Critical Thinking. QEP Miniplan # 3

Critical Thinking

QEP Miniplan # 3

Topic

College of The Albemarle should choose Critical Thinking as its QEP topic. Students who excel in this skillset will perform better in class. These same students will also promote excitement about education in instructors and their classmates. Employers would also benefit from a cohort of students who have the ability to incorporate new information and adapt to changing environments. Critical thinking is essential to the success of COA, our students, employers, and our community. COA should be proud to champion a process that produces students with this skill.

Critical thinking is defined in many different ways. Choosing Critical Thinking as our QEP would require COA to determine and agree upon a single definition of the term. The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as:

“the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.” (Scriven and Paul 1987)

Critical Thinking would touch on all points of the current mission statement, but most specifically, it would address the first and the fourth statements.

Statement 1: the college provides “Education, training, and retraining for the adult work force in a global economy, including basic skills education, occupational, and prebaccalaureate programs.”

Students with pronounced critical thinking skills will receive a better education. They will learn more during the courses they take, as well as becoming life long learners. These students will also find themselves better prepared for both the local and the global economy. Lastly, transfer students will excel in their respective programs at four-year institutions because they can assimilate information in logical and meaningful ways.

Statement 2: the college provides “An environment that promotes job satisfaction and career development for faculty and staff.”

Capable, competent, independent, self-learning students make life better for both faculty and the staff that deal with them directly. Class discussions would have deeper meanings. Essays and papers would contain more than the usual regurgitation of popular anecdotes. Speeches and

presentations would be clearer and more persuasive. Students could solve problems in creative ways. These types of students would excite faculty, create fun experiences, and overall promote a great deal of energy at COA.

Need

The ability to critically think bleeds over into many other areas of academia. Students who can successfully wield this skillset should be able to perform at high levels in all subject areas. In an

increasingly digital age, the ability to decipher the information overload is imperative to success in and out of the classroom. Both professors talking around the water cooler, and surveyed employers agree that critical thinking is a skill that is both missing from current students and desperately needed. The Hart Research Associates conducted a survey of employers in 2010 about the skills they wanted a larger emphasis placed on in classes. 81% of those employers stated that they wanted more emphasis on critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills. 75% of those employers wanted more emphasis on solving complex problems. (Hart Research Associates, 2010)

Learning Outcomes:

1. Identify possible student learning outcomes that your plan will address.

a. Students will be able to identify relevant information from text, images, videos, or audio b. Students will be able to assess the validity and strength of information

c. Students will be able to integrate conflicting or collaborating information from different sources

d. Students will be able to use information to solve a problem or form a more educated opinion

e. Students will be able to communicate a solution to a problem or their opinion in a concise and persuasive style

2. Define the group or groups of students that your plan will impact: This plan would impact all students at COA.

Activities

4. Learner guided activities that allow students to construct activities and assessments 5. Troubleshooting

6. Argumentative Essays 7. Research review

8. Commercial / TV segment Review 9. Speeches

10. Peer Reviews

Assessments/Outcomes:

1. The promotion of critical thinking should produce more advanced learners. This assumption leads to several hypotheses:

a. More students should graduate with a degree, diploma, or certificate b. Graduating students should have a higher GPA

c. Students should graduate in a shorter time

d. Students should score higher on standardized exams 2. Explain assessments that will be used to measure learning.

a. Graduation rates could be compared to those before implementing the QEP b. Graduating GPA’s could be compared to those before implementing the QEP c. Time between admittance and graduation could be compared to those before

implementing the QEP

d. Standardized Critical Thinking Exams such as the CAAP exist to directly measure an individual’s ability to think critically

Budget:

1. Estimate how much funding will be required to implement and sustain your proposal. Instructional Designer $45,000 – $55,000 per year

Professional Development $10,000 per year

Standardized Testing $20 per test

2. Estimate how much organizational energy will be required to implement and sustain your proposal. For example:

a. Organizational enthusiasm: Most of the energy in this category would be required from faculty. Faculty would have to regularly create, implement, and assess activities that include critical thinking.

b. Staffing requirements: Staffing requirements revolve around two items

i. An instructional designer should be hired to help faculty promote critical thinking in the classrooms

ii. Staffing would also have to be available to implement standardized exams to measure critical thinking

c. Departmental involvement: Each department should meet regularly to share activities and results

References

1987. Scriven, Michael and Richard Paul. 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform.

2010. Hart Research Associates. Raising The Bar: 
Employers’ Views On College Learning In The Wake Of The Economic Downturn.

QEP miniplan # 6 Topic: Critical Thinking

Need:

As evidenced by the brain storming sessions at fall 2011 convocation and the discussions among faculty in October regarding the nine topics, critical thinking is of significant importance to faculty at COA. Consider the following feedback data from faculty at the October 13 brainstorming sessions on the nine topics:

Critical thinking scored the second highest impact on student learning. Critical thinking has the second highest level of stake holder support.

Critical thinking is considered to be the most feasible for startup and maintenance costs. Critical thinking has the greatest amount of organizational energy.

Critical thinking would have broader student impact than any other topic.

Other community colleges in the SACS region have developed their Quality Enhancement Plans on critical thinking, and we can learn from them. Over the past five years for Track A reaffirmation cohorts (institutions offering no higher than a bachelor’s degree), 26 of our peer institutions have developed their QEP on critical thinking:

Reaffirmation Class Total Institutions Total QEPs on Critical Thinking* 2007 36 5 2008 38 8 2009 43 3 2010 43 2 2011 33 8

*Based on the QEP title using terminology such as ―critical thinking‖, ―problem solving‖, etc. but not for the purpose of reading, writing, etc.

Thus, not only have other similar colleges determined the need to improve critical thinking for their students, but faculty at College of The Albemarle have also voiced concern for the need to improve critical thinking for our students.

Learning Outcomes: (SACSCOC defines learning as changes in knowledge, skills, behaviors and/or values.)

1. Students will improve their analysis and interpretation skills. 2. Students will improve their evaluation and explanation skills. 3. Students will improve their inference skills.

4. Students will improve their deductive reasoning skills. 5. Students will improve their inductive reasoning skills. 6. Students will improve their total critical thinking skills.

These learning outcomes are the same measurements evaluated in the California Critical Thinking Skills Test.

Activities:

Critical thinking requires a commitment to teach problem solving/analysis and to learn and practice problem solving/analysis. Thus, the activities rely on both faculty and students. Through professional development sessions and a shared library of practical resources, faculty will learn to embed critical thinking activities into classroom instruction. Activity instructions and rubrics to track completion of critical thinking activities will be developed.

Initially, the general education core courses are the ideal venue to reach the greatest number of students to aid in their development of critical thinking skills. For this QEP, activities will be focused primarily on general education courses. However, ultimately, these critical thinking activities should be

implemented college-wide in all programs.

Assessments/Outcomes:

During the October 13 faculty brainstorming sessions, the two greatest concerns regarding the feasibility of a QEP topic on critical thinking were the perceived lack of supporting data and measurability.

However, assessment of critical thinking may be more ―quantitative‖ than we first thought. We can learn about measurements that worked and did not work at the 26 peer institutions whose QEP relates to critical thinking. Further, a Google search for ―critical thinking community college‖ returns over 6.8 million hits. There is more information on measuring critical thinking than we realize.

Multiple tests have been designed to assess college level critical thinking. The following list displays the most commonly used assessments:

California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)

College BASE

Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Collegiate Learning Assessment Project (CLA).

Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (Facione & Facione, 1994)

One of these critical thinking assessments would be administered to a sample of at least 200 incoming credential-seeking students each fall semester, and would also be administered to the same students during the final semester at COA. The sample size for a population of 3,000 students at a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval (margin of error) of 7 is 184, so we should estimate

administering at least 200 tests per session. This pre-test/post-test methodology would enable us to measure changes in critical thinking over the span of their learning experience here.

My recommendation is to use the California Critical Thinking Skills Test because of its wide support throughout higher education. The CCTST measures several scales of critical thinking: analysis and interpretation, evaluation and explanation, inference, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning. An

overall total score is also provided for the CCTST. Detailed descriptions about the CCTST scales is available at http://www.insightassessment.com/Products/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST/Scales-of-the-CCTST

Budget:

The direct costs for this Quality Enhancement Plan would be primarily to pay for the critical thinking tests/assessments. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) is perhaps the most widely used evaluation in higher education, so the following preliminary budget assumes that COA would use the CCTST only.

Testing Period # CCTST Cost per Test** Total

2012-13* n/a n/a $1,000 2013-14 (pilot) 200 $5.00 $1,000 2014-15 400 $5.00 $2,000 2015-16 400 $5.00 $2,000 2016-17 400 $5.00 $2,000 2017-18 400 $5.00 $2,000 2018-19 400 $5.00 $2,000 5-year Cost $12,000

*2012-13 reflects the estimated costs for the resources and professional development/training for faculty; the 2012-13 budget does not include CCTST tests.

**The most recent CCTST price I found was $4.50, and I am still waiting for Insight Assessment to send me a current price quote.

Insight Assessment provides a variety of assessments and resources on critical thinking, including the CCTST. Their website is http://www.insightassessment.com/.

References:

The following references were used in Bers, T. (2005), Assessing critical thinking in community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2005: 15–25. doi: 10.1002/cc.192.

ACT. College Assessment of Academic Proficiency, CAAP: Assessing Academic Achievement in Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Critical Thinking. Iowa City, Iowa: ACT, 2004. Bloom, B. (ed.). A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York:

McKay, 1956.

Borden, V.M.H., and Owens, J.L.Z. Measuring Quality: Choosing Among Surveys and

OtherAssessments of College Quality. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2001. College of DuPage. ―General Education Skills Development: An Analysis of Students’ General

Educational Skills Development at College of DuPage Utilizing Four Rounds of CAAP Scores— Fall 1998, 1999 to Spring 1999, 2000.‖ Glen Ellyn, Ill.: College of DuPage, 2000.

Community College of Baltimore County. ―Progress Reports on Student Learning Outcomes Assessment.‖ Baltimore, Md.: Community College of Baltimore County, 2004.

Dlugos, P. ―Using Critical Thinking to Assess the Ineffable.‖ Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 2003, 27, 613–629.

Erwin, T. D. The NPEC Sourcebook on Assessment. Vol. 1: Definitions and Assessment Methods for Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Writing. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1998.

Erwin, T. D., and Sebrell, K. W. ―Assessment of Critical Thinking: ETS’s Tasks in Critical Thinking.‖ Journal of General Education, 2003, 52(1), 50–70.

Facione, P. A., and Facione, N. C. Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric. Millbrae: California Academic Press, 1994. http://www.insightassessment.com/HCTSR.html.

Huba, M. E., and Freed, J. E. Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Jones, E. A., Dougherty, B. C., Fantaske, P., and Hoffman, S. Identifying College Graduates’ Essential Skills in Reading and Problem Solving: Perspectives of Faculty, Employers and Policymakers. University Park, Pa.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997.

Kurfiss, J. G. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 2. College Station, Tex.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., and McTighe, J. Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993.

Nichols, J. O., and Nichols, K. W. General Education Assessment for Improvement of Student Academic Achievement: Guidance for Academic Departments and Committees. New York: Agathon Press, 2001.

Perry, G. E. ―Critical Thinking and Web-Based Education in Maryland Community Colleges: How the Medium Promotes Development.‖ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of West Virginia, 2004.

Seybert, J. ―Assessing Student Learning Outcomes.‖ In T. H. Bers and H. Calhoun (eds.), Next Steps for the Community College. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Taylor, B. ―Debating Moral Education—Topic 3: Teaching and Learning.‖ Paper presented at Center for Academic Integrity conference, Duke University, July 2004.

Wiggins, G. ―A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment.‖ Phi Delta Kappan, May 1989, 703–713.

QEP Topic Miniplan #8

Use the following format to submit your plan for a QEP topic. Please remember that miniplans will be subject to blind committee review, so do not include your name or identifying characteristics as part of your miniplan.

Topic: Developing Solutions

1. The purpose of this plan is to push our graduates to be problem solvers rather than reporters. 2. The college’s mission says we will train and retrain our community for the global economy and

today’s ever changing economy the need to problem-solve is essential. 3. This topic addresses the category of critical thinking.

4. Critical Thinking is the “ability to actively engage in investigative thinking” (www.p21st.org). Need:

The need to take on this project comes from both student and faculty comments in the sessions held with them. Additionally, problem solving is becoming an ever more important skill in the work place.

Learning Outcomes: (SACSCOC defines learning as changes in knowledge, skills, behaviors and/or values.)

3. Students will learn to identify problems/situations.

4. Students will learn to analyze problems/situation, identifying all key aspects.

5. Students will learn to collect information in variety of ways and from a variety of sources. 6. Students will learn to transfer information to utilize the information to make decisions. 7. Students will learn to present decisions made in an effective and audience appropriate way. This could impact all areas that the college works.

Activities:

Activities based on problem based learning need to be incorporated into classroom assignments. Rubrics developed that allow teachers to grade the problem solving or critical thinking abilities. Assessments/Outcomes:

1. Increase in the students actively engaged in learning (can be measured in the direct report CCSSEE).

2. Students will show increase in transfer of knowledge form one course to another. (Can be seen by using oral presentation rubric to grade all presentations).

3. Test can be done that show students increase in problem solving skills (standardized testing).

4. Pre/post rubric on critical thinking (Making it a gen ed competency). Budget:

3. Person to help with instructional design. 4. Need to invest in testing.

5. May need to offer release time or stipends to get buy in from faculty. 6. Retraining of faculty to become facilitators not lecturers.

7. Estimate how much organizational energy will be required to implement and sustain your proposal. For example:

a. Organizational enthusiasm--lots

b. Staffing requirements--minimal (one person) c. Departmental involvement (all)

Works Cited

Johnston, A.K. and Tinning, R.S. (2001). Meeting the challenge of problem-based learning: developing the facilitators. Nurse Education Today. April 21 (3), 161-169.

King, Alison ―From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side‖ College Teaching

Vol. 41, No. 1 (Winter, 1993), pp. 30-35

Partnership for 21st century skills. The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills

Framework. White Paper. www.p21st.org

Miniplan # 16 Critical thinking

Teach students extended problem solving. Not all problems can be solved quickly, easily or neatly. Problem solving via the scientific method.