Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)


School of Education

First Advisor

Dane C. Joseph, Ph.D

Second Advisor

Patrick Allen, Ph.D

Third Advisor

Terry Huffman, Ph.D


This study examined the role of cultural and contextual factors in the critical thinking processes of bilingual Lebanese undergraduate students. In addition, it investigated whether bilingual students used comparable processes to answer equivalent critical thinking questions in Arabic and English. A purposive sample of 24 upper division undergraduate students enrolled in a Lebanese university completed the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (CCTT) as well as 10 questions from the Sample Reasoning Mindset Test (SRMT). Participants were divided into two similar procedural groups. Group A completed the CCTT and SRMT in Arabic. Group B completed the assessments in English. A think-aloud protocol was used to collect verbal data of the thinking processes of the participants on select items from each test. Participant responses on the CCTT were coded using the consensus descriptions of the core critical thinking skills and sub-skills of interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation outlined in the APA Delphi Report (Facione, 1990a). Responses on the SRMT were coded based on whether statements were framed in moral terms, pragmatic terms, logical terms, religious terms, social/relational terms, or ideological terms. Additional patterns that emerged in the verbal data were labelled and utilized as appropriate. An exploratory quantitative analysis indicated no significant difference in overall scores based on demographic and linguistic variables. The mean and median scores on the CCTT were generally lower than scores from equally leveled participant scores in other studies. The results of the qualitative analysis of the verbal data demonstrated participant weaknesses in comparing options; considering multiple points of view; reasoning neutrally; engaging in global reasoning; identifying the credibility of sources; and the use of best-explanation criteria. The results also indicated that the majority of participants did not understand the concepts of equivocation; propositional logic; and the proper