Assessing Critical Thinking Summer Critical Thinking Institute QEP Team, Faculty Champions, and Academic Roundtables 2008

Assessing Critical ThinkingSummer Critical Thinking

Institute

QEP Team, Faculty Champions, and Academic Roundtables

2008

http://www.spcollege.edu/

June 20, 2008 Critical Thinking Institue 2

Assessing Critical Thinking 2008

Critical Thinking

“Beyond the Obvious”



Assessment Basics

Purpose of assessment Creating valid and reliable measures Alignment of goals/measures Use of multiple methods



Assessment Basics

Why do we assess? To see how well we are doing To confirm what we already know To share our progress with others To see where we can improve and change In some cases to demonstrate what does not

work



Assessment Basics

Source: http://www.c-pal.net/course/module2/pdf/Week1_Lesson5.pdf

Why do we assess?



Assessment Basics

Does one size fit all? Assessments need to be valid Assessments need to be reliable



Validity

Does the assessment measure what it is suppose to measure?

“Validation is the process of accumulating evidence that supports the appropriateness of inferences that are made of student responses…” (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999)



Types of Validity Evidence

Content Related - the extent to which a student’s responses to a given assessment reflect that student’s knowledge of the content area

Construct Related - the extent to which the responses being evaluated are appropriate indicators of the underlying construct

Criterion Related - the extent to which the results of the assessment correlate with a current or future event

Consequential – the consequences or use of the assessment results



Questions to Examine Validity

Content Validity Evidence1. Does the evaluation criteria address

any extraneous content?2. Does the evaluation criteria address

all of the aspects of the intended content?

3. Is there any content addressed in the task that should be evaluated, but is not?




Construct Validity Evidence1. Are all the important elements of

the material evaluated through the scoring criteria?

2. Are any of the evaluation criteria NOT relevant to the material?




Criterion Validity Evidence1. What are the important components of

the future performance that may be evaluated through the use of this assessment?

2. How does the scoring criteria measure the important components of the future performance?

3. Are there any elements of the future performance that are not reflected in the scoring criteria?



Reliability

Consistency of the assessment scores

Types of reliability… Interrater Reliability – scores vary from

instructor to instructor. Intrarater Reliability – scores vary from a

single instructor from paper to paper A test can be reliable and not valid,

but never valid and not reliable



Reliability Concerns

Reliability1. Are the score categories well defined?2. Are the differences between the score

categories clear?3. Would two independent raters arrive

at the same score for a given student response based on the scoring rubric?



Improving Scoring Consistency

Provide grading rubrics or scoring criteria to students prior to assessment

Grade papers anonymously Use anchor papers to define levels

of proficiency for reference Use multiple scorers Calculate reliability statistics during

training and grading



Assessment Basics

Assessment Purpose Everything needs to align (objectives

through assessment) SPC QEP example



Assessment Basics

Definition

Measurable Learning Outcomes

Operational Elements (KSAs)

Appropriate

Assessment

Measures



SPC Definition

“Critical thinking is the active and systematic process of communication, problem-solving, evaluation, analysis, synthesis, and reflection, both individually and in community, to foster understanding, support sound decision-making, and guide action.”

Definition


Operational Elements

(KSAs)

Appropriate Assessment Measures



Student Learning Outcomes

In order to link specific and measurable student learning outcomes, SPC’s definition of critical thinking was operationalized.

This provided a more concrete and less abstract linkage or bridge between the student learning outcomes and the definition of critical thinking.




Definition



(KSAs)





Definition



(KSAs)




Outcomes to Assessments

Student Learning Outcomes were then linked to appropriate assessment instruments

SPC’s QEP contained multiple measures for use in assessing student learning in the area of critical thinking



Outcomes to Assessments

Definition



(KSAs)




Recent Alumni Survey

Question 31: Thinking logically and critically to solve problems Gathering and assessing relevant information Inquiring about and interpreting information Organizing and evaluating information Analyzing and explaining information to others Using Information to solve problems



Employer Survey

Question 3: Use mathematical and computational skills Comfortable with mathematical calculations Uses computational skills appropriately Accurately interprets mathematical data

Question 5: Think logically and critically to solve problems

Gathers and assesses relevant information Inquires and interprets information Organizes and evaluates information Analyzes and explains information to others Uses Information to solve problems



CCSSE

Question 5: During the current school year, how much has your coursework at this college emphasized the following mental activities?

b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory d. Making judgments about the value or soundness of

information, arguments, or methods

Question 12: How much has YOUR EXPERIENCE AT THIS COLLEGE contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

e. Thinking critically and analytically



Assessment Basics

Multiple Measures SPC will determine improvement in

students’ critical thinking skills using the multiple measures.

These include standardized direct instruments, authentic assessments, and indirect methods.



Student Assessment Points

Student Assessment Points

Entering Student Survey

SPC

Enrolled Student Survey

Exiting Student Survey

Employer Survey

Recent Alumni Survey

Employment or University

Direct Measures

Indirect Measures

MAPP ARC iSkills

CCSSE

SSI

Capstone (4-year only)



Standardized Direct Instruments

Direct assessments include: CAT - Critical Thinking Assessment Test is designed

to assess and promote the improvement of critical thinking and real-world problem solving skills.

Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP), developed by Educational Testing Services (ETS), is a measure of college-level reading, mathematics, writing, and critical thinking in the context of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences

The iSkills™ assessment (former ICT Literacy Assessment), developed by ETS, is a comprehensive test of Information and Communication Technology proficiency that uses scenario-based critical thinking tasks to measure both cognitive and technical skills.



Indirect Methods

Student, alumni, employer, faculty, and staff reports, such as end-of-course, institutional, and national surveys and questionnaires, can provide indirect measures that help deepen the interpretation of student learning (Maki, 2004).



Indirect Methods

Indirect methods include: Community College Survey of Student Engagement

(CCSSE), established at UT at Austin, a tool for assessing quality in community college education. CCSSE contains specific survey items intended to assess various Core Operational Elements (KSAs) associated with a student’s critical thinking.

Entering Student Survey, Enrolled Student Survey, Graduating Student Survey, and Recent Alumni Survey are the primary surveys that have been developed to collect student feedback on their experiences.

Employer Surveys are sent out to employers of recent SPC graduates in order to gather information on graduates’ knowledge and behavior.



Authentic Assessments

Authentic assessments serve dual purposes of encouraging students to think critically and of providing assessment data for measuring improved student learning.



Authentic Assessments

Authentic assessments include… Criterion-referenced rubrics. Complex, higher-order

objectives can be measured only by having students create a unique product, whether written or oral [in-class essays, speeches, term papers, videos, computer programs, blueprints, or artwork] (Carey, 2000).

Student Reflection. Written reflection is espoused to have several important benefits: it can deepen the quality of critical thinking, increase active involvement in learning, and increase personal ownership of the new learning by the student (Moon, 1999).

Student Portfolios. Collections of students’ work over a course or a program and can be an effective method of demonstrating student progress in the area of critical thinking (Carey, 2000).



Rubrics

What is a rubric? Scoring guidelines, consisting of

specific pre-established performance criteria, used in evaluating student work on performance assessments



Rubrics

SPC currently uses rubrics in such programs as…

College of Education College of Nursing Paralegal



Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking (ARC)



Assessment Rubric for CT

ARC was designed to… Enhance the QEP Align with the College’s definition of

critical thinking Be flexible for use in multi-disciplines




ARC is a ‘global’ rubric template developed to provide a snapshot view of how student learning is being affected by the critical thinking initiative.

ARC will be designed to assess a variety of student projects from a critical thinking perspective. For example, students in a composition class may be asked to write a paper on a specific topic.

ARC rubric template will evaluate the student’s use of critical thinking skills in the development of the paper as opposed to specifically evaluating the quality of student’s writing skills.




ARC rubric template will be designed to be flexible enough to address a number of student project modalities including written and oral communications.

The development of a rubric is an iterative process and will be improved and strengthened as it is used more widely; however, the first iteration of the rubric has been developed by the QEP faculty champions.



Rubric Development Process

1. Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the task

2. Identify specific observable attributes your students should demonstrate

3. Describe characteristics at each attribute 4. Write narrative descriptions for each level of

continuum 5. Collect samples of student work 6. Score student work and identify samples that

exemplify various levels 7. Revise the rubric as needed

Repeat as Needed



Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking









ARC Assignment Profile

Designed to provide consistency and accuracy in the evaluation of the ARC at the institutional level as well as provide guidelines for the use at the course level

ARC is essentially a ‘tool’ to evaluate critical thinking, but for a tool to be effective it must be in the correct situation or ‘job.’ It would be inefficient to use a machete to conduct heart surgery.

Purpose of the ARC Assignment Profile is to outline the most appropriate course assignment




Participating faculty should have one assignment during the course that can be evaluated using the ARC scoring rubric.

Course assignment could be a graded homework assignment or a major assessment for the course.

Course assignment should include all of the elements of the rubric and should be aligned with the task outlined for each element.

Assignments that only evaluate some of the elements or are not aligned with the specific ARC tasks will be considered incomplete and not used in the institutional analysis.




Faculty may add additional discipline specific rubric elements (such as grammar and punctuation in a composition class), but must maintain the ARC elements as listed.




Students should be provided a copy of the assignment rubric (ARC and any additional discipline specific elements). The specific elements and tasks include:

1. Communication: Define the problem in your own words.2. Analysis: Compare & contrast the available solutions within the

scenario.3. Problem Solving: Select one of the available solutions and defend it

as your final solution.4. Evaluation: Identify the weaknesses of your final solution.5. Synthesis: Suggest ways to improve/strengthen your final solution

(may use information not contained within the scenario).6. Reflection: Reflect on your own thought process after completing the

assignment. a. “What did you learn from this process?” b. “What would you do differently next time to improve?”




Evaluating scenario (selected or created) should be stated in such a manner to allow the student to address each of the tasks.

QEP team is willing to assist you with the creation of the scenario or identify possible sources of existing scenario that could be used.

Completed student assignments should include a copy of the scenario, the assignment provided to the student (with the rubric), the students work and the final graded rubric.



Deer Population ScenarioThree teenagers were seriously injured in a car accident when

swerving to avoid a deer in on a two-lane road near a small, rural town in Florida. The residents of the town have seen more and more deer enter the town’s populated areas over recent years. Local law enforcement has been called numerous times this year to remove the animals from backyards and neighborhood streets, and one deer even caused considerable damage as it entered a restaurant in town. The mayor has been charged by the city leaders to keep the town residents safe. Local crops have even been damaged by the animals. Some long time residents have requested that the hunting season and catch limits be extended in order to reduce the deer population. One city leader even proposed that the city purchase electronic devices to deter the deer from entering populated areas. Health concerns have recently been elevated as three deer carcasses were found at the edge of town and local law enforcement suspect that the animals had been poisoned.



Next Steps

Another Scoring workshop will be held this Fall

Pairs of Faculty Champions (scorers) will individually score student work samples and identify samples that exemplify various levels



Next Steps

Faculty Champions (scorers) will complete evaluation forms regarding the validity and reliability of the ARC rubric

Interrater reliability will also be calculated from ARC ratings



Next Steps

Faculty champions will make revisions to the ARC and the assignment profile as needed.

ARC Development Process will be repeated (Steps 5 - 7)



Questions/Next Steps

Assessing Critical ThinkingSummer Critical Thinking Institute

QEP Team, Faculty Champions, and Academic Roundtables

2008

http://www.spcollege.edu/

Documents

Assessing Critical Thinking Summer Critical Thinking Institute QEP Team, Faculty Champions, and Academic Roundtables 2008