Document Type

Thesis

Date of Degree Completion

Spring 2026

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Biology

Committee Chair

Dr. Ian Quitadamo

Second Committee Member

Dr. Alison Scoville

Third Committee Member

Joy Fuqua

Abstract

As the global landscape becomes increasingly complex and undergoes more rapid changes than ever before, critical thinking has become an indispensable skill for addressing challenges in society, science, and the workplace. Despite its widespread adoption in undergraduate STEM education, active learning remains poorly understood from the student's perspective. This study investigated how undergraduate biology students perceived active learning in a ten-week biostatistics course (BIOL 213) at Central Washington University, and whether those perceptions aligned with critical thinking gains measured by the California Critical Thinking Skills Test with Numeracy (CCTST-N). A convergent mixed-methods design integrated student perception and mindset survey data with standardized pre- and post-test scores to produce a multi-layered account of critical thinking development.

Thirty-nine students completed paired CCTST-N assessments; 32 completed perception surveys; and 36-37 completed mindset instruments. A linear mixed model controlling for individual baseline ability detected no statistically significant CCTST-N gains across any subscale (all p > .05; d = - 0.02 to 0.21). In contrast, 78.1% of students reported stronger critical thinking after the course, with self-rated competencies rising across all six measured skill dimensions.

Students ranked problem-solving activities, instructor feedback, and data analysis as most influential for their reasoning development, while peer collaboration and reflection ranked last on every measure. This preference pattern was directly explained by mindset profiles: students demonstrated strong scientific identity (M = 4.22) and positive intellectual dispositions overall, but scored below neutral on collaborative and peer feedback preferences (M = 2.60), indicating a dispositional rather than purely instructional basis for the ranking pattern.

The divergence between perceived and measured growth reflects three convergent factors: an underpowered sample of 39 students that constrained statistical power and may have left genuine small effects undetected, reduced examinee effort under low-stakes testing conditions, and the limited sensitivity of a general critical thinking instrument to the domain-specific reasoning skills developed in a biostatistics context. Together, these findings argue for assessment approaches that integrate standardized measures with domain-specific tasks and student self-report, and for instructional designs that scaffold collaborative dispositions rather than assuming them.

Download

Share

COinS