Critical thinking (CT) skills are essential to academic and professional success. Instruments to assess CT often rely on multiple-choice formats with inherent problems. This research presents two instruments for assessing CT, an essay and open-ended group-discussion format, which were implemented in an undergraduate business course at a large public university. The topics were intentionally chosen to be digitally-related (internet access and social media) since they raise complex issues, are applicable in many disciplines, and students are avid users, thereby making these instruments relevant, multidisciplinary, engaging, and multifaceted. These instruments may be adapted to enable educators to effectively assess undergraduate students' ability to think critically. Qualitative analysis of the verbatim data with NVivo helps demonstrate the instruments' efficacy in assessing CT, with (1) high-quality responses receiving high grades, and (2) overarching themes identified by content analysis, that coalesce into the three dimensions of social justice theory (distributive, procedural, and interactional), thus illustrating students' consideration of complex fairness norms and societal needs. Excerpts of student responses are provided as illustrations of the indicators/evidence of critical thinking. Educators can use these instruments to first assess students' CT skills, and then devise targeted interventions to improve the quality of students' thought processes.