QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 2006

CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM:

ENHANCING THEGENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

* * * * *

A Quality Enhancement Plan

* * * * *

prepared for the

Commission on Collegesof the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

_________

University of the Cumberlands6191 College Station DriveWilliamsburg, KY 40769

CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I. Précis and Development of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section II. A Review of Literature and Project Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Section III. A Review of the University’s Mission and Current Student Skills and Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Section IV. Classroom Program Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Section V. Professional Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Section VI. Academic Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Section VII. The Challenges of Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Section VIII. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

AppendicesAppendix A: CTAC (QEP) Assessment PlanAppendix B: Descriptions of Testing Scales and Proficiency LevelsAppendix C: Samples of Possible Classroom-Embedded Assessment Activities and

InstrumentsAppendix D: Written Communication AssessmentAppendix E: CTAC (QEP) Budget

Section I.Précis and Development of Program

The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) of University of the Cumberlands, entitled “CriticalThinking Across the Curriculum” (CTAC), focuses on nurturing critical thinking in studentsthrough integrating critical thinking skills into courses first-year students typically take (e.g.,English Composition I and II, Health and Wellness, World Civilization I and II, AmericanHistory I and II, Basic Psychology, Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey). TheUniversity’s Mission Statement includes developing critical thinking in students as one of theinstitution’s goals, but the very nature of a liberal arts education requires critical thinking asstudents study and clarify their understanding of various disciplines and begin to see connectionsbetween diverse disciplines. Considering Christian values and refining one’s application ofChristian values also requires critical thinking in understanding historical contexts andevaluating how the Christian faith best applies in various situations. In addition, critical thinkingfacilitates creative thinking and problem-solving and enables individuals to develop new ideasand technologies for personal achievement and social progress/advancement.

Overview of CTAC

Since critical thinking is not a discipline-specific activity, it can only be fostered effectively byemphasizing across disciplines those performance activities through which critical thinking maybe expressed: a) reading comprehension, b) written communication, c) oral communication, andd) information literacy. The University’s general education curriculum already includes elementsrelated to these skills. However, through CTAC, the University seeks to strengthen thesecomponents of critical thinking by articulating a more focused, intentional, and interdisciplinaryapproach.

The University’s QEP does not endeavor to enhance every aspect of critical thinking. Rather theQEP focuses on enhancing students’ mastery of three standards. In the following definitions ofthese standards, “information” refers to ideas, facts, concepts, beliefs, and perceptions. Inaddition, while CTAC focuses on the presentation of information through writing and oralcommunication, CTAC also recognizes and strives to encourage critical thinking in presentationsthrough the visual and performing arts. A further refinement of the three standards can be foundon page 35.

• Clarity - the ability to understand and articulate the information and argumentationof others, as well as to articulate and organize one’s own propositions

• Discernment - the ability to evaluate the veracity and significance of informationthrough improved information literacy skills

• Integration - the ability to recognize the logical connections among disciplines,understand how propositions and methodologies in diverse academic disciplinesimpact one another, and integrate the skills and knowledge developed in variousdisciplines for effective problem-solving

The University’s QEP seeks to nurture students to be more prepared for the challenges of career,leadership, and responsible citizenship. Moreover, CTAC will benefit the institution by bringing

2

together faculty from diverse disciplines to develop cross-disciplinary strategies and assessmentmeasures and create a stronger liberal arts program.

The University has selected a faculty member to serve as QEP Director to coordinate classroomactivities, assessment efforts, professional development, and academic support services. TheQEP Director will oversee CTAC with the assistance of a re-formed and on-going QEPCommittee, consisting of some members of the QEP Committee who developed CTAC, the firstcadre of faculty, and the Director of Teaching and Learning. The QEP Director will recruitfaculty, coordinate initial and ongoing training, and coordinate assessment activities.

The University’s Director of Teaching and Learning, initially employed in the summer of 2005,has already enhanced professional development and academic support for the universitycommunity, with a particular focus on critical thinking, and will continue to coordinate facultydevelopment through discussion groups and workshops. Each year small groups of faculty willreceive training in teaching and assessing the four performance areas of critical thinking targetedby CTAC. The QEP budget includes funding for a Summer Teaching Institute (STI) forparticipating faculty that will provide for a guest facilitator, materials, and a stipend for eachfaculty member. Additional funding is also included for assessment instruments (e.g., ETSAcademic Profile, California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory, California CriticalThinking Skills Test), materials, and miscellaneous costs.

The first cadre of nine faculty members represents seven academic disciplines (biology; English;health, movement, and leisure studies; history; political science; psychology; and religion). Thisgroup will receive training in critical thinking, pedagogy, and assessment during the earlysummer of 2006 and will begin intentionally integrating critical thinking teaching andassessment into their first-year courses in the fall 2006 semester. During the initial year ofimplementation (2006-2007) and perhaps in the second year (2007-2008), the cadre faculty willfocus on enhancing students’ critical thinking skills through reading comprehension and writtencommunication. During the second or third year (2008-2009), cadre faculty will addenhancement of critical thinking through oral communication and information literacy. Eachyear for the next five years, approximately eight additional faculty representing several differentdisciplines will receive special training and begin integrating critical thinking teaching andassessment into their courses. While CTAC will remain initially focused on enhancing criticalthinking in first-year courses, faculty who typically do not teach first-year courses will be invitedto participate in subsequent cadres. Within five years, approximately half of the faculty will havereceived the special training and will be involved in enhancing critical thinking in their courses.

Various methods will be used to assess the QEP. National tests (e.g., ETS Academic Profile[soon to be replaced by the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress], California CriticalThinking Dispositions Inventory, California Critical Thinking Skills Test) will be given annuallyto first-year students and to juniors. Changes in scores will help evaluate the QEP. In addition,the participating faculty members will develop rubrics and other course-embedded assessmentinstruments that can be used across-disciplines in courses to measure the progress of students incritical thinking in the four performance areas targeted by the QEP. All of these assessmentinstruments will enable the University to improve and fine tune the QEP and thus enhancestudent learning.

3

Since CTAC focuses on courses taken by first-year students, the QEP will have a significantimpact on the University’s general education curriculum. Assessment of the general educationcurriculum already includes some assessment of QEP learning outcomes. As faculty introducenew critical thinking strategies and assessment methods into upper-level courses, learningoutcomes should be strengthened across all disciplines and at all levels of course work.

Development of the QEP

In the early spring of 2004, University of the Cumberlands’ Reaccreditation Leadership Team(composed of Dr. Don Good, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dr. Jim Ross, AssociateDean; Dr. Tom Fish, Chair of the Department of English and Modern Foreign Languages andReaccreditation Director; and Dr. Bob Dunston, Chair of the Department of Religion andPhilosophy and Reaccreditation Editor) selected the following faculty members to serve withthem as the QEP Committee:

Dr. Rich Byrd, Professor of MusicProf. Jane Carter, Associate Professor of Business AdministrationProf. Donnie Grimes, Instructor of Computer Information Systems and Director of

Information TechnologyDr. Joan Hembree, Assistant Professor of BiologyDr. Jean Hunt, Associate Professor of PsychologyDr. Jim Manning, Professor of PhysicsDr. Cindi Norton, Chair and Professor of Health, Movement, and Leisure StudiesProf. Norma Patrick, Professor of EducationDr. Mike Robinson, Associate Professor of Philosophy and ReligionDr. Keith Semmel, Chair and Professor of Communication and Theatre ArtsProf. Ru Story-Huffman, Librarian

These members were chosen, among other reasons, to represent the various academic disciplinesof the campus. On March 29, 2004, the QEP Committee met for the first time and was briefed onthe core elements of the SACS accreditation process, including the QEP portion of the process.

Soon thereafter, on April 6, 2004, the Committee met and initiated discussion concerninglearning enhancements by addressing the questions: “What do my students need to learn andhow might they learn these things?” Twenty-two possible learning enhancements were proposed.On April 14, 2004, four additional enhancements were suggested and a four-fold schematic forcategorizing possible learning enrichments was developed. These four categories were BasicSkills, Connections/Integrations, Problem-Solving, and Meta-Issues. Table1-1 delineates theseskill areas and the order in which committee members suggested learning enhancements withineach category.

Discussions also occurred concerning the need for faculty development/training so faculty willbe equipped to help students attain the learning enrichments being envisioned, as well tostrengthen assessment techniques to measure the level of student learning.

4

Table 1-1. Potential Focal Points for QEP

Basic Skills Connections/Integrations

Problem-Solving Meta-Issues

Quantitative Internships Research Values/ethics

Writing Experiential Knowledgemanagement

Responsibility

Speech Connectionsin/betweendisciplines

Abstract criticalthinking

Leadership

Time managing Diverse culturalexperiences

Internships

Study Career counseling

Reading

Foreign language

Basic criticalthinking

Technology literacy

Information literacy

Following these initial committee meetings in April 2004, a series of interdepartmental meetingsoccurred which all faculty were encouraged to attend. The meetings oriented faculty concerningthe QEP, and invited faculty to offer further suggestions/insights regarding possible learningenhancements for students. Attendance at the interdepartmental meetings was excellent withvery few faculty members being unable to participate. On May 24, 2004, the content of thesediscussions was cataloged by the Leadership Team and presented to the Committee for furtherexamination. The following common threads of the interdepartmental meetings were noted,including commentary on the relationship between these ideas and the University’s existinglong-range plan:

• Enhancing cross-cultural/cross-disciplinary experiences for students• Professional development of faculty members• Reworking the general education curriculum• Enhancing basic cognitive skills• Enhancing advanced research skills• Constructing appropriate assessment tools for projected learning enhancements• Making connections between academic disciplines• Developing personal responsibility among students

During the May 24, 2004, meeting, the Committee also divided into four subcommittees, each

5

commissioned to research a specific area of concern for the QEP project. These subcommitteeswere the Academic Support Subcommittee, the Assessment Subcommittee, the Cross-CulturalSubcommittee, and the Cross-Disciplinary Subcommittee.

On June 30, July 21, and August 11, 2004, the Committee heard and discussed reports from thefour subcommittees. A variety of possible learning enhancement projects were proposed anddebated. The Cross-Disciplinary Subcommittee proposed ways the University might enhancestudent abilities to integrate learning across disciplines. Key examples included the following:

• Provide a course or set of courses introducing students to “Liberal Arts,” whichwould give an overview of various academic disciplines and expose students to basiccritical thinking, writing, research, and information literacy skills;

• Rework the structure of the general education curriculum so that students would berequired to take courses that integrate academic disciplines. The Cross-CulturalSubcommittee suggested the following potential actions to enhance students’appreciation and understanding of diverse cultures: (a) establish a rationale forenhancing cross-cultural experiences; and (b) identify current activities/programs thatenhance student exposure to and understanding of diverse cultures;

• Envision new programs that could enhance student learning of diverse cultures;• Articulate mechanisms and criteria for assessing student appreciation and

understanding of diverse cultures. The Academic Support Subcommittee envisioneddiffering ways the University might enhance the learning of academically gifted andchallenged students, including the development of an Honors Program for giftedstudents and the restructuring of current programs for challenged students.

During September 2004, a series of forums were held, to which all University faculty wereinvited to express opinions concerning possible learning enhancement projects being consideredby the QEP Committee. The forum dates and topics were (1) September 7, 8: EnhancingConnections Across Disciplines, (2) September 14, 15: Enhancing Cross-Cultural Experiences,and (3) September 21, 22: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners. A variety of concerns andcomments were shared by faculty in attendance, including the following:

• The need for baseline and follow-up data to establish current levels of student cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural learning for later assessment

• The practical viability and utility of an Introduction to Liberal Arts course• The practical viability and utility of team-taught cross-disciplinary courses• Acknowledgment of various courses and programs already in place that enhance

student cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural learning as well as stimulate challengedand gifted students

• Possible assessment techniques for demonstrating that learning enhancements haveoccurred in these various areas

On October 4, 2004, a student forum was conducted, offering students from multiple disciplinesthe opportunity to express their opinions about possible learning enhancement programs. Severalquestions were posed to the students: (1) How have you benefitted from the general educationcourses you have taken outside your major? (2) What courses have most contributed to your

6

understanding of the important connections between different fields of study? (3) What courseshave most contributed to your appreciation of other cultures and what extra-curricular activitieshave contributed to this understanding? (4) What changes in courses or programs could moststrengthen University of the Cumberlands as a liberal arts university? (5) If the University wereto develop an “honors” program, what could be some goals or components of that program? (6)When students struggle academically in their first year of university studies, what do you thinkare the primary causes of these problems and what could the University do to assist inovercoming these difficulties? Students provided diverse, helpful answers to these and otherquestions.

In light of faculty and student forums and on-going discussions among Committee members, theQEP Committee began refining a potential learning enhancement project. The initial proposalsuggested a three-module project of (1) reconfiguring the general education curriculum toarticulate the cross-disciplinary goals of University of the Cumberlands’ liberal arts program, (2)developing a pilot program of integrated/coordinated cross-cultural courses and activities, and(3) expanding academic support programs for conditionally admitted students. As discussionsprogressed, the Committee decided that module (3) was too narrow in focus for a QEP project,and that elements of it could be incorporated into a broader project. The Committee also came toagree that the initial proposal lacked coherence and that a more integrated program would beneeded. Many felt that a learning enhancement project that focused on critical thinking skillswould allow the University to address needs of virtually all students in every discipline. In turn,perhaps the University could create a program that would focus on teaching, in addition todiscipline-specific information, key critical thinking skills in courses that beginning studentsnormally take. With this in mind, the following additional module was added to the proposedQEP project: Develop a program to nurture critical thinking in courses typically taken byentering students. Among the key components of this proposed module were the following:

• Identify a limited set of courses typically taken by entering students • Articulate a set of skills and cognitive processes to emphasize in these courses• Provide faculty development to help faculty teach these skills and processes• Encourage cooperation among faculty in identified courses• Provide academic support for students for learning these skills and processes• Establish an assessment system for these targeted learning outcomes

On November 2, 2004, the QEP Committee came to a consensus that a narrower learningenhancement proposal was needed, one that focused on the last module mentionedabove–namely, on student critical thinking skills. It was believed such a project would beparticularly valuable for students and more manageable than other proposals. Three workgroupswere established to begin envisioning differing aspects of the critical thinking learningenhancement proposal. The Learning Outcomes Workgroup was assigned the task of articulatingpossible critical thinking skill sets and learning outcomes, with a view toward incorporatingthese skills and outcomes in various courses typically taken by beginning students. TheLiterature Survey Workgroup was asked to review literature on teaching critical thinking as wellas to investigate peer collegiate programs designed to teach critical thinking. The AssessmentWorkgroup was commissioned to explore possible assessment tools available to measure studentlearning in critical thinking.

7

On November 16 and 30, 2004, the Committee met and heard reports from the LearningOutcomes and Literature Survey workgroups. Based on a brief review of literature on criticalthinking, including consideration of Bloom’s Taxonomy, the Learning Outcomes Workgroupproposed the University focus on enhancing student learning in three areas of critical thinking:clarity, discernment and integration. The Learning Outcomes Workgroup acknowledged thatcritical thinking is holistic and involves multiple skills, but felt the University would be wise (inlight of the need for manageable assessment of student learning) to focus on only a few of theseskills for the QEP project.

The Literature Survey Workgroup noted the literature presented a variety of emphases, includingrecognition of a hierarchical structure to critical thinking and the need for cumulativedevelopment of such skills in learners, the importance of developing in students key attitudinaldispositions toward thinking, the need to teach the thinking process and not merely teachpropositional content, etc. Based on data from some literature, some caution was advisedconcerning expecting too much improvement in students’ critical thinking abilities over the shortcourse of undergraduate studies. In light of the literature, the University should not formulateunreasonable expectations of itself and its students. The gains, while important and substantive,could well be modest. Discussion concerning assessment centered on the need to have bothnational-normed instruments and instruments designed to test the specific learning outcomeschosen for the QEP project.

On December 8, 2004, the Committee discussed and approved a tentative plan of action forcompleting the design of and accomplishing the goals of the QEP project. Among the chief itemsaddressed were the following:

• Hire a learning specialist to help provide faculty development and student learningseminars.

• Select a QEP Director to oversee the implementation of the QEP project.• Select and train small groups of faculty each year to incorporate the teaching of

critical thinking skills within their core courses.• Give the first cadre of faculty input into articulating the details of the QEP project,

including defining (for the first year of the program’s implementation) the preciselearning outcomes being sought in each class and designing the assessment methodsto be used.

During the December 8, 2004, meeting, the Committee also discussed a tentative budget for theQEP project.

In a series of meetings through the months of January, February, and March of 2005, theCommittee continued to refine its QEP plan. An overview of the QEP project was drafted and,after several revisions, approved by the Committee. The overview briefly provided a rationalefor the project’s focus on enhancing student critical thinking, placing that goal in the context ofthe University’s mission statement and heritage. The overview then described the corecomponents of the QEP project in terms of attempting to develop in students the thinking skillsof clarity, discernment, and integration through (and in) reading comprehension, writtencommunication, oral communication, and information literacy. The overview highlighted the

8

need for professional development so faculty will be better equipped to aid students in acquiringcritical thinking skills, and noted the importance of co-curricular academic support systems toaid especially struggling students in the development of such skills. Finally, the overview arguedfor the use of both nationally-standardized assessments of student critical thinking skills andcourse-specific assessments designed to test student learning of critical thinking skills in specificcourses.

During January, February, and March 2005, the Committee also drafted and, after somerevisions, approved a more formal rationale for the QEP project. This document included a briefsurvey of literature on the nature and teaching of critical thinking. During these months, theCommittee also formed four task forces designed to further develop key features of theUniversity’s QEP project. These task forces were

• The Program Design and Organization Task force, responsible for generatingpreliminary learning outcomes for students in courses within the QEP project and forproposing an organizational structure for the project

• The Professional Development Task Force, responsible for proposing mechanisms forassisting professors in enhancing their teaching of critical thinking skills

• The Academic Support Task Force, responsible for proposing supporting programssuch as tutoring services and seminars to aid students toward gaining critical thinkingskills

• The Assessment Task Force, responsible for generating assessment mechanisms fortesting student learning of the critical thinking skills targeted by the QEP project

In addition to members of the QEP Committee, additional faculty members from across thecampus representing every discipline were incorporated into these four task forces. In March2005, the Committee more fully articulated the tasks to be performed by the four task forces andgenerated a timetable for accomplishing these responsibilities.

From February through April 2005, the Committee continued to gather information to helpfacilitate the development of the QEP project. On March 2, 2005, some members of theCommittee met with Dr. Bill Burke, Dr. Victoria Bhavsar, and Ms. Kathryn Cunningham of theTeaching and Academic Support Center (TASC) at the University of Kentucky, receivingrecommendations concerning the structure and implementation of the proposed QEP project. OnMarch 23, 2005, members of the Program Design and Organization Task Force and theAssessment Task Force also met with SACS consultant Dr. Margaret Sullivan. Among otheradvice, Sullivan emphasized the need for the University to clearly articulate QEP learningoutcomes that could be objectively assessed. She advised that the University not over-commititself, but seek reasonable-doable learning outcomes for its QEP project. On April 14 and 15,2005, members of each task force met with consultants from TASC. These consultants madeseveral suggestions regarding the design of the QEP project and techniques for teaching criticalthinking. A matrix was distributed asking committee members and other task force members toenvision and articulate possible learning outcomes for students participating in the QEP project.These learning outcomes were to stress the critical thinking skills of clarity, discernment, andintegration as manifested in student reading comprehension, written communication, oralcommunication, and information literacy.

9

The task forces continued work in the late Spring of 2005 and into the Summer of 2005. TheProgram Design and Organization Task Force developed a job description for the QEP Director.The Academic Support Task Force and Professional Development Task Force developed a jobdescription for the Director of Teaching and Learning. In August 2005, after a nationallyadvertised search, the position of Director of Teaching and Learning was filled by Dr. SusanWeaver. Through the summer the Program Design and Organization Task Force continueddeveloping potential learning outcomes for the QEP program. In September 2005 those proposedlearning outcomes were presented to the Committee, augmented, and passed on to theAssessment Task Force for further analysis and development.

Through September and October 2005, the Assessment Task Force continued working onpossible learning outcomes for the QEP project, including developing possible standards andtechniques for assessing the progress of students toward those outcomes. Throughout the processit was recognized that the first cadre of faculty to participate in the QEP project would furtherdevelop learning outcomes and classroom assessment strategies, especially for their individualcourses. Further, it was recognized that membership of the QEP Committee would change overthe course of the QEP project, so that in the ensuing year members of the first cadre of facultywould be incorporated into the QEP Committee while some current members of the Committeewould move off the Committee. Membership of the Committee would alter in a similar way, asnew cadres are formed from year to year.

In early October 2005, Dr. Bill Garris, Assistant Professor of Psychology, was appointed as QEPDirector. Through October candidates for the first cadre of faculty were solicited andinterviewed. Ultimately nine faculty members were selected:

• Dr. Anita Bowman, Assistant Professor of Health• Dr. Oline Carmical, Professor of History and Political Science• Dr. Kirby Clark, Associate Professor of Religion• Prof. Kathy Fish, Professor of English• Dr. Joan Hembree, Assistant Professor of Biology• Dr. Jean Hunt, Associate Professor of Psychology• Dr. Chris Leskiw, Assistant Professor of Political Science• Dr. Eric Stephens, Assistant Professor of Psychology• Dr. Todd Yetter, Professor of Biology

In October and November 2005, work began on the actual writing of the QEP Report to bepresented to SACS. During the same period, task forces continued working on their respectivetasks for the QEP project.

In an attempt to accumulate baseline data concerning student critical thinking skills, the Academic Profile was administered to 299 freshmen on February 7, 2005 and to 67 juniors onFebruary 9, 2005. On August 23, 2005, all entering freshmen took either the Academic Profile orboth the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory and California Critical ThinkingSkills Test. In the spring of 2006 juniors will be tested with half taking the Academic Profile andthe other half taking both the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory and CaliforniaCritical Thinking Skills Test.

10

Conclusion

The University of the Cumberlands’ Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum QEP is a productof the faculty’s disciplined critical thinking and extensive collaboration over the past two years.Faculty forums have enjoyed excellent attendance and participation. The QEP Committee andfour task forces have involved well over half of the faculty in the development of the QEP. Thefaculty’s unanimous vote on Friday, May 6, 2005, to accept the QEP indicates faculty believe thefocus on critical thinking in the areas of clarity, discernment, and integration with attention to theskills of reading comprehension, written communication, oral communication, and informationliteracy will enhance student learning and help the University to meet more fully the goals of itsMission Statement. On October 20, 2005, the Academic Committee of the Board of Trusteesapproved the QEP as presented to them and recommended the full Board approve the QEP. OnOctober 21, 2005, the full Board voted to adopt the QEP. University faculty and trustees supportthe QEP and are committed to this new program to help better prepare students for service andleadership.

Section II.A Review of Literature and Project Rationale

A review of the literature on critical thinking and pedagogy in higher education supports theappropriateness of the focus and structure of the QEP of University of the Cumberlands onenhancing Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (CTAC).

Research on Cognitive Development and Critical Thinking

The University’s selection of four performance areas and three critical thinking standards is theresult of its collective critical thinking about the opportunities and challenges it seeks to provideits students as an institution of higher education. However, these choices are a local response toand application of the long-standing discussion and research on the importance in highereducation of critical thinking, problem-solving, and active learning.

The various conceptualizations or descriptions of thinking processes that have been developedover the last century perhaps grow out of Dewey’s (1916) emphasis on the importance ofauthentic problem-solving in critical thinking: “Only by wrestling with the conditions of theproblem at first hand, seeking and finding his own way out, does [the student] think” (p. 188). Most recent articulations of critical thinking also owe much to Bloom’s (1956) well-knowndefinition of a hierarchical taxonomy of thinking skills. In general, nurturing critical thinkinginvolves encouraging those intellectual skills and activities higher up on Bloom’s taxonomy. Notably, the University’s triad of critical thinking standards – clarity, discernment, integration –broadly outlines a hierarchical movement from knowledge/comprehension toapplication/analysis to synthesis/evaluation that complements Bloom’s taxonomy.

However, recent conceptualizations and studies of critical thinking have moved beyond merelydefining critical thinking as a series of increasingly sophisticated intellectual processes. As Bean(2001) has noted, “To grow as critical thinkers, students must develop mental habits that allowthem to experience problems phenomenologically, to dwell with them – to understand, in short,what makes a problem problematic” (p. 3). Moreover, not only are mature critical thinkersdeeply aware of the complexity of the problems/issues with which they are engaged; they arealso self-reflective of their own intellectual responses. Thus, Brookfield (1987) asserts that“identifying and challenging assumptions and exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting”are essential elements of mature critical thinking (p. 71). Paul (1995) similarly affirms thatcritical thinking is a “dialogical process . . . [that] will sometimes become dialectical . . . .Theact of integrating thinking is deeply tied to the act of assessing thinking” (p. 451). As Kurfiss(1988) explains, “In critical thinking all assumptions are open to question, divergent views areaggressively sought, and the inquiry is not biased in favor of a particular outcome” (p. 2). Thethree critical thinking standards defined for the University’s QEP reflect a commitment tonurture such meta-cognitive skills. These standards point to the need not only to review andassess the presentations of others but also to review and revise one’s own propositions andarguments, both in the mechanics of presentation and in the assumptions and structure of logic.

An awareness of the meta-cognitive dimensions of critical thinking brings into focus the veryreal challenges of nurturing it. These challenges are further defined by the cognitive-structural

12

studies of student development that have grown out of the psychological theories of Piaget(1964). Among these are Perry’s research on Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development inthe College Years (1970), Kohlberg’s work on Stages of Moral Development (1971), and Kingand Kitchener’s Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting IntellectualGrowth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults (1994).

As a result of his study of Harvard College students, Perry (1970) developed a model forintellectual and ethical development that delineates nine “positions” through which theindividual may move. These positions involve shifting epistemological paradigms from adualistic and absolutist mindset (positions 1-3) through a recognition of knowledge as contextualand relative in which a skeptical mindset facilitates the emergence of authentic analyticalthinking skills (positions 4-6) toward a cognitive perspective (positions 7-9) in which theindividual establishes a more coherent and comprehensive world view enabling informed,mature commitments and actions (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, pp. 28-30). Perry’s schemeimplicitly provides a developmental analysis of the epistemological underpinnings of Bloom’staxonomy.

So too does the reflective judgment scheme developed by King and Kitchener (1994) as a resultof their extensive longitudinal study of high school, college, and graduate students. King andKitchener identify seven stages through which an individual’s capacity for critical thinking andreflective judgment may evolve. Each stage reflects different “epistemic” assumptions about thenature of knowledge and the process by which it is obtained. In the first three “pre-reflective”stages, knowledge is assumed to exist absolutely, even though it may not be immediatelyavailable. When it is available, knowledge is recognized through direct personal observation orthrough the mediation of experts or authorities. In stages 4 and 5, “Quasi-Reflective Thinking”emerges, with the perception that knowledge is often not assuredly accessible through personalobservation or through authority. Beliefs about knowledge can be justified through a marshalingof evidence but such understanding is necessarily “contextual and subjective” and as a result“knowing always involves an element of ambiguity” and uncertainty (p. 15). A more matureReflective Thinking emerges in stages 6 and 7. In these stages, knowledge is understood as aconstruct of “conclusions about ill-structured problems on the basis of information from avariety of sources” (p. 15). It is “the outcome of a process of reasonable inquiry” that remainsopen to re-assessment as “new evidence, perspectives, or tools of inquiry become available” (p.15).

King and Kitchener (1994) acknowledge the implications of their reflective judgment model foreducation in general and pedagogy in particular. They offer principles upon which to nurtureintellectual growth, as well as specific instructional goals and strategies to challenge students atdifferent stages of development. Moreover, they describe the contribution of the reflectivejudgment model to understanding not only the intellectual but also the character development ofstudents.

Kohlberg’s (1971) theory of moral development seems to complement Perry’s interest in ethicaldevelopment (especially in positions 7-9) and King and Kitchener’s concern with the evolutionof coherent commitments as part of character development. Kohlberg identifies six stages in thedevelopment of moral behavior. From “pre-conventional” through “conventional” toward “post-

13

conventional” stages, the individual develops first a sense of ethical self-interest, then a pursuitof social approval, and finally perhaps a genuine self-interest in the welfare of others and amature set of universal ethical principles (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Kohlberg believes aperson moves from one stage to the next higher stage and it is impossible to skip stages. Thus, tohelp individuals develop morally, one must present them with moral dilemmas that require themto see the advantages of moving to the next level.

The cognitive theories of Perry, Kohlberg, and King and Kitchener provide a theoreticalbackdrop that affirms the value of an educational focus on critical thinking with itsacknowledgment of multiple perspectives and sets of data to be independently assessed andevaluated by the individual. However, these theories also define the challenge of nurturingcritical thinking. During the college years, most individuals progress through stages of cognitivematuration. Yet the data upon which each theory is based indicates individuals do not inevitablyprogress to the later stages in which mature critical thinking occurs. Moreover, this level ofmaturation may be rare during the undergraduate years. In King and Kitchener’s research, forinstance, an entering college student typically functions in Stage 3 thinking, while the collegesenior is moving through stage 4 and into stage 5. The mean level of cognitive function forgraduate students is somewhere between stage 5 and stage 6.

However, while acknowledging the daunting challenge of nurturing higher order thinking inundergraduates, King and Kitchener (1994) still affirm this pursuit in the liberal arts education:

college students are wrestling with issues of certainty and uncertainty, and they arestruggling to find methods for resolving perplexity when they must make and defendjudgments. Students need to learn the skills that allow them to make judgments in light ofthat uncertainty: how to think about the relationship between evidence and a point ofview, how to evaluate evidence on different sides of issues, how to conceive ofobjectivity or impartiality, and how to construct judgments in the face of complexity anduncertainty. Moreover, students need to understand the relevance and importance of theseskills for their own lives – as effective citizens, consumers, or parents. While it may beunrealistic to assume that all college students will become advanced reflective thinkers infour or five years, it is a laudable goal nevertheless. At minimum, we believe that asmembers of education communities, we should strive to foster intellectual development,doing all that we can to encourage reflective thinking in college students (pp. 256-257).

Moreover, King and Kitchener offer principles upon which to nurture intellectual growth, as wellas specific instructional goals and strategies to challenge students at different stages ofdevelopment.

The imperative of teaching critical thinking has been affirmed by many others. Perry argues thateducators have a responsibility to teach critical thinking: “Teaching students to engage inreflective thinking and to make reflective judgments about vexing problems is a central goal ofhigher education” (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 222). Perry also notes, “Rising to this challengeso that students ask complex questions and make more effective judgments is no smallundertaking. As educators, we have the responsibility to teach students the ‘habits of the mind’associated with making interpretative analyses and thoughtful, reasoned arguments” (p. 222).

14

Moore and Parker (2004) also advocate an intentional educational focus on critical thinkingbecause “critical thinking requires an effort and doesn’t always come naturally” (p. 3). Theauthors also point to the benefits of critical thinking when they propose that critical thinking “ismore about helping others than attacking them; and to the extent we are able to think criticallyabout our own ideas, it is about helping ourselves” (p. 3). Burbach, Matkin, and Fritz (2004)point to the pragmatic value of critical thinking for graduating students entering the job marketwhere employers place a high priority on critical thinking skills. Baron and Sternberg (1987)further justify the teaching of critical thinking based on five key outcomes: increased problemsolving, increased earning power, enhanced appreciation of aesthetics, improved socialinteraction, and increased immunity from manipulation.

Importance of Cross-Curricular Collaboration on Critical Thinking

The imperative for higher education to nurture critical thinking also undergirds the BoyerCommission’s report on Reinventing the Undergraduate Education (1998). The report points tothe importance of promoting an interdisciplinary collaboration of efforts in order to strengthenthe integrity of higher education. While the Boyer report focuses on research universities, theprinciples affirmed are generally relevant to higher education.

Especially germane to critical thinking and the QEP of University of the Cumberlands is the goalof constructing an inquiry-based freshman year: “The first year of a university experience needsto provide new stimulation for intellectual growth and a firm grounding in inquiry-basedlearning and communication of information and ideas” (p. 19). The pursuit of this goal requires arenewed attention to the general education curriculum: “The freshman experience needs to be anintellectually integrated one, so that the student will not learn to think of the academic programas a set of disparate and unconnected requirements” (p. 19). The success of institutions of highereducation in the future will depend upon the

university’s ability to create such an integrated education [that] will produce a particularkind of individual, one equipped with a spirit of inquiry and a zest for problem solving;one possessed of the skill in communication that is the hallmark of clear thinking as wellas mastery of language; one informed by a rich and diverse experience. It is that kind ofindividual that will provide the scientific, technological, academic, political, and creativeleadership for the next century (p. 13).

Strategies suggested for enabling a more integrated and constructive educational experienceemphasize collaboration among faculty and students, as well as among academic disciplines:“There needs to be a symbiotic relationship between all the participants in university learning”(p. 7). The “intellectual ecosystem” of the university “depends on a deep and abidingunderstanding that inquiry, investigation, and discovery are the heart of the enterprise” (p. 9). Acentral part of this shared enterprise should be a recognition of the primacy of strongcommunication skills. Because mastery of course content is inextricably linked tocommunication skills, “courses throughout the curriculum should reinforce communication skillsby routinely asking for written and oral exercises” (p. 25).

15

A number of successful interdisciplinary initiatives to promote critical thinking in highereducation have been established in recent years. Among the early efforts was Montclair StateUniversity’s Institute for Critical Thinking (1987-1997). This program was established “as afaculty development program with critical thinking as a focus and general educational excellenceas a goal” (M. Weinstein, 1995, para. 50). While the institute no longer exists, its formerdirector, Mark Weinstein, describes its long term effectiveness:

Critical thinking is at the core of teaching in our freshman year experience. It is a majorcomponent of a mandated year-long new faculty program for which faculty are releasedfrom one quarter of their teaching obligation. It has influenced the courses of faculty incountless courses and un-numbered ways throughout the institution and has made thediscussion of teaching and learning a significant aspect of the professional conversationon campus (para. 59).

Duch, Groh, and Allen (2001) describe a similar interdisciplinary initiative in Problem-BasedLearning begun at the University of Delaware in the early 1990's. This program provides onemodel for incorporating critical thinking that is appealing to many faculty and students for itseffort to frame academic learning/discourse in the context of practical problem-solving whichoften entails, in part, collaboration between learners:

In the problem-based approach, complex, real-world problems are used to motivatestudents to identify and research the concepts and principles they need to know to workthrough those problems. Students work in small learning teams, bringing togethercollective skill at acquiring, communicating, and integrating information. Problem-basedinstruction addresses directly many of the recommended and desirable outcomes of anundergraduate education: specifically the ability to do the following:

1. Think critically and be able to analyze and solve complex, real-world problems2. Find, evaluate, and use appropriate learning resources3. Work cooperatively in teams and small groups4. Demonstrate versatile and effective communication skills, both verbal and written5. Use content knowledge and intellectual skills acquired at the university to become

continual learners (p. 6).

This initiative led to the establishment of an Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Educationthat has provided experience with Problem-Based Learning and other active learning strategies forover a third of the University’s faculty from almost every discipline across campus. An importantelement of this program has been collaborative mentoring among faculty. Although this Problem-Based Learning initiative started with a focus on courses in the sciences, its reach now extends todisciplines across the spectrum of higher education.

In Thinking about Teaching and Learning: Developing Habits of Learning with First YearCollege and University Students, Leamnson (1999) addresses faculty across-the-curriculum onthe challenges of teaching learning. Leamnson’s strategies to meet these challenges not onlyseek to encourage an inquiry-based, problem-solving, learner-focused classroom but also tonurture critical thinking as part of the curriculum of every course. Of particular interest isLeamnson’s assertion that thinking is not a generic skill that can be taught/acquired once in one

16

specific course and then exercised in or applied to new situations. The challenge in highereducation is to recognize and nurture the “thinking habit” (p. 28). He notes that researchindicates that students in courses explicitly devoted to critical thinking may be

better able to solve the problems encountered in these courses, but do no better or worsein subsequent work for having taken a course specifically designed to teach thinking.This observation has been noted by, among others, Derek Bok (1986), and Erickson andStrommer (1991) who said: “There is little evidence that generic courses or programs aresuccessful in teaching thinking skills that transfer across subject-matter domains” (p. 29).

The literature on critical thinking in higher education, then, clearly supports the cross-curricularstructure of the QEP of University of the Cumberlands. Moreover, the literature also supports theUniversity’s decision to emphasize reading comprehension and written communication in theinitial stages of the implementation of the QEP.

Importance of Reading and Writing Skills to Critical Thinking

The importance of communication skills in the nurture of learning and thinking across thecurriculum has been acknowledged by the popularity of Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC)initiatives since the 1970's, as well as the development more recently of Writing in theDisciplines (WID) programs. The papers presented at a 1978 symposium at Carnegie-Mellon onCognitive Processes in Writing stress the need for critical thinking as essential to the protocol inteaching writing: this protocol involves a three-step critical process involving planning(gathering information, setting goals and establishing a writing plan), translating (turningmaterials into acceptable written English), and reviewing (reading the text for writing goals andexamining the text for grammatical and stylistic problems) (Gregg & Steinberg, 1980).

In a complementary fashion, the essays contained in Fulwiler and Young’s LanguageConnections: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum (1982) outline the rationale andstrategies that continue to be the foundation and standards of programs focused onwriting/reading across the curriculum. The contributors suggest different ways in which writingtasks can be used in the classroom both to strengthen general writing skills and to enhance thelearning of other content. These essays argue that strengthening writing, reading, and criticalthinking about content is a holistic endeavor. Improvements in one area cannot occurindependently of efforts in the other areas.

Bean (2001) provides a more recent but equally clear articulation of the connection betweenthinking, writing, and reading. In particular, Bean stresses the connection between teachingthinking and teaching writing:

The writing process itself provides one of the best ways to help students learn the active,dialogic thinking skills valued in academic life. . . . Thesis-governed writing is thus theexterior sign of an interior thinking process that we as faculty need to help our studentsdevelop. The habit of problem posing and thesis making does not come naturally tobeginning college students, who write more clearly when given assignments that do notchallenge them as thinkers (p. 20).

17

Bean also notes that

Whenever faculty get together to talk about student writing or critical thinking, theyinevitably turn also to problems of student reading. Just as speaking and listening skillsare intertwined, so too are writing and reading skills. Many of today’s students are poorreaders, overwhelmed by the density of their college textbooks and baffled by thestrangeness and complexity of primary sources and by their unfamiliarity with academicdiscourse (p. 133).

Nurturing critical thinking and critical writing in students, then, cannot proceed effectivelywithout attention to strengthening their critical reading skills. Bean (2001) identifies tencontributing causes for reading difficulties faced by students and offers strategies to respond tothese causes. Notably, many of these strategies involve using various types of writing activitiesto aid students in processing their reading. Underlying all of Bean’s strategies, however, is theassumption that these need to be deployed across the disciplines to ensure that critical reading,writing, and thinking are strengthened.

Many others (Fulwiler, 1987; Comer, 1997) have offered detailed strategies similar to Bean’s forenhancing reading, writing, and ultimately critical thinking. The research of Walvoord andMcCarthy (1990) further affirms the viability of interdisciplinary collaboration to nurture criticalreading, writing, and thinking. Walvoord and McCarthy make clear connections between writingand critical thinking. These validate interdisciplinary collaborations among educators, despitedifferences in terminology and discipline methodologies, in part as such collaborations enablethe identification of the common learning outcomes of instruction, especially in terms of criticalthinking skills and dispositions. In this study, these commonalities included a recognition thateffective reading and writing tasks, whatever the discipline, are focused on critical thinking inresponse to “good/better/best questions” that involved higher levels of cognition in Bloom’staxonomy.

The importance that Bean, Walvoord and McCarthy attach to a cross-curricular focus onenhanced reading and writing is further articulated by Leamnson (1990). For Leamnson,consciously nurturing the “thinking habit” must include an intentional and recursive exercise ofthe “languaging” (p. 23) abilities of students pursued across the curriculum. “A great deal ofwhat good teaching is,” Leamnson asserts, “is the inculcation of the language of the particulardiscipline” (p. 23). For it is only in the processing (both the perception and expression) oflanguage that thinking and learning can be observed.

Importance of Oral Communication and Information Literacy to Critical Thinking

As the focus of the University’s CTAC initiative ultimately expands beyond its initial focus onreading comprehension and written communication, cross-curricular activities involving oralcommunication and information literacy will further enhance the opportunity for students tostrengthen their critical thinking abilities.

Oral Communication. The research on oral communication reveals a clear link betweenpresentational communication and enhanced critical thinking. The National Communication

18

Association website lists five themes and sub-themes in support of the centrality of the study ofcommunication. Morreale, Osborn, and Pearson (n.d.) explain that communication education (1)is vital to the development of the whole person, (2) improves the education enterprise, (3) is vitalto society and crossing cultural boundaries, (4) is vital to career success and business enterprise,and (5) should be taught by specialized faculty in departments devoted to the study ofcommunication. They argue that communication education improves critical thinking, helpsstudents become more critical consumers of modern media, and develops leadership skills.

Lucas (2004) further articulates these points in a recent text on public speaking:

The skills you learn in your speech class can help you become a more effective thinker ina number of ways. As you work on expressing your ideas in clear, accurate language, youwill enhance your ability to think clearly and accurately. As you study the role ofevidence and reasoning in speechmaking, you will see how they can be used in otherforms of communication as well. As you listen critically to speeches in class, you will bebetter able to assess the ideas of speakers (and writers) in a variety of situations (p. 17).

Lucas concludes that if students take full advantage of the opportunities of a speech class,students “will be able to enhance [their] skills as a critical thinker”(p. 17). Berkowitz, Hunt, andLouden (1999) and Larson (2004) also view critical thinking as the most important factor inpersuasive transactions. Larson outlines three criteria for responsible persuasion: (1) all partiesmust have an equal opportunity to persuade, (2) persuaders reveal their agendas to the audience,and (3) receivers must be critical. As Larson concludes, “With critical receivers, the importanceof the first two criteria is minimalized, and responsible persuasion can still occur” (p. 16). Enhancing skills in oral communication must not only stress the need for critical thinking on thepart of the speaker, but also on the part of the listener. As T. K. Gamble and M. Gamble (1996)explain,

Just as speakers can get carried away with their message’s urgency and importance, solisteners can end up believing false and dangerous ideas that have been made to appearreasonable. Consequently, it is essential for you as a listener to stay alert so that you areready to challenge and raise questions about what you are listening to. It is whenfunctioning as a critical thinker that you make a commitment to think for yourself (pp.186-187).

Gamble and Gamble conclude, “Critical thinkers do not rush to judge another’s words. Instead ofprejudging or evaluating the words of another prematurely, they exhibit a willingness toreexamine ideas, and thus withhold their evaluation until they have had sufficient opportunity toassess the information given to them” (p. 187).

Information Literacy. The critical thinking that can be observed and strengthened throughwritten and oral performances is often predicated upon the student’s ability to find, evaluate andinterpret information. Thus, enhancing what has come to be termed “information literacy” canprovide a strategy for enhancing critical thinking. Research on information literacy reveals aclear connection to critical thinking.

19

In a historical overview of information literacy, Behrens (1994) notes the evolution of focus thatthe concept has undergone since its first appearance in the 1970's. Early understandings of theconcept stressed the organization of knowledge and information. The advent of new media andcomputer technology in the 1980's led to an awareness of the importance of technical skills inthe acquisition and organization of information. More recent conceptualizations of informationliteracy have emphasized the rhetorical processing and evaluation of information.

Shapiro and Hughes (1996) argue that information literacy should be “something that enablesindividuals not only to use information and information technology effectively and adapt to theirconstant changes but also to think critically about the entire information enterprise andinformation society” (p. 31). Shapiro and Hughes maintain that “information literacy is essentialto the future of democracy, if citizens are to be intelligent shapers of the information societyrather than its pawns, and to humanistic culture, if information is to be part of a meaningfulexistence rather than a routine of production and consumption” (p. 33).

Rigmor, McCausland, Wache, and Doskatsch (2001) propose that successful information literacyinitiatives in higher education are discipline- and subject-specific and should be embedded ininstruction and in the learning outcomes of a course. Information literacy is a key ingredient inhigher education curriculum, development, and method of program outcomes.

Rockman (2002) advocates the inclusion of information literacy as part of the general educationcurriculum and as a central component of first-year experience programs:

Universities in the last decade have sought to restructure their curricular offerings tobring them more in line with current social needs, to attract and retain students, and tohelp students progress toward graduation with critical reading, writing, thinking, andspeaking well developed. Such restructuring would integrate the co-curriculum with theundergraduate experience; emphasize information literacy as an active learning process;inspire intellectual desire in students; promote the importance of continuous lifelonglearning; and document to accreditation agencies, professional associations, legislativebodies, and other entities that undergraduate students are graduating with skills,knowledge, and abilities viewed as valuable assets in the workplace, in graduate school,and in society at large (p. 187).

Rockman’s Integrating Information Literacy into the Higher Education Curriculum: PracticalModels for Transformation (2004) further stresses the value of assimilating information literacyinto the higher education curriculum through collaborative alliances.

Bruce (2002) emphasizes the rhetorical nature of information literacy, arguing that it isfundamental to effective information use. Incorporating information literacy into the curriculumstrengthens in students the ability to associate and consider information and its impact on theirlearning. According to Bruce, as a catalyst for educational change, information literacy is a keyto self-directed learning and critical reflection. Johnston and Webber (2003) also stress theimportance of information literacy programs in higher education as a response to the cultural,social, and economic developments of society. Moreover, embedding information literacy theoryin the curriculum reinforces higher-level student outcomes and learning strategies.

20

Necessity of Enhanced Pedagogy and Professional Development for Faculty

The challenge of strengthening the information literacy of students or their oral communicationand “languaging” abilities essential to the “thinking habit” of critical thinking cannot beunderestimated. According to the research of Paul (2004) reported by the Foundation for CriticalThinking, critical thinking may be greatly desired by college educators, but it rarely is taught. AsPaul explains, “Most college faculty at all levels lack a substantive concept of critical thinking. .. . Most college faculty don’t realize they lack a substantive concept of critical thinking. Theybelieve that they sufficiently understand it and assume they are already teaching critical thinkingto students. Lecture, rote memorization, and (largely ineffective) short-term study habits are stillthe norm in college instruction and learning today” (para. 2).

Paul, Elder, and Bartell (1997) interviewed faculty at 38 public colleges and institutions and 28private schools across California with these results, among others:

1. Though the overwhelming majority of faculty claimed critical thinking to be aprimary objective of their instruction (89%), only a small minority could give a clearexplanation of what critical thinking is (19%). Furthermore, according to theiranswers, only 9% of the respondents were clearly teaching critical thinking on atypical day in class.

2. Though the overwhelming majority (78%) claimed that their students lackedappropriate intellectual standards (to use in assessing their thinking), and 73%considered that students learning to assess their own work was of primaryimportance, only a very small minority (8%) could enumerate any intellectual criteriaor standards they required of students or could give an intelligible explanation ofthose criteria and standards.

3. While 50% of those interviewed said that they explicitly distinguish critical thinkingskills from traits, only 8% were able to provide a clear conception of the criticalthinking skills they thought were most important for their students to develop.Furthermore, the overwhelming majority (75%) provided either minimal or vagueallusion (33%) or no allusion at all (42%) to intellectual traits of mind.

4. Although the majority (67%) said that their concept of critical thinking is largelyexplicit in their thinking, only 19% could elaborate on their concept of thinking.

5. Although the vast majority (89%) stated that critical thinking was of primaryimportance to their instruction, 77% of the respondents had little, limited or noconception of how to reconcile content coverage with the fostering of criticalthinking.

6. Although the overwhelming majority (81%) felt that their department’s graduatesdevelop a good or high level of critical thinking ability while in their program, only20% said that their departments had a shared approach to critical thinking, and only9% were able to clearly articulate how they would assess the extent to which a facultymember was or was not fostering critical thinking. The remaining respondents had alimited conception or no conception at all of how to do this (pp. 18-19).

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking outlines the general applicability ofcritical thinking across disciplines and beyond the college campus. As Council Chair, Paul (n.d.)

21

asserts, “To achieve knowledge in any domain, it is essential to think critically” (para. 7). Paulfurther explains,

Criteria for the assessment of thinking in all domains are based on such general standardsas: clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, significance, fairness, logic, depth and breadth,evidentiary support, probability, predictive or explanatory power. These standards, andothers, are embedded not only in the history of the intellectual and scientific communitiesbut also in the self-assessing behavior of reasonable persons in everyday life. It ispossible to teach all subjects in such a way as to encourage the use of theseintellectual standards in both professional and personal life. (para. 7, emphasisadded)

Paul and Elder (2004) detail eight Elements of Thought contributing to critical thinking that maybe assessed using nine Universal Intellectual Standards. They argue for intentional training offaculty in these structures both to assess student work and to teach students to assess their owncognitive activities. While Paul and Elder’s schema are more elaborate, more didactic, and lessconstructivist than the systems devised by others to understand critical thinking, they addressdirectly the necessity of enhancing faculty pedagogy in order to enhance student behaviors.

Extrapolations from the Research to the University’s QEP

Section IV of this report will provide a thorough description of the program design of the QEP ofUniversity of the Cumberlands. However, a brief outline of some of its major components isappropriate here to indicate how this initiative to enhance critical thinking across the generaleducation curriculum is a reasonable extrapolation and application of the research on criticalthinking.

Identification of Performance Areas and Standards. The University’s initiative to enhanceCritical Thinking Across the Curriculum is built upon a foundation of four performance areas inwhich the cognitive processes of students may be observed: reading comprehension, writtencommunication, oral communication and information literacy. Initially the focus of the projectwill be upon the first two of these performance areas with an emphasis on the other areas beingstrategically staged in after the first year or two. These areas of student performance will beassessed using learning outcomes derived from three standards of critical thinking that have beendefined by the QEP Committee. Selection of reading comprehension and written communicationas the initial emphasis of CTAC has been made because these performances are already the mostuniversally deployed across the curriculum. In addition, the literature on critical thinking clearlydefines a vital connection between thinking and writing. The three standards selected for theproject – clarity, discernment, integration – as refined by the intended learning outcomes foreach (see details in Section IV), clearly cover many of the elements of critical thinking definedby other scholars. The scope of these three standards may be more limited than the schema ofPaul and Elder and others; however, this narrower focus will provide more opportunities forusing these standards and their attendant learning outcomes to modify and focus the learningactivities of students. This delimited focus will also facilitate authentic cross-disciplinarycollaboration among faculty. Finally, it will also provide a reasonable structure for thedevelopment of clearly articulated assessment strategies.

22

Cross-Curricular Focus. The University’s CTAC initiative is also founded upon a recognition ofthe importance of deploying the teaching/learning of critical thinking across the curriculum. Thecurricular enhancements envisioned by CTAC are not limited to one course or one discipline butultimately target the general education curriculum as a whole, and indeed the curriculumuniversity-wide. The small cadre of faculty involved each year in CTAC will bring facultytogether from a half-dozen academic areas to refine critical thinking outcomes, to define criticalthinking pedagogies, and to assess student performances. The cadre is envisioned as a learningcommunity, an intellectual ecosystem (to borrow the metaphor of the Boyer report), whosemembers, it is hoped, will not only nurture one another as teachers and “senior learners” but alsoserve in the wider university community as ambassadors for critical thinking. In addition, thecross-curricular focus of the QEP is also reflected in the inclusion of co-curricular enhancementsof the University’s academic support programs for students. These enhancements, coordinatedby the Director of Teaching and Learning, are highlighted in Section VI of this report.

Importance of Professional Development. With its awareness of the challenges of cross-curricular collaboration and with its understanding of the importance of enhancing pedagogy inorder to enhance learning, the QEP Committee has from the outset recognized the necessity ofan intentional professional development component to the QEP. Its strategy of deploying CTACvia small cadres of faculty is in part chosen to facilitate the logistics of and provide an authenticopportunity for professional development. The University’s commitment to this component ofCTAC is notably reflected in the hiring of a Director of Teaching and Learning, a major segmentof whose responsibility is to service the needs of the QEP. The commitment of CTAC toprofessional development of faculty is described more thoroughly in Section V of this report.

Conclusion

A review of the relevant professional literature reinforces the appropriateness of critical thinkingas the focus of a project to enhance student learning in higher education. In addition, theliterature also provides support for the cross-curricular cadre structure proposed for CTAC and suggests the reasonableness of the strategic emphasis on the four areas of student performanceCTAC plans to nurture and evaluate using clearly defined standards of critical thinking.

Section III.A Review of the University’s Mission

and Current Student Skills and Dispositions

The review of the professional literature on critical thinking and higher education in Section IIindicates the reasonableness of the focus and structure chosen by University of the Cumberlandsfor its QEP. Perhaps even more importantly, this Critical Thinking Across the Curriculuminitiative is clearly in line with the University’s Mission Statement, its commitment to the liberalarts, and its understanding of the purpose of the general education curriculum. In addition, areview of data on the skills and dispositions of the University’s students related to criticalthinking further confirms the appropriateness of a program to enhance student learning in thiscognitive area.

The QEP as an Extension of the University’s Mission

The Mission Statement of University of the Cumberlands, virtually unchanged in its substancesince the early 1990's, makes clear its on-going commitment to nurturing critical thinking:

University of the Cumberlands continues to offer promising students of all backgrounds abroad-based liberal arts program enriched with Christian values. The University strivesfor excellence in all of its endeavors and expects from students a similar dedication tothis pursuit. Its commitment to a strong academic program is joined with a commitmentto a strong work ethic. The University encourages students to think critically andcreatively so that they may better prepare themselves for lives of responsible serviceand leadership. (University of the Cumberlands, 2005, p. 3; emphasis added)

Critical thinking has long been an institutional goal, especially as a means to the end ofpreparing students to be life-long problem-solvers and responsible contributors to theircommunities. As a Christian liberal arts institution, the University emphasizes the importance ofmaintaining intellectual, social, and spiritual values and traditions, bringing these to bear uponthe challenges of learning from human experience and of pursuing Vita Abundantior, the “lifemore abundant” celebrated in its motto. Essential elements of its “Commitment to the LiberalArts” are the critical abilities to gather reliable information, to assess its significance, and tomake decisions in an informed and reasonable fashion:

In the belief that freedom is the result of respect for truth and concern for humanity,University of the Cumberlands, through a traditional liberal arts program, attempts tofoster in its students a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the search for truthand a deepened responsibility toward humankind. (University of the Cumberlands,2005, p. 3; emphasis added)

The University’s commitment to critical thinking in service to humanity is also reflected in itsarticulation of the purpose of its general education curriculum:

Along with the College’s other programs, this curriculum attempts to foster in students “aheightened awareness and sensitivity to the search for truth and a deepened responsibility

24

toward humankind.” Collectively, the courses taken to fulfill the requirements of the sixsections of the general education curriculum are intended to provide a breadth ofinformation, an understanding of critical concepts, and a mastery of skills tosupport a life-long pursuit not only of professional achievement but also of“responsible service and leadership.” These endeavors are rooted in an open exchangeof ideas within and among academic disciplines and are framed by a Christian sense ofresponsibility toward self, toward society, and toward God. (University of theCumberlands, 2005, p. 41; emphasis added)

The University’s QEP initiative, then, will not be a radical re-direction of its programs andcommitments. Rather, it represents an effort to strengthen and enhance student learning in areasto which it is already committed. The University has diligently pursued these components of itsmission; however, the data on current student performance and dispositions indicates there isroom to improve educational outcomes related to critical thinking.

Graduating Senior and Alumni Surveys

University of the Cumberlands has long solicited feedback from current graduating seniors andfrom alumni at a 5-year anniversary of graduation. Respondents indicate on a scale of 1 to 5(with 5 being the highest) how they rate their college experience on multiple factors. Thissection provides a brief overview of the available information from these surveys related to thecritical thinking indicators of clarity, discernment, and integration, and to the application ofcritical thinking in daily life.

Of the 87 demographic and institutional questions on the Graduating Senior Survey and of the 79questions on the Alumni Survey, 23 focus on academic skills and personal growth. With slightvariations in wording, these items cover the same topics with both survey groups. Seventeen ofthe 23 survey items can be categorized into the specific critical thinking skills of clarity,discernment, and integration. Others contribute more generally to the application of criticalthinking skills. Four items fall into both specific categories and the praxis or applicationcategory.

One salient observation is that the ratings on each item are fairly consistent from one populationto the next over all of the years of the survey. Also, regardless of population, there is littlevariation in rating from the highest rated item (4.19) to the lowest rated item (3.64). However,alumni rated each item lower than graduating seniors. One might deduce that graduating seniorsare generally more confident and optimistic about the fruits of their education than those whohave been in the workforce for some time. As with item ratings from one graduating seniorcohort to the next, the overall ranking of items remains relatively consistent between graduatingseniors and alumni. Thus, “grew in self-confidence/ independence” was the most highly rankeditem for all populations while “developed responsibility of citizenship” was the lowest rankeditem for all populations.

Discussion of Survey Data Related to Clarity. Clarity includes specific skills comprising theability to understand and articulate the information and argumentation of others, as well as to

25

articulate and organize one’s own propositions. Survey items that relate most directly to theseskills are reviewed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Mean Responses on “Clarity” Items -- Alumni & Graduating Student Surveys

Alumni

1993-2004Seniors

1995Seniors

1995 - 2004Critical Thinking - Clarity - Mean Ratings 3.91 4.10 4.10Strengthened communication skills 4.07 4.29 4.25Developed ability to express myself in speech 3.84 4.04 4.08Developed ability to write effectively 3.83 3.98 3.98

It is interesting to note the inconsistency in the survey results regarding the assessment of clarity.Respondents believe they strengthened their communication skills but give lower ratings tospecific skills that comprise communication, such as “developed ability to express myself inspeech” and “developed the ability to write effectively.” While follow-up interviews or refinedquestions might help to pinpoint the discrepancy, there still seems room for improvement instudent performance in these areas, or at least in student self-assessment of that performance.Improvement in both student performance and self-assessment should result from theUniversity’s intentional focus on enhancing critical thinking skills in the general educationcurriculum.

Discussion of Survey Data Related to Discernment. Discernment includes specific skillscomprising the ability to evaluate the veracity and significance of information through improvedinformation literacy skills. The survey items specifically related to these skills are reviewed inTable 3-2.

Table 3-2. Mean Responses on “Discernment” Items -- Alumni & Graduating Student Surveys

Alumni

1993-2004Seniors

1995Seniors

1995-2004Critical Thinking - Discernment - Mean Ratings 3.91 4.04 4.02Clearer sense of ethical/spiritual values 3.98 4.05 4.01Developed skills at information retrieval 3.93 4.00 4.02Grew in appreciation of my creative abilities 3.81 4.07 4.03

As summarized in Table 3-2, respondents believe their experience at the University supportslearning to value diverse viewpoints, to clarify ethical and spiritual values they use in makingdecisions, and to locate information that is relevant. Notably, the mean rating of Discernmentitems is the highest rating of all three critical thinking skills among alumni and is less than onehalf point from highest for graduating seniors. However, it still hovers about the average/aboveaverage range one full point or 20% less than the maximum. One explanation for this is thatstudents may feel they entered the University with these skills. An alternative explanation is theyfeel that there was room for more growth than they attained.

Discussion of Survey Data Related to Integration. Integration includes specific skillscomprising the ability to recognize the logical connections among disciplines, understand howpropositions and methodologies in diverse academic disciplines impact one another, and

26

integrate the skills and knowledge developed in various disciplines for effective problem-solving. Table 3-3 presents the items most related to these integration skills.

Table 3-3. Mean Responses on “Integration” Items -- Alumni & Graduating Student Surveys

Alumni

1993-2004Seniors

1995Seniors

1995 - 2004Critical Thinking - Integration - Mean Ratings 3.86 4.05 4.02Understand connections among differentdisciplines/cultures 3.83 4.15 4.01

Developed responsibility of citizenship 3.64 3.82 3.88Developed skills for practical professionalchallenges 3.88 4.11 4.06

Was prepared for graduate study in major 3.74 3.91 3.97Learned to value diverse viewpoints in decisions 4.07 4.25 4.18

One of the strongest ratings of any item is “learned to value diverse viewpoints in decisions.” Itreceives a 4.07 from alumni, a 4.18 10-year average from seniors, and a 4.25 from 1995graduates. In addition, graduates, especially recent graduates, believe they have learned skillsthey can carry to graduate schools or to a profession. The University’s CTAC initiative willprovide students with greater cognitive abilities to carry to other areas.

Discussion of Praxis. A number of survey items implicitly ask the gestalt question of howindividual factors create a whole, how they contribute to praxis. These items provide someinsight into whether the specific skills and ideals related to clarity, discernment, and integrationtranslate into the individual’s sense of empowerment and purpose. Again, the survey resultsprovide some positive indications. Respondents recognize their responsibilities as citizens and asprofessionals to engage in a broader community and to feel committed to helping others.

Table 3-4. Mean Responses on Praxis Items -- Alumni & Graduating Student Surveys

Alumni

1993-2004Seniors

1995Seniors

1995 - 2004Application of Critical Thinking - Mean Ratings 3.81 4.01 4.01Developed responsibility of citizenship 3.64 3.82 3.88Grew more committed to helping others 3.94 4.14 4.11Grew adept at solving professional/personal problems 3.95 4.14 4.13Assumed leadership role on campus 3.74 4.01 3.92Grew aware of future problems in community/society 3.70 4.00 3.96Acquired skills for first career position 3.86 3.91 4.03Developed skills for practical professional challenges 3.88 4.11 4.06Was prepared for graduate study in major 3.74 3.91 3.97

There are areas that overlap in the application of critical thinking skills. Both graduating seniorsand alumni understand the need to carry abilities learned in college forward into social, service,and professional areas. The responses to Praxis items from the surveys are reviewed in Table3.4. Again, the scores hover well below the maximum. It is anticipated that the use of innovativestrategies as part of the critical thinking pedagogies fostered by CTAC will enhance studentexpectations of themselves and of others in all aspects of their lives.

27

General Discussion of Survey Data. Although the results are positive, one must be cognizant ofthe fact that the averages presented represent only a numerical composite of responses. Theinherent survey assumption is that there were variations in responses and, while somerespondents gave higher ratings, others provided lower ratings. This leaves us with the sense thatnot all students feel they benefit at even the favorably high average rates. Further refinement ofthe instrument and statistical analysis could provide more sensitive information and analysis inthe future.

In addition, the information in this discussion has been culled from an instrument that has beenin place for a decade. Item analysis is not exact. The assessments developed by the CTAC cadrewill provide more useful feedback to determine how the students perform and how they feelabout specific measures. In the meantime, this survey provides baseline information concerningwhat students perceive as stronger and weaker areas in their educational experience. Thisinformation supports the view that graduates currently feel they leave the University with littlemore than average range levels of awareness, skills, responsibility, and confidence.

Student Performance on Formal Assessment Instruments

For several years the University has made limited use of the ETS Academic Profile as part of itsassessment of general education. It is already expanding its use of this instrument and has begunuse of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the California Critical ThinkingDisposition Inventory (CCTDI), both developed by Insight Assessment, as part of its assessmentprocedures for CTAC. Further discussion of these three assessment instruments, as well asassessment plans for the QEP, may be found in Section IV of this report. However, a review ofpast data from the Academic Profile, as well as the initial data from the two Insights Assessmentinstruments, validates the focus on critical thinking chosen for the University’s QEP.

Academic Profile Results. The ETS Academic Profile (AP) prior to 2005-2006 was given tovolunteers from a randomly selected pool of juniors, with the resulting data contributing towardan assessment of the general education curriculum. In the 2005-2006 academic year, theUniversity began expanding its use of the AP in order to enhance its value as an assessment toolfor both general education and the CTAC initiative. As a result, in the spring of 2005, it was alsogiven to all first-year students. In the fall of 2005, it was administered to half of the incomingfreshmen before the beginning of classes. Beginning 2006-2007, the AP will be replaced by theMAPP. ETS has indicated that MAPP data and AP data will be correlated for longitudinalstudies. The AP will be given to an expanded pool of juniors (roughly half of the cohort) in thespring of 2006 with the MAPP given to a similar expanded pool of juniors each spring beginningin the spring of 2007.

The AP provides a useful assessment of the students’ ability to integrate critical thinking intoreading and writing. The basic writing score, Writing 1, reflects basic skill with grammar andtransitions. Writing 2 measures proficiency with more complicated sentence constructions.Writing 3 gauges proficiency with logical statements, comparisons, and appropriate use ofparallelism as well as distinctions among closely related root words and reflects a mature writingstyle. Reading 1 measures student ability to recognize and comprehend discrete pieces ofinformation within a single sentence or simple passage. Reading 2 reflects student ability to infer

28

information based on a passage and to recognize summaries, alternative ways of statinginformation, figurative language, and overall point of a short reading assignment. Reading 3 islabeled “Critical Thinking” and reflects skill at levels 1 and 2 reading plus the ability to evaluateand analyze arguments and, within an academic field, handle interpretation, inductivegeneralizations, or causal explanations.

The data regarding first-year student performance from Spring 2005 and Fall 2005 aresummarized in Table 3-5. The data regarding junior performance from Spring 2004 and Spring2005 are summarized in Table 3-6.

Table 3-5. Academic Profile Results for First-Year Students

SkillSpring 2005 (n=298) Fall 2005 (n=208)

Proficient Marginal NotProficient

Proficient Marginal NotProficient

Writing 1 47% 33% 20% 58% 30% 12%

Writing 2 9% 32% 59% 13% 36% 51%

Writing 3 4% 18% 78% 5% 25% 70%

Reading 1 44% 29% 27% 53% 30% 17%

Reading 2 15% 18% 66% 25% 18% 57%

CriticalThinking

1% 7% 92% 1% 11% 88%

Table 3-6. Academic Profile Results for Juniors

SkillSpring 2004 (n=84) Spring 2005 (n=67)

Proficient Marginal NotProficient

Proficient Marginal NotProficient

Writing 1 77% 20% 2% 73% 15% 12%

Writing 2 30% 42% 29% 27% 42% 31%

Writing 3 12% 40% 48% 12% 30% 58%

Reading 1 77% 18% 5% 73% 19% 7%

Reading 2 51% 11% 38% 45% 18% 37%

CriticalThinking

7% 14% 79% 10% 15% 75%

The AP scores are cumulative in that a student must show proficiency at the lower level skills inorder to be able to “pass” to the higher ranking. The data on first-year student performanceindicate a marked deficiency in lower level skills that are required in order to reach the “criticalthinking” category in reading. In spring 2005, only 47% were proficient at the lowest levels in

29

Writing 1 and only 44% were proficient in Reading 1. In the fall 2005, 58% were proficient inwriting and 53% were proficient in reading.

Although AP results are available for both freshmen and juniors, comparisons of scores aretentative at best for two reasons. First, the juniors taking the test were volunteers. Second, wecan reasonably assume that academically weaker freshmen withdraw or become ineligible toreturn so the profile was only taken by the “survivors.” However, the results for juniors,considered separately, still reveal marked weaknesses in Writing 2 (27% proficient in Spring2005) and in Reading 2 (45% proficient in Spring 2005). Further, only 12% of juniors wereproficient at Writing 3 and only 10% were proficient at Critical Thinking in Spring 2005.

Thus, this data supports the notion that improvement in critical thinking necessitates a holisticapproach that focuses on improvement of reading and writing skills as integral to increasingcritical thinking.

California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). The CCTST assesses five critical thinkingskills: analysis, inference, evaluation, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning. The CCTSTdelivers a subscore for each of these skills as well as a composite score for all five skillscombined. For a fuller description of all five subscales of the CCTST, see Appendix B.

Table 3-7. California Critical Thinking Skills Test – Fall 2005 Students (n=211) vs. National Norm (n=2677)

SkillSubscale

Mean Median Q1 Q3

UC Nat’l UC Nat’l UC Nat’l UC Nat’l

Analysis 4.1564 4.4378 4.0000 5.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000

Inference 6.8480 7.8450 7.0000 8.0000 5.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.0000

Evaluation 3.9050 4.5185 4.0000 4.0000 3.0000 3.0000 5.0000 6.0000

Induction 8.5780 9.5293 8.0000 10.0000 7.0000 8.0000 10.000 11.0000

Deduction 6.3320 7.2719 6.0000 7.0000 4.0000 5.0000 8.0000 9.0000

Total 14.9100 16.8010 15.0000 16.0000 12.0000 13.0000 18.000 20.0000

The University first administered the CCTST to one-half of the entering class of 2005 and willadminister it to one-half of the juniors in the spring of 2006. The results of the CCTST for theentering class of 2005 are summarized in Table 3-7. In the future, the CCTST will continue to beadministered to one-half of first-year students at the beginning of the fall term, and to one-half ofjuniors at the beginning of the spring term.

The mean scores for UC students follow scoring trends in national norms in that the distributionof percentages for UC students in each category is generally proportional to those in the nationalsample. However, comparison between groups using Student’s t-test reveals that the mean forUC students (m=14.910; sd = 0.306) is significantly lower p<0.05) than the national norm.

30

F-statistic was obtained for individual elements of critical thinking using analysis of variancetechnique (ANOVA SPSS 12.01). Results revealed significant differences (p<0.05) in thefollowing areas: ANALYSIS (p=0.021); INFERENCE (p=0.043); EVALUATION (p=0.046);INDUCTION (p=0.033); and DEDUCTION (p=0.044).

The CCTST manual cautions that “subscales are not independent and not recommended exceptas gross indicators of possible CT strengths and weaknesses” (Facione et al., 2002, p. 18).However, the manual also states that critical thinking is both a skill and a “habit of mind” (p. 2).These statistics provide insight to the fact that, although generally predisposed toward criticalthinking as revealed by the CCTDI, there is a need to focus on the skills to do so. Specificemphasis on reading and writing by the first cadre will foster the skills specifically included inthe CCTST that measure ability to understand significance of categorization, decodingsignificance, clarifying meaning, detecting and analyzing arguments, assessing claims,understanding reasoning as argument, querying evidence, and using it to draw inference ordeducting information not specifically stated.

It will be interesting to follow the changes anticipated over time among UC students as criticalthinking is infused across the campus. The information in Table 3-7 will serve as a tentativebaseline of performance upon which future assessment will be based.

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI). The CCTDI complements theassessment of cognitive skills related to critical thinking provided by the CCTST with ananalysis of seven dispositional or attitudinal factors that support critical thinking: truth-seeking,open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and maturity.

See Appendix B for a specific description of each disposition targeted by these seven scales. Inthe future, the CCTDI will be administered in conjunction with the CCTST to the same groupsof students described above. An initial administration of the CCTDI to incoming students wasconducted in the fall of 2005. The results of this first run are summarized in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8. California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory – Incoming Students, 2005 (n=211)

Disposition Mean Median Q1 Q3

Truth-Seeking 35.455 36.000 32.000 39.000

Open-Mindedness 41.744 42.000 38.000 46.000

Analyticity 43.104 43.000 39.000 47.000

Systematicity 41.043 41.000 35.000 46.000

Self-Confidence 41.280 42.000 37.000 47.000

Inquisitiveness 46.602 47.000 42.000 52.000

Maturity 43.815 44.000 39.000 49.000

Total Score 293.040 289.000 273.000 314.000

31

Student performance on the CCTDI is reported with a score from 10 to 60 on each factor. Nonational norms have been established; however, the recommended cut score for an affirmativeperformance on each scale is 40, and the suggested target score is 50. A person scoring above 50on a scale is considered particularly strong in that disposition. Since a score below 40 requiresresponding to some items negatively, a score between 30 and 40 is considered weak, while ascore below 30 denotes a negative orientation toward that disposition. A total CCTDI score (thesum of the seven scale scores) of 280 is suggested as a cutoff indicator, with scores below 280indicating an overall disinclination toward critical thinking. Similarly, a total score of 350 orabove indicates an overall strength in disposition toward critical thinking.

This cohort is in the lower range of “favorable disposition” for analyticity, systematicity, self-confidence, and maturity. The most favorable disposition toward critical thinking for this groupis in “inquisitiveness” with a mean of 46.602 and a median of 47. This approaches the targetscore of 50. The only area with a “weak” score was “truth-seeking.” One implication of this isthat the QEP cadre can anticipate students will be at least fairly receptive to efforts to engagethem in critical thinking.

Conclusion

The focus of the University’s QEP upon enhancing Critical Thinking Across the Curriculumclearly supports the institution’s on-going mission and academic programs. In addition, theavailable data on student performance directly related to critical thinking skills and dispositionsindicates the University’s commitment can serve an area of need. As the University pursuesCTAC with diligence, there seems a reasonable opportunity over the long term to seeimprovement in student performance on the measurements of critical thinking discussed above.

Section IV.Classroom Program Design

The QEP of University of the Cumberlands focuses on nurturing critical thinking in studentsthrough integrating critical thinking skills into courses first-year students typically take (e.g.,English Composition I and II, General Biology, Health and Wellness, World Civilization I andII, American History I and II, Basic Psychology, Old Testament Survey, New TestamentSurvey). The conceptual understanding of critical thinking upon which the University’s QEPinitiative is based has been discussed previously in this report. However, a brief summary of thisunderstanding and a review of the University’s on-going commitment to critical thinking willclarify the foundation of the design of the program, its administrative structure, and its annualcalendar of activities. The program’s design, structure, and calendar are then articulated later inthis section.

Critical Thinking at University of the Cumberlands: A Brief Introduction

The University’s Mission Statement includes nurturing critical thinking as one institutionalobjective, but critical thinking notably impacts other objectives in the Mission Statement as well.This basic institutional awareness of critical thinking is not surprising. The very nature of aliberal arts education requires critical thinking as students study within and clarify theirunderstanding of various disciplines and begin to see connections between diverse disciplines. The University’s Christian heritage contributes an additional imperative to its understanding ofand commitment to critical thinking. Considering Christian values and refining one’s applicationof Christian values requires critical thinking in understanding historical contexts and evaluatinghow the Christian faith best applies in various situations. Furthermore, critical thinkingfacilitates creative thinking and enables individuals to develop new ideas and technologies forpersonal achievement and social progress/advancement. The University’s commitment to astrong academic program cannot succeed without encouraging and enhancing critical thinking.Students need not only to know facts and theories, but also how to weigh and apply them. TheUniversity’s general education curriculum already includes elements related to these skills. However, the QEP seeks to strengthen these components of critical thinking in a more focused,intentional, and interdisciplinary fashion.

A description of how the QEP seeks to enhance critical thinking in a more focused, intentionaland interdisciplinary fashion must begin with a clear definition of critical thinking. Criticalthinking can in general be defined as rational and contemplative thinking that aids indetermining appropriate judgments, beliefs, and actions (Norris & Ennis, 1989). Critical thinkingnotably encompasses a wide range of both perceptual and expressive skills. These skills includethe ability to describe, assess, and correlate accurately and precisely information from varioussources and disciplines. The ability to think critically also involves the ability to develop andpresent arguments in a coherent, compelling and ethical manner. In addition, the dispositionsassociated with critical thinking include a recognition of the complexity of human experience, anopenness to alternative points-of-view, and a patient willingness to negotiate diverse informationand perspectives in the pursuit of truth. Such critical thinking skills and dispositions are essentialto authentic problem-solving and decision-making in which the issues move beyond merely thedetermination of facts to the articulation of sound and appropriate answers and actions when

34

these are not immediately obvious or unanimously agreed upon. Finally, although some of theconventions and strategies of critical thinking may vary from discipline to discipline, criticalthinking is not a discipline-specific activity. The University has concluded that critical thinkingcan be fostered most effectively by emphasizing across disciplines those activities upon whichcritical thinking is based and by developing through interdisciplinary collaboration thosestandards by which the enhancement of critical thinking abilities of students will be evaluated.

As a result, the University’s initiative in Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (CTAC) willover time focus on four areas of student performance: reading comprehension, writtencommunication, information literacy, and oral communication. In addition, the learningoutcomes in these student performance areas, and hence the effectiveness of CTAC, will beevaluated using three critical thinking standards articulated by the University: clarity,discernment, and integration. The discussion that follows clarifies the University’s definition ofthese three standards, as well as its articulation of specific learning outcomes associated witheach as applied to the four areas of student performance.

Three Standards of Critical Thinking

As noted previously, critical thinking includes many different behaviors and dispositions. Dating from the 1950's, Bloom’s well-known taxonomy of education objectives continues toprovide one useful categorization of cognitive outcomes related to critical thinking. Perry’s 1970study of Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years provides acomplementary description of increasingly sophisticated stages of intellectual developmentwhile also integrating cognitive growth with affective and dispositional maturation. King andKitchener further refine Perry’s work while also assessing the epistemological underpinnings ofBloom’s taxonomy in their research on Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding andPromoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults (1994). Paul andElder (2004) have also made a major contribution to the description of the process of criticalthinking by identifying eight creative acts implicit in critical thinking, as well as defining nineintellectual standards by which these acts may be evaluated. Other researchers have articulatedsimilar taxonomies to aid in understanding and nurturing critical thinking. After a review ofthese various studies and classifications, the decision was made to develop a more limited set ofcritical thinking standards around which to implement the CTAC initiative.

For the purposes of its efforts to nurture critical thinking in the general education curriculum, theUniversity of the Cumberlands has identified a triad of essential standards or elements of criticalthinking: clarity, discernment, and integration. These qualities overlap with some of thecategories and taxonomies delineated by other scholars on critical thinking but are not intendedto be a comprehensive definition of elements of critical thinking. However, these are theelements chosen to articulate and pursue in this QEP. Notably, the definitions of these standardsacknowledge that critical thinking is both a perceptive/receptive activity and anexpressive/argumentative activity. In addition, selection of these standards also acknowledgesthat the behaviors and dispositions comprising critical thinking exist on a hierarchicalcontinuum. In the following definitions of the standards, “information” refers to ideas, facts,concepts, beliefs, and perceptions and “presentations” refers to any vehicle used to communicate(e.g., writing, oral communication, visual arts, music).

35

Clarity – Critical thinking includes the ability to identify information specifically andaccurately. Critical thinkers are able to

• describe accurately the beliefs and propositions encountered in presentations byothers

• identify precisely the contexts of presentations by others• define precisely the focus and purposes of their own presentations• select appropriate sources and information of their own presentations• express their own beliefs and propositions unambiguously

Discernment – Critical thinking includes the ability to analyze information with insight andjudgment. Critical thinkers are able to

• assess the reliability of information in presentations by others• determine the explicit or implicit assumptions in presentations by others• appraise the coherence and development of presentations by others• strengthen the coherence and development of their own presentations• ascertain appropriate resources and contexts to support their own propositions or

beliefs

Integration – Critical thinking includes the ability to evaluate and synthesize informationefficiently and effectively. Critical thinkers are able to

• extrapolate from materials in one situation or resource to different contexts• articulate divergent and convergent points-of-view confronted in various

presentations• incorporate materials from various resources and disciplines into their own arguments• evaluate their own point-of-view on a topic in the contexts of other points-of-view• develop an ethical awareness of and responsibility for their propositions and

presentations

Enhancement of the cognitive skill sets denoted by these three concepts must necessarily beaccompanied by the development of various dispositional or attitudinal orientations for authenticcritical thinking to occur. For instance, the clarity skills set requires the disposition of being alertto details, as well as a disposition toward systematic, organized inquiry. Skills in discernmentrequire both self-confidence in one’s reasoning ability and a willingness to assess one’s ownactivities and conclusions. Likewise, skills involved in integration require an open-mindeddisposition toward divergent points-of-view and a willingness to pursue inquiry even if findingsseem not to support one’s own initial perspective or interests.

Through its CTAC initiative, the faculty of University of the Cumberlands is committed toenhancing both these critical thinking skills sets and the accompanying critical thinkingdispositions as these may be evidenced in four areas of student performance.

36

Four Areas of Student Performance

The University’s CTAC will focus on enhancing student learning in four performance areas:

C reading comprehensionC written communicationC oral communicationC information literacy

These areas have been selected as foundational learning experiences across the universitycurriculum. Certainly these experiences are already emphasized in the general educationcurriculum. In some cases specific courses are devoted to these activities, not only in the generaleducation curriculum but in upper-level courses in specific degree programs. The ubiquity ofthese student performance skills affirms the value of selecting them as the focus for the CTACprogram. The data read, researched, and communicated may be different in a literature class, abiology class, an art history class, or a psychology class. So too may be the conventions ofpresentation. The critical thinking processes, however, are complementary. Hence, an intentionaland collaborative effort to strengthen these performances and the underlying critical thinkingskills and dispositions is a reasonable endeavor and should yield worthwhile results.

Revisions of assignments and assessments to effect a more intentional focus on critical thinkingwill involve considerable effort. Expecting initial cadre members to focus on all four areas atonce would be overly burdensome. Therefore, for the first year (2006-2007) cadre members willfocus on two of the four performance areas: reading comprehension and written communication.Narrowing the initial focus of the classroom program will allow for more interdisciplinarycollaboration by faculty, especially in developing new pedagogical strategies and classroomactivities, as well as in being mutually supportive of one another in meeting the challenges ofdeveloping a coherent “meta-curriculum” on critical thinking that extends beyond the boundariesof a single classroom. Narrowing the initial focus to reading comprehension and writtencommunication will also facilitate a more productive effort in establishing sound assessmentprocesses for the program.

However, as the initial group of CTAC faculty work together to incorporate a more intentionaland articulated focus on critical thinking in their courses, some individuals or partners maychoose to work explicitly on student performances related to oral communication andinformation literacy, especially if such performances are already components of class activities. Such informal efforts will provide some inspiration and direction to more programmatic effortson these areas in future years of the program. Indeed, the intent is for the first-year participantsof the program to engage in some preliminary planning for implementation of CTAC in the areasof oral communication and/or information literacy in the succeeding years of the program.

Classroom Program Design

Implementation of the University’s CTAC program in the general education curriculum willformally begin in the fall of 2006 through the classes taught by nine faculty representing seven

37

academic disciplines. Preparation for this classroom implementation of CTAC will actuallybegin in earnest in the spring and summer of 2006 with professional development activities

Table 4-1. Learning Outcomes in Reading Comprehension and Written CommunicationPerformance Area Clarity Discernment Integration

ReadingComprehension

In response to theirreading, learners will beable to:

• Identify accuratelythe purpose and/orthe intended audience

• Identify precisely themajor points (e.g. keythemes, content,issues, conclusions)

• Identify ambiguousor contradictorylanguage

• Recognize data (e.g.,illustration, examples,information) thatsupport or challengethe intended purposeor major pointsargued

• Recognize statements that arecompatible with thelogical structure ofthe readingassignment

• Recognize theadequacy/credibilityof supportingmaterials

• Evaluate theimplications of thematerial within adiscipline or betweendisciplines

• Evaluate points ofconvergence anddivergence betweendifferent pieces ofwriting

Written Communication

Learners will be able to:

• Write a clear purposestatement orproposition

• Write a clear,concise, and logicallyvalid argument

• Demonstrate cogentplanning andorganization in thewriting process

• Demonstrate theability to evaluate andrevise organization toimprove clarity

• Critique data thatsupports orchallenges the pointof view, argument, orproposition

• Avoid unfair,irresponsible, andinadequate resources

• Integrate a variety ofobjective evidenceand affectiveexperience relevant tothe written purpose

• Acknowledge andrespond to otherpoints of view,includinginterdisciplinarycontexts, indeveloping andsupporting the writtenpurpose

• Present a crediblepoint of view basedon evidence,established criteria,and contextualconsideration

for this cadre. These activities will include an exploration of the various components andindicators of critical thinking, workshops on classroom pedagogy focused on nurturing criticalthinking in students, and preparation for and practice in focused formative assessments of criticalthinking skills and dispositions. Some professional development experiences will be open to thegeneral faculty of the University, but a number will be dedicated to developing the confidence

38

and expertise of the cadre, and to fostering collaboration within the cadre. This will particularlybe the case with the Summer Teaching Institute planned for the cadre in June 2006. For a fullerdiscussion of the Summer Teaching Institute and other faculty workshops, see the discussion ofthe Professional Development program of CTAC in Section V of this report.

The traditional content of cadre classes will be focused and amplified by materials and activitiesdirectly related to the learning outcomes defined in the performance areas for readingcomprehension and written communication in order to enhance clarity, discernment, andintegration. These outcomes are summarized in Table 4-1.

A byproduct of emphasis on critical thinking will be that cadre members internalize criticalthinking methodology through training and praxis. In many cases, activities and assignments thathave previously been part of a class will be re-focused or staged in a new fashion in order toemphasize and foster learning outcomes that have been articulated for various critical thinkingskills. In some cases, a cadre member may choose to create new assignments relevant to thespecific discipline but that also address the desired components of critical thinking. Occasionally cadre members may even collaborate with one another, formally or informally, inorder to break down the compartmentalization of the academy or the rigidity of student mindsets. Such interdisciplinary collaboration may foster critical thinking as students are encouraged tounderstand the connections across disciplines and to recognize the value of using theseconnections in authentic problem-solving.

Whatever adjustments may be made in the syllabus or pedagogy of a specific class, an importantaddition to every class taught by a cadre member will be the development and implementation offormative assessment activities to measure the incremental progress of student performancerelated to the specific learning outcomes concerning critical thinking that have been defined forCTAC. As noted previously, during the first year or so of classroom implementation of CTAC,the focus will be on the critical thinking skills and dispositions related to reading comprehensionand written communication. (See Table 4-1.)

A fuller discussion of both the comprehensive assessment of critical thinking among theUniversity’s students, as well as the localized, embedded assessment strategies within cadreclasses, follows later in this section. See Appendix A for a fully articulated assessment plan forthese learning outcomes, as well as for a listing of projected learning outcomes in theperformance areas of information literacy and oral communication to be staged in later years ofthe implementation of CTAC.

