University-Level Assessment of Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking Workshop, May 2010

Standardized TestsCalifornia Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)• Summer 2008 Freshmen• Non- College of Business,

Management and Economics• 961• “Process of purposeful, self-

regulatory judgment”• Analysis, Evaluation and

Inference = Total• Deductive and Inductive =

Total

Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)• Summer 2009 Freshmen• Random Sample – 60%• 848 with 824 completing at

least 75%• Voluntary System of

Accountability Requirement

• Reading I, Reading II, Critical Thinking (Reading III)

California Critical Thinking Skills Test

Number of Questions

ESU 4-Year College

Total 34 14.57 16.80

Analysis 7 4.09 4.44

Inference 16 6.76 7.85

Evaluation 11 3.72 4.52

Induction 17 8.36 9.53

Deduction 17 6.21 7.27

ESU’s 2009 Freshmen Cohort ESU’s 2009 Freshmen Cohort

Skills Subscores Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics

Mean Subscore No. of Instns.

Percent Below

No. of Instns.

Percent Below

No. of Instns.

Percent Below

No. of Instns.

Percent Below

126 to 130 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100125 to 125.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100124 to 124.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100123 to 123.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100122 to 122.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100121 to 121.99 0 100 1 98 0 100 0 100120 to 120.99 0 100 2 95 0 100 0 100119 to 119.99 0 100 3 89 0 100 0 100118 to 118.99 0 100 8 75 0 100 0 100117 to 117.99 0 100 4 67 0 100 0 100116 to 116.99 0 100 17 36 3 95 0 100

115 to 115.99 0 100 4 29 5 85 2 96114 to 114.99 0 100 4 22 8 71 6 85

113 to 113.99 1 98 7 9 16 42 14 60112 to 112.99 4 91 2 5 10 24 13 36111 to 111.99 4 84 1 4 7 11 9 20110 to 110.99 8 69 0 4 3 5 5 11109 to 109.99 12 47 2 0 3 0 3 5

108 to 108.99 14 22 0 0 0 0 0 5107 to 107.99 7 9 0 0 0 0 2 2106 to 106.99 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0100 to 105.99 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Institutions

55 55 55 55

Mean 109.30 (108.94) 116.12 (115.27) 113.18 (113.16) 112.29 (113.15)

MAPP

Reading Level III (Critical Thinking)Students who are proficient can:• evaluate competing causal explanations• evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts• determine the relevance of information for evaluating an

argument or conclusion• determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported

by evidence contained in a work• recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art• evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for

investigating a question of causation• evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses

or methods• recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument

Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress

Next Steps

Reading• University Assessment

Committee Reading Task Group

Assessments• Senior MAPP Results• Summer Freshmen 2010

and Senior Fall 2010