a course
(Aguirre & Speer, 2000; Cohen et al., 2003; Kember, 1997; Kennedy, 2004; Tsui, 2001; Halx &

152
Reybold, 2006). Brian and Marcus’s belief systems affected the degree to which he, as the
instructor, felt responsible for students’ learning. The interaction between the instructor and the
student is central to instructional practices (Cohen et al., 2003; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). The
ways in which instructors approach the student-teacher interaction as well as their responsibility
to guide students in this learning reflect instructor-centered or student-centered belief systems
(Kember, 1997; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). To teach critical thinking instructors must believe in
their students’ abilities to engage in higher order thinking and be enthusiastic about teaching
critical thinking (Tsui, 2001). Instructors’ belief systems have andragogical implications in that
the instructor utilizes strategies that align with their critical thinking definition (Halx & Reybold,
2006). Furthermore, the ways in which instructors interpret classroom situations, affecting how
and to what degree they modify the learning experience, are directly influenced by instructors’
belief systems (Kennedy, 2004). While the ways in which Brian and Marcus adopted and did not
modify the course design were similar, they differed in the degree to which they actively
incorporated specific scaffolded learning opportunities to develop critical thinking. These
differences in course enactment are directly connected to each instructor’s belief system.
Brian’s beliefs about how students learned, and his responsibility to support students in
their learning, were revealed in how he designed and enacted DL 100. Brian believed students
would utilize critical thinking skills to complete projects and assignments although he did not
provide scaffolded support for students to develop these skills. The following section argues that
Brian believed his students had the capacity to use critical thinking skills although he did not
intentionally build these skills as evidenced by his lack of scaffolding the learning environment.
Brian accepted the design and enacted DL 100 utilizing an instructor-centered belief
system. During an interview he explained his assessment of his students’ abilities, stating:

153
Luckily even the students who are the lowest common denominator are pretty smart
humans. So they’ll get there if they’re by themselves. I actually have a lot of faith in that
you can introduce basic concepts (the entry level pieces of information) to accomplish the
task and students will be pretty resourceful to get to the end.
Brian believed his students could successfully engage in the learning needed to complete the
tasks at hand, however, he did not see himself as responsible for actively guiding students
through the learning process. His belief about student learning was rooted in his assumption that
all students were equally positioned to engage in the learning environment. However, one key
element of teaching critical thinking skills is the active role instructors play in encouraging
students to engage in critical thinking (Kennedy, 2004; Halx & Reybold, 2006). Instead, Brian
adopted the course design and enacted the course with the expectation that the students would
“be pretty resourceful to get to the end,” meaning the students would learn how to use the
instructional tools to achieve the desired end goal. From Brian’s perspective, his role as the
instructor was to introduce key concepts and present a general instructional structure that the
students would then learn to navigate. Enacting the course where the responsibility is on the
students to navigate the learning process is associated with a teacher-centered belief system.
Brian did not believe it was his responsibility to design and enact learning opportunities that
reflected students’ learning needs. If the students had questions or needed clarification they were
expected to ask Brian for help, thereby enacting help-seeking behaviors. Again, the effort to
develop the necessary skills necessitated the students’ effort and was not dependent on the
instructor. Brian’s instructor-centered belief system was rooted in the assumption that all
students were equally positioned to engage in the learning tasks at hand and would be successful

154
in learning how to independently use the instructor-provided tools to develop the necessary
critical thinking skills.
Brian expected students to deploy critical thinking skills in the absence of scaffolding
opportunities. Brian incorporated whole class discussion opportunities that mirrored the types of
thinking students would use when completing course assignments. In doing so, Brian created
opportunities for students to practice the types of thinking students would do independently
when creating their projects. Analyzing and evaluating a project could have served as cognitive
scaffold however the way in which Brian engaged the students during the in-class discussion
hindered the impact of the activity to guide students through the necessary learning. The
following was an example representative of the types of dialogue that occurred during in-class
discussions as students analyzed a piece of student work.
Instructor displayed an image of Columbia University student, Emma Sulkowicz,
carrying a mattress where the original photograph has been modified for the DL
100 Image Assignment.
B: What is this about?
S10: She carried her bed in order to protest. Others ridiculed her.
B: Everyone agree with that assessment?
S2: She was raped and carried the mattress with her.
B: What did the student do with this image? We have the woman…the student
could have just used the image with the woman and her mattress. How did
she change it to make an impact?
S1: (responds but researcher was unable to capture information) No comment
from T.

155
S13: Responds. I think it’s… (comment inaudible).
B: What else is in the background? What does it feel like to you? What text did
the student use and why?
S9: The weight has a physical meaning--the weight of the mattress—but it’s the
weight survivors carry around with them post-incident that’s important.
B: Right. [Pause.] Is he sincere or not?
S15: I think he’s sincere.
S15: Addresses two details of the image (comment inaudible).
Some of the general student population respond: “Ah, good job”
B: What could have been done differently to make that point? She taped over
his mouth. Is he supposed to be a supporter?
S11: Student responds (unable to record response)
B: Perfect.
During the in-class activities students were encouraged to ask questions and analyze topics,
mimicking the types of engagement and thinking skills needed to complete the projects. Brian
expected students to engage in critical thinking during class and implemented opportunities for
students to engage in these processes. The limitations with this approach, however, included the
lack of intentionality to guide students through the specific thinking processes and the fact that
not all students participated in these activities.
9
The act of incorporating these instructional
activities reflected Brian’s impulses regarding the need for students to practice the cognitive and
technical skills during class time. However, he did not display an awareness of how to use these
in-class opportunities to actively and overtly develop students’ critical thinking skills. The ways

9
A complete analysis of the types of in-class discussions as well as the instructor-student interaction were
previously presented as Finding 2 in the first case study, pages 107-115.