Each cadre member will implement a new focus on critical thinking in at least one course in thefall semester. Depending on course assignments, this implementation may continue in courses inthe spring semester. In any case, the cadre will continue to collaborate with one another in thespring term in reviewing assessment data, in the refinement of learning outcomes and programactivities, and in preparing for the selection and training of a new cadre.

During the 2006-2007 academic year, a second cadre of approximately eight faculty who teachfirst-year courses will be recruited. The experience of the initial cadre will be instrumental inrecruiting the second and following cadres of faculty. In the fall of 2007, two cadres of faculty

39

will be intentionally nurturing and evaluating critical thinking skills in first-year courses, as wellas selected upper-level courses. In each succeeding year, a new cadre of approximately eightadditional faculty will be recruited for the CTAC initiative. With the assistance of the precedingcadre, each new cadre will participate in an updated rendition of the Summer Teaching Institute,as well as in other professional development activities.

With the CTAC project built around the training of a new small cadre of faculty each year, bythe end of the fifth year of the project, roughly half of the University’s faculty will have beencadre members and participated in enhancing critical thinking in general education and othercourses. The program’s emphasis on critical thinking not only will have dispersed throughout thegeneral education curriculum but also should have filtered into the upper-level courses of majordegree programs. Students introduced to critical thinking in lower-level general educationcourses will expect the opportunity to apply these skills throughout all of their academiccoursework. As faculty become comfortable with using the methods of enhancing and assessingcritical thinking in first-year courses, they will implement the methods in upper-level courses aswell, thus enhancing students’ training in critical thinking throughout their undergraduateexperience.

Selection of the Initial CTAC Cadre

In the fall of 2005, the QEP Committee prepared a job description for cadre members thatincluded the following general requirements, expectations, and considerations:

• Cadre members will participate in a 5-day Summer Teaching Institute to occur overthe summer.

• Cadre members will implement intentional critical thinking activities in at least onecourse during the fall semester.

• Cadre members will contribute to on-going planning and assessment of the programduring the spring semester.

• Cadre members will receive a stipend of $1,500.00.

The Committee also determined that first consideration would be given to faculty teachinggeneral education classes and/or classes primarily comprised of first-year students. Each cadremember will teach at least one course in the fall semester that incorporates exercises to enhancecritical thinking. This course will be part of the normal teaching load. Cadre members will alsoparticipate in assessment activities in their classes using materials provided by the QEPCommittee and developed by the cadre. Throughout the year, Cadre members will meetregularly with one another and the QEP Director.

In collaboration with the newly selected QEP Director Dr. Bill Garris, Assistant Professor ofPsychology, the Committee distributed this information to the faculty and invited thoseinterested in perhaps being a part of the first cadre to talk with the Director and attend one ofseveral informational forums. After these forums, a number of faculty expressed interest in beinga member of the cadre. In the end, nine faculty members from seven academic departments werechosen for the first cadre:

40

• Dr. Oline Carmical, Professor of History and Political Science (1974)• Ms. Kathy Fish, Professor of English (1984)• Dr. Todd Yetter, Professor of Biology (1990)• Dr. Joan Hembree, Assistant Professor of Biology (2000)• Dr. Jean Hunt, Associate Professor of Psychology (2000)• Dr. Kirby Clark, Associate Professor of Religion (2001)• Dr. Eric Stephens, Assistant Professor of Psychology (2001)• Dr. Anita Bowman, Assistant Professor of Health (2004)• Dr. Chris Leskiw, Assistant Professor of Political Science (2004)

The support of the faculty at large for CTAC is reflected not only in the variety of disciplinesrepresented by these volunteers for the program but also in the spectrum of their professionalexperience at University of the Cumberlands. As reflected in the parenthetical notation of initialyear of service in the preceding list, both seasoned and younger faculty are engaged by theproject.

For additional information on the organization of the cadre and on the management of CTAC,see the discussion of “Administrative Structure” later in this section.

Assessment of Student Critical Thinking Outcomes

The University’s progress in enhancing Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum will be trackedusing multiple assessment measures. Several of these measures will be “global” and summativein nature, assessing the development of students collectively as a result of their generaleducational experience in college. The following nationally developed and normed instrumentswill be used for these summative assessments:

• the ETS Academic Profile (AP), soon to be superceded by the Measure of AcademicProficiency and Progress (MAPP)

• the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP)• the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)• the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)

The current baselines on student performance provided by the AP, the CCTST, and the CCTDIhave previously been reviewed in Section III of the report.

Additional formative assessment measures and strategies are also currently under developmentto be implemented in individual cadre classes beginning in the fall of 2006. These will serve toprovide additional baselines against which to assess the efficacy of critical thinking initiatives inspecific general education courses in enhancing student performance in reading comprehensionand written communication. During the initial year of the implementation of the QEP, theseformative, classroom-based assessments will primarily be limited to gathering data oncompetency or proficiency in those critical thinking learning outcomes delineated for studentperformance in reading comprehension and written communication. See these learning outcomeslisted previously in Table 4-1.

41

The following paragraphs provide a fuller introduction to the global or summative assessmentsplanned for the QEP and the formative classroom assessments under development.

ETS Academic Profile (AP). For several years, the AP has been administered to a randomlyselected pool of juniors with the data contributing toward an assessment of the general educationcurriculum. Results for previous classes are discussed in Section III. As defined for the AP,Critical Thinking involves higher order reading comprehension, including the ability to makedeductions and drawing inferences from sources, as well as appropriately extrapolate fromand/or apply data to new contexts. (For more information concerning the scores reported for theAP, see Appendix B.) Beginning in 2006-2007 the AP will be replaced by the MAPP. ETS hasindicated that MAPP data and AP data will be correlated for longitudinal studies.

In the past, the AP has only been given to volunteers from a randomly selected pool of juniors.However, as noted in Section III, the AP was given to one-half of all entering students in fall2005, and the AP/MAPP will be given to one-half of all juniors starting in the spring of 2006.These results will both provide a baseline measure of current performance and allowmeasurement of trends as freshmen exposed to cadre classes progress toward graduation.

California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). Another assessment instrument that will beused to evaluate CTAC is the CCTST, previously discussed in Section III. The CCTST,developed by Insight Assessment, is founded upon an understanding of critical thinking as “thecognitive engine which drives problem-solving and decision-making” (Facione, Facione, Blohm,& Giancarlo, 2002, p. 2). An articulation of the different components of this cognitive enginewas provided by a 1990 APA Delphi report: “Critical thinking is the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. This process gives reasoned consideration to evidence, context,conceptualizations, methods, and criteria” (qtd. in Facione et al., 2002, p. 2). Based upon thisarticulation of critical thinking, the CCTST assesses these five critical thinking skills: analysis,inference, evaluation, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.

The CCTST delivers a subscore for each of these skills as well as a composite score for all fiveskills combined. As defined for the CCTST, the first three subscales have a dual meaning,including both perceptive and expressive behaviors. In addition, these three subscales overlapwith many of the learning outcomes defined for the QEP under the clarity-discernment-integration taxonomy. Each of the items on the CCTST are assigned to one of these threesubscales. Most of the items on the CCTST (30 of 34) are also co-assigned to the subscale foreither inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning. For a fuller description of all five subscales ofthe CCTST, see Appendix B.

The University first administered the CCTST to one-half of the entering class of 2005 and willadminister it to one-half of juniors in the spring of 2006. In the future, the CCTST will continueto be administered to one-half of first-year students at the beginning of the fall term, and to one-half of juniors at the beginning of the spring term. This data will provide further means to trackthe impact of CTAC.

In the Assessment Plan for CTAC included in Appendix A, CCTST results are included assummative assessment measures for various learning outcomes pursued by the program. Theseassignments will continue to be reviewed and refined by the QEP Committee in the initial yearsof implementation of CTAC. As more local student performance data is gathered, benchmarkperformance goals on the CCTST will be established.

42

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI). The CCTDI, previously discussedin Section III, was also developed by Insight Assessment. It complements the assessment ofcognitive skills provided by the CCTST by measuring seven dispositional or attitudinal factorsthat support critical thinking. These are truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity,systematicity, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and maturity. See Appendix B for a specificdescription of each disposition targeted by these scales.

Student performance on the Disposition Inventory is reported with a score from 10 to 60. Nonational norms have been established for the CCTDI. However, the recommended cut score foran affirmative performance on each scale is 40, and the suggested target score is 50. A personscoring above 50 on a scale is considered particularly strong in that disposition. Since a scorebelow 40 requires responding to some items negatively, a score between 30 and 40 is consideredweak, while a score below 30 denotes a negative orientation toward that disposition. A totalCCTDI score (the sum of the seven scale scores) of 280 is suggested as a cutoff indicator ofoverall disinclination toward critical thinking. Similarly, a total score of 350 or above wouldindicate an overall strength in disposition toward critical thinking.

As stated in Section III, the CCTDI was first administered to freshmen in the fall of 2005. It willbe administered to juniors for the first time in the spring of 2006. Over time a comparison offirst-year performance on the CCTDI with junior performance will provide one indicator of theimpact of the University’s efforts to enhance critical thinking across the general educationcurriculum. Tracking of student performance is included in the CTAC Assessment Plan includedin Appendix A. In the coming year the QEP Committee will continue to study how to linkCCTDI performance to the specific intended learning outcomes outlined for CTAC, as well as torefine local benchmark goals for junior performance on the CCTDI.

ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP). Through a consortium ofcolleges affiliated with the Appalachian College Association, University of the Cumberlands iscurrently experimenting with adding the CAAP to its package of academic program assessmenttools. In the spring of 2005 different components of the CAAP were given to small groups ofsophomores. In November 2005, this experimentation with the CAAP continued with theadministration of the Critical Thinking component of the CAAP to a group of sophomores.(Results of the November 2005 testing are not yet available.) Depending upon this initialexperience with the CAAP, the University may continue to use components of the CAAP as partof its assessment of the general education curriculum and of CTAC.

Formative, Classroom-Based Assessment Strategies. Summative assessment instruments likethose described in preceding paragraphs will provide crucial data necessary to assess the impactof CTAC on student learning. However, formative, embedded assessments of studentperformance of specific activities in cadre classes will be equally crucial to monitoring theprogram in order to continue strengthening the University’s efforts to enhance critical thinking.

The QEP Committee and the QEP Assessment Task Force have already spent much time andeffort exploring how to efficiently and effectively assess student performance on courseassignments supporting the learning outcomes defined for the critical thinking standards of

43

clarity, discernment, and integration. The challenge of establishing a focused and manageableassessment of course activities is amplified by the logistics of implementing such assessment inseveral performance areas across multiple academic disciplines. The QEP Committee’s decisionto focus CTAC efforts in the first year or two on only two performance areas – readingcomprehension and written communication – resulted in part from its recognition of thisassessment challenge.

Assessment methods will necessarily continue to evolve as the CTAC project is implemented. The continuing development of viable assessment strategies will be a task to be addressed by thefirst cadre and indeed by all succeeding cadres. Notably, the professional development activitiesfor cadre members include a major focus on refining assessment strategies. (See Section V onProfessional Development.) However, the QEP Committee has established several guidelines,principles, and models that should facilitate the on-going development of strategies to embedassessment activities focused intentionally on critical thinking in cadre classes:

• Critical thinking assessment activities should whenever possible be built aroundlearning experiences already in place in a course.

• Critical thinking assessment data may be shared with students and incorporated in aninstructor’s grading process on an assignment, or such data may be gathered only forthe purposes of aggregating information on student performance for programassessment. In either case, the activity assessed should be an authentic learningexperience integral to the content and skills goals of the course.

• Cadre members during the first year should develop assessment measures and gatherassessment data directly related to at least one learning outcome each under clarity,discernment, and integration for both reading comprehension and writtencommunication.

• The first cadre should determine at least some learning outcomes which all memberswill assess in their courses.

• Whenever possible, at least two samples of student performance related to a specificoutcome should be assessed in each course. Ideally, these samples should comprisepre- and post-testing experiences.

• Assessment instruments for reading comprehension may be in the form of multiple-choice items, with individual items tagged to specific learning outcomes so thatstudent performance data may ultimately be collated from different courses for aholistic program assessment of student learning. Such assessment may also be in theform of rubrics with assessed elements linked to specific CTAC learning outcomes.

• Assessment data of written communication on a given assignment should be gatheredusing an adaptation/extrapolation of the standard CTAC Writing Assessment Rubric. Use of this model will facilitate collating data from different courses for a holisticprogram assessment of critical thinking expressed in written communication.

Appendix C provides several examples of assessments of reading comprehension and writtencommunication through assignments in different disciplines. In these examples individualelements are linked with specific critical thinking learning outcomes. Appendix D includes thestandard CTAC Writing Assessment Rubric suggested by the QEP Committee. Writing

44

Assessment Rubrics for specific students in a class can simply be gathered and collated by thecadre member and/or the QEP Director.

Other Possible Assessment Strategies

Undoubtedly as the CTAC initiative continues to evolve, additional assessment strategies willpresent themselves and be discovered or attempted. Three possible assessment strategies couldinvolve a study of grade distributions in cadre courses, focus groups, and a study of courseevaluation data.

Grades. The infusion of new strategies is intended to enhance student engagement in order tohelp students develop increased skills, especially in critical thinking. The anticipated increase inengagement will enhance valued skills of reading and writing as well as critical thinking skills. Therefore, we hypothesize that reflections of academic performance in the form of grades willimprove for students in cadre classes.

CTAC has the potential to contribute to the literature about the relationship between grades andcritical thinking. Milton (1960) studied 250 introductory psychology students at the Universityof Tennessee, as well as airmen through the rank of colonel and concluded that most studentscome to college with a habit of uncritical thinking that is hard to break and that colleges need torethink the ways that logical thinking is taught. Heath’s (1977) longitudinal study of 38 college-educated men as freshmen and upperclassmen and later when in their thirties revealed that SATquantitative and verbal scores on achievement tests, college grades, departmental chair ratings ofintellect, and receipt of college honors did not predict adult maturity and competence. Thesestudies remind us that high grades do not imply critical thinking, but not whether criticalthinking skills result in higher grades. CTAC may endeavor to explore whether gradeimprovements are associated with particular pedagogies or the Hawthorne Effect (extra attentionand awareness that performance is measured) as opposed to a general increase in engagementthrough enhanced critical thinking skills.

Interactive Student Focus Groups. A random number of students in cadre classes will be asked tovolunteer in focus groups. These will provide insight into student understanding of the CTACinitiative, comparison of the student experience in cadre classes compared to other classes, andinput about student needs. Students are an important component in 360 assessments.

B. Millis (1999) provides guidelines for conducting focus groups. Millis advocates a four-stageprocess: the pre-interview, the interview, debriefing, and, whenever possible, feedback to thestudent. The pre-interview begins as the student enters the room and receives a questionnairewhich solicits responses to “How much time did you put into this course?” and “Was theevaluation system fair?” Further, in the pre-interview students are advised of the use of theresults and anonymity standards that require that they address each other by assigned numbersinstead of names during the taping and are assured that tapes will be transcribed by someonewho would not recognize participants’ voices. Participants are asked to write individuallyassigned numbers on all of their materials. During the session, a paper is passed around for eachstudent to write instructor/course strengths and one thing that they would like to see improved.They make their comments aloud while writing. Each focus group is then given two minutes to

45

rank-order the three top positive responses and two minutes to rank-order the three items theywould like to change. Other questions can simply be answered individually. One example wouldbe: “What is the most important thing that you learned from this course?” Additional thoughtswill be generated as outlined by Millis such as “list one-word adjectives to describe this course”followed by group ratings of the applicability of each adjective on a scale of 1 to 5. Participantsalso provide an overall rating of the course from 1 to 5. After the session, tapes are analyzed bythe focus group leaders.

Course Evaluation Data. As with grade distributions, this information may provide data tocontribute to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). We anticipate that enhancedfocus on teaching critical thinking will impact student evaluations of professors and courses.However, it may be necessary to revise evaluation forms. Literature questions the evaluations offaculty based on personal characteristics such as enthusiasm and knowledge of the materialrather than pedagogical issues. S. Keeley and N. Browne (1978) found that course evaluationsusually focus on “thorough knowledge of the subject matter; well-planned and organizedlectures; enthusiastic and lively, energetic; lively interest in teaching ; student-oriented, friendly,and willing to help students; systematic organization of course content; ability to explain thingsclearly, etc.” while ignoring the level of critical thinking required by the professor (p. 305).Keeley and Browne indicate sensitivity to critical thinking both reflects and reinforces criticalthinking. They found students in their study who did not understand critical thinking tended tobe less discerning in their judgments of professors’ critical thinking requirements. Theyconcluded that explicit training in critical thinking is necessary for raters to be able to discern theapplication of higher order skills.

Oversight of Classroom and Cadre Assessment Activities

Management of assessment activities and data will be a major task of the CTAC project. TheQEP Director is responsible for coordinating the collection and analysis of all assessment datarelated to CTAC. The Director will work with the University’s Director of Assessment to ensurethat all summative testing is done annually on the appropriate schedule. The QEP Director willwork with cadre members to ensure the regular and timely collection of formative, classroom-based assessment data and will work with the University’s Director of Assessment and othersupport staff to ensure the efficient collation of all assessment data. The QEP Director will seekthe input and assistance of the QEP Committee in evaluating all assessment data. Finally, theDirector is responsible for the preparation and submission of all annual assessment reports onCTAC as part of the Campus-Wide Assessment Plan of University of the Cumberlands.

Administrative Structure of CTAC

In its conception of the University’s program to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum,the QEP Committee determined to follow essentially the organizational structure of otheracademic programs. Thus, the administrative structure for CTAC flows from the Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs to the QEP Director to the QEP Committee and the cadre faculty.

46

Vice President for Academic Affairs. The primary responsibility for administrative oversight ofthe program lies with Dr. Don Good, the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The day-to-dayduties of managing CTAC activities are delegated to the QEP Director.

QEP Director. The QEP Director serves essentially in the same capacity as an academicdepartment chair. The Director oversees the day-to-day management and implementation ofCTAC, reporting on the program to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. More specifically,the Director coordinates and facilitates the classroom activities of cadre faculty related to criticalthinking, as well as the assessment efforts related to these activities. The Director also assists inthe planning of professional development and academic support endeavors. The Directorcoordinates preparation and submission of an annual budget proposal for CTAC, and managesthe dispersement of budgeted funds. In recognition of these responsibilities, the QEP Director isgiven a two-course load reduction each semester.

QEP Director

The QEP Director will oversee the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan.The QEP Director will report to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.The QEP Director will receive a two course load reduction per semester, and will assume her/his responsibilities inthe Spring of 2006. Those responsibilities will include:

• Chairing the QEP Advisory Committee to develop the QEP program• Recruiting faculty to become involved in the QEP• Support the Director of Teaching and Learning in coordinating professional development for faculty

cadres in the summer and throughout the academic year• Meeting with faculty cadres on a regular basis throughout the academic year• Working with the institutional assessment personnel to implement and to integrate QEP assessment

into the University’s assessment plan• Managing the QEP budget• Promoting the QEP inside and outside the college community and reporting to the University faculty at

large• Preparing the QEP Report [for SACS] at the end of the QEP’s first five years• Supervising the QEP support staff

Candidates must submit a letter of application to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by September 15, 2005.The letter of application should include the candidate’s understanding of and interest in the QEP Directorship, aswell as an assessment of the applicant’s qualifications for managing the position’s responsibilities.

The preceding announcement of the QEP Director position was prepared by the QEP Committeeand distributed to faculty in late April 2005. After a review of applications by the Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs and representatives of the QEP Committee, Dr. Bill Garris, AssistantProfessor of Psychology, was appointed QEP Director in October 2005. Dr. Garris promises tobring both energy and acumen to this leadership position. He has been one of the organizers ofan informal bi-monthly Teaching Forum that has energized discussion of pedagogical issues,challenges, and strategies among the University’s faculty. He has also already attended severalprofessional conferences related to critical thinking and enhancing pedagogy and learningoutcomes in the college classroom.

47

Cadre Members. The members of the current cadre in any given year comprise a departmentcommitted to the University’s “meta-curriculum” concerning critical thinking. These facultymembers have similar responsibilities toward their students with this curriculum as they havetoward their students with their traditional academic discipline. The selection process for themembership of the initial cadre, as well as the individuals chosen has been described above.

The QEP Committee. When the initial planning for the QEP comes to a close in the spring of2006 and implementation of CTAC begins, the current QEP Committee will be reconstituted as acontinuing committee of the University. As noted previously, the reconstituted QEP Committeewill be chaired by the QEP Director. The membership of the Committee will primarily becomprised of the current cadre of faculty. This membership will be supplemented in 2006-2007will the following representatives of the original QEP Committee:

• Prof. Jane Carter, Associate Professor of Business Education • Dr. Cindi Norton, Chair and Professor of Health, Movement, and Leisure Studies• Dr. Mike Robinson, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion• Dr. Keith Semmel, Chair and Professor of Communication and Theatre Arts

During the second year of implementation (2007-2008), members of the original QEPCommittee will rotate off and four representatives from the first cadre will continue to serve onthe Committee. This carry-over membership will continue in subsequent years and will provide acontinuity of experience to facilitate the on-going planning and management of the program.

Also serving on the continuing QEP Committee will be the Director of Teaching and Learning aswell as any other individuals deemed appropriate by the Vice President for Academic Affairsand the QEP Director.

The Director of Teaching and Learning. In the course of its deliberations, the QEP Committeeproposed the hiring of a Director of Teaching and Learning. The Committee believed such anindividual could in general strengthen not only the professional development opportunitiesavailable to faculty but also the co-curricular academic support activities available to students. More particularly, such an individual could be indispensable in the enhancement of teaching andlearning envisioned in the CTAC initiative.

After consultations with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the approval of thePresident of the University, the position for Director of Teaching and Learning was advertised. Following is the description of this position as it was advertised.

Two candidates were invited to campus in the early summer of 2005 for interviews andpresentations to faculty. As a result of these interviews, Dr. Susan Weaver was hired as theUniversity’s Director of Teaching and Learning. Dr. Weaver has already initiated workshopsboth for students and for faculty that promise to enhance the academic program and outcomes ofthe University in general. Many of these workshops also directly support the goals of CTAC. The professional development and academic support goals of CTAC and the programs beingplanned in these areas are described in more detail in Section V and Section VI respectively ofthis report.

48

Cumberland College seeks applicants for a full-time Director of Teaching and Learning to coordinate facultydevelopment and academic support for a program to embed critical thinking into the general education curriculum.Depending upon the candidate’s qualifications, faculty status is possible with this new position.

This individual will coordinate an annual Summer Teaching Institute for small cadres of interdisciplinary faculty,faculty workshops throughout the year, and co-curricular seminars for students on various critical thinking skills.Other responsibilities include working to enhance training of peer tutors, collaborating to develop and maintain asound assessment plan for the critical thinking project, assisting IT personnel to provide the resources/trainingneeded for project, and evaluating other opportunities for curricular development.

Qualifications: masters degree required, doctorate preferred; college teaching experience; experience in facultydevelopment; interest in and experience with interdisciplinary collaboration; ability to work effectively withindividuals and small groups; familiarity with new technologies in support of teaching and learning.

TO APPLY: Submit letter of application, vita, copies of transcripts, and 3 letters of reference to Dr. DonGood, VPAA, Cumberland College, Williamsburg, KY 40769

Budget for Cadre Activities

As part of the normal budgeting process of the University in the spring of 2005, an initial start-up budget for QEP-related activities was established for 2005-2006. In addition, a tentativebudget was outlined for 2006-2007, the first full-year of the implementation of the QEP, andeven more tentative budgets were extrapolated for the program from 2007-2011. A formal

Table 4-2. 2005-2006 Budget for Administrative Support

Administrative Support

Office Remodeling Expense $3,500.00

Office Furniture & Equipment 2,250.00

Duplication 1,800.00

Postage 100.00

Telephone 300.00

Office Supplies 900.00

Continuing Education Travel 600.00

Continuing Education Resources 600.00

TOTAL $10,050.00

budget proposal for 2006-2007 is currently under development and will be submitted in thespring of 2006. Table 4-2 presents the 2005-2006 QEP budget for creating and running anoffice.

49

The QEP budget outline includes funds needed for activities related to the administration ofCTAC, for the Cadre/Classroom Program, for the Professional Development Program, for theAcademic Support Program, and for Assessment. Budgeted needs for the Cadre/ClassroomProgram include pedagogical resources (books, journals, software, etc.) and general academicsupplies. Table 4-3 presents the projected but tentative 2006-2007 budget for theCadre/Classroom Program.

Table 4-3. 2006-2007 Budget for Cadre/Classroom Program

Cadre/Classroom Program

Cadre Stipends $13,500.00

Resources - Books, Journals, Software 4,000.00

Academic Supplies 2,000.00

TOTAL $19,500.00

Budgeted needs for other program areas are outlined in other sections of this report. SeeAppendix E for a full display of the current 2005-2006 budget, the tentative outline for the 2006-2007 budget, and the extrapolated budgets for succeeding years.

Calendar of QEP Activities: 2005-2007

Below is a brief calendar of QEP Activities for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

Summer 2005 • Hire Director of Teaching and Learning.• Director of Teaching and Learning begins planning ARC Student

Learning Seminars and faculty development.

Fall 2005 • Select QEP Director and Committee to oversee implementation ofQEP.

• Begin implementation of ARC Student Learning Seminars.• Begin implementation of professional development workshops.• Give Academic Profile, the California Critical Thinking Skills

Test, and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory tofreshmen.

• Select faculty for Cadre 1.• Begin orientation and initial training of Cadre 1 faculty.

Spring 2006 • Continue planning with Cadre 1 faculty.• Complete planning for Summer Teaching Institute.• Give Academic Profile, the California Critical Thinking Skills

Test, and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory tojuniors.

50

Summer 2006 • Conduct Summer Teaching Institute for Cadre 1 faculty.• Complete articulation of course-embedded assessments.• Facilitate collaboration on common themes, pedagogies, and

activities for cadre classes.

Fall 2006 • Implement QEP in classroom (Cadre 1).• Meet regularly with Cadre 1 and QEP Committee on QEP

implementation.• Give Academic Profile, the California Critical Thinking Skills

Test, and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory tofreshmen.

Spring 2007 • Meet regularly regarding on-going QEP planning, implementationand assessment (Cadre 1). Evaluate progress and revise measuresas needed.

• Recruit Cadre 2 faculty.• Give Academic Profile, the California Critical Thinking Skills

Test, and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory tojuniors.

Summer 2007 • Conduct Summer Teaching Institute for Cadre 2 faculty withCadre 1 faculty also involved.

• Continue review of assessment of embedded measures. Evaluateprogress and revise measures as needed.

Section V.Professional Development Program

Enhancing critical thinking skills in the areas of clarity, discernment, and integration willnecessitate faculty development. While faculty currently integrate the teaching and assessing ofcritical thinking skills into their courses, a more focused and intentional enhancement of criticalthinking will require faculty to rethink courses, learning outcomes, and assignments. To assistcadre faculty in enhancing the development of critical thinking skills, the University will provideseveral professional development opportunities for faculty.

Summer Teaching Institute

Early in the process of developing CTAC, the QEP Committee determined the best way toprovide the faculty members of each cadre with a comprehensive exposure to critical thinkingliterature and training in pedagogical methods would be through a Summer Teaching Institute(STI). To provide new ideas and strategies, the QEP Committee suggested having an outsidefacilitator for the STI. The facilitator will provide information regarding critical thinking theoryand lead in activities designed to help cadre faculty apply critical thinking strategies to theircourses and develop critical thinking class assignments and activities. Through the guidance ofthe facilitator and the collaborative work of the cadre faculty, the cadre will become a team ofinterdisciplinary critical thinkers working together to enhance critical thinking across thecurriculum.

The STI will be held each summer as part of University of the Cumberlands’ ongoing QEP.Faculty who are slated to be cadre members in the upcoming academic year will participate,along with the QEP Director and the Director of Teaching and Learning. Although planning willbe done in consultation with the faculty cadre, the QEP Director will bear final responsibility fororganizing the STI and addressing logistical concerns, such as managing the STI budget,selecting the location, making appropriate travel and lodging arrangements, and securing theoutside facilitator. The outside trainer will be a professional skilled in faculty development andin integrating critical thinking and teaching. This individual will provide from four to sevenhours daily of training in critical thinking over approximately a four-day period during the STI.The QEP Director and the Director of Teaching and Learning will jointly share responsibility forsupplementing the training during the five- to six-day STI, as well as for providing initialtraining before the STI and facilitating collaboration after the STI.

The STI will include sessions before and after the workshops led by the outside facilitator socadre faculty can effectively make use of the information and strategies introduced by thefacilitator. Since the cadre will have begun to meet on a regular basis before the STI, much team-building will already have occurred. During the first day of the STI, the QEP Director and theDirector of Teaching and Learning may continue team-building and address University-specificprofessional development interests in the area of critical thinking. While responsive to cadreneeds, topics could include hallmarks of a critical thinking teacher, assessment and evaluation ofcritical thinking, evaluating student writing, critical thinking within specific disciplines, anddesigning lesson plans to facilitate critical thinking. On days two through four of the STI theQEP Director and Director of Teaching and Learning may work with the facilitator enhancing

52

their own and the cadre members’ critical thinking, pedagogical, and assessment skills. On thelast day of the STI, the QEP Director and the Director of Teaching and Learning will lead thecadre faculty in discussing how to implement critical thinking, new pedagogies, and diverseassessment methods into their selected fall course or courses.

Each successive cadre will receive similar intensive training in critical thinking and itsfacilitation in the classroom through the Summer Training Institute held each summer. The STIwill continue throughout the duration of the QEP, with members of earlier cadres assisting in thetraining of succeeding cadres.

Collaborative Focus of Each Cadre

University professors learn in graduate school or even earlier to work alone. Indeed, perhapsmany stay in the academy for the autonomy that university teaching provides. Certainly aprofessor is interacting with students and has a responsibility to a department and the largeruniversity administration, but within the classroom the professor controls the organization andpresentation of material, the types and frequency of assignments, and the assigning of grades.Thus, CTAC moves somewhat against that grain as it calls for a select group of faculty each yearto become a cadre, a team of professors striving to complement each other’s classes and learningtechniques. Clearly, collaboration is integral to the success of a cadre and ultimately CTAC.

Willingness to collaborate was one of the key traits in the “help wanted” flier circulated to invitefaculty to apply to be in a cadre. Personality traits integral for being a successful cadre memberinclude creativity, openness, and humility. Initial professional development activities for eachselected cadre will be designed to build a sense of connection and team spirit as memberscritically think about critical thinking. Not only will cadre members attend meetings together;they will also read and discuss the same books on critical thinking and pedagogy, discussteaching strategies, and get to know each other as classroom teachers, not just as colleagues fromacross campus or as coffee-drinking buddies in the Student Center. Part of the initial professionaldevelopment for the first cadre in the spring of 2006, will include faculty meeting together to getto know each other as teachers, perhaps including observing each other in class or on videotape.Cadre faculty need to become familiar and comfortable with each other’s teaching styles andstrategies and, to a certain extent, even each other’s content in general education courses beforebeing specifically trained as a group in techniques to enhance critical thinking in the classroom.This knowledge of each other before intense training begins will be in essence the “pre-test” forthe cadre.

The level of collaboration will increase during the STI as faculty members spend time togetherin intensive learning and discussion and become more cooperative and sensitive to each otherprofessionally. As cadre members begin work in the classroom in the fall of 2006, collaborationwill continue and deepen. As cadre members commence the semester, bi-weekly meetings andprofessional development activities will enable them to implement the same kinds of strategieson the same general schedule in their general education courses. Since strategies will bedeveloped by faculty from a variety of disciplines and employed by faculty in other disciplines,the cadre will become an example of a cross-disciplinary academic program that shouldencourage further cross-disciplinary collaboration throughout the University.

53

Specifically, at this writing, cadre members plan to focus on formulating multiple-choiceassessment instruments and constructing writing assignments to foster critical thinking.Inevitably their sharing will spill over into all areas of teaching. Professors from differentdisciplines may collaborate by teaching a common book or topic in their respective generaleducation courses or by uniting divergent disciplines through specific learning techniques. Thecross-disciplinary experience of the cadre members should enhance the students’ ability toconnect disciplines and think critically within and outside their discipline.

Professional development and cooperation will continue into spring of 2007 and beyond as thefirst cadre members become models and mentors for the second cadre. Undoubtedly, thecollaboration will continue beyond the first semester or year to produce a more focused andunified faculty engaged in critical thinking themselves as they assist their students in developingthe same skill.

Classroom Pedagogies

At the heart of the Professional Development component of the QEP is the actual teaching thatoccurs in the classroom. While acknowledging that faculty at the university-level have masteredcritical thinking in their area of expertise, teaching students to think critically is a task withwhich many faculty are not familiar. A Professional Development Program is necessary toenable professors to fully meet the goal of teaching undergraduates to think critically across thecurriculum.

During the fall of 2005 the Director of Teaching and Learning coordinated two workshops forfaculty regarding critical thinking:

• “Teaching to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills” led by Dr. Dennis Trickett, AssociateProfessor of Psychology, Wednesday, September 7 (1:00-2:00 p.m.)

• “The Elements of Thought: The Paul/Elder Model of Critical Thinking” led by Dr. BillGarris, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Thursday, September 8 (9:30-10:30 a.m.) andFriday, September 9 (12:00-12:50 p.m.)

The first workshop specifically addressed pedagogical strategies to assist students in developingstronger critical thinking skills. The second workshop provided faculty with an introduction tocritical thinking as defined and modeled by Richard Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation forCritical Thinking. Both workshops proved valuable in helping faculty begin to think in a moreintentional manner about critical thinking.

The Professional Development Program Task Force pinpointed two areas of concern as the Universitymoved into the first year of implementation of CTAC:

• Teaching the writing process in general and development of writing rubrics that specificallyenhance critical thinking skills for undergraduate students.

• Developing a program that enables professors to create multiple choice tests that promote studentskills in discernment and integration as well as clarity.

54

Concerning teaching the writing process, despite minor differences in the approach to writing in thevarious academic disciplines (e.g., source citation methods), certain overarching writing issues can bereviewed and discussed so faculty from across the University feel comfortable and are more intentional intheir teaching of writing to further student critical thinking skills. A workshop or series of workshopsconducted by the Director of Teaching and Learning would assist faculty in better teaching andassessment of writing skills.

Regarding the construction of multiple-choice instruments to assess student performance, faculty needworkshops to discuss the writing of multiple-choice exams that go beyond testing the student’s retentionof baseline information. A workshop or series of workshops is needed that is designed to allow professorsto develop multiple choice test questions which investigate students’ critical thinking skills in discipline-specific areas. Specifically, assistance is needed in the area of writing multiple-choice questions that teststudents’ discernment as well as students’ integration of knowledge across the curriculum.

These workshops or series of workshops will be coordinated by the Director of Teaching and Learningand will be conducted by qualified personnel. Some of these presenters might need to be brought in fromoutside the University while many could be conducted by current faculty.

Development of Assessment Skills

Within the context of the University’s Comprehensive Assessment Plan, each member of eachCTAC cadre is already involved in the ongoing assessment of the general education curriculumand/or academic programs. However, CTAC’s goal of infusing critical thinking into thecurriculum will require a new focus on course-based assessment as an equal partner with coursecontent and classroom pedagogies. Professional development will be necessary to assist facultyin developing new assessment instruments and skills.

As student learning outcomes move toward higher levels of expertise – from clarity (knowledgeand comprehension) to discernment (application and analysis) to integration (synthesis andevaluation) - the necessary assessment techniques (both for the QEP as a whole and theindividual classroom) become more sophisticated. Cadre members must individually and as agroup incorporate this sophistication without losing sight of authentic assessment: that is,assessment that is formative (not summative), student-centered, specific to a learning outcome,and diagnostic so as to provide for continuous feedback for adjusting the learning environment.

Well-constructed assessment methods can address many questions:

• To what extent are my students achieving the stated course goals?• How should I allocate class time for the current topic?• Can I introduce this topic in a more effective way?• What parts of this course are my students finding most valuable?• How will I change this course the next time I teach it?• Which grades do I assign my students? (National Institute for Science Education, 1999)

Members of each CTAC cadre must be aware of such assessment questions and recognize theeffectiveness and limitations of each chosen assessment method regarding answering these

55

questions. CTAC professional development activities are intended to serve three goals related toassessment:

1. Cadre faculty should develop the paradigm of incorporating assessment as a full partnerin the classroom.

2. The work of preceding cadres should guide each successive cadre as they develop theirstrategies for incorporating critical thinking effectively and efficiently throughout anincreasing number of classes.

3. The cadres (and QEP Committee) should learn best practices for using campus-wideassessment data such as that provided by the summative assessment instruments (e.g.,AP/MAPP, CCTST).

Faculty development opportunities will be provided to each cadre before, during, and after itsinitial semester of enhancing critical thinking skills in general education courses. Professionaldevelopment will help cadre faculty members identify, develop, and implement assessmentwithin their course(s) and may include off-campus workshops/conferences; on-campusworkshops/forums (with other faculty invited as feasible); the Summer Teaching Institute; cadrecollaboration meetings; individual meetings with the QEP Director, the Director of Teaching andLearning, and/or the Director of Assessment; suggested readings; and suggested websites.Together these will serve to ensure the cadre implement authentic assessment directly linked tothe CTAC goals associated with critical thinking. The biggest cost issue is for off-campusopportunities, but individual faculty may wish to use their regular faculty development funds orapply for grants to help support these activities.

The first workshop in support of professional development for assessment was conducted in November2005. The focus of this workshop on “Assessment Methods with an Emphasis on Rubrics” was chosento support the University’s ongoing course-based assessment of student learning outcomes; however, theworkshop certainly provided an opportunity for the newly named cadre members to refine theirunderstanding of assessment in preparation for their CTAC experience during the next year.

Calendar of Professional Development Opportunities during the Academic Year

University of the Cumberlands has established a commitment to nurture critical thinking asstated in the University’s Mission Statement. This commitment requires intentional and on-goingprofessional development for faculty members. In the summer of 2005, the Center for Teachingand Learning (CTL) was created with the hiring of a Director of Teaching and Learning (DTL).During the fall of 2005, the DTL has provided various opportunities for professionaldevelopment including faculty workshops discussing the content and application of criticalthinking and personal consultations with faculty members in the areas of critical thinking,pedagogy, and assessment. In addition, during the fall of 2005, faculty forums focused on topicsthat introduced the foundations and instructional design of critical thinking.

The mission of the CTL is to provide ongoing pedagogical support for all faculty. Additionalactivities and opportunities are being scheduled for the spring of 2006. In addition to facultyworkshops, the DTL will introduce a newsletter to share thoughts and ideas; a web forum (orlist-serv) for enhanced, continuing discussion; and roundtable discussions for ever-evolving

56

topics and interrelated subjects. The faculty forums will also continue with collaborative andcomplementary activities. To emphasize the commitment to critical thinking, pre-designedfoundational seminars will be implemented for new and/or current faculty. Critical thinking andsupplemental publications, as well as other resources, will be gathered and made accessible tothe faculty.

Professional Development for the First Cadre

The initial cadre of faculty was selected in the fall of 2005 and began to meet to facilitatebrainstorming on the development of critical thinking skills and knowledge base. Theparticipating cadre members come from diverse disciplines and are committed to the goal ofdeveloping critical thinking activities within their disciplines and across disciplines. In the springof 2006, the cadre will meet in faculty learning circles or roundtables for a systematicdevelopment of a knowledge base for and skills in instructional design and assessment based onselected readings addressing critical thinking. The cadre will generate instruments to assess thelearning outcomes developed by the QEP Committee in the two performance areas of readingcomprehension and written communication. These learning outcomes focus on three standards(clarity, discernment, and integration). The use of a multiple-choice format has been proposed toassess reading performance, while a rubric format will assess writing performance.

The Assessment Task Force has recommended cadre members spend one week working solelyon assessment discussing and developing skills in writing multiple-choice questions assessingcritical thinking; scoring, creating and using rubrics; and other assessment matters. Cadremembers need to develop multiple methods of assessing specific subskills in critical thinkingand performance areas and to identify levels of competency for each assessment instrument.

In the summer of 2006, the first cadre will attend the first Summer Teaching Institute. Theinstitute will be a five- to six-day working retreat facilitated by an expert in integrating criticalthinking into the classroom and helping faculty develop new pedagogical and assessment skills.The STI will focus on advancing personal critical thinking knowledge and skill into instructionaldesign, while continuously addressing the performance areas of reading comprehension andwritten communication. In the fall of 2006 the first cadre will implement the enhancement ofcritical thinking in their general education courses. Cadre members will be assessed through peerreview to attain feedback regarding teaching style. The cadre faculty will become a resource forfeedback and support of one another, as well as future cadre members.

Assessment Strategies for Professional Development

The ultimate goal of professional development for each CTAC cadre is to improve studentlearning. To accomplish this goal, cadre members will develop critical thinking andcollaboration skills, refine course content, improve classroom pedagogies, and identify authenticassessment methods. The assessment of the professional development activities that supportthese actions can be divided into two categories: affective assessment of cadre members andindirect assessment of student learning.

57

Affective assessment provides information about cadre member’s attitudes, values, and intereststhrough the use of pre-activity/post-activity surveys. The pre/post nature of the surveys refersmore to a pre-cadre/post-cadre paradigm that identifies characteristics of faculty that changeduring the year from becoming part of a cadre to after a CTAC-enhanced course is complete.These surveys could probe cadre members’ willingness to use what was learned, their responseas demonstrated by their implementation, how they appreciate or value the information, theirresolution of conflicts with established practices in their classrooms, and how pervasive andconsistent new teaching methods become after the CTAC-enhanced course is complete.

The more critical assessment of the professional development program is determining how muchimprovement occurs in student learning as a result of various professional developmentactivities. This can be accomplished using indirect assessment at the end of a CTAC-enhancedcourse. Each cadre member will be asked to reflect on how the various faculty developmentactivities impacted their teaching and in turn how their teaching impacted student learning. Thistype of anecdotal evidence would be enhanced if each cadre member maintains a teachingjournal in which they include their thoughts as they apply changes, why they make changes, andthe impact of the changes, with particular emphasis placed on relating back to facultydevelopment as appropriate. These reflective writings could be analyzed using a rubric todemonstrate the effectiveness of each component of faculty development.

Taken together, these assessments will provide the QEP Director and the QEP Committee withthe data to identify those professional development activities that promoted increased studentlearning so they may be maintained or improved. Conversely, those activities that were notbeneficial to student learning would be revised or eliminated as appropriate. In basing thesedecisions upon assessment, the commitment of limited resources towards professionaldevelopment can be effective and efficient.

Assessment of professional development forms part of the assessment plan of the Center forTeaching and Learning. Appendix A includes the components of the CTL Assessment Planrelevant to the QEP. In pursuit of the objectives outlined in Appendix A, the following learningoutcomes among cadre members will be nurtured:

• Faculty will be able to define, explain, and differentiate the concepts “critical thinking,”“clarity,” “discernment,” and “integration.”

• Faculty will be able to identify and address learning style differences and the ways eachlearning style affects the manifestation of clarity, discernment, and integration inreading comprehension and written communication.

• Faculty will understand and be able to employ multiple pedagogical strategies.• Faculty will develop multiple assessment instruments for use in their general education

courses.• Faculty will demonstrate collaborative learning.• Faculty will create a “safe space” to provide support for one another• Faculty will be conversant with prevalent themes in higher education.

Formal assessment of these outcomes will enable cadre members to obtain maximum benefitfrom workshops, cadre meetings, and the STI. Professional development activities are intended

58

to provide cadre faculty with the guided opportunity to develop critical thinking strategies,activities, and assessments for their general education courses. Assessment of professionaldevelopment will help improve professional development for cadre faculty and all universityfaculty.

Budget Considerations

The QEP Committee has developed a proposed budget for 2005-2011. For the fiscal year 2005-2006 the budget includes the following amounts relating to professional development:

Table 5-1. 2005-2006 Professional Development Budget

Professional Development Program

STI Facilitator Stipend $1,500.00

STI Facilitator Travel 700.00

STI Facilitator Room/Board 500.00

STI Food Expense 420.00

STI Books and Supplies 500.00

STI Off-Site Lodging 3,000.00

STI Off-Site Travel 500.00

Academic-Year Workshops 200.00

TOTAL $7,320.00

Appendix E presents the full CTAC budget for 2005-2006 and projections for the 2006-2007through 2010-2011 academic years. In addition to its support of these professional developmentneeds in later years, beginning in 2007-2008, the University plans to provide honoraria to priorcadre members who assist in orienting and developing the skills of the new cadre members.

Summary

Enhancing critical thinking necessitates professional development for all faculty participants.The Summer Teaching Institute, regular meetings of cadre faculty, and workshops for all faculty will equip cadre faculty for enhancing critical thinking skills in their courses and involve facultywho have not yet become part of a cadre in the process of enhancing critical thinking. Throughintentional professional development, faculty will receive additional training in pedagogicalstrategies and in developing new assignments/assessments that adequately encourage andmeasure critical thinking skills; enjoy opportunities and encouragement to collaborate in order tolearn from each other and work together to strengthen the University’s academic programs; andgrow and develop as teachers and learners.

Section VI.Academic Support Program

Enhancing critical thinking across the curriculum will necessitate not only professionaldevelopment for cadre faculty, but also enhanced academic support opportunities for students.Peer tutors in the University’s Academic Resource Center (ARC) will benefit from additionaltraining to work with students in cadre classes in order to help those students understand theUniversity’s definition of critical thinking, especially in the three areas of clarity, discernment,and integration, as well as to assist students as they integrate critical thinking and specificclassroom activities into their learning. Since most students will probably take one or morecourses from cadre faculty during their university experience, the University plans to provideworkshops for all students to help them strengthen their skills in reading comprehension, writtencommunication, oral communication, and information literacy. The ARC will also needadditional resources (e.g., books, workbooks, videos, DVDs, software) to assist students indeveloping critical thinking skills. Providing enhanced training will help all students benefitfrom the University’s CTAC program.

Enhanced Peer Tutor Training

As University of the Cumberlands begins its CTAC project, faculty are aware some students willneed special support. Weaker students often need additional support and guidance in developinguniversity-level reading and writing skills, even before integrating critical thinking skills intotheir reading and writing. Average and stronger students may also need additional supportservices for developing critical thinking skills.

One source of academic support for the University’s students has been and will continue to bepeer tutors. The ARC provides excellent tutoring services to students through the use ofcomputer software and peer tutors. Tutors already receive training, but the enhancement ofcritical thinking through CTAC will require additional training for tutors to provide effectiveassistance to students in cadre classes.

The ARC Director and the Director of Teaching and Learning have already scheduled twoworkshops in the spring of 2006 to provide specific training for tutors so they can help studentsin cadre classes that begin in the fall of 2006. Workshops like these will continue to be offered insubsequent years to help prepare tutors.

The first workshop will be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon inthe Bennett Auditorium. The workshop’s goal is to enhance the tutors’ understanding of whatcritical thinking is and how it applies in education and life. Tutors will view the video 10 Tipsfor Writing Critically, and workshop leaders will involve the tutors in developing Discovery andIntention statements. Each tutor will develop two critical thinking activities for an academicsubject or subjects to engage them in the critical thinking process. Since new tutors willinevitably join the ARC staff in the fall of 2006, the workshop will be repeated in the fall beforeclasses begin.

60

A second workshop will be held on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, from 10:00 a.m. to 10:50 a.m. inthe Bennett Auditorium. This workshop will provide tutors the opportunity to meet theprofessors of the first cadre. Each professor will share possible changes in assignments andtesting in his or her courses and suggest how tutors might help tutees meet the new challenges.Since new tutors will inevitably join the ARC staff in the fall of 2006, the new tutors will alsohave the opportunity to meet the new cadre faculty in the fall and discuss with them the newassignments and methods the faculty developed over the summer during and following theSummer Teaching Institute. Tutors who attended the spring workshop may also want to attendthe fall workshop to learn what specific approaches and assignments cadre faculty will beemploying.

Additional workshops will be developed and offered for tutors during the academic year. Forinstance, the DTL plans to offer workshops to help tutors understand different learning styles sothey may better equip students with learning skills to help them succeed in courses. Tutors canalso take advantage of workshops offered to all students to sharpen their reading comprehensionand written communication skills so they can help other students improve their skills. As oralcommunication and information literacy skills are phased into the QEP, additional workshopswill be offered to train tutors and students in those skill areas.

Both the ARC Director and the DTL already make themselves available to assist students on anindividual basis. They will continue to assist students in cadre classes and those not in cadreclasses to develop strategies for learning.

Workshops for All Students

Since arriving on campus in the summer of 2005, the University’s Director of Teaching andLearning has developed and offered excellent workshops for both students and faculty. Studentshave had the opportunity to attend the workshops listed in Table 6-1.

Feedback from students regarding the workshops has been very positive. PowerPointpresentations used in the first three workshops can be accessed on the University Center forTeaching and Learning website at http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/ctl/resources.html.

Planned workshops for January 2006 include

• “I Turned My Frustrations into A’s” (led by two students)• “Don’t You Dare Read This Book” (led by Dr. Betty Herron, Associate Professor of

Education)

Other workshops will be offered in the spring of 2006 as well and some fall workshops will berepeated.

The DTL will continue to refine these workshops and develop others to support CTAC. AsCTAC begins in full during the fall of 2006, a variety of workshops will be provided to helpstudents develop and improve clarity, discernment, and integration critical thinking skills inreading comprehension and written communication. While students in cadre classes may

61

especially profit from the workshops since their cadre classes will focus on developing criticalthinking skills, all students will be able to benefit. Each workshop will last approximately onehour.

Table 6-1. Fall 2005 Workshops for Students

Workshop Title Workshop Times

Strategies for Success: Unlocking theSecrets to Getting the Most from Your

Texts and Notes

The workshop focused on enhancing readingcomprehension by developing strategies foreffective reading.

Thursday, September 1 - 3:00-3:50 p.m.Thursday, September 1 - 8:00-8:50 p.m.Friday, September 2 - 10:00-10:50 a.m.

Using Midterm Feedback to Guide theFuture: How to Ace Tests

The workshop focused on assisting studentsin thinking critically about their learningstrategies and engaging students in problem-solving as they prepare for and take tests.

Tuesday, October 4 - 3:00-3:50 p.m.Monday, October 10 - 12:00-12:50 p.m.Thursday, October 13 - 9:30-10:20 a.m.

Research is More than Ink on Paper:Shortcuts to Outlining Papers and Citing

References

The workshop focused on enhancingstudents’ organizational and writtencommunication skills for writing papers.

Tuesday, November 1 - 6:00-7:00 p.m.Thursday, November 3 - 3:00-3:50 p.m.Friday, November 4 - 10:00-10:50 a.m.

Preparing for Finals & Planning for NextSemester - Discussion and Holiday Craft

The workshop focused on helping studentsthink critically about their learning strategiesand engaging in problem-solving as theyprepare for and take final exams.

Monday, December 5 - 9:00-9:50 a.m.Tuesday, December 6 - 8:00-8:50 p.m.Thursday, December 8 - 8:00-8:50 p.m.

During 2006-2007, four workshops will be offered on reading comprehension and four onwritten communication with each succeeding workshop in each area building on the previousworkshops. Workshop learning outcomes are tied to the student learning outcomes assessed inthe CTAC Assessment Plan. Students will not have to take all four workshops in sequence, butcan take those workshops that specifically target areas in which they wish to improve their skills.The workshops will begin in the early fall semester and conclude at least a month before finalexams.

62

Each workshop will be assessed through measures such as multiple-choice pre- and post-tests,short-answer items, and follow-up surveys. Assessment results will serve as data also for boththe QEP and the assessment plan of the University’s Center for Teaching and Learning.

The four reading comprehension workshops, their descriptions, their workshop learningoutcomes, and the QEP student learning outcomes which they support are summarized below.

Reading Comprehension I - Finding the Crucial Information. Participants will seek underlyingassumptions and purposes of readings, increasing awareness of targeted writing and agendas.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Identify type of writing (e.g., editorial,opinion, scientific)

• Identify underlying assumptions of thewriter

• Identify the major points

• Outcome 1A: Identify accurately thepurpose and/or the intended audience

• Outcome 1B: Identify precisely themajor points (e.g., key themes, content,issues, conclusions)

Reading Comprehension II - Evaluating Language and Structure. Workshop participants willseek paths and pitfalls in logical progressions in contemporary issue debates through groupactivities analyzing media coverage.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Identify ambiguous words andstatements

• Identify words and statements appealingto emotion

• Identify logical structures

• Outcome 1C: Identify ambiguous orcontradictory language

• Outcome 2B: Recognize statements thatare compatible with the logical structureof the reading assignment

Reading Comprehension III - Evaluating Data and Supporting Materials. Participants will learnthe basics of research design and apply the knowledge to research samples in the workshop.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Identify supporting data• Identify substantiated facts as opposed to

opinions or conjectures

• Outcome 2A: Recognize data (e.g.,illustrations, examples, information) thatsupport or challenge the intendedpurpose or major points argued

• Outcome 2C: Recognize theadequacy/credibility of supportingmaterials

63

Reading Comprehension IV - Reading Across the Curriculum. The interconnections amongsocial sciences, “hard” sciences, literature, art, and philosophy are presented and discussed.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Identify interdisciplinary connections• Identify the sources and perspectives of

news stories• Analyze connections and perspectives

• Outcome 3A: Evaluate the implicationsof the material within a discipline orbetween disciplines

• Outcome 3B: Evaluate points ofconvergence and divergence betweendifferent pieces of writing

The four written communication workshops, their descriptions, their workshop learningoutcomes, and the QEP student learning outcomes which they support are summarized below:

Written Communication I - Writing with Clarity. Participants will be challenged to critique andedit writing samples with emphasis on clarity and organization.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Analyze a writing sample listingstrengths and weaknesses

• Write a clear purpose statement orproposition

• Outcome 1D: Write a clear purposestatement or proposition

• Outcome 1E: Write a clear, concise, andlogically valid argument

Written Communication II - Organizing Writing. Participants will learn methods of planning,organizing, and revising writing projects. By the end of the workshop, they will be able todiscuss and demonstrate two strategies for completing writing assignments.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Select a topic• Develop a logical order• Explain two strategies for completing

writing assignments

• Outcome 2D: Demonstrate cogentplanning and organization in the writingprocess

• Outcome 2E: Demonstrate the ability toevaluate and revise organization toimprove clarity

64

Written Communication III - Evaluating Supporting Materials. By evaluating language andsupporting materials, participants will develop skills in identifying and evaluating data sources.They will be offered several options to include collaboration in a group writing project.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Identify credible sources (e.g., books,websites)

• Identify cultural assumptions• Validate assumptions

• Outcome 2F: Critique data that supportsor challenges the point of view,argument, or proposition

• Outcome 2G: Avoid unfair,irresponsible, and inadequate resources

Written Communication IV - Broadening and Deepening Your Writing Skills. Participants willlearn two methods for critiquing and improving their use of argumentation, multipleperspectives, and contexts through collaborative projects in the workshop.

Workshop Learning Outcomes CTAC Student Learning Outcomes

• Evaluate writing samples for personalopinion vs. reasoned opinion

• Evaluate the faith perspective of awriting sample

• Recognize the diverse perspectives onissues within disciplines andorganizations

• Outcome 3C: Integrate a variety ofobjective evidence and affectiveexperience relevant to the writtenpurpose

• Outcome 3D: Acknowledge and respondto other points of view, includinginterdisciplinary contexts, in developingand supporting the written purpose

• Outcome 3E: Present a credible point ofview based on evidence, establishedcriteria, and contextual consideration

As oral communication and information literacy skills are phased into CTAC, the DTL, inconsultation with the QEP Director and QEP Committee, will develop additional series ofworkshops to enhance the development of those skills. These workshops will also haveworkshop learning outcomes tied to the CTAC student learning outcomes in the areas of clarity,discernment, and integration.

Each one-hour workshop will be assessed through assessment measures such as multiple-choicepre- and post-tests, short-answer items, and follow-up surveys. Assessment results will serve asassessment data also for the assessment plan of the University’s Center for Teaching andLearning. Appendix A includes the assessment plan for the Center for Teaching and Learningand indicates some of the measures to be employed in assessing workshop outcomes.

While the Director of Teaching and Learning will conduct many of the workshops, otherUniversity faculty and perhaps outside facilitators will lead some workshops. Funds have beenset aside in the CTAC academic support budget to provide small honorariums for facilitators andrefreshments for student participants.

65

Budget

In the spring of 2005, the QEP Committee accepted the budget proposal of the AcademicSupport Task Force. The budget for CTAC academic support activities for the 2005-2006academic year is summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. 2005-2006 Academic Support Budget

Academic Support Budget for 2005-2006

Student Seminar Honorariums $950.00

Student Seminar Food 200.00

Resources - Books, Journals, Software 3,000.00

TOTAL $4,150.00

The ARC Director and the DTL have been examining resources the ARC currently possesses todetermine their value for helping students increase their critical thinking skills in clarity,discernment, and integration. Some materials have been found to be quite helpful and will beused in training peer tutors as well as serve as helpful resources for all students. Other materials,such as software, books, and videos, still need to be discovered and purchased. The budget forsucceeding years also includes funding for resources, although not as much as for the initial year.The remaining $500.00 of the budget is earmarked for supporting workshops for peer tutors andfor all students. The funds will provide honorariums for guest facilitators, refreshments forstudent participants, and materials for participants.

Information concerning the projected annual budgets for the 2006-2007 through 2010-2011academic years can be found in Appendix E.

Summary

Through enhanced peer tutor training and workshops for all students in reading comprehensionand written communication, University of the Cumberlands will provide the academic support itsstudents need to secure the greatest benefit from the University’s CTAC program. As theperformance skills of oral communication and information literacy phase in, the University willdevelop and implement additional peer tutor training and workshops. The University willcontinue to assess academic support to measure the effectiveness of this element of theUniversity’s program and ensure programs improve to enhance student learning.

Section VII.The Challenges of Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum

University of the Cumberlands has defined a substantive and ambitious focus for its QEP,Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum. It has delineated the scope of the project, defined itsorganization, and staged its implementation with an awareness of the very real challenges ahead,but with a commitment as well to strengthening its educational program, especially the generaleducation curriculum, and to truly enhancing the learning outcomes of students.

In selecting its QEP, the University has engaged in a broad-based and comprehensive dialogabout its academic mission, its academic resources, and, most of all, its students and their needs.In addition, the University has shown both foresight and courage in investing not only theintellectual and professional capital of faculty and staff, but also the physical and financialresources necessary for the project. Although many decisions remain to be made bothindividually by cadre faculty and collectively by the CTAC leadership, the critical and creativethinking already evidenced in this report provides sound directions for the academic journeyahead for students, for faculty, and for the University as a whole.

Critical Questions and Directions

Section I of this report has reviewed the winding road by which the University came to selectenhancing critical thinking as the theme of its QEP. Once that decision was made, the challengesof moving ahead with its QEP revolved around several definitional questions:

• What is critical thinking, and what is its value in higher education?• What is the relation of critical thinking to the content of traditional academic programs?

Is the nature of critical thinking dependent upon the content being addressed?• Are there components of critical thinking that can be taught and learned (i.e., presented

and practiced in a coherent and intentional fashion)?• What standards and procedures can be used to assess critical thinking?

The preceding sections of this report provide the University’s provisional but pragmatic answersto these and other questions based upon its review of the professional literature on criticalthinking and upon its collective professional judgments.

What Is Critical Thinking and Its Value in Higher Education? As noted in Section III, criticalthinking can in general be defined as rational and contemplative thinking that aids indetermining appropriate judgments, beliefs, and actions. This report entails a case study in itssubject – a case study in critical thinking – as it evidences “reasonable and reflective thinkingthat is focused upon deciding what to believe or do” (Norris & Ennis, 1989, p. 1). According toSiegel (1989), an educational focus on thinking critically is valuable because it 1) entails respectfor other viewpoints in the pursuit of understanding, 2) enables an understanding of thereasonable discourse of various disciplines, 3) empowers people to be self-sufficient, and 4)enables people to partake rationally in the decision-making of a democratic society.

68

University of the Cumberlands has long been committed to critical thinking as an overarchingpart of its mission as a Christian liberal arts institution. Whatever the arena of knowledge andprofessional or personal activity, it is critical thinking that enables a pursuit of Vita Abundantior,the life more abundant, the life of creative problem-solving and social and spiritual leadership.Thus, the focus of its QEP is a natural extension of its institutional soul.

What Is the Relation of Critical Thinking to Content of Traditional Academic Programs? Indeveloping its CTAC initiative, the University has conceived of critical thinking as a “meta-curriculum.” That is, while critical thinking is a coherent body of concepts andperceptive/expressive behaviors that can be nurtured in the context of a traditional academicdiscipline, critical thinking is not constrained or delimited by a specific area of content.Conventions for articulating critical thinking may vary from discipline to discipline, and somepatterns of critical thinking may even be privileged in one discipline but not in another (e.g.,inductive vs. deductive reasoning). However, critical thinking essentially has “generalizability”(Norris, 1989, p. 21). Because this generalizability is epistemological, the principles andprocesses of critical thinking are applicable to many subjects. In addition, because itsgeneralizability is also psychological, critical thinking learned in one subject or context can betransferred and applied to thinking in another.

This conceptualization of critical thinking provides a foundation for the structure of theUniversity’s QEP, especially for its primary implementation in general education courses and forits deployment via interdisciplinary cadres of faculty. The professional development activities ofthese small learning communities will enable faculty to become more intentional practitionersand teachers of critical thinking in their various general education courses, as well as becomemore collaborative managers of the collegiate curriculum as a whole.

While CTAC will initially be implemented in the context of general education coursescommonly populated by first-year students, its intent is to catalyze a new level of intellectualrigor and vitality across the curriculum. It is expected that cadre members will want to nurturecritical thinking more intentionally and intensively in all of their courses and that the criticalthinking pedagogies developed in lower-level courses will be transferred and adapted to upper-level classes. Thus, as CTAC progresses, it is expected that cadres will include faculty who donot regularly teach first-year students.

What Components of Critical Thinking Can Be Taught and Learned? As the literature reviewincluded in Section II illustrates, the professional research and discussion of cognitivedevelopment and critical thinking has been dynamic and multidimensional. There are a plethoraof taxonomies and schema posited to describe critical thinking and to trace its development.Beyond the recognition that critical thinking is a normative process – one where there are properways of gaining, assessing and using information and making judgments – consensus maysometimes seem elusive in this professional discourse. There continues to be critical debateabout critical thinking. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that the University has determined tobuild its critical thinking initiative around venues of student activity that seem particularlyrelevant to its educational mission and to its students. Section II and Section III have assessedthe sound emphasis of CTAC on four cross-disciplinary areas of student performance – readingcomprehension, written communication, oral communication, and information literacy – not only

69

in the context of the perceptive/expressive cognitive processes of critical thinking, but also in thecontext of perceived areas of need in student achievement. By initially focusing in particular onreading comprehension and written communication, CTAC will build upon and nurture primarylearning activities already recognized and deployed across the curriculum. Thus, the professionaldevelopment and academic support components of CTAC may have an impact not only upon thecritical thinking skills of students per se but also upon their mastery of traditional curricularcontent.

What Standards and Procedures Can Be Used to Assess Critical Thinking? Just as theprofessional literature provides many variant definitions of critical thinking and its components,so it provides a variety of overlapping standards and procedures for determining and assessingcritical thinking. Some have focused on critical thinking in terms of the stages of an individual’scognitive and ethical development (Perry, 1970; Kohlberg, 1971; King & Kitchener, 1994).Some have pondered the reliability of many critical thinking tests and argued the need for a moresubstantive conceptualization of critical thinking (Norris, 1989; Paul, 2004; Paul, n.d.). Othershave developed elaborate assessment schema, curricular development agenda and newassessment instruments (Paul, Elder, & Bartell, 1997; Facione, et al., 2002; Paul & Elder, 2004).Still others offer pragmatic pedagogical strategies for engaging students in active learning andproblem-solving that entail critical thinking (Brookfield, 1987; Walvoord & McCarthy, 1990;Leamnson, 1999; Bean, 2001; Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001).

Against the backdrop of this multiplicity of concepts and strategies, the University hasarticulated its own triad of critical thinking standards: clarity, discernment, and integration.These standards are fully defined in Sections I and IV, as well as extrapolated in the learningoutcomes articulated in the CTAC Assessment Plan (Appendix A). These standards areconceived as essential but not comprehensive elements of critical thinking. Conceptually theyecho and overlap with a number of critical thinking standards defined by others, but they havebeen selected and defined with an awareness of the pragmatic realities of deploying a cross-disciplinary initiative, of blending a critical thinking emphasis with an established traditionalcontent, and of developing well-focused assessment strategies.

Critical Challenges and Opportunities

The University has recognized and responded to these and other critical questions. It hasmarshaled its resources: recruited cadre faculty and QEP leadership, organized administrativeprocesses, enhanced professional development and academic support programs, and anticipatedbudgetary needs. Sections IV, V, and VI have described these efforts that indicate its CTACinitiative is already being implemented even though cadre classes will not be formally underwayuntil the fall of 2006. It is with a significant sense of accomplishment that this QEP document iscompleted. Yet along with this sense of accomplishment comes a clear awareness of thechallenges ahead.

Perhaps the foremost challenge is the recognition that much effort lies ahead in completing thedevelopment and implementation of the assessment strategies for CTAC. Baseline data arealready being generated with standardized instruments, but classroom performance data fromembedded assessments have yet to be gathered. The instruments to be used in these embedded

70

assessments and the processes by which data are gathered and collated across several generaleducation classes are still in development and will be a major focus of the QEP Director, QEPCommittee, and cadre during 2006-2007.

Other challenges undoubtedly lie ahead. There will be the challenge of maintaining continuity offocus from cadre to cadre while continuing to expand the implementation of critical thinking intoadditional areas of student performance. The University also faces the challenge of not onlymaintaining but strengthening the professional development and academic support resources forCTAC as its reach widens and deepens. However, University of the Cumberlands has laid a solidfoundation for enhancing student learning by nurturing Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.

Section VIII.References

Allen, M., Berkowitz, S., Hunt, S., & Louden, A. (1999). A meta-analysis of the impact offorensics and communication education on critical thinking. Communication Education,48(1), 18-30.

Baron, J. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. NewYork: W. H. Freeman.

Bean, J. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking,and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Behrens, S. J. (1994). A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy.College and Research Libraries, 55(4), 309-322.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol.1: Cognitive domain. Stony Brook, New York: McKay.

Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Boyer Commission. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America'sresearch universities. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the ResearchUniversity.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternativeways of thinking and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bruce, C. S. (2002). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A backgroundpaper. Paper presented at meeting of the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic.

Burbach, M. E., Matkin, G. S., & Fritz, S. M. (2004). Teaching critical thinking in anintroductory leadership course utilizing active learning strategies: a confirmation study. College Student Journal, 38(3), 482-494.

Cappell, C. L. and Kamens, D. H. (2002). Curriculum assessment: A case study in sociology.Teaching Sociology, 30(4), 467-494.

Cromer, A. (1997). Connected knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning: A practical“how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

72

Erickson, B. L., & Strommer, D. W. (1991). Teaching college freshman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Educational Testing Service. (1998). The Academic Profile user’s guide. Iowa City, IA: CollegeBoard & Educational Testing Service.

Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educationassessment and instruction. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment andEvaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423)

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. & Giancarlo, C. (2000). The California critical thinking dispositioninventory. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., Blohm, S. W., & Giancarlo, C. A. F. (2002). The Californiacritical thinking skills test manual. (Rev. ed.) Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press-Insight Assessment.

Fulwiler, T. (1987). Teaching with writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1982). Language connections: Writing and reading across thecurriculum. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (1996). Communication works. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gregg, L. W., & Steinberg, E. R.(Eds.). (1980). Cognitive processes in writing. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heath, D. H. (1977). Academic predictors of adult maturity and competence. Journal of HigherEducation, 48(6), 613-632.

Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and casestudy. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335-352.

Keeley, S. M., & Browne, M. N. Improving student evaluation forms: Related need for criticalthinking emphasis and trained raters. Peabody Journal of Education, 55( 4), 305-308.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding andpromoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. In C. Beck, B. S. Crittenden, & E. V.Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education: Interdisciplinary approaches. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2) Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on HigherEducation and the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

73

Larson, C. U. (2004). Persuasion: Reception and responsibility (10th ed.). Belmont:Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Leamnson, R. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning: Developing habits of learning withfirst year college and university students. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Lucas, S. E. (2004). The art of public speaking. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Milton, O. (1960). Primitive thinking and reasoning among college students. Journal of HigherEducation, 31(4), 218-220.

Moore, B. N., & R. Parker. (2004). Critical thinking. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Morreale, S., Osborn, M, & Pearson, J. C. (N.d.) Why communication is important: A rationalefor the centrality of a discipline. Retrieved November 29, 2005 fromhttp://www.natcom.org/nca/files/ccLibraryFiles/FILENAME/000000000083/Why%20Comm%20is%20Important.pdf

National Institute for Science Education. (1999). Assessment Primer. Screen 3 of 5. Field-testedlearning assessment guide. Retrieved January 8, 2006 fromhttp://www.flaguide.org/start/assess_in_context.php

Norris, S. P. (1989). Can we test validly for critical thinking? Educational Researcher, 18(9), 21-26.

Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insightsfrom twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R. (2004). The state of critical thinking today: the need for a substantive concept of criticalthinking. Retrieved November 29, 2005 fromhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/articles/the-state-ct-today.shtml

Paul, R. (N.d.). A draft statement of principles. Retrieved November 29, 2005 fromhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/about/nationalCouncil.shtml

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). The thinkers guide to the nature and functions of critical andcreative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R., Elder, L, & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in criticalthinking: Research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento: CaliforniaCommission on Teacher Credentialing.

74

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. Troy, MO:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Piaget, J. (1964). Judgement and reasoning in the child. Totawa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.

Rigmor, G., McCausland, H., Wache, D, & Doskatsch I. (2001). Information literacy: aninstitution-wide strategy. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 32(4), 278-293.

Rockman, I, F. (2002). Strengthening connections between information literacy, generaleducation, and assessment efforts. Library Trends, 51(2), 185-199.

Rockman, I, F. (2004). Integrating information literacy into the higher education curriculum:practical models for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shapiro, J., & S. K. Hughes. (1996). Information literacy as a liberal art. Sequence, 31(2), 31-36.

Siegel, H. (1988). Education reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. London:Routledge.

University of the Cumberlands. (2005). 2005-2007 undergraduate catalog. Williamsburg, KY:Author.

Walvoord, B. E., & McCarthy, L. P. (1990). Thinking and writing in college: A naturalisticstudy of students in four disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.

Weinstein, M. (1995). Critical thinking: expanding the paradigm. Inquiry: Critical ThinkingAcross the Disciplines, 15(1). Retrieved November 29, 2005 fromhttp://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/weinste.html

Appendix A

CTAC (QEP)Assessment Plans

QEP Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Center for Teaching and Learning Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7

A-1

CRITICAL THINKING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT PLAN

Purpose Statement

The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) of University of the Cumberlands seeks toenhance students' critical thinking skills with critical thinking defined as rational andcontemplative thinking that facilitates the analysis and evaluation of material and fosterseffective problem solving. The QEP focuses on enhancing three aspects of criticalthinking (clarity, discernment, and integration) in reading comprehension and writtencommunication through classroom experiences in courses taught by cadre faculty,through workshops for peer tutors and students, and through professional developmentexperiences for faculty.

Program Goals

• To assist students in developing the ability to identify information specificallyand accurately and use appropriate information to express their own beliefs andpropositions with clarity.

• To assist students in developing the ability to analyze information with insightand judgment, discerning the reliability of and assumptions in the informationprovided by others and strengthening the basis, coherence, and argument of theirown presentations.

• To assist students in developing the ability to evaluate and synthesize informationefficiently and effectively, integrating materials from various disciplines into theirthinking and presentations and using a holistic approach in developing theirperspectives on ethical issues.

Program Components

• Dr. Anita Bowman – MLST 131 Introduction to Movement and Leisure Studies• Dr. Oline Carmical – HIST 231 American History to 1877• Dr. Kirby Clark – RELG 135 Old Testament Survey• Prof. Kathy Fish – ENGL 131 English Composition I• Dr. Joan Hembree – BIOL 130 General Biology• Dr. Jean Hunt – PSYC 131 Basic Psychology• Dr. Chris Leskiw – POLS 131 Introduction to Political Science• Dr. Eric Stephens – PSYC 131 Basic Psychology• Dr. Todd Yetter – BIOL 241 Introduction to Environmental Science

A-2

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Goal 1. To assist students indeveloping the ability to identifyinformation specifically andaccurately and use appropriateinformation to express their ownbeliefs and propositions withclarity.

Outcomes 1A-1K. General assessment throughAcademic Profile (later theMeasure of Academic Proficiencyand Progress), California CriticalThinking Skills Test, andCalifornia Critical ThinkingDispositions Inventory. TheCollegiate Assessment ofAcademic Proficiency may alsobe employed.

Outcome 1A. ReadingComprehension (Clarity) – Identifyaccurately the purpose and/or theintended audience

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 1B. ReadingComprehension (Clarity) – Identifyprecisely the major points, e.g., keythemes, content, issues,conclusions

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 1C. ReadingComprehension (Clarity) – Identifyambiguous or contradictorylanguage

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 1D. WrittenCommunication (Clarity) – Write aclear proposition or purposestatement

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 1E. WrittenCommunication (Clarity) – Write aclear, concise, and logicalargument

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 1F. Oral Communication(Clarity) -Communicateinformation effectively in variousformats and media

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 1G. OralCommunication (Clarity) –Understand the purpose andaudience for the communication

To be developed and phased inlater

A-3

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Outcome 1H. OralCommunication (Clarity) –Construct and state thesisstatements clearly

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 1I. Oral Communication(Clarity) – Choose accurate,appropriate, and effective languageand supporting materials

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 1J. Information Literacy(Clarity) – Select a researchabletopic

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 1K. Information Literacy(Clarity) – Identify and determinethe extent and type of informationneeded

To be developed and phased inlater

Goal 2. To assist students indeveloping the ability to analyzeinformation with insight andjudgment, discerning thereliability of and assumptions inthe information provided by othersand strengthening the basis,coherence, and argument of theirown presentations.

Outcomes 2A-2N. General assessment throughAcademic Profile (later theMeasure of Academic Proficiencyand Progress), California CriticalThinking Skills Test, andCalifornia Critical ThinkingDispositions Inventory.

Outcome 2A. ReadingComprehension (Discernment) –Recognize data (illustration,examples, information) thatsupport or challenge the intendedpurpose or major points argued

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 2B. ReadingComprehension (Discernment) –Recognize statements that arecompatible with the logicalstructure of the reading assignment

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 2C. ReadingComprehension (Discernment) –Recognize the adequacy/credibilityof supporting materials

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

A-4

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Outcome 2D. WrittenCommunication (Discernment) –Demonstrate cogent planning andorganization in the writing process

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 2E. WrittenCommunication (Discernment)–Demonstrate the ability toevaluate and revise organization toimprove clarity

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 2F. WrittenCommunication (Discernment)–Critique data that support orchallenge the point of view,argument, or proposition

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 2G. WrittenCommunication (Discernment)–Avoid unfair, irresponsible, andinadequate resources

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 2H. OralCommunication (Discernment) –Practice critical listening skills

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 2I. Oral Communication(Discernment) – Improve verbaland nonverbal delivery skills

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 2J. Oral Communication(Discernment) – Construct,arrange, and articulate ideas in anorganized and coherent fashion

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 2K. OralCommunication (Discernment) –Construct valid and sounddeductive arguments, and stronginductive arguments

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 2L. Information Literacy(Discernment) – Locate and accessthe needed information effectivelyand efficiently

To be developed and phased inlater

A-5

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Outcome 2M. InformationLiteracy (Discernment) – Review,evaluate, and challengeinformation and its sourcescritically

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 2N. Information Literacy(Discernment) – Understand theeconomic, legal, and social issuessurrounding the use of information

To be developed and phased inlater

Goal 3. To assist students indeveloping the ability to evaluateand synthesize informationefficiently and effectively,integrating materials from variousdisciplines into their thinking andpresentations and using a holisticapproach in developing theirperspectives on ethical issues.

Outcomes 3A-3J. General assessment throughAcademic Profile (later theMeasure of Academic Proficiencyand Progress), California CriticalThinking Skills Test, andCalifornia Critical ThinkingDispositions Inventory.

Outcome 3A. ReadingComprehension (Integration) –Evaluate the implications of thematerial within a discipline orbetween disciplines

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 3B. ReadingComprehension (Integration) –Evaluate points of convergence anddivergence between differentpieces of writing

Reading rubrics developed bycadre faculty, multiple choiceinstruments developed by cadrefaculty

Outcome 3C. WrittenCommunication (Integration) –Integrate a variety of objectiveevidence and affective experiencerelevant to the written purpose

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

A-6

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Outcome 3D. WrittenCommunication (Integration) –Acknowledge and respond to otherpoints of view, includinginterdisciplinary contexts, indeveloping and supporting thewritten purpose

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 3E. WrittenCommunication (Integration) –Present a credible point of viewbased on evidence, establishedcriteria, and contextualconsideration

Writing rubrics developed bycadre faculty

Outcome 3F. Oral Communication(Integration) – Constructpresentations that acknowledge therelationship between speaker,audience, and context

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 3G. OralCommunication (Integration) –Practice fair, responsible, andethical oral style which recognizesthe relationship between academicdisciplines

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 3H. Information Literacy(Integration) – Incorporate selectedinformation into one's knowledgebase

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 3I. Information Literacy(Integration) – Apply research toorganize and synthesizeinformation to create newperspectives or understanding

To be developed and phased inlater

Outcome 3J. Information Literacy(Integration) – Use informationethically

To be developed and phased inlater

A-7

CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING ASSESSMENT PLAN

(ITEMS GERMANE TO CTAC)

Purpose Statement

The Center for Teaching and Learning promotes high expectations, creativity, andcritical thinking skills that serve each student and faculty member in all aspects ofacademic life. Toward this end, the Center fosters a community that respects diversityand diverse learning styles, encourages the adoption of innovative pedagogy, and offersforums for discussing teaching and learning issues. The Center also sponsors programsthat nurture an overall sense of intellectual community, the appropriate use oftechnology, and the development of assessment as a tool for continual improvement.

Program Goals

• To assist the QEP Director and the QEP Committee in developing andrefining the program goals, learning outcomes, and learning assessmentstrategies of the CTAC initiative.

• To assist the QEP Director and the QEP Committee in promoting theCTAC initiative in the campus community (faculty, staff, and students)through various forums and media, including newsletters and listservs.

• To provide co-curricular support for the CTAC initiative by offeringstudent workshops intended to strengthen critical thinking skills in readingcomprehension, in written communication, and in other performance areasidentified by the QEP Committee.

• To provide professional development support for the CTAC initiative byassisting in planning the Summer Teaching Institute for the QEP cadreand by offering other cadre workshops on critical thinking, criticalthinking pedagogies, and assessment strategies.

• To assist faculty-at-large in developing pedagogical techniques to enhancecritical thinking.

• To assist the Director of the Academic Resource Center in providingacademic support.

Program Components

• Dr. Susan Weaver, Director of Teaching and Learning• Dr. Don Good, Vice President for Academic Affairs

A-8

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Goal 1. To assist the QEPDirector and the QEP Committeein developing and refining theprogram goals, learning outcomes,and learning assessment strategiesof the CTAC initiative.

Participation with and feedbackfrom the QEP Committee andQEP Director, reflected in part inQEP Committee minutes.

Goal 2. To assist the QEPDirector and the QEP Committeein promoting the CTAC initiativein the campus community (faculty,staff, and students) throughvarious forums and media,including newsletters andlistservs.

Records of forums, forumattendance, and public informationactivities in QEP Committeeminutes.

Goal 3. To provide co-curricularsupport for the CTAC initiative byoffering student workshopsintended to strengthen criticalthinking skills in readingcomprehension, in writtencommunication, and in otherperformance areas identified bythe QEP Committee.

Records of workshops offered andnumber of students attending(included in QEP Committeeminutes).

Survey results and other feedbackfrom workshop participants.

Goal 4. To provide professionaldevelopment support for theCTAC initiative by assisting inplanning the Summer TeachingInstitute for the QEP cadre and byoffering other cadre workshops oncritical thinking, critical thinkingpedagogies, and assessmentstrategies.

Records of Summer TeachingInstitute planning and activities, aswell as other cadre workshops,included in QEP Committeeminutes.

A-9

Program Goals Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Results Actions Taken

Surveys and other feedback fromcadre members participating invarious professional developmentopportunities.

Goal 5. To assist faculty-at-largein developing pedagogicaltechniques to enhance criticalthinking.

Records of workshops offered andnumber of faculty attending(included in QEP Committeeminutes)Survey results and other feedbackfrom workshop participants.

Goal 6. To assist the Director ofthe Academic Resource Center inproviding academic support.

Personal contacts with and surveysof participants in workshops.

Focus group feedback on theformat, utility, and areas forimprovement in programmingoffered.Record of resources gathered.Records of topics of workshopsoffered and number of tutorsattending.

Appendix B

Descriptions of Testing Scales and Proficiency Levels

Academic Profile Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1— Writing, Levels 1, 2, and 3— Reading, Levels 1 and 2— Critical Thinking (Reading Level 3)

Description of 5 Subscales for California Critical Thinking Skills Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2— analysis— evaluation— inference— inductive reasoning— deductive reasoning

Description of 7 Scales for California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . B-4— Truth-Seeking— Open-Mindedness— Analyticity— Systematicity— Self-Confidence— Inquisitiveness— Maturity

B-1

Academic Profile

The Academic Profile User’s Guide provides the following definitions of the proficiency levelsreported concerning writing, reading, and critical thinking (pp. 9-10).

Level 1 – Writing. A student at Level 1 recognizes agreement among basic elements (nouns,verbs, pronouns) in the same clause or phrase. This student avoids gross errors in short or simplestructures and can logically select and order main ideas or divisions in a sustained paragraphusing appropriate transition words. Students at this level demonstrate a basic understanding ofappropriate writing.

Level 2 – Writing. In addition to performing successfully at Level 1, a student who is proficientat Level 2 also recognizes appropriate agreement among basic elements when they arecomplicated by intervening words or phrases, avoids errors in relatively long and complicatedconstructions, and is able to recast several simple clauses using a single, more complexcombination. Students performing at this intermediate level can recognize and use the elementsof good writing.

Level 3 – Writing. In addition to performing Level 1 and Level 2 skills successfully, a student atLevel 3 also can make logical statements and comparisons and is able to solve difficult or subtlewriting problems such as appropriate use of parallelism. These students can make finedistinctions among closely related root words and grammatical structures characteristic of amature writing style.

Level 1 – Reading. At Level 1 a student recognizes and comprehends discrete pieces ofinformation, (e.g., a single detail, information presented in a single sentence) as well asrelationships or connections explicitly stated in a passage and understands words and phrases incontext.

Level 2 – Reading. In addition to performing successfully at Level 1, students who areproficient at Level 2 can also gather information from different sections of a passage andrecombine it. These students recognize relationships that can be inferred but are not explicit;they can recognize summaries and alternative ways of stating information, interpret figurativelanguage, and recognize the point or purpose of a passage as a whole or significant portions of apassage.

Level 3 – Critical Thinking. In addition to performing Level 1 and Level 2 skills successfully,students at Level 3 can also evaluate and analyze arguments and, within an academic field,handle interpretation, inductive generalizations, or causal explanations.

Level 3 skills are differentiated within those areas as follows:

• Humanities: Evaluate views and interpretations• Social Sciences: Evaluate Claims, disputes, and inductive generalizations• Natural Sciences: Evaluate explanatory hypotheses and draw conclusions

B-2

The Five Sub-Scales of the CCTST

Below is a description of the five sub-scales reported in the results from the California CriticalThinking Skills Test. These descriptions are taken from pages 5-6 of the California CriticalThinking Skills Test Manual, edited by Facione, et al. The first three CCTST sub-scales –“analysis,” “inference,” and “evaluation” – are specifically targeted by discrete items on theCCTST. The remaining two sub-scales – inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning –represent a more traditional description of thinking indexed from items also associated with thefirst three sub-scales.

Analysis as used on the CCTST has a dual meaning. First it means “to comprehend and expressthe meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments,conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures or criteria,” which includes the sub-skills ofcategorization, decoding significance, and clarifying meaning. Analysis on the CCTST alsomeans “to identify the intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions,concepts, descriptions or other forms of representation intended to express beliefs, judgments,experiences, reasons, information or options,” which includes the sub-skills of examining ideas,detecting arguments, and analyzing arguments into their component elements.

Evaluation as used on the CCTST has a dual meaning. First it means “to assess the credibility ofstatements or other representations which are accounts or descriptions of a person’s perception,experience, situation, judgment, belief or opinion; and to assess the logical strength of the actualor intended inferential relationships among statements, descriptions, questions, or other forms ofrepresentations,” which includes the sub-skills of assessing claims and assessing arguments.Evaluation on the CCTST also means “to state the results of one’s reasoning; to justify thatreasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological and contextualconsiderations upon which one’s results were based; and to present one’s reasoning in the formof cogent arguments” which includes the sub-skills of stating results, justifying procedures andpresenting arguments. Inference as used on the CCTST means “to identify and secure elements needed to drawreasonable conclusions; to form conjectures and hypotheses, to consider relevant informationand to educe the consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments,beliefs, opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation