The importance of critical thinking as an outcome for students graduating from undergraduate nursing programs is well-documented by both the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the National League for Nursing (NLN). Graduating nurses are expected to apply critical thinking in all practice situations to improve patient health outcomes. Reflective writing is one strategy used to increase understanding and ability to reason and analyze. The lack of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of reflective writing interventions on increasing critical thinking skills supports the need for examining reflective writing as a critical thinking strategy. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of a reflective writing intervention, based on Paul’s model of critical thinking, for improving critical thinking skills and dispositions in baccalaureate nursing students during an eight-week clinical rotation. The design for this pilot study was an experimental, pretest-posttest design. The sample was a randomly assigned convenience sample of 70 baccalaureate nursing students in their fourth semester of nursing school at two state-supported universities. All participants were enrolled in an adult-health nursing course and were completing clinical learning experiences in acute care facilities. Both groups completed two critical thinking instruments, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI), and then the experimental group completed a reflective writing intervention consisting of six writing assignments. Both groups then completed the two tests again. Results showed a significant increase (p=0.03) on only the truthseeking subscale on the CCTDI for the experimental group when compared to the control group. Some other slight differences on subscale scores could be accounted for by the institution, age, ethnicity, and health care experience differences between the control and experimental groups. Strengths of this study included the innovative intervention and the convenient format of intervention administration, completion, and submission. Limitations of the study included institutional differences, the eight-week commitment, and the lack of control of some aspects of the study environment. Evaluation of the qualitative data, replication in a larger sample, inclusion of different levels of students, and alternative design of assignments are all areas for future research.

Democracy does not automatically maintain itself by prescribed constitutions and procedural codes (Dewey, 1939), but rather its citizens must have certain dispositions to protect and strengthen it (Biesta, 2006). According to John Stuart Mill (1859/1991), people can tyrannize one another within the structures of a democracy, a concept he phrased “tyranny of the majority” (p. 7). To safeguard against such tyranny and to maintain a democratic way of life conducive to progress, I contend that our schools must be tasked with developing critical thinking dispositions in our future adults. The literature on education for democracy was reviewed and aligned with the critical thinking dispositions defined in the present study. Critical thinking dispositions are taught through interactions that promote them, not only limited to methods of direct instruction, such that they are infused throughout all academic subjects at all grade levels (Facione, 1990). Therefore, the present study explored the relationship between teachers’ critical thinking dispositions and their teaching styles. The main research question was: How do critical thinking dispositions differentiate between teaching styles? To best answer this question 10 mixed methods case studies were conducted of the teachers at one private pre-kindergarten through eighth grade school. The data were collected through a quantitative questionnaire, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI), and through qualitative observations and interviews. Subsequently, each strand, qualitative and quantitative, was analyzed individually and sequentially. Finally, through cross-case analyses, 10 distinctions in teaching styles were found for teachers who scored high on the critical thinking dispositions: truth-seeking to teacher explorer, truth-seeking to student teaching, open-mindedness to student teaching, inquisitiveness to fallibility, analyticity to emotional adaptability, analyticity to fallibility, analyticity to observational listening, systematicity to nurturing, confidence in reasoning to curriculum expansion, and confidence in reasoning to self-actualization. Understanding these relationships is the start of possibly being able to use teachers’ CCTDI profiles to predict teaching styles and to guide teacher education. Implications for future research include more focused studies around the consistent relationships emerging from the present study and research about students’ development of critical thinking dispositions in relation to teaching styles.