156
in which Brian adopted the design and enacted DL 100 reflected a standardized, one-size-fits-all
approach. Brian’s decisions were reflective of a teacher-centered belief system where students
were capable of developing the necessary skills on their own however he was not responsible for
providing scaffolded support.
While Marcus and Brian shared the belief that all students were capable of developing the
necessary critical thinking skills, Marcus enacted DL 100 using limited scaffolding opportunities
to construct the necessary knowledge. Marcus approached the course enactment with a greater
emphasis on intentionally using scaffolds, although he did not overtly engage students in critical
thinking skill development. Thus, the two instructors differed in instructional approach
according to the degree to which the instructor scaffolded the learning environment. The
following sections present evidence of Marcus’s beliefs regarding students’ critical thinking
capacity as well as how he utilized limited scaffolding opportunities to develop critical thinking
skills.
Marcus held the belief that students shared similar academic preparation that would
provide them with the necessary skillset to be successful in DL 100. He explained his
perspective regarding students’ learning, stating:
…some of them already understand a lot of these concepts although they don’t have the
vocabulary to talk about them in this arena so it’s getting them to understand, “you
already know this because you’ve been doing it.”…They understand what it means to
have the message encoded with ideology,...Maybe the way of talking about them or
having the space to talk about them is new.
Marcus assumed students had similar exposure to information and complex knowledge stating
“[the students] already know this because [they’ve] been doing it.” He expected students to have

157
a shared understanding of complex topics such as “what it means to have the message encoded
with ideology.” From his perspective DL 100 provided students with a new perspective or way
of thinking about specific concepts they knew prior to enrolling in DL 100. Marcus believed his
students not only had the capability but also the capacity to engage in complex thinking, aligning
with the findings from Tsui (2001) suggesting that, in order to teach critical thinking, faculty had
to believe in their students’ critical thinking ability.
While Marcus expressed his belief that students were capable of engaging in higher order
thinking, the ways in which he enacted the course reflected a teacher-centered belief system that
incorporated limited scaffolding opportunities. As previously presented during the “Course
Design and Implementation” section of the cross-case analysis, Marcus associated understanding
the “lexicon” as an essential instructional element for students to build critical thinking skills. In
stating this belief, he communicated an understanding that in order for students to be able to
discuss new ways of thinking about complex topics, such as ideology, the learning environment
needed to be scaffolded so the activities incrementally increased in complexity as students
constructed the necessary knowledge. For Marcus, learning the necessary vocabulary was an
initial opportunity to begin scaffolding the learning needed to engage in the more complex
activities. Therefore, from Marcus’s perspective vocabulary development served as a
foundational skillset that he intentionally scaffolded to support students’ meaning making. To
build students’ vocabulary Marcus included in-class opportunities to present specific terms, and
as a result, the in-class activities served as cognitive scaffolds to model what the students were
expected to do on their own. The following was an excerpt from the in-class conversation in
response to the prompt, “How are systems of power, privilege and difference maintained and/or
contested?”

158
M: So we’re going to create six examples. Mattie identified one. (Marcus writes
“consumerism” on the board.) What’s another?
S1: Increased justification of violence against women who don’t fit that mold. It’s not
rational but there’s increased pressure to fit that mold.
M: Let’s distill that to “violence against women.” [S8] give me another one.
S8: Decreased self-esteem. (T writes “self esteem” and “self-harm”)
M: Right. (Writes terms on the board.)
1. Consumerism
2. Violence
3. Self esteem
4. Self-harm
M: We need two more.
S4: Provides a response (Researcher did not capture response.)
M: [Marcus summarizes student’s response.] There will be a counter-hegemonic
response. Let’s write this one down.
5. Counter-hegemonic (T writes on white board.)
M: We need one more. (S2 raises hand.) [S2], go ahead.
S2: When you put one person on a pedestal you create unequal expectations.
M: Social stratification.
6. Social stratification (T writes on white board.)
Through this activity Marcus engaged the class in a series of cognitive activities that served as
foundational knowledge for the students’ upcoming projects. He prioritized vocabulary building
as he associated this knowledge as a necessary step in supporting students learning as they

159
crafted their projects. However, in presenting the six terms in response to the students’
comments, Marcus carried the cognitive load for distilling these terms. While Marcus presented
in-class opportunities to practice the necessary thinking skills, the ways in which he enacted
these opportunities did not promote the active learning of all students and reaffirmed a teacher-
centered belief system. He had a strong impulse to scaffold the development of critical thinking
skills by incorporating a vocabulary discussion however the execution of this lesson lacked
strategies that could have provided a more equitable learning environment for all students to
engage in this learning opportunity. For example, including instructional support systems such
as modeling the desired thinking process or including instructor-provided explanations to guide
students through the comprehension of abstract concepts offer students support as they engage in
critical thinking (Cargas et al., 2017; Facione & Facione, 1996; Shim & Walczak, 2012).
Moreover, instructional opportunities that utilize active learning strategies centered on the
students’ learning needs provide opportunities to develop critical thinking (Abrami et al., 2015).
By presenting the terms without explicit discussion regarding the thinking processes needed or
students’ active engagement in identifying the terms, Marcus weakened the potential scaffolding
impact of this activity. The absence of overt instruction may have created an environment where
only certain well-positioned students could succeed. While Marcus assumed his students could
successfully engage in critical thinking development, the ways in which he scaffolded the in-
class instruction for the development of critical thinking weakened the potential impact of his
efforts.
A comparison of the ways in which Brian and Marcus accepted the design and
implemented DL100 resulted in four findings addressing the course design, course enactment,
course design and enactment, and instructor beliefs. DL 100 was designed with the expectation

160
students would deploy critical thinking skills however there was not explicit support for students
to develop these skills. Similarly, DL 100 was not enacted to overtly develop critical thinking
skills. Third, through the course design and enactment Brian and Marcus did not demonstrate an
awareness of how to develop critical thinking skills. Lastly, the fourth finding identified an area
of dissonance between the instructors as Brian and Marcus’s belief systems regarding their
responsibility in supporting students’ learning led to differences in scaffolding techniques
utilized during course enactment as students built critical thinking skills. Learning opportunities
that implicitly develop students’ skillsets create inequitable learning environments as some
students may have been better positioned to engage in the activities than others (Halpern, 2001;
Marin & Halpern, 2010). The results of the cross-case analysis suggested that the absence of
overt critical thinking design and instruction may have contributed to an inequitable learning
environment for all students.

161
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study examined the ways instructor beliefs, critical thinking, and scaffolding
influenced how digital literacy courses were designed and enacted to foster opportunities for
students to develop critical thinking skills. A qualitative, multi-case study was used to examine
the following research questions:
• How do undergraduate digital literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster
students’ development of critical thinking skills?
o How does the structure of the course, as evident in the syllabus and assignments,
provide opportunities to foster critical thinking skill development?
o How does the delivery of instruction provide opportunities to foster critical
thinking skill development?
In order to answer these questions, I used purposeful sampling to select two instructors teaching
different sections of the same undergraduate introductory digital literacy course, DL 100. Since
DL 100 was an introductory course that fulfilled a general education requirement the DL
department, I assumed students would come to DL 100 with a variety of digital literacy skills as
this was frequently their first DL course at UAS. Therefore, I presumed that the introductory
nature of DL 100 would shape how the instructors approached teaching the course and the
development of critical thinking skills as instructors would assume that students would be in a
more developmental skillset stage. The data I collected to answer these questions included two
in-person interviews of each instructor, each lasting approximately 1 hour for a total of 4 hours,
five classroom observations of each instructor for a total of 9 hours per section or 18 total
observation hours, and a review of the syllabus, instructor-generated materials such as the course
wiki, and in-class handouts. The data provided insight into the factors influencing how the DL

162
100 instructors approached the intended and enacted curriculum. In my conceptual framework I
argued for the influence of the instructor’s belief system in designing and implementing
opportunities that actively engage students in critical thinking development through a scaffolded
learning process. I analyzed the data to examine whether the course design and instructional
delivery expected students to use critical thinking skills and consequently how the instructors’
belief systems influenced how the instructors approached the intended and enacted curriculum as
evident in the use of scaffolded learning tools to develop critical thinking skills. In the
subsequent sections I review the findings in greater depth and discuss the implications for
practice, policy, and research.
Summary of Findings
The findings of this study suggest that opportunities to foster critical thinking skills occur
when instructors’ beliefs align with the critical thinking expectations of the intended curriculum,
and the instructor is knowledgeable about how to enact critical thinking skill development during
class time. The analysis revealed that the digital literacy courses as enacted by the instructors
expected students to deploy critical thinking but did not develop critical thinking. During the
subsequent sections I present the findings from each case study according to how each instructor
designed and enacted their DL 100 course.
Brian taught DL 100 from an instructor-centered belief system (Kember, 1997) where he
expected students to use critical thinking skills but did not demonstrate that he was in any way
responsible for students’ development of these skills. An instructor-centered belief system
emphasizes teaching as the dissemination of information from the instructor to the student, where
the student passively receives the information. In contrast, a student-centered belief system
involves the instructor guiding students through learning experiences that focuses on student

163
learning outcomes and active learning strategies (Kember, 1997). The data showed that Brian
followed the design of the DL 100 standardized syllabus to the degree that he did not make
significant modifications to the syllabus that altered the syllabus designers’ expectations for
students to engage in critical thinking skills. The DL 100 standardized syllabus utilized an
immersion framework (Ennis, 1989), as evident in the course design, that expected students to
engage in higher order thinking skills without intentionally supporting students in the
development of these skills. The design of the in-class interaction included discussion activities
where the students were expected to engage in skills associated with higher order thinking such
as analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Tsui, 2001), however, Brian expected students to deploy
the necessary skillsets through participation in activities without explicitly communicating or
guiding students through the development of these skills. The course projects were designed
with the expectation students would utilize critical thinking (Anderson et al., 2001). Evidence of
this was derived from the expectations outlined in the evaluation criteria and incorporating
activities within the course design such as written critiques and reading responses (Tsui, 2002).
Additionally, data from the course wiki demonstrated Brian expected students to engage in
activities that utilized critical thinking however the wiki was not designed as an instructional tool
to guide students through the development of these skills. The omission of instructor modeling
the types of desired thinking necessary to complete the projects and the absence of discussing an
evaluation rubric for assignments so students understood the types of thinking expected provided
evidence that key curriculum design elements were absent (Cargas et al., 2017).
The data also showed that Brian enacted DL 100 with the expectation students would
deploy critical thinking skills without intentionally developing these skills. Brian opted to
approach the instructional delivery in this way as I inferred from the data his belief that all

164
students had the capacity to develop critical thinking however it was not his responsibility to
assist them with developing these skills. Brian utilized discussion questions that required higher
order thinking skills (Tsui, 1999) but in the absence of encouraging participation from all
students only certain students were challenged to develop their complex thinking (Abrami et al.,
2008; Tsui, 2002). When the students struggled to respond to the more complex questioning he
utilized lower cognitive level questioning and did not provide any type of instructor-generated
explanations or instructional supports to assist students in understanding abstract concepts (Shim
& Walczak, 2012). While Brian provided opportunities for students to engage in complex
thinking he believed his role as the instructor was to provide access to the instructional tools,
thereby limiting his role in actively guiding students through the development of critical thinking
skills. In turn, the students were responsible for learning how and when to utilize those resources
to support the building of critical thinking skills. In the absence of explicit support such as
instructor modeling the desired thinking (Abrami et al., 2015), clearly communicating learning
outcomes in a syllabus (Halpern, 2001; Mayer, 2011), guiding students through the use of
specific complex skills during class time (Halpern, 2001), Brian expected students to engage in
activities requiring critical thinking and did not support the students in the development of these
skills.
Marcus designed and enacted DL 100 utilizing a predominantly instructor-centered belief
system (Kember, 1997) where he expected students to use critical thinking skills and
demonstrated a minimal level of responsibility for the development of these skills. The data
showed that Marcus adopted the immersion framework (Ennis, 1989) of the syllabus template as
evident in the language utilized in the course description and evaluation criteria. Similar to
Brian, Marcus did not opt to modify the syllabus to include the incorporation of learning

165
outcomes (Halpern, 2001) that would have communicated the thinking skillsets the students
developed from DL 100. The expectation for critical thinking was also implied in the project
descriptions that communicated the expectation for students to analyze, evaluate, and create
(Anderson et al., 2001). The projects were overtly designed for students to practice and build
their digital literacy skillsets over the duration of the semester with the implicit expectation
students would develop the necessary critical thinking skills as a byproduct of completing the
projects. The data also showed that Marcus designed the course wiki to serve as a cognitive
scaffold for the academic content and specific task completion however it was not utilized in
ways to guide students through the development of the necessary thinking skills, as would be
possible had Marcus modeled the necessary thought processes (Facione, 1990; Facione &
Facione, 1996; Halpern, 2001) and demonstrated how students construct knowledge through the
use of active learning strategies (Anthony, 1996).
Marcus enacted the course with the expectation students deployed critical thinking skills
with limited intentionality to develop these skills during class-time. Marcus described his beliefs
regarding student-instructor interaction using sentiments that presented as student-centered
(Kember, 1997). For example, during an interview he expressed his interest to “destabil[ize] that
hierarchy in the classroom…because [the student] voice is equally important.” However,
Marcus enacted the course in ways that often resulted in Marcus carrying the cognitive load for
complex thinking while providing limited scaffolded learning opportunities during class time for
students to develop the necessary thinking skills. Thus, the ways in which Marcus enacted the
curriculum reflected an instructor-centered belief system, thereby contradicting his professed
student-centered belief system. During class time Marcus utilized cognitive scaffolds (Yelland
& Masters, 2007) to guide students’ development of critical thinking skills, however the ways in

166
which he utilized these tools did not overtly develop the necessary skills as he assumed students
understood how to use the tools to complete the assignments. Furthermore, the data showed that
Marcus enacted the course using andragogical methods that provided students with the
opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking such as student presentations (Nold, 2017), in-class
critiques (Cargas, 2017; Tsui, 2002), and whole class discussions (Abrami et al., 2015; Tsui,
2002). However, there was a lack of explicit support to guide all students through the building
of the thinking skills needed as evident in limited students participating during class time and the
absence of instructor modeling desired thought processes and metacognitive reflection activities
(Abrami et al., 2015; Facione, 1990; Facione & Facione, 1996; Halpern, 1999). The data also
showed that Marcus expected students to engage in complex thinking during class time, however
when the students struggled, such as with whole class discussions where students responded to a
series of instructor-presented prompts, Marcus carried the cognitive load thereby weakening the
learning opportunity for students.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation examined instructor beliefs, critical thinking curriculum, and scaffolding
tools to explore how instructors implement digital literacy courses to develop students’ critical
thinking skills. Findings from this study revealed that the digital literacy course did not
explicitly guide students in the development of critical thinking but overtly expected them to use
critical thinking. Both instructors believed in the capacity for their students to use critical
thinking skills however the course enactment revealed that they differed in the extent to which
they guided students through skill development. In this section I will discuss the respective
implications and recommendations for practice, policy, and future research.

167
Practice
An instructor’s belief system directly influences how the instructor designs and enacts a
course (Bartolomé, 2004; Day et al., 2006; Kember, 1997; Torff, 2005). An implication of this
study is that a department’s dependence on standardized curriculum does not guarantee equitable
learning opportunities for students across course sections. Standardized curriculum does not
equate to equitable learning opportunities across course offerings as the instructor’s respective
belief system directly influences how the instructor designs and enacts the course (Bartolomé,
2004; Day et al., 2006; Kember, 1997; Torff, 2005). While a department may spend the
resources to devise a syllabus template in order to standardize the design of academic content it
does not control how the course is enacted and ultimately how the students experience the
course. When instructors enact a student-centered belief system they are sensitive to the learning
needs of their students, engaging the students in active learning activities reflective of their
students’ skills (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Kennedy, 2004). In contrast, faculty
who take up the standardized syllabus in ways that reflect an instructor-centered belief system
are less likely aware of and sensitive to students’ learning needs (Kember, 1997). Instructor-
centered belief systems present inequitable learning opportunities for students as the instruction
does not reflect the students’ learning needs and moreover students who are well positioned are
more likely to succeed in the course. Furthermore, an instructor’s belief system includes
assumptions about their students’ skillsets (Aguirre & Speer, 2000; Kennedy, 2004; Torff, 2005,
2006) and specifically their expectations for students to engage in critical thinking (Torff 2005,
2006). This means that irrespective of the faculty’s access to a standardized syllabus, the more
significant impact is that of the instructor’s belief system, and specifically the faculty’s

168
assumptions about their students critical thinking skills and sense of responsibility to develop
these skills.
In response to this concern it is recommended that the department creates a syllabus that
overtly communicates the learning objectives and provides faculty with access to andragogical
support. If a course is intended to develop students’ critical thinking skills then the syllabus and
course design materials must explicitly list this expectation within the learning objectives
(Abrami et al., 2008; Fitzgerald & Baird, 2011). Doing so communicates clear expectations for
the students so they understand the type of learning that is expected, otherwise a misalignment
between the instructor and students’ expectations leads to confusion and students may be at a
disadvantage if they are not well positioned to engage in the specific types of learning and skill
development (Virtanen & Yindblom-Ylänne, 2010). Furthermore, departmental sponsored
training may assist faculty with gaining the awareness and tools needed to develop specific
skillsets for students (Abrami, 2008; Light et al., 2009; Loes et al., 2014; Virtanen & Lindblom-
Ylänne, 2010). Departments should engage the faculty in conversations to identify a shared
understanding of specific learning outcomes such as critical thinking so the faculty are trained in
what “critical thinking” means for their respective department (Halx & Reybold, 2006; Marin &
Halpern, 2010). Previous studies have also demonstrated the benefits of faculty training
programs in guiding instructors to embrace a student-centered andragogical approach that
translated to the classroom (Loes et al., 2014; Light et al., 2009). Faculty development programs
addressing critical thinking skill development have also been successful in improving how
critical thinking is implemented in courses (Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2010).
If universities expect students to graduate with strong critical thinking skills then it is
imperative courses overtly communicate and develop this skillset (Halpern, 2001). Courses that

169
explicitly include critical thinking within the course design and instructional delivery provide
equitable learning opportunities for all students (Marin & Halpern, 2010). An implication is that
when critical thinking is implicitly incorporated within the course design and enactment it
advantages students who already have these skills and disadvantages those who not equally
positioned. Previous studies note that when courses utilize an immersive course design as
evident when critical thinking is implicitly taught (Ennis, 1989), not all students experience a
gain in critical thinking skill development (Abrami et al., 2008; Abrami et al., 2015). The most
significant gains in critical thinking occur when critical thinking is clearly articulated within the
course design and enactment, and students are provided opportunities to practice this skill and
apply it to a novel context (Abrami et al., 2008; Marin & Halpern, 2010). The main concern for
implicit critical thinking teaching is that not all students are equally well positioned to engage in
learning (Halpern, 2001; Marin & Halpern, 2010). This is especially problematic for university
faculty as previous research studies have shown that K-12 students have different levels of
access to critical thinking instruction based on whether the students were enrolled in advanced
coursework (Marin & Halpern, 2010; Torff, 2005). Thus, not all students arrive to college
equally trained and prepared for the complex thinking required. When the course design and
enactment follow an immersive format where critical thinking is implicitly taught, students
having unequal access to learning opportunities, and as a result may perpetuate learning
disparities.
In order to combat inequitable learning opportunities present as a result of immersive
courses, the course design and enactment need to overtly communicate critical thinking
expectations. Courses must include critical thinking expectations within the instructional
outcomes listed in the syllabi (Abrami et al., 2008) however this on its own is not sufficient to

170
support students’ critical thinking development. A wholistic approach to designing and enacting
critical thinking development includes identifying the thinking skills as learning outcomes in the
syllabus, designing the instruction to address those skills, enacting the course to engage students
in complex thinking, and aligning assessments with the course goals (Anthony, 1996; Halpern,
2001). However, not all faculty are aware of how to engage students in critical thinking
development. Providing course design and andragogical training for faculty can address this
challenge. Faculty are successful in implementing course design approaches and teaching
methods as the result of professional development and faculty development programs (Abrami et
al., 2008; Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2010).
An implication of this study is that faculty do not know how to consistently scaffold for
critical thinking. Scaffolding provides instructional support so the learning experience is not
overwhelming for the learner. More specifically it is a process that assists students in carrying
out more complex tasks that would not be possible independently (Wood et al., 1976).
Scaffolding provides learning opportunities that are reflective of and sensitive to students’
learning needs and consequently are associated with a student-centered andragogical approach.
More importantly, scaffolded learning increases the likelihood students are successful in
progressing through complex projects and tasks. When scaffolding is regularly incorporated into
the course design and instructional implementation studies have reported significant benefits in
guiding students through higher order thinking tasks associated with critical thinking (Hill &
Hannafin, 2001; Zheng et al., 2009). While scaffolding is an instructional tool that can be
utilized by all faculty to present learning opportunities that appropriately challenge students as
they construct meaning, not all faculty are aware of how to scaffold for cognitive skill
development (Gul et al., 2014). The data from this study mirrored the results from previous

171
research studies in that the faculty were well intentioned and had some level of awareness of
scaffolding however they did not consistently scaffold for critical thinking. While both
instructors scaffolded for digital literacy skill development only one instructor had the impulse to
scaffold learning opportunities for critical thinking development although this was done
inconsistently. The faculty in this study utilized scaffolding without additional support that
would have encouraged the faculty’s awareness of how to consistently use this learning tool.
A recommendation to address this challenge is providing professional development and
training opportunities for faculty to learn and practice scaffolding techniques. Faculty
development programs that have focused on student-centered forms of teaching and learning
have been successful in providing faculty with the skillsets that transfer to the classroom (Light
et al., 2009). Furthermore, institutions can create a culture of sharing andragogical methods by
supporting conversations amongst the faculty addressing critical thinking, such as intellectual
exchanges, or more formal learning environments as with seminars and workshops (Tsui, 2001).
The goal for these types of programs is for faculty to be empowered and knowledgeable to
present student-centered learning opportunities that appropriately challenge all students in their
critical thinking development.
Policy
In seeking to understand how instructors provide opportunities to foster critical thinking
development this study identified the need for intentional faculty training. An implication of this
study is if critical thinking is an institutional priority then faculty need to know how to
consistently teach and guide students in developing critical thinking skills so that they are able to
construct meaning. Instructors frequently identify critical thinking as an instructional goal
however very few actually utilize instructional methods that foster critical thinking (Marin &

172
Halpern, 2010). Thus, there is a pervasive disconnect between what faculty think they are doing
to develop critical thinking skills and what they are actually able to consistently do during
instructional delivery (Marin & Halpern, 2010). While instructors may be well intentioned, have
the appropriate student-centered belief system, and an awareness of constructing meaning
through the use of scaffolding, they need to understand how to use learning tools in order to
consistently support the development of a specific skillset. An instructor’s strong instincts to
create opportunities for students to engage in complex thinking is necessary yet insufficient to
support the development of these skills. The construction of meaning does not occur as the
result of students’ participation in activities; students must learn how to construct meaning
(Anthony, 1996). Thus, the instructor’s role is vital in guiding students through activities that
overtly support students’ meaning making in ways that are sensitive to the unique needs of the
individual (Anthony, 1996; Halpern, 2001; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). An instructor’s good
intentions regarding creating the space for students to engage in student-centered learning
opportunities provides a foundation for learning, however, students’ must be overtly taught to
utilize active learning approaches in order to engage in complex thinking (Anthony, 1996;
Halpern, 2001). Critical thinking content must be combined with student-centered, active
learning methods as the ways in which critical thinking instruction is provided directly affects
the extent to which students are constructing meaning.
If the development of these skills is an institutional priority then the university has an
obligation to support faculty in developing the necessary skills to teach critical thinking,
including an awareness of the use of scaffolding. University-supported infrastructure, such as a
Faculty Development Center, is essential for communicating the importance of consistently
utilizing andragogy that appropriately challenges and is reflective of students’ needs (Abrami et

173
al., 2008; Gul et al., 2014; Tsui, 2002). Faculty Centers can facilitate university-wide
programming for all faculty to have the necessary support to understand what critical thinking
skill development looks like from a course design and implementation perspective, and how to
use scaffolding tools to facilitate students’ learning (Cargas et al., 2017; Light et al., 2009).
More importantly, with institutional support comes greater access for generations of faculty who
can have the option to use these resources in a long-term capacity.
Research
My study examined a specific research question while my conceptual framework guided
how I collected and examined the data. As a result, this study cannot address topics that extend
beyond the conceptual framework and what I asked during the data collection process. Future
research studies can and should examine correlated topics that provide additional insight into
how courses provide opportunities for critical thinking development.
One implication from a research perspective is the need to explore the student-instructor
interaction in using scaffolded learning tools to develop critical thinking skills. In my study I
focused on the ways in which instructors’ belief systems were evident in the use of scaffolds
during the course design and instructional delivery. I did not explore the interaction between the
instructor and student in using these learning tools. While knowledge of specific critical
thinking strategies and andragogy is essential, exploring the ways in which faculty utilize these
strategies (Abrami et al., 2008) is particularly important, with specific interest in the student-
instructor interaction. As Virtanen and Lindblom-Ylänne (2010) note, there may be a disconnect
between the learning expectations and responsibilities of instructors and students. Future studies
could explore the student perspective of critical thinking development, such as what tools and
strategies students felt were more beneficial in supporting their learning. From the faculty’s

174
perspective future studies could examine how student feedback impacts an instructor’s course
design and implementation decisions. This information would provide greater insight into the
instructor’s belief system regarding if and when he chooses to adjust his approach to critical
thinking development in response to students’ needs.
Differences in instructional practices and expectations for critical thinking exist amongst
different academic content areas (Moore, 2011; Tsui, 1999). An implication of this study is the
content area may impact how the instructor designs and enacts the course to develop critical
thinking skills. This implication is reaffirmed by the findings of Tsui (1999) that acknowledged
the influential, yet not the principle role of the subject area on the facilitation of critical thinking
skill development. My study was restricted to undergraduate digital literacy courses therefore, it
is of interest to explore the development of critical thinking skills within non-digital literacy
content areas. Due to the influential role of an instructor’s belief system on the course design
and enactment future research studies should also examine the instructor’s belief system
regarding learning facilitation within different content areas (Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylänne,
2010). The content area is a factor influencing how a course is designed and enacted for critical
thinking skill development.
This study focused on the instructor’s perspective and his actions within the course
design and instructional delivery. I did not examine the student experience; therefore an
implication of this study is the necessity to explore students’ characteristics that may influence
the learning environment. Previous research studies note that as the diversity of college students
increases there is a concern for utilizing strategies that appropriately reflect students’ learning
needs and the potential influence of non-classroom experiences (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)
and precollege academic preparation (Loes et al., 2014) on students’ critical thinking

175
development. Furthermore, in alignment with Bensimon (2005), instructors’ perceptions of
students’ characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, influence how
instructors design and enact curriculum, think students learn, and make assumptions about
students’ cognitive capacity. Thus, examining critical thinking development in ways that are
sensitive to students’ unique identities provides opportunities to explore issues such as access
and equity.
Lastly, this study focused on how a digital literacy course was designed and enacted to
foster opportunities for critical thinking development. While DL 100 utilized a standardized
syllabus, I did not explore the constraints and benefits of a structured curriculum. An
implication of this study is that a department’s reliance on standardized syllabi does not equate to
a well-crafted curriculum. In alignment with the findings from Abrami et al. (2008) and Loes et
al. (2014), an influential factor affecting students’ critical thinking development is explicit
critical thinking instruction, which begins with overtly communicating critical thinking within
the course goals and learning outcomes within the syllabus. Courses that develop critical
thinking identify the desired skills, design instruction to address those skills, and include
assessments that connect to course goals (Halpern, 2001). Future studies should explore critical
thinking curriculum design, specifically whether the course was designed with an understanding
of how the different components of the syllabus interact and whether they support one another to
achieve the learning outcomes. When courses are intentionally designed to develop critical
thinking then the syllabus design and the quality of the interconnectedness of the syllabus
elements, are crucial factors affecting the extent to which the curriculum is set up to achieve the
course goals.

176
Conclusion
As the United States’ college student population continues to diversify due to increasing
educational access it is imperative that learning experiences remain student-centered and
reflective of students’ respective needs. Furthermore, with the growing presence of digital
literacy curriculum, combined with the expectations for critical thinking, curricular studies
within the college context must continue to explore best practices for how to foster the critical
thinking skills of today’s college graduates. The impetus for change is a global concern, where
the responsibility for preparing students to have these skills exists within the university, and
specifically the learning opportunities available at the course-level. Through continued
examination of instructors’ belief systems and their direct influence on the strategies and
scaffolding tools incorporated within the course design and instructional delivery we can
continue to improve and provide supportive, appropriately challenging, and successful learning
experiences for all students.

177
References

Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D.I., Wade, C.A., & Persson, T.
(2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 85(2), 275-314.
Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A. Surkes, M.A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D.
(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A
stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134.
Aguirre, J., & Speer, N.M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in
teacher practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327-356.
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., & Bloom, B.S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.
Bartolomé, L.I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97-121.
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (eds.)
Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Bensimon, E.M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, Fall 2005(131), 99-111.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwol, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

178
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin et al. (Eds.), Assessment and
teaching of 21
st
century skills. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and
why they should be learning more. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Cargas, S., Williams, S., & Rosenberg, M. (2017). An approach to teaching critical thinking
across disciplines using performance tasks with a common rubric. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 26, 24-37.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’
perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21
st
century
U.S. workforce. Washington, D.C.: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Clayton-Pederson, A.R., & O’Neill, N. (2005). Curricula designed to meet 21st-century
expectations. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 9.1-
9.15). Bolder, CO: Educause.
Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S.W., & Ball, D.L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

179
Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2010). Strengthening and weakening boundaries: Students
negotiating technology mediated learning. In S. Rohna, H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas
(Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are sharing their own
experiences (pp. 143-153). New York, NY: Routledge.
Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves
of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4),
601-616.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21
st
century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt
(Eds.), 21
st
century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 50-75). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Deed, C., & Edwards, A. (2011). Unrestricted student blogging: Implications for active learning
in a virtual text-based environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 11-21.
Doolittle, P. (1997). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development as a theoretical foundation for
cooperative learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8(1), 83-103.
Dwyer, C.A., Millett, C.M., & Payne, D.G. (2006). A culture of evidence: Postsecondary
assessment and learning outcomes. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Ehrmann, S.C. (1995). Asking the right questions: What does research tell us about technology
and higher learning? Change, 27(2), 20-27.
Ennis, R.H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.
Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4-10.
Ennis, R.H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186.
Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., & Tomko, T. N. (1985). Cornell critical thinking test: Level X. Pacific
Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

180
Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. Newark, DE: American Philosophical
Association.
Facione, N.C. & Facione, P.A. (1996). Externalizing the critical thinking in knowledge
development and clinical judgment. Nursing Outlook, 44(3), 129-136.
Facione, P.A., Sanchez, C.A., Facione, N.C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical
thinking. The Journal of General Education 44(1), 1-25.
Fitzgerald, J., & Baird, V.A. (2011). Taking a step back: Teaching critical thinking by
distinguishing appropriate types of evidence, PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(3),
619-624.
Flowers, L., Pascarella, E.T., & Pierson, C.T. (2000). Information technology: Use and cognitive
outcomes in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 637-667.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J.E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in the
digital age: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
Gul, R.B., Khan, S., Ahmed, A., Cassum, S., Saeed, T., Parpio, Y., Profetto-McGrath, J., &
Schopflocher, D. (2014). Enhancing educators’ skills for promoting critical thinking in
their classroom discourses: A randomized control trial. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 37-54.
Gut, D.M. (2011). Integrating 21
st
century skills into the curriculum. In G. Wan & D.M. Gut
(eds.), Bringing schools in the 21
st
century. Athens, OH: Springer Science + Business.
Halpern, D.F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills
and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (80),
69-74.

181
Halpern, D.F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of
General Education, 50(4), 270-286.
Halx, M.D., & Reybold, L.E. (2006). A pedagogy of force: Faculty perspectives of critical
thinking capacity in undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education, 54(4),
293-315.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Higher Education Research Institute (2012). About HERI. Retrieved from
https://heri.ucla.edu/about-heri/
Hill, J.R., & Hannafin, M.J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The
resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 49(3), 37-52.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Washington D.C.: The Aspen
Institute Communications and Society Program.
Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media literacy skills. Reading
Research Quarterly, 38(3), 330-355.
Huber, C.R., & Kuncel, N.R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 431-468.
Information and Communications Technologies Advisory Committee (2010, January). Digital
literacy pathways in California: ICT leadership council action plan report. Retrieved
from: http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/Digital%20LiteracyMaster_July_2010.pdf
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A.J. (2009). Confronting the

182
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21
st
century. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Jones, A. (2007). Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical thinking and the disciplinary
context. Australian Journal of Education, 51(1), 84-103.
Kember, D. (1997). A receptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.
Kennedy, M.M. (2004). Reform ideals and teachers’ practical intentions. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12(13), 1-38.
Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy (2009).
Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age. Washington, D.C.:
The Aspen Institute.
Knowles, M. (1980) The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Chicago, IL: Associated Press.
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Labbo, L.D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M.C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in the
next century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling, 73(3&4), 273-289.
Light, G., Calkins, S., Luna, M., & Drane, D. (2009). Assessing the impact of a year-long faculty
development program on faculty approaches to teaching. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 168-181.

183
Loes, C., Salisbury, M.H., & Pascarella, E.T. (2014). Student perceptions of effective instruction
and the development of critical thinking: A replication and extension. Higher Education,
69: 823-838.
MacGregor, S.K., & Lou, Y. (2004). Web-based learning: How task scaffolding and web site
design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
37(2), 161-175.
Marin, L.M., & Halpern, D.F. (2010). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents:
Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1-13.
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy
development. Innovation and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249-
267.
Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning, Inc.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college
classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
McMillan, J.H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies.
Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 3-29.
Melero, J., Hernandez-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2012). A review of constructivist learning methods
with supporting tooling in ICT higher education: Defining different types of scaffolding.
Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(16), 2334-2360.

184
Mentkowski, M., & Strait, M.J. (1983). A longitudinal study of student change in cognitive
development, learning styles, and generic abilities in an outcome-centered liberal arts
curriculum. (Final Report to the National Institute of Education: Research Report
Number Six). Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College, Office of Research and Evaluation.
(NIE-G-77-0058).
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, R. (2007). Education and economic growth: From the 19
th
to 21
st
century. San Jose, CA:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mihaildis, P. (2009). Beyond cynicism: Media education and civic learning outcomes in the
university. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(3), 19-31.
Moore, T. (2011). Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate. Higher
Education Research and Development, 30(3), 261-274.
Nold, H. (2017). Using critical thinking teaching methods to increase student success: An action
research project. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
29(1), 17-32.
Oblinger, D.G., & Rush, S.C. (1997). The learning revolution. In D.G. Oblinger & S.C. Rush
(Eds.) The learning revolution: The challenges of the information technology in the
academy (pp. 2-19). Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

185
Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology. (U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-04-CO-0040).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Office of Institutional Research, University of Ample Sunshine (2016). Common Data Set 2015-
2016. Retrieved from http://oir.uas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CDS-2015-
2016_2.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2009). Annual Report. Paris,
France: Public Affairs Division.
Pascarella, E.T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal
of College Student Development, 47(5), 508-520.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini P.T. (1991). How college affects students. Volume 2: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini P.T. (2005). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pithers, R.T., & Soden, R. (2010). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational
Research, 42(3), 237-249.
Renaud, R.D. & Murray, H.G. (2007). The validity of higher-order questions as a process
indicator of educational quality. Research in Higher Education, 48(3), 319-351.
Rose, D.H., & Gravel, J.W. (March 2012). Curricular opportunities in the digital age. Jobs for
the Future. Retrieved from:

186
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265742229_Curricular_opportunities_in_the_di
gital_age
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Shim, W., & Walczak (2012). The impact of faculty teaching practices on the development of
students’ critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 24(1), 16-30.
Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory
psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2), 95-109.
Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. U.S.
Department of Education: (USDE Contract No. ED-06-C0-0013). Jessup, MD: Education
Publications Center.
Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E.T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the
development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1),
23-38.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in a social context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher
Education, 40(2), 185-200.
Tsui, L. (2001). Faculty attitudes and the development of students’ critical thinking. The Journal
of General Education, 50(1), 1-28.

187
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four
institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763.
Torff, B. (2005). Developmental changes in teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 13-22.
Torff, B. (2006). Expert teachers’ beliefs about the use of critical thinking with high and low
advantage learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 37-52.
UAS Board of Trustees (December 7, 2011). UAS strategic vision: Matching deeds to ambitions.
CA: University of Ample Sunshine. Retrieved from https://www.uas.edu
Van Kan, C., Ponte, P., & Verloop, N. (2013). Ways in which teachers express what they
consider to be in their pupils’ best interest. Professional Development in Education,
39(4), 574-595.
Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2010). University students’ and teacher’s conceptions of
teaching and learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 38(4), 355-370.
Voogt, J. (2010). Teacher factors associated with innovative curriculum goals and andragogical
practice: Differences between extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 453-464.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wass, R., Harland, T., & Mercer, A. (2011). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal
development. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 317-328.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

188
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers &
Education, 48, 362-382.
Zheng, R.Z., Flygare, J.A., & Dahl, L.B. (2009). Style matching or ability building? An
empirical study on FD learners’ learning in well-structured and ill-structured
asynchronous online learning environments. Educational Computing Research, 41(2),
195-226.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine how instructors supported undergraduate students’ critical thinking skill development within the context of a digital literacy course. This study aimed to gain an understanding of what one digital literacy course intended to do, and specifically, how instructors’ beliefs about critical thinking were reflected in the ways in which the curriculum design and instructional delivery intentionally supported students’ learning as evident in the scaffolding tools utilized to construct meaning. The following research question informed the study: How do undergraduate digital literacy courses, as implemented by instructors, foster students’ development of critical thinking skills. Data was collected and analyzed according to the two sub-research questions addressing course design and instructional delivery. ❧ This qualitative multi-case study examined two instructors teaching different sections of the same undergraduate digital literacy course. Five classroom observations and two interviews were conducted for each instructor. Course documents from in-class sessions and the online course wiki were collected. The analysis revealed four major findings: 1) The course design presumed students could engage in critical thinking although there was no explicit support for students to develop these skills

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Military instructor critical thinking preparation

PDF

An investigation of the way instructors’ approaches to the curriculum shape undergraduate students’ opportunities to engage in higher levels of thinking in the United States

PDF

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

PDF

Critical thinking, global mindedness, and curriculum in a Saudi Arabian secondary school

PDF

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

Teaching critical thinking in secondary foreign language classrooms

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Noticing identity: a critically reflective cycle to leverage student mathematical funds of knowledge and identity

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

Teaching literary criticism: a curriculum with an emphasis on religion

PDF

Building 21st century skills for school-age children in Colombia: lessons from a promising practice

PDF

Cognitively guided instruction: A case study in two elementary schools

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

PDF

Exploring the scholarly writing development of master’s nursing students

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Literacy across the disciplines

PDF

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

News media literacy among communication majors at Christian University: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Greene, Kimberlyn (author)

Core Title Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/06/2018

Defense Date 08/31/2018

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

Tag andragogy,college teaching,critical thinking,higher education curriculum,higher education teaching,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Pascarella, John (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email kimberlyn.greene@gmail.com,kimmgreene@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-101625

Unique identifier UC11676735

Identifier etd-GreeneKimb-6890.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-101625 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GreeneKimb-6890.pdf

Dmrecord 101625

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Greene, Kimberlyn

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