JBE2014 Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking Journal of Business Ethics 1
Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Ability, Motivation,
Intervention, and the Pygmalion Effect
Larry W. Howard, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, M. Jill Austin
Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business,
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
Paper Accepted for Publication
Journal of Business Ethics
The authors would like to thank the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) Faculty Diversity
Research Grant for the financial support of this research project. We would like to thank Laura
Buckner, Kimball Bullington, David Foote, Amy Hennington, Daniel Morrell, Richard Mpoyi,
Donald Roy, Earl Thomas, Joe G. Thomas, Cliff Welborn, Rachel Wilson, and Yu Amy Xia for
their participation in this project, Toto Sutarso, Jo Ann Nolan Batson, Rachel Clark, Whitney
Sewell, Ashleigh Raby, and Caitlin Lee for their assistance, Thomas Brinthaupt for his
encouragement, and Ruth Howard for her support. This paper is dedicated to Larry W. Howard,
the principal investigator (PI) of this TBR project, who passed away on March 12, 2009.
We presented portions of this paper at the 27 th International Congress of Applied Psychology,

July 11-16, 2010, Melbourne, Australia.
Address all correspondence to Thomas Li-Ping Tang, P.O. Box 516, Department of Management
and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University,
Murfreesboro, TN 37132. Phone: (615) 898-2005, Fax: (615) 898-5308, E-mail:
ttang@mtsu.edu. (JBE 2014 CriticalThinking.doc: 1/26/2014)
Abstract
Using a Solomon Four-Group Design, we investigate the effect of a case-based critical thinking
intervention on students’ critical thinking skills (CTA). We randomly assign 31 sessions of
business classes (N = 659 students) to four groups and collect data from three sources: in-class
performance (CTA), university records (ACT, GPA and demographic variables), and Internet
online surveys (learning and motivational goals). Our 2 x 2 ANOVA results showed no
significant between-subjects differences. Contrary to our expectations, students improve their
critical thinking skills, with or without the intervention. Female and Caucasian students improve
their critical thinking skills, but males and non-Caucasian do not. Positive performance goals and
negative mastery goals enhance and decrease improvements, respectively. ACT and age are
related to pre-test and post-test. Gender (male) is related to pre-test. GPA is related to post-test.
Results shed light on the Pygmalion effect, ability and motivation as signals for human capital,
and business ethics.
Keywords: Solomon Four-Group Design; critical thinking skills; case study; ability; motivation;
goal; learning modalities; styles; gender; race; ACT; GPA; Pygmalion effect; Galatea Effect;
Self-fulfilling Prophesy; priming effect

An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s “Programme for
International Student Assessment” showed that high school students in the US ranked 20 th in
science and 31st in mathematics, among 57 countries (PISA, 2009). Only 35% of eighth graders
in Tennessee achieved proficient in reading, according to the “2005 report” of National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Some of these eighth graders are in colleges now and will
enter the labor market soon. In the US, our high school students are no longer the brightest in the
world and are not ready for higher education (Fung & Howe, 2012).
Due to globalization, many multinational corporations (MNCs) have outsourced their
low-skill work to countries with the lowest labor rates (Xia & Tang, 2011). With technological,
cultural, demographic, and economic changes in the knowledge economy, the metaphor is not
“climbing ladders” but “riding waves”, according to David Gergen, Director of Harvard’s Center
for Political Leadership (Coleman, Gulati, & Segovia, 2012: 53). College students today expect
to ride seven or eight different waves in their careers. Educators and executives must enhance
creativity, innovation, R&D, and “core competence” of the corporation to achieve sustainable
competitive advantage (McGrath, 2013; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Do students have the
necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to meet the new challenges in the 21 st century?
Among different age cohorts (Baby Boomer, 1946-1964; Gen-Xer, 1965-1980; and Gen-
Yer, or Millennial, after 1980), Gen-Yer’s work-related attitudes, behaviors, and KSAs are
significantly different from those five to ten years ago (Tang, Cunningham, Frauman, Ivy, &
Perry, 2012). According to Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard Graduate
School of Education: “In no instance has academic achievement for all been widely accepted as
the primary purpose of schooling in America” (Graham, 2003: viii). Since President George W.
Bush signed into law, the No Child Left Behind legislation, in 2001, teachers and administrators
have been accountable for students’ academic achievement, measured by standardized test
scores. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some teachers attempt to teach students to the test and
students are interested in one thing: What will be on the test? Due to Hope Scholarship (based on
state lottery to fund college tuition—up to $6,000/year at a four-year institution in Tennessee),
many first generation college students have entered public institutions of higher education in
recent years.
Researchers have attempted to identify individual differences, training methods,
approaches, motivational variables, and learning culture to enhance critical thinking skills (Baron
& Sternberg, 1987; Hammer & Green, 2011; Hung, Yang, Lien, McLean, & Kuo, 2010;
Rodriguez, 2009; Tang & Reynolds, 1993). Harvard Business School has used case studies to
teach MBA students for decades. Very little research has investigated the effect of a case-based
critical thinking module on students’ critical thinking skills at the undergraduate level.
These issues lead us to our three-fold purpose of this study. The first aim is to explore the
effect of a case-based critical thinking module on university students’ critical thinking skills
(Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, WGCTA or CTA for short, Watson & Glaser, 1980).
Using a Solomon Four-Group Design (Solomon, 1949), we assign 31 sessions of business
courses randomly to four groups, collect data from 659 students, and examine the between-
subjects differences (Table 1). Our second aim is to explore within-subjects changes in students’
CTA scores from pre-test to post-test. Our third aim is to identify students’ abilities and
motivational factors that contribute to these changes in CTA. We collect students’ demographic
variables (age, gender, and race) and official objective measures of abilities, aptitudes, or
performance (ACT—college admission test score and overall GPA) from the university’s record
office. We employed Internet online surveys to collect students’ motivational goals (Van Yperen,
2006), learning modality (Dobson, 2009), learning styles (Felder & Silverman, 1988), and
values. Critical thinking skills depends on ones’ ability (can do) and motivation (will do). The
pre-test (priming effect) improves students’ critical thinking skills, with or without intervention.
Those who have high abilities (ACT and GPA) improve their CTA scores. Positive performance
goals and negative mastery goals enhance and decrease improvements, respectively. We offer
important theoretical and empirical contributions to improving critical thinking skills.
Theory and Hypotheses
Critical Thinking
Bloom et al. (1956) created the six-tiered taxonomy of cognitive complexity. Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) revised the taxonomy using the following six verbs: remember,
understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Most students focus on the first three parts of
this cognitive complexity. Critical thinking and creativity depend on the three more advanced
parts of cognitive complexity: analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
For university professors, teaching critical thinking is an important goal (Smith, 2003).
Scriven and Paul (1987) stated: “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of
actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating
information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal
intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision,
consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness”
(http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm). Critical thinking refers
to higher-order thinking that questions assumptions and has been described as “thinking about
thinking”. We adopt Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA, Watson & Glaser,
1980), one of the oldest and most widely used critical thinking measures, to assess students’
critical thinking skills (Bernard, Zhang, Abrami, Sicoly, Borokhovski, & Surkes, 2008; Pilcher &
Walters, 1997). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) has five sub-domains:
inferences, recognition of assumptions, deductions, interpretations, and evaluation of arguments.
According to Bernard et al. (2008), it should be viewed as a measure of general competency and
that the subscales should not be interpreted individually. Critical thinking guides people to belief
and action (Paul, 1993) and focuses on deciding what to believe or do and achieving goals.
Einstein described creativity as combinatorial play. It is as if the mind is throwing a
bunch of balls into the cognitive space, juggling them around until they collide in interesting
ways. People must have sufficient time to create the balls to juggle and devote to the actual
juggling. If balls that do not normally come near one another collide, the ultimate novelty of the
solution will be greater. Big ideas take time. Harvard Business School Professor Teresa M.
Amabile (1998) stated: Creativity is not enough in business. To be creative, an idea must also be
appropriate—useful and actionable. Creativity has three major components: (1) expertise, (2)
creative-thinking skills, and (3) motivation. Innovation depends on “creativity” which is the
generation of those new and useful ideas. Encouragement of creativity, autonomy or freedom,
and resources create stimulants to creativity, whereas pressures and organizational impediments
to creativity are the obstacles. During downsizing, work environment stimulants to creativity
decrease, while work environment obstacles increase (Amabile & Conti, 1999). Having
relatively unstructured, unpressured time to create and develop new ideas may lead to creativity.
Time pressure undermines creativity. Intrinsic motivation promotes creativity. We discuss
critical thinking skills from the perspectives of expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation
below (cf. Amabile, 1998). Performance depends on one’s ability (can do) and motivation (will
do) in a given context (Bandura, 1986; Semerci, 2011). We turn to factors related to can do next.
Expertise (Objective Measures)
Expertise contributes to improvements of critical thinking skills. According to Leonard
and Swap (2005), deep smart is a form of experience-based expertise. It takes about 10 years of
experience to develop expertise in one’s field. Since we deal with university students, we turn to
two objective measures: ACT and GPA. ACT is a curriculum-based measure for college
admission, reflecting students’ abilities, aptitudes, achievements, and academic performance,
which contribute to critical thinking skills. High ACT (math and science) scores contribute to
students’ success in college. GPA also reflects students’ cumulative academic achievements and
success (course grade).
Asian American students have the highest average composite score at 22.6, followed by
Caucasian students at 22.1, American Indian/Alaska Native students at 18.9, Hispanic students at
18.7, and African American students at 17.0. These scores are lower, on average, for racial
minorities. Asian Americans tend to have strong emphasis on academic performance and
achievement, Protestant Work Ethic, motivation, parents’ involvement, and students’ effort as a
part of their cultural values (Stevenson, 1983; Tang, 1990). Males have an average composite
score of 21.2, while females earn 21.0. Critical thinking skills are associated with academic
success (GPA) and fewer negative real world life events (Butler, 2012) . An oft-quoted maxim
states: The best predictor of future performance is the past performance. People with high
abilities are more likely to improve their performance than those without. Students with high
ACT and college GPA are likely to improve their critical thinking skills than those without.
Case-Based Critical Thinking Module
We treat our case-based critical thinking module (Howard, 2008) as a teaching tool to
improve students’ critical thinking skills. The objective of the module is to help students
understand the discipline and the logic of critical thinking by demonstrating the mastery of
subject matter content at all levels necessary to build defensible and rational conclusions and
fulfill the assignment. This offers opportunities for reflection, collaboration, and critical
questioning both the subject matter and the protocol (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). We developed a case
study “rubric” with seven dimensions to match the critical thinking training module.
Professors graded students’ case study reports regarding their ability to identify: (1)
critical issues in the case, (2) all stakeholders, (3) theoretical bases in making decisions, (4)
alternatives of various solutions, (5) consequences of solutions, (6) the decision making process,
and (7) the evaluation of consequences. They incorporated grades of critical thinking skills as a
part of the semester grade for the course. Although the content of the case study was not exactly
the same, the process of teaching the critical thinking module and the rubric were the same. Two
small pilot studies were conducted in the spring and fall semesters of 2006. Each experiment
involved students with or without the training model in two small classes (with about 40 students
each). Tentative results showed that students with the critical thinking module improved their
critical thinking skills, whereas those without did not (Howard, 2008).
The Matthew Effect and the Pygmalion Effect
Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) absorptive capacity theory of knowledge acquisition

asserts that individuals with more accumulated prior knowledge and strong problem-solving
skills are more likely to recognize and acquire new external knowledge, put new knowledge in
memory, exploit new relevant information, recall the information, utilize it in new settings, and
become creative than those without. Merton (1968) discussed “the Matthew Effect” and the
Nobel Prize winners in science: The pattern of recognition skewed in favor of the established
scientists—the Nobel Prize winners. Eminent scientists develop a great sense of taste and
judgment in seizing significant and important problems, focus on not just problem-solving but
“problem-finding”, set their sights high, display a degree of venturesome fortitude, take risks,
expand their access, maintain their conviction and prolonged commitment to the issue, and
become prophets who can fulfill their own prophesy. In the US, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago,
MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Cornell, and Princeton have produced the most Nobel laureates
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation). It creates rich-
get-richer and poor-get-poorer patterns of achievement (Stanovich 1986). Nobel laureates
provide an outstanding role model, instill a creative fortitude, develop a warm working
relationship, bestow a supportive culture with respect and resources, and inspire other scientists
around them to become creative in organizations (Barsade 2002; Staw and Barsade 1993).
Following these arguments, Gu, Tang, and Jiang (in press) explored the relationship between
moral leadership and employee creativity, treated employee identification with leader and leader-
member exchange (LMX) as two mediators, and collected data from 160 supervisor-subordinate
dyads in China (average age = 29.55). They demonstrated that the relationship between moral
leadership and employee creativity is mediated by not only employee identification with leader
but also leader-member exchange (LMX). Further, employee identification with leader partially
mediates the relationship between moral leadership and leader-member exchange.

A SMART goal (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, and Time-bound) becomes
a powerful tool to enhance performance. Setting a “visible” SMART goal may greatly enhance
people’s performance through not only the Pygmalion Effect (professors expectations are the key
to students performance and development) but also the Galatea Effect (students self-expectation
will help them accomplish their own goals) (Chen & Klimoski, 2003; Eden & Ravid, 1982;
Tierney & Farmer, 2004). Anecdotal evidence suggests that setting a “visible SMART” goal and
serving as a role model (Tang & Liu, 2012) may help students not only enhance their
performance and SAT scores but also get accepted into one of the best universities. 1 Recently,
Latham, Stajkovic, and Locke (2010) discussed subconscious goals in the workplace: When
working adults were primed by a backdrop photograph (a woman winning a race), they wrote
significantly more ideas for a brainstorming task than those without. Further, employees in a call
center raised significantly more money during a work shift when primed with the same backdrop
photograph (a woman winning a race) than those without. The priming effect changes behaviors.
In our present study, Solomon Four-Group design involves a pre-test for Groups 1 and 2.
The pre-test sensitizes both students and professors and influences a response to a later stimulus.
Professors received training before the start of this project. Their expectations of possible
improvement in critical thinking skills may lead to the “self-fulfilling prophecy” (Eden & Rynes,
2003). Due to repetition, or direct priming, later experiences of the same stimulus will be
processed more quickly by the brain. The automatic activation effect is a pervasive and relatively
unconditional phenomenon. Following the priming effect (pre-test) and the self-fulfilling
prophecy, professors may consciously and unconsciously promote the importance of creativity in
their courses. We assert that the pre-test helps students perform better on the post-test.
1
Parents set a visible SMART goal: “Look at the Harvard sweatshirt (your goal) on the wall. You can wear it when
you are qualified to wear it at Harvard” (the Pygmalion Effect). It takes time to internalize the vision, obtain good
test scores, and get accepted into Harvard (the Galatea Effect).
The Solomon Four-Group design allows researchers to investigate “between-subjects”
differences regarding (1) the main effect of the intervention—a case-based critical thinking
model (A), (2) the main effect of the pre-test—CTA 1 (B), and (3) the interaction effect between
the intervention and pre-test (A x B) on the dependent variable (CTA 2, post-test). We expect the
case-based critical thinking module will have an impact on students’ post-test scores. The pre-
test (the priming effect) may enhance students’ post-test scores. Therefore, students with the
combination of the pre-test and the intervention have the highest post-test scores.
Hypothesis 1: For between-subjects differences, there is a significant interaction effect
between intervention and pre-test on students’ post-test score: Students with the
combination of the intervention and the pre-test have the highest CTA 2.
Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2001) suggests that attitudes, social norm, and
perceived behavioral control predict behavior intentions which, in turn, predicts behavior (Chen
et al., in press; Lemrová et al., in press; Tang & Sutarso, 2013). Recently, Tang (2014) explored
students in a Principles of Management course and collected data from multiple sources and at
multiple times. Contrary to expectations, students (average age = 23.29) demonstrate no
significant changes in their perceptions of course work and their personal values regarding
making money and making ethical decisions from Time 1 (before) to Time 2 (after studying
business ethics). Monetary Intelligence (MI) examines the relationships between money attitudes
(affective love of money motive, stewardship behavior, and cognitive meaning) and two
theoretical appropriate outcomes. The love of money motive is positively related to their
“personal values” toward making money, but negatively related to making ethical decisions.
Interestingly enough, the negative love of money motive is positively related to both making
ethical decisions in the beginning of a semester and final course grade. Age is significantly
related to course grade and making ethical decisions. Gender (male) is positively related to
making money, but negatively related to making ethical decisions. From the perspective of
business ethics, getting Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton students to contemplate their own
ethical values by recalling the Ten Commandments or signing an honor code eliminates cheating
completely, while offering poker chips doubles the level of cheating (Aquino, Freeman, Reed,
Lim, & Felps, 2009; Ariely, 2008; Tang, 2012). Taken together, individuals’ behavior is caused
by the interaction between the person and the environment.
Motivation and Learning Styles
We turn to “within-subjects” changes and investigate factors that contribute to students’
changes from the pre-test to the post-test. Since goals, values, and attitudes are related to
creativity, motivation and learning styles may contribute to the improvement of their critical
thinking skills (Rodriguez, 2009). Felder and Silverman (1988) studied students’ different
achievement goals for their academic pursuits (mastery-approach, performance-approach,
mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance). Individuals with strong achievement
motivation have high self-efficacy, and high performance (Tang & Reynolds, 1993).
Materialistic students have lower intrinsic mastery goals but higher extrinsic performance goals
(Ku, Dittmar, & Banerjee, 2012). Materialistic students, who (in the having mode) only “hear”
and “memorize” words so that they can pass an exam, have lower performance, a year later.
Learning modalities reflect preference in taking in information: visual (V), auditory (A),
reading-writing (R), and kinesthetic (K). Some students have a single strong preference; others
may have multiple (multimodal) learning preferences. More female students have multimodal
learning preferences than males (Breckler, Joun, & Ngo, 2009). In descending orders, females
preferred visual learning (46%), aural/auditory (27%), read/write (23%), and kinesthetic (4%).
Males preferred visual learning (49%), read/write (29%), aural (17%), and kinesthetic (5%)
(Dobson, 2009). Among modalities, critical thinking may have a lot to do with visual modality
(the highest), but very little to do with kinesthetic modality. In sports, people focus on
movements of the body. Therefore, when learning takes place by carrying out physical activities,
people use kinesthetic modality. Following Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley,
1990); we focus on four learning styles involving sensing (S), intuitive (I), active (A), and
reflective (R) (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Research shows that intuition was associated with
Introversion. Intuition and perceiving scores were coherently related to intelligence test scores.
Due to work experiences and actual learning in the real world of work, non-traditional
students, who are older than the traditional college students, may have higher intrinsic
motivation to perform well and have better grades (Tang, 2014). Females attend more lectures
and achieve higher grades in all assessments than males (Halsey, Lauder, Brown, & Wells, 1997;
Horton, Wiederman, & Saint, 2012). Male Jordanian students outperformed female students on
critical thinking skills (Bataineh & Zghoul, 2006). Older male students outperformed younger
ones. Younger female students outperformed their older counterparts. Students with higher
GPAs scored better on critical thinking measures than those without (Bataineh & Zghoul, 2006).
Hypothesis 2: For within-subjects changes, students improve their critical thinking skills
from CTA 1 (pre-test) to CTA 2 (post-test).
Hypothesis 3: Students’ objective ability and performance measures (ACT and GPA),
demographic variables (sex and age), and subjective measures (motivational goals and
learning modality) are related to CTA.
Method
Participants and Research Design

We conducted this study at a regional state university located in the southeastern US with
936 full-time faculty members and 25,000 students. This project was approved by the
Institutional Review Board and supported by Tennessee Board of Regents Faculty Diversity
Research Grant for research materials, senior author’s released time, data coding, and data
analysis. The senior author of this paper offered two one-hour training sessions to professors
who volunteered to participate in this research project. He discussed the research design, a
critical thinking module, measurement and administration of the Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal, and the scoring rubric for the case study.
Since professors offered courses to junior and senior students with different “contents”, it
was not practical to adopt one case study for all these classes. Professors participated in this
study by offering single/multiple sessions of these courses and/or single/multiple courses. We
adopted the Solomon Four-Group design, assigned each of these 31 sessions/courses (taught by
12 professors) to one of these four groups randomly, and collected data in two semesters. In
order to investigate within-subjects changes, we assigned more “sessions” randomly to Groups 1
and 2, on purpose.
Professors spent approximately four hours discussing the critical thinking module and the
exact same rubric as a part of the course, agreed to include students’ rubric scores as a part of the
total semester grade, and collected CTA data for the pre- and/or post-measure(s) in class.
Professors were asked to teach their classes in a normal manner, except the intervention and/or
additional CTA measure(s). Professors in Groups 2 and 4 (without intervention) did not use the
case study. Some students may have experienced the case-study method in other courses.
Juniors and seniors in these selected sessions volunteered to participate in this study,
signed a consent form, and provided their student ID number. We used their ID number to match
data from three different sources: (1) CTA measure(s) in class, (2) demographic variables, GPA,
and ACT scores from the records office, and (3) motivational goals, learning modality, and
learning style from Internet online surveys. Our data from multiple sources help us avoid the
common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We protected students’
identities and confidentiality, stored data in the first author’s office, and debriefed students at the
end of the semester.
Table 1 shows the Solomon Four–Group design and the sample size. Among 659
undergraduate business students, there were 390 (59.2%) males and 247 (37.5%) females (male
= 1, female = 0). We obtained data from 472 (71.6%) Caucasian, 107 (16.2%) African American,
27 (4.1%) Asian or Pacific Islander, 11 (1.7%) Hispanic, and 4 (.6%) American Indian/Alaska
Native. Due to the small sample size for ethnic groups, we combined all non-white (non-
Caucasian) students into one group.
Measures
We adopted the 40-item short form Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson
& Glaser, 1980) (CTA) with the following five sub-domains: inferences (7 items), recognition of
assumptions (8 items), deductions (9 items), interpretations (7 items), and evaluation of
arguments (9 items) and collected CTA measure(s) in class (Barnett & Francis, 2012). With one
correct answer for each item, the maximum score is 40. Since WGCTA’s subscales should not be
interpreted individually (Bernard et al., 2008), we adopt the total score as a measure of general
competency. We obtained students’ official age, gender, race, ACT-English, ACT-Math, ACT-
Reading, ACT-Composite, overall GPA, and total credit hours earned from the university’s
record office.
We employed Internet online surveys to collect data using very well established scales:
First, there are six items for motivational goals; each compares two of the four scenarios:
mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance (Van
Yperen, 2006). Participants select one from each pair. Here are two examples: (1) to perform
better than the “average” student vs. not to perform worse than the “average” student, (2) to
perform better than my usual level vs. not to perform worse than my usual level. We tallied the
sum of these four choices. Second, for learning modality (VARK), students can circle more than
one answer (you learned best by visual (V), auditory (A), reading-writing (R), and kinesthetic
(K) (Dobson, 2009). We tallied the number of choices selected for 13 items and had a score for
all four modalities. Third, the 22-item learning styles involve sensing (S), intuitive (I), active
(A), and reflective (R) (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Participants pick one option from each item:
Item 1: I understand something better after I (1) try it out (A), or (2) think it through (R); Item 2:
I would rather be considered (1) realistic (S), or (2) innovative (I). These measures were not five-
point Likert-type scales. We cannot calculate Cronbach’s alpha of our variables (Tang & Austin,
2009).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 shows: All ACT scores were significantly related to students’ pre-test (CTA 1)
and post-test (CTA 2) scores and total GPA. The ACT Composite score (21.93) in this study was
slightly higher than the overall national average (21.1) in 2008. Pre-test scores were significantly
related to post-test scores, supporting the reliability of CTA in general. Male students tended to
have lower GPA but higher pre-test scores than females. White students tended to have higher
ACT scores and pre-test and post-test scores than their non-white counterparts. Older students
tended to have lower ACT scores and higher total credit hours than their younger counterparts.
We investigated five objectives variables (i.e., ACT English, math, reading, and
composite and overall GPA) across four groups using a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). We found no significant differences across four groups (MANOVA: F = 1.29, p
= .203, Wilks’ lambda = .961, partial eta square (effect size) = .013). Our random assignment
was successful regarding these objective measures. This gives us confidence examining the
possible (1) between-subjects differences across four groups using MANOVA/ANOVA
(Huberty & Olejnik, 2006), (2) within-subjects changes using paired samples t-tests, and (3)
factors contributing to the differences using regression and SEM in three separate steps.
Step 1: Between-Subjects Differences
Our first objective is to explore effects of an intervention and a pre-test on university
business students’ critical thinking skills (CTA 2 scores). Results of our 2 x 2 analysis of
variance (ANOVA) showed that the main effect of critical thinking module (F (1, 505) = 1.107,
p = .293, partial eta squared = .002), the main effect of pre-test (F (1, 505) = 1.470, p = .226,
partial eta squared = .003), and the interaction effect between the two on CTA 2 (F (1, 505) =
1.459, p = .228, partial eta squared = .003) all failed to reach significance. Our results did not
support Hypothesis 1. In addition, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) across four groups
showed that there were no significant differences in post-test scores (F (3, 505) = .664, p = .574,
partial eta squared = .004): Group 1: 25.64 (SD = 5.26, n = 210), Group 2: 25.52 (SD = 5.19, n =
228), Group 3: 23.76 (SD = 4.59, n = 17), and Group 4: 25.52 (SD = 5.89, n = 54). We compared
post-test scores between Groups 1 and 2 while controlling pre-test scores (ANCOVA) found no
significant difference (F (1, 383) = .013, p = .910, partial eta squared = .000).
Gender and Race. MANOVA results showed that there were significant differences in
student achievement scores (ACT-English, ACT-Math, ACT-Reading, ACT-Composite, and
Overall GPA) across race (white vs. non-white) (F (5, 481) = 6.918, p = .001, Wilks’ lambda
= .933, partial eta squared = .067). White students had higher scores than non-white students in
ACT English (white = 22.42 vs. non-white = 20.20), ACT-math (21.86 vs. 20.09), ACT-reading
(22.66 vs. 20.48), and ACT-composite (22.43 vs. 20.45), and overall GPA (2.94 vs. 2.73).
Significant differences in achievement scores (ACT-English, ACT-Math, ACT-Reading, ACT-
Composite, and Overall GPA) across gender (MANOVA: F (5, 481) = 9.854, p = .001, Wilks’
lambda = .907, partial eta squared = .093) revealed that females had higher scores than males on
ACT English (female = 22.40 vs. male = 21.53) and overall GPA (3.00 vs. 2.82).
Due to gender and race differences, we applied 2 x 2 ANOVAs to examine the same
effects on CTA 2 across gender and race separately. The two main effects (intervention and pre-
test) and the interaction effect on CTA 2 failed to reach significance for male students (F (1, 297)
= .518, p = .472, partial eta squared = .002; F (1, 297) = .832, p = .363, partial eta squared
= .003; F (1, 297) = 1.487, p = .224, partial eta squared = .005) and for female students (F (1,
193) = .548, p = .460, partial eta squared = .003; F (1, 193) = .597, p = .441, partial eta squared =
.003; F (1, 193) = .548, p = .460, partial eta squared = .003). The two main effects and the
interaction effect were not significant for white students (F (1, 365) = 1.396, p = .238, partial eta
squared = .004; F (1, 365) = 1.815, p = .179, partial eta squared = .005; F (1, 365) = 1.233, p
= .268, partial eta squared = .003) and their non-white counterparts (F (1, 136) = .006, p = .941,
partial eta squared = .000; F (1, 136) = .006, p = .941, partial eta squared = .000; F (1, 136)
= .087, p = .769, partial eta squared = .001). All ANOVA results for the whole sample and for
gender and race failed to reach significance. Next, we identify possible within-subjects changes
and focus on Groups 1 and 2 exclusively.
Step 2: Within-Subjects “Changes” from Pre-Test to Post-Test
Results of paired samples t-test (Table 3) suggested that overall, students (Groups 1 and 2
combined) had significantly better post-test scores (25.82) than their pre-test scores (25.03)(t
(385) = -2.780, p = .001). For students with the intervention, their post-test scores (25.83) were
better than their pre-test scores (25.08) (t (188) = -2.323, p = .021). For those without the
intervention, their scores improved more significantly from pre-test (24.99) to post-test (25.81) (t
(196) = -3.091, p = .002). Results supported our Hypothesis 2. Due to possible differences
regarding gender and race, we conducted additional analyses. With or without the intervention,
female students improved their critical thinking skills (t (143) = -4.347, p = .000), but male
students did not (t (240) = -1.431, p = .154). With or without the training, white students
improved their critical thinking skills (t (288) = -3.520, p = .001), but non-white students did not
(t (96) = -1.461, p = .147).
Step 3: Factors contributing to Changes of Critical Thinking Skills
Changes (better vs. worse). Comparing post-test with pre-test, only 35.5% of our
students performed “equally well or better”, whereas 64.5% of them performed “worse”. We
used VARK (visual (V), auditory (A), reading-writing (R), and kinesthetic (K), Dobson, 2009),
academic achievement goals, and academic motivation to predict post-test scores and examined
the possible differences in these variables between better performers and worse performers
(Table 4). Students wanted to “perform better than the average student” (negative Performance
Avoidance) improved their critical thinking scores (R = .158, R2 = .025, ΔR2 = .025, ΔF (1, 158)
= 4.021, p = .047, beta = -.158, effect size = .026). Cohen’s (1988) ƒ2 effect sizes of .02, .15,
and .35 are termed small, medium, and large, respectively (Courville & Thompson, 2001). Those
expected to perform worse than their usual level (negative “Mastery Approach”), used reflective
style in their thinking, and kinesthetic cognitive style performed worse.
From pre-test to post-test. We developed a parsimonious structural equation model
(SEM) to examine the relationship between pre-test and post-test while controlling for gender,
age, ACT, GPA, learning modality, and motivational goals (Groups 1 and 2 combined) (χ2 =
126.29, df = 48, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.63, IFI = .98, TLI = .95, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05) (Figure 1).
Age and ACT were significantly related to both CTA 1 (age = .16, ACT = .53) and CTA 2
(.08, .18). Gender (male) was significantly related to pre-test (.11), whereas GPA was related to
post-test (.09) (ps < .05). The relationship between “visual modality” and CTA 2 (.07)
approached significance (p = .087). The pre-test was significantly related to post-test (.59).
Multi-group SEM. In order to examine within-subjects changes and between-subjects
differences simultaneously, we treat intervention (with (Group 1) vs. without (Group 2)) as a
moderator in a multi-group SEM (χ2 = 177.47, df = 96, p < .001, χ2/df = 1.85, IFI = .98, TLI
= .94, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04). Results for Group 1 (with intervention) showed that both age
and ACT were significantly related to pre-test (.17, .59) and post-test (.11, .28). Gender (male)
was only related to pre-test (.16). Kinesthetic modality was mildly/negatively related to CTA 1
(-.12, p = .071). The pre-test was significantly related to post-test (.48). Group 2 (without
intervention) results showed that age and ACT were both related to the pre-test (.18, .47) and the
post-test (.14, .14). GPA was only related to the post-test (.18). Pair-wise comparison of the
parameters of the pre-test to post-test relationship (within-subjects changes) for Groups 1 (.48)
and 2 (.64) (between-subjects differences) showed that the difference approached significance (Z
= 1.824, p > .05). Thus, the relationship between the pre-test and the post-test is slightly higher
for Group 2 than for Group 1. Taken together, results in this section supported Hypothesis 3.
SEM and multi-group SEM for the change of CTA. We used the same variables to
examine the change score from the pre-test to the post-test (Groups 1 and 2 combined) (χ2 =
123.50, df = 48, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.57, IFI = .97, TLI = .95, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05). Only GPA
was significantly related to CTA change (.12) (Figure 2). Similarly, in a multi-group SEM (χ2 =
175.72, df = 96, p < .001, χ2/df = 1.83, IFI = .97, TLI = .95, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05), only GPA
was related to the change score for Group 2 only (without the training module) and other results
were non-significant.
Discussion
There is no “between-subjects difference” in this study. The two main effects of the case-
based intervention and pre-test as well as the interaction effect (intervention x pre-test) have no
significant impact on critical thinking score at the end of the semester. However, significant
“within-subjects changes” show that students improve their critical thinking skills from pre-test
to post-test, with or without the cased-based critical thinking module. With or without the
intervention, both female and white (Caucasian) students improve their critical thinking scores,
but their male and non-white counterparts do not. Critical thinking skills depend on both “can
do” (ability) and “will do” (motivation) in a given situation. Those who have high “performance
goals” (negative Performance Avoidance) improve their CTA scores from Time 1 to Time 2.
However, students have negative “Mastery Approach” goals, reflective style, and Kinesthetic
modality decrease their CTA scores form Time 1 to Time 2. Furthermore, age and ACT scores
are significantly related to both CTA scores at Time 1 and Time 2. Gender (male) was
significantly related to CTA at Time 1 (pre-test), whereas GPA was related to CTA at Time 2
(post-test). The pre-test was significantly related to post-test. We offer the following theoretical,
empirical, and practical implications. We focus on the “can do” part first.
Can do. Students’ age and ACT are significantly related to both the pre-test and the post-
test. Gender (male) is related to the pre-test, whereas GPA is related to the post-test. These
findings provide several important clues: ACT scores are more strongly related to critical
thinking skills than GPA, overall. Age is related to critical thinking skills. Females and older
students may take their academic work more seriously than their counterparts. Males tend to
have higher pre-test scores than females; but gender is not related to post-test. Since females
improve their critical thinking skills, but males do not, it is plausible that many male students are
careless in taking their post-test because it is not a part of their final semester grade. Only
students with high GPAs seem to take it seriously and have high post-test scores, reflecting the
Galatea Effect. Visual modality seems to be related to post-test only. GPA is significantly related
to the changes of critical thinking skills which reinforces the idea that high GPA students care
about the improvement of critical thinking skills. ACT scores (English, math, reading, and
composite) are related to overall GPA and critical thinking scores (pre-test and post-test). Pre-
test scores are significant predictors of post-test scores. Only 35.5 percent of these students
improve their critical-thinking skills in one semester, but 64.5 percent of students perform worse,
supporting the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Will do. On the one hand, those who have a strong competitive spirit of “outperforming
the average student” (online survey) actually improve their critical thinking scores (in class). On
the other hand, for those who do not expect to master their skills, or expect to “perform worse
than their own usual level” (negative “Mastery Approach” goals), their performance of critical
thinking skills decreases. Our results support the theories of goal setting (Locke & Latham,
1990), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Tang & Reynolds, 1993), and creativity (Amabile, 1998).
Professors, parents, and executives must expect students and employees to succeed in academic
or organization settings, respectively. Eden and Rynes (2003) stated: “If you expect success,
your likelihood of achieving it is increased. You become a prophet who can fulfill your own
prophesy” (p. 683). This works in the opposite direction, too: Don’t expect to fail (Eden &
Rynes, 2003)! Taken together, both “can do” (ability) and “will do” (motivation) contribute to
performance improvement (Merton, 1968). Reflective thinking style and kinesthetic cognitive
style contribute to their worse performance. Critical thinking is not related to kinesthetic
modality. Visual learners may have the potential to do better on their post-test.
To retain2 students, improve their levels of “can do” and “will do” simultaneously, and
facilitate their success in higher education, professors need to remove all road blocks/barriers,
offer additional second- and third-round training in subsequent curriculum, and provide
additional resources/assistance (advising, tutoring, and mentoring) to improve their abilities (can
do). It is important to provide counseling to cultivate a strong culture for success and personal
motivation (self-esteem and self-efficacy) (will do) to enhance their critical thinking skills.
Educators’ most exciting joy of this learning and education process is to help students “improve”
their skills and help them “realize” their potential. The easy way out is to do nothing.
The Pygmalion Effect and the Galatea Effect. We treat pre-test as our priming effect.
Our results support the Pygmalion Effect and the Galatea Effect. People are consciously and
unconsciously influenced by their external environment and learning culture in organizations
(Bandura, 1986; Hung et al., 2010; Liu & Tang, 2010; Milgram, 1974). Scholars and
professionals may practice the Pygmalion Effect and Galatea Effect, set a “visual SMART goal”,
2
Only about 48% of students graduated from the university within five years.
and apply techniques, such as a backdrop photograph (a woman winning a race) to boost
employees’ self-efficacy (Tang, Liu, & Vermillion, 1987), enhance creativity (generate more
ideas for a brainstorming task), performance (raise more money in a call center) (Latham et al.,
2010), and solve real work-related problems (Tang, Tollison, & Whiteside, 1987, 1989). These
changes may enhance students/managers’ abilities and motivation to accept expectations which
in turn, may promote their own self-expectation to become successful individuals.
The best predictor of future performance is the past performance. To enhance people’s
critical thinking skills, creativity, and innovation in organizations, managers must select
individuals with high objective performance measures and abilities or special expertise in content
area (not just the ones with diplomas). A diploma in higher education only signals existing
human capital. However, specific objective measurers of higher education (ACT, GPA, and
CTA) produce the signal (diploma) and endow an individual with human capital which is
accumulated through experience and education (Kroch & Sjoblom, 1994; Serneels, 2008).
Students’ academic performance is important for the allocation to job levels and for jobs in
dynamic science-based industries, in particular (Luo, Koput, & Powell, 2009).
Unlike personality and attitudinal scales, most people cannot fake good on an objective
measure (ability, aptitude, or achievement measure), but can fake bad quite easily. Students’
rubric scores are included as a part of the class grades. Since students’ pre- and post-test scores
do not count as a part of the grades, 65% of them perform worse on the post-test. One possible
explanation is that some of them did not pay enough attention and/or exert a lot of effort when
they took the CTA measure at the end of the semester. These students’ behavioral patterns may
be different from fulltime employees (Gu et al., in press). Employees’ work activities and
performance may have significant impacts on their performance appraisals which, in turn, may
have an impact on their compensation and promotion opportunities (Milkovich, Newman, &
Gerhart, 2014). In the competitive world of work, educators, managers, and practitioners must
increase their awareness of critical thinking skills, foster work environment stimulants, reduce
work environment obstacles to creativity (Amabile & Conti, 1999), create a sea change of
creative cultures in academic and business environments, set higher goals, motivate all
individuals to perform better, and improve their critical thinking skills. These issues deserve
further attention in future empirical research.
Tang and Tang (2010) identified good apples and bad apples, using the propensity to
engage in unethical behavior measure (Tang & Chen, 2008). After the ethics intervention (a
chapter on business ethics and corporate social responsibility), good apples became better, but
bad apples became worse. After the ethics intervention, students have no significant changes in
their perceptions of course work and their personal values regarding making money and making
ethical decisions (Tang, 2014). Females have higher ethical decision making orientation than
males, consistently overtime. Form the theory of Monetary Intelligence perspective, individuals
with negative love of money have high priority to make ethical decisions and make the grade
(final academic achievement). Taken together (Tang, 2014, Tang & Tang, 2010, and this study),
implementing ethics intervention to enhance ethical intentions (Tang & Chen, 2008) and ethical
decision making may be more difficult than improving critical thinking skills. Age is also related
to both high CTA scores and making ethical decisions. When students become more mature, they
may become wiser and more ethical individuals in their academic journey. Future researchers
may want to adopt the theoretical framework of Monetary Intelligence (Tang & Sutarso, 2013) in
studying critical thinking skills.

Limitations. We acknowledge that we collected our data from a sample of students in one
semester and from only one state university. We do not suggest that results of our student sample
can be generalized to students in other universities, in other regions, cultures, countries, or
employees in organizations, i.e., the issue of external validity. We obtained convenient data from
students in 31 sessions (classes) taught by 12 professors. We assigned each session/class to one
of the four groups at random with more sessions in Groups 1 and 2, in particular, in order to
identify possible within-subjects differences. Our random assignment of sessions to these four
groups was reasonably successful based on our MANOVA results of students’ ACT and GRE
scores. Our sample size for the whole study was reasonable (N = 659) in experimental studies.
We believe that our case-based critical thinking intervention was successfully
implemented by professors who volunteered to participate in this study. Although the content of
the intervention was not exactly the same due to course materials, the process and the rubric
were exactly the same. Our non-significant between-subjects differences might be caused by
students’ exposure to the case studies in other courses already: The case study training module
was not completely new to some students. Future researcher may want to use one single training
module to control the intervention of the study. Although researchers with larger samples, fewer
predictor variables, and large effect sizes may have less sampling error using regression
approach, readers should read our results with caution.
In this study, students’ ACT composite score, 21.93, is slightly higher than the national
average (21.1). The pre-test sensitizes both students and professors’ critical thinking skills (the
priming effect). Our pre-test may provide important vocabulary, serve as a practice, help student
remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create new learning, knowledge, and
critical-thinking skills which enhance their post-test scores. Due to the self-fulfilling prophecy,
both students and professors may expect to have higher performance from the pre-test to the
post-test. These factors may contribute to not only our non-significant interaction effect on
between-subject differences but also significant within-subjects changes.
We obtained data from three different sources: (1) critical thinking skills in classes, (2)
objective measures and demographic variables from the university’s record office, and (3)
students’ online surveys. Our results are not artificially inflated by the common method variance
bias. Since students improve their critical thinking skills, with or without intervention, the case
study intervention may not be necessary. When working adults are primed by a backdrop
photograph—a woman winning a race, their actual performance improves significantly (Latham
et al., 2010). Future researchers need to explore this issue carefully, investigate students and
faculty’s thinking styles and subjective perceptions regarding critical thinking skills empirically,
control variables meticulously, and test our present findings among students in other majors,
colleges, institutions, and regions.
Conclusion. We find no between-subjects difference. Our novel, significant within-
subjects changes from the pre-test to the post-test suggest: Students improve their critical
thinking skills, with or without intervention. Critical thinking skills are significantly related to
students’ abilities (ACT) and academic achievements (GPA in college). Overall, only 35.5
percent of students improved their critical thinking skills in one semester. Further, only female
and white students enhance their performance, but male and non-white students do not. ACT
scores and age are related to both pre-test and post-test. Students with high GPA are concerned
about their post-test and improve their critical thinking scores. Those who have a strong
competitive goal orientation of outperforming the average student perform better, whereas those
who expect to perform worse than their own usual level of performance and use reflective and
kinesthetic learning styles perform worse. Although many students obtain their diploma
(signaling existing human capital), only those who have both the ability (can do) and motivation
(will do) improve their critical thinking skills (the human capital). To compete successfully in
the 21st century, scholars and executives in MNCs need to set a goal and provide opportunities to
enhance critical thinking skills for students in higher education and managers in the work place.
Our results provide important implications for scholars and executives in the competitive world
market and make significant contributions to the studies of higher education and ethics.
References
2008 ACT college readiness report news release. 2008, August 13. http://www.act.org/news/
releases/2008/crr.htm.
Ajzen, I. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 27-58.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10: 123-167. Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Amabile, T. M. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76 (5): 76-87.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. 1999. Changes in the work environment for creativity during
downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (6): 630-640.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G. and Felps, W. 2009 Testing a social-cognitive
model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity
centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1): 123-141.
Ariely, D. 2008. How honest people cheat. Harvard Business Review, 86 (2): 24.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barnett, J. E., & Francis, A. L. 2012. Using higher order thinking questions to foster critical
thinking: A classroom study. Educational Psychology, 32 (2): 201-211.
Baron, J. B., & Sternberg, R. J. 1987. Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York:
Freeman.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (4), 644-675.
Bataineh, R. F., & Zghoul, L. H. 2006. Jordanian TEFL graduate students’ use of critical
thinking skills (as measured by the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z).
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9 (1): 33-50.
Bernard, R. M., Zhang, D., Abrami, P. C., Sicoly, F., Borokhovski, E., & Surkes, M. A. 2008.
Exploring the structure of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: One scale or
many subscales? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3 (1): 15-22.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. 1956. Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay.
Breckler, J., Joun, D., & Ngo, H. 2009. Learning styles of physiology students interested in the
health professions. Advances in Physiology Education, 33 (1): 30-36.
Butler, H. A. 2012. Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment predicts real-world outcomes of
critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 (5): 721-729.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. 2003. The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in
teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5): 591-607.
Chen, J. Q., Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, N. Y. in press. Temptation, monetary intelligence (love of
money), and environmental context on unethical intentions and cheating. Journal of
Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1783-2
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152.
Coleman, J., Gulati, D., & Segovia, W. O. 2012. Passion & purpose: Stories from the best and
brightest young business leaders. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Courville, T., & Thompson, B. 2001. Use of structure coeﬃcients in published multiple
regression articles: Beta is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,
229-248.
Dobson, J. L. 2009. Learning style preferences and course performance in an undergraduate
physiology class. Advances in Physiology Education, 33 (4): 308-314.
Eden, D., & Ravid, G. 1982. Pygmalion versus self-expectancy: Effects of instructor-expectancy
and self expectancy on trainee performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 30 (3): 351-364.
Eden, D., & Rynes, S. 2003. Publishing across borders: Furthering the internationalization of
AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6): 679–683.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. 1988. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.
Engineering Education, 78 (7): 674-681.
Graham, P. A. 2003. Forward. In D. T. Gordon (Ed.) A nation reformed? American education 20
years after “A Nation at risk” (pp. vii-xi). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gu, Q. X., & Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. in press. Does moral leadership enhance employee
creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in
the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1967-9
Halsey, A. H., Lauder, H., Brown, P., & Wells, A. S. 1997. Education: Culture, economy, and
society. Oxford University Press.
Hammer, S. J., & Green, W. 2011. Critical thinking in a first year management unit: the
relationship between disciplinary learning, academic literacy and learning progression.
Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (3): SI, 303-315
Horton, D. M., Wiederman, S. D., & Saint, D. A. 2012. Assessment outcome is weakly
correlated with lecture attendance: Influence of learning style and use of alternative
materials. Advances of Physiology Education, 36 (2): 108-115.
Howard, L. W. 2008. Teaching critical thinking in the college of business: A manual for
developing and implementing a case-based critical thinking module. Unpublished
manuscript, Middle Tennessee State University.
Huberty, C. J., & Olejnik, S. 2006. Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis. Hoboken, New
Jersey: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hung, R. Y. Y., Yang, B. Y., Lien, B. Y. H., McLean, G. N., & Kuo, Y. M. 2010. Dynamic
capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on
performance. Journal of World Business, 45 (3): 285-294.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential
learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4 (2):
193-212.
Kroch, E. A., & Sjoblom, K. 1994. Schooling as human-capital or a signal: Some evidence.
Journal of Human Resources, 29 (1): 156-180.
Ku, L., Dittmar, H., & Banerjee, R. 2012. Are materialistic teenagers less motivated to learn?
Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1): 74-86.

Latham, G. P., Stajkovic, A. D., & Locke, E. A. 2010. The relevance and viability of
subconscious goals in the workplace. Journal of Management, 36 (1): 234-255.
Lemrová, S., Reiterová, E., Fatěnová, R., Lemr, K., & Tang, T. L. P. in press. Money is power:
Monetary intelligence—love of money and temptation of materialism among Czech
University students. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1915-8
Leonard, D., & Swap, W. 2005. Deep smart: How to cultivate and transfer enduring business
wisdom. Harvard Business School Press.
Liu, B. C., & Tang, T. L. P. 2011. Does the love of money moderate the relationship between
public service motivation and job satisfaction? The case of Chinese professionals in the
public sector. Public Administration Review, 71 (5): 718-727
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Luo, X. R., Koput, K. W., & Powell, W. W. 2009. Intellectual capital or signal? The effects of
scientists on alliance formation in knowledge-intensive industries. Research Policy, 38
(8): 1313-1325.
McGrath, R. G. 2013. The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your strategy moving as
fast as your business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Merton, R. K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159: 56–63.
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row.
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. 2014. Compensation (11th ed.). Boston, MA:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. 1990. Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2005).
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
Paul, R. W. 1993. Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing
world (2nd ed.). Santa Rosa, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
PISA 2009. Top of the class: High performers in science in PISA 2006. Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA), Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Rodriguez, C. M. 2009. The impact of academic self-concept, expectations and the choice of
learning strategy on academic achievement: The case of business students. Higher
Education Research & Development, 28 (5): 523-539.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68 (3): 79-91.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2): 262-274.
Scriven, M., & Paul, R. 1987. The 8 th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and
Education Reform. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Semerci, C. 2011. The relationships between achievement focused motivation and critical
thinking. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (15): 6180-6185.
Serneels, P. 2008. Human capital revisited: The role of experience and education when
controlling for performance and cognitive skills. Labour Economics, 15 (6): 1143-1161.
Smith, G. F. 2003. Beyond critical thinking and decision making: Teaching business students
how to think. Journal of Management Education, 27 (1): 24-51.
Solomon, R. L. 1949. An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46: 137-150.
Stanovich, K. E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual-differences
in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360-407.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. 1993. Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-
but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (2),
304-331.
Stevenson, H. W. 1983. Making the grade: School achievement in Japan, Taiwan, and the
United States (Annual Report, pp. 41-51). Stanford. CA: Center for Advanced Study in
Behavioral Sciences.
Tang, T. L. P. 1990. Factors affecting intrinsic motivation among university students in Taiwan.
Journal of Social Psychology, 130: 219-230.
Tang, T. L. P. 2012. Detecting honest people’s lies in handwriting: The power of the Ten
Commandments and internalized ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 106: 389-
400.
Tang, T. L. P. 2014. Toward a theory of monetary intelligence: Making money, making ethical
decisions, and making the grade. Paper submitted for publication.
Tang, T. L. P., & Austin, M. J. 2009. Students’ perceptions of teaching technology, application
of technology, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 53 (4): 1241-1255.
Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. 2008. Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money,
Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of
Business Ethics, 82: 1-26.
Tang, T. L. P., Cunningham, P. H., Frauman, E., Ivy, M., & Perry, T. L. 2012. Attitudes and
commitment among public personnel: Differences between Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers.
Public Personnel Management, 41 (2): 327-360.
Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, Hsi. 2012. Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an
authentic supervisor’s personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference?
Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3): 295-312.
Tang, T. L. P., Liu, Hsing, & Vermillion, W. H. 1987. Effects of self-esteem and task labels
(difficult vs. easy) on intrinsic motivation, goal setting, and task performance.
Journal of General Psychology, 114: 249-262.
Tang, T. L. P., & Reynolds, D. B. 1993. Effects of self-esteem and perceived goal difficulty on
goal setting, certainty, task performance, and attributions. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 4: 153-170.
Tang, T. L. P., & Sutarso, T. 2013. Falling or not falling into temptation? Multiple faces of
temptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions across gender. Journal of
Business Ethics, 116 (3): 529–552.
Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, T. L. N. 2010. Finding the lost sheep: A panel study of business
students’ intrinsic religiosity, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior intention in a
public institution. Ethics & Behavior, 20(5), 352-379.
Tang, T. L. P., Tollison, P. S., & Whiteside, H. D. 1987. The effect of quality circle initiation
on motivation to attend quality circle meetings and on task performance. Personnel
Psychology, 40: 799-814.
Tang, T. L. P., Tollison, P. S., & Whiteside, H. D. 1989. Quality circle productivity as related to
upper-management attendance, circle initiation, and collar color . Journal of Management,
15: 101-113.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2004. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of
Management, 30 (3): 413-432.
Van Yperen, N. W. 2006. A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the
2 x 2 framework: Indentifying distinct profiles of individuals with different dominant
achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (11): 1432-1445.
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. 1980. Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual. New
York: The Psychological Corporation.
Xia, Y., & Tang, T. L. P. 2011. Sustainability in supply chain management: Suggestions for the
auto industry. Management Decision, 49 (4): 495-512.
Table 1 Solomon Four-Group Design

______________________________________________________________________________
Pre-test Intervention Post-test Sample Size

CTA 1 CTA 2 n
______________________________________________________________________________
Group 1 O1 X O2 276
Group 2 O3 O4 312
Group 3 X O5 17
Group 4 O6 54
______________________________________________________________________________
2 x 2 ANOVA Design
Intervention
Yes No
_____________________________________________________________
Yes O2 O4
Pre-test ______________________________________________
No O5 O6
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Major Variables
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Age 23.27 4.58 .07 .04 -.13** -.10* -.11* -.14** -.05 .18** .04 .05
2. Gender .61 .49 .08* -.10* .07 -.06 -.00 -.19** .01 .14** .07
3. Race .72 .45 .21** .21** .21** .25** .12* .10* .24** .28**
4. ACT English 21.88 4.42 .65** .71** .89** .41** .09 .45** .45**
5. ACT Math 21.41 3.75 .54** .82** .41** .04 .40** .41**
6. ACT Reading 22.11 4.41 .86** .36** .02 .46** .45**
7. ACT Composite 21.93 3.46 .44** .04 .51** .50**
8. Total GPA 2.91 .56 -.00 .22** .27**
9. Total Credit Hr. 100.79 35.31 .13** .12**
10. CTA 1 25.15 5.39 .70**
11. CTA 2 25.51 5.27
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note. N = 659. Gender: Male = 1, Female = 0; .61 = 61% male. Race: White = 1, Non-White = 0; .72 = 72% White/Caucasian.
CTA 1: Critical Thinking Appraisal Pre-test. CTA 2: Critical Thinking Appraisal Post-test. *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 3 Paired Samples t-test Results

____________________________________________________________________________________
CTA 1 CTA 2 t df p
____________________________________________________________________________________
Groups 1 and 2 Combined 25.03 25.82 -3.780 385 .000***
Group 1 (with intervention)

Whole 25.08 25.83 -2.323 188 .021*
Gender
Female 23.94 25.10 -2.425 71 .018*
Male 25.83 26.31 -1.118 115 .266
Race
White 25.84 26.65 -2.202 140 .029*
Non-White 22.83 23.42 -.855 47 .397
Group 2 (without intervention)

Whole 24.99 25.81 -3.091 196 .002**
Gender
Female 24.00 25.76 -3.721 71 .000***
Male 25.56 25.83 -.890 124 .375
Race
White 25.93 26.81 -2.805 147 .006**
Non-White 22.14 22.78 -1.293 48 .202
___________________________________________________________________________________
Note: N = 659. Group 1: n = 276, Group 2: n = 312. CTA 1: Pre-test. CTA 2: Post-test.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 4 Step-Wise Multiple Regression Analysis

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Effect
Variable R R2 ΔR2 ΔF df p Beta Size
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Same or Better Performer (Groups 1 and 2 Combined, CTA 2 – CTA 1 > 0)

1. Performance Avoidance .158 .025 .025 4.021 1, 158 .047 -.158 .026
Worse Performer (Groups 1 and 2 Combined, CTA 2 – CTA 1 < 0)

1. Mastery Approach .259 .067 .067 12.369 1, 172 .001 -.275 .072
2. Reflective .363 .132 .065 12.768 1, 171 .010 .255 .070
3. Kinesthetic .393 .155 .023 4.575 1, 170 .034 .151 .024
Figure 1 A Model of Critical Thinking Skills: From Pre-Test to Post-Test

Figure 2 A Model for the Change of Critical Thinking Skills

JBE2014 Critical Thinking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JBE2014 Critical Thinking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Journal of Business Ethics 1

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Ability, Motivation,

Intervention, and the Pygmalion Effect

Larry W. Howard, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, M. Jill Austin

Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business,

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132

Paper Accepted for Publication

Journal of Business Ethics

We presented portions of this paper at the 27 th International Congress of Applied Psychology,

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Ability, Motivation,

Intervention, and the Pygmalion Effect

intervention on students’ critical thinking skills (CTA). We randomly assign 31 sessions of

significant between-subjects differences. Contrary to our expectations, students improve their

and business ethics.

Self-fulfilling Prophesy; priming effect

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Ability, Motivation,

Intervention, and the Pygmalion Effect

An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s “Programme for

in Tennessee achieved proficient in reading, according to the “2005 report” of National

Due to globalization, many multinational corporations (MNCs) have outsourced their

state lottery to fund college tuition—up to $6,000/year at a four-year institution in Tennessee),

Researchers have attempted to identify individual differences, training methods,

Using a Solomon Four-Group Design (Solomon, 1949), we assign 31 sessions of business

important theoretical and empirical contributions to improving critical thinking skills.

Theory and Hypotheses

parts of cognitive complexity: analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating

information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or

(http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm). Critical thinking refers

inferences, recognition of assumptions, deductions, interpretations, and evaluation of arguments.

Einstein described creativity as combinatorial play. It is as if the mind is throwing a

Time pressure undermines creativity. Intrinsic motivation promotes creativity. We discuss

Expertise (Objective Measures)

Expertise contributes to improvements of critical thinking skills. According to Leonard

admission, reflecting students’ abilities, aptitudes, achievements, and academic performance,

success (course grade).

Case-Based Critical Thinking Module

The Matthew Effect and the Pygmalion Effect

Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) absorptive capacity theory of knowledge acquisition

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation). It creates rich-

get-richer and poor-get-poorer patterns of achievement (Stanovich 1986). Nobel laureates

mediates the relationship between moral leadership and leader-member exchange.

A SMART goal (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, and Time-bound) becomes

The Solomon Four-Group design allows researchers to investigate “between-subjects”

Hypothesis 1: For between-subjects differences, there is a significant interaction effect

multiple times. Contrary to expectations, students (average age = 23.29) demonstrate no

by the interaction between the person and the environment.

Motivation and Learning Styles

We turn to “within-subjects” changes and investigate factors that contribute to students’

achievement goals for their academic pursuits (mastery-approach, performance-approach,

mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance). Individuals with strong achievement

from CTA 1 (pre-test) to CTA 2 (post-test).

learning modality) are related to CTA.

Participants and Research Design

critical thinking module, measurement and administration of the Watson-Glaser Critical

study by offering single/multiple sessions of these courses and/or single/multiple courses. We

order to investigate within-subjects changes, we assigned more “sessions” randomly to Groups 1

end of the semester.

Caucasian) students into one group.

assumptions (8 items), deductions (9 items), interpretations (7 items), and evaluation of

mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance (Van