Ideas to Action (I2A)

Presentation for Psychological & Brain Sciences Faculty

April 28, 2008

Using Critical Thinking to Foster Student Learning and Community Engagement

Introductions

• I2A Team

Dr. Patty Payette Dr. Cathy Bays Dr. Edna Ross Executive Director Delphi Specialist Delphi Specialist

for Assessment for Critical Thinking

Hannah Anthony, Program Assistant Senior

Ideas to Action Implementation

Ideas to Action (I2A): Using Critical Thinking to Foster Student Learning and Community Engagement is our Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), and we need to show measurable progress to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) by April 2012.

I2A and “Connecting the Dots”

“Our extensive consultation with all University constituencies yielded a surprisingly strong and clear

call for education focused on the skills and knowledge needed to deal with real-world issues and problems, an education in which students can see the importance of the parts (the courses) to the whole (their education as citizens and workers).”

[QEP Report, 2007]

http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/files/finalreport.pdf

skills and knowledge

real-world issues & problems

the parts to the whole

I2A: What are the components?

I2A Thematic Priority: Community I2A Thematic Priority: Community EngagementEngagement

Central Messages about I2A

• Prompted by Undergraduate Program Accreditation

• Enhancement of critical thinking, student engagement

• Psychological & Brain Sciences Department an exemplar

• Renewed focus on community engagement

• Assessment process under development

• Some programs in place; more being developed

U of L Strategic Plan 2020: http://louisville.edu/provost/fromtheprovostitems/stratplan0308.html

Critical Thinking Definition adopted for I2A

(From: Scriven and Paul, 2003)

A Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker:

Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely

Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively

Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards

Thinks open mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as needs be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences

Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

(Richard Paul and Linda Elder, the Foundation for Critical Thinking: http://www.criticalthinking.org/)

Intellectual Standards must be applied to

The Elements of Thought in order to develop

Intellectual Traitswhich will produce a well-cultivated

Critical Thinker

Richard Paul-Linda Elder Critical Thinking Model

Intellectual Standards

CLARITYACCURACYPRECISIONRELEVANCEDEPTHBREADTH

LOGICSIGNIFICANCEFAIRNESSCOMPLETENESS

Miniature Guide, 2008, p. 8-10

Miniature Guide, 2008, p. 3-6

The Intellectual Traits

• Intellectual Humility

• Intellectual Courage

• Intellectual Empathy

• Intellectual Autonomy

• Intellectual Integrity

• Intellectual Perseverance

• Confidence in Reason

• Fairmindedness

Miniature Guide, 2008, p. 13-15

Paul Elder Critical Thinking Model Pilot Program

• The specific components of the Paul-Elder model of critical thinking were used to adapt an existing assignment or to create or revise a new assignment in which one outcome is to foster a specific critical thinking skill(s).

Paul Elder Model Pilot Program Participants

William A Brantley--Communications

Karen Chandler--English

Julia Dietrich--English

Stuart Esrock--Communications

Gerald Evans--Engineering

Karen Gray--Humanities

William Hoston—Physics

Rich Lewine--Psychology

Mary Makris—Modern Languages

Carol S O'Neal—College of Education and Human Development

Edna Ross--Psychology

Robert S Urekew--Philosophy

Psych 201 Assignment:1. INTRODUCTIONWhat basic question is the Experimenter trying to answer? What is the general problem

area?

2. METHODS a) What or who were the experimental subjects?b) What task did they perform, or what test(s) did they take, or what characteristic(s) were

measured?c) What was the design of the study? Was it experimental or correlational?If experimental: Were there different groups of subjects or were the same subjects exposed

to different treatments at different times, or both? What independent variable or variables were manipulated? What dependent variable or variables were measured?

If correlational: How many variables were measured, and what were they?

3. RESULTS What were the results? Did groups differ in performance, or did subjects' performance

differ under as a result of treatment? If correlational, what were the relationships found among the variables measured?

4. DISCUSSION What are the implications of the study? What questions remain for further research?

This is the section to summarize the contribution of the study to research in the area of the study focus.

BEFOREBEFORE

Psych 201 Assignment1. What is the main purpose of this article?

(State as accurately as possible the author’s purpose for writing the article or for doing the research.)

 2. What is (are) the important question(s) the author of this article is trying to address?

(Figure out the key question(s) in the mind of the author when s/he wrote the article about the research that was conducted.)

 3. What kind of study was done? (Case study, survey, etc.)

 3a. Justify your answer as to why it is what you say it is.

 3b. What are the independent and dependent variables?

 3c. Who are the subjects?

  

4. What facts, data, evidence or experiences does the author use to address the important question of the article?

 

5. What are the main inferences/conclusions in this article?

(Identify the key conclusions the author comes to and presents in the article)

 

6. Do the author’s conclusions follow from the data/evidence presented? Why or why not?

 

7a. What are the implications if we take the author’s line of reasoning seriously? (What consequences are likely to follow if people take the author's line of reasoning seriously?)

 7b. What are the implications if we fail to take the author’s line of reasoning seriously?

(What consequences are likely to follow if people ignore the author's reasoning?)

AFTERAFTER

Psych 201 Assignment

• Instead of summarizingsummarizing, we are now asking students to critically analyze.analyze.

Some reactions from Pilot Program Participants

• “Being involved [in this program] reinvigorated my teaching.”

• ““Very helpful Very helpful to hear other [instructors] talk about their experiences teaching critical thinking.”

• “I’m becoming a better teacher a better teacher because of [this program].”

• “I spend more time thinking about how the students think how the students think and I also spend more time explaining to students why I do things in a certain way.”

New Program Coming for Fall ‘08

Faculty Learning Community Faculty Learning Community

on Critical Thinkingon Critical Thinking

• A community of 10-12 faculty members

• Cross-disciplinary ongoing dialogue, structured activities & reflection

• Sustained and scholarly support for instructional design and assessment principles

• Use of the Paul-Elder critical thinking model

What are the goals/objectives?

• To increase and enhance faculty engagement in I2A

• To increase and enhance faculty expertise and application of the Paul-Elder critical thinking model in a specific course

• To create a library of faculty and student artifacts related to I2A implementation

• To increase faculty collaboration across disciplines

• To develop a cohort of FLC graduates who can serve as I2A advocates after completing the program

• To nourish scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and its application to I2A and student learning.

Who is eligible?

• Any part-time, term, tenure track, or tenured faculty member who will be teaching during Fall 2008 may be nominated.

• The I2A FLC can include faculty members with and without prior experience with I2A and/or the Paul Elder critical thinking model.

For more information

Please visit:

http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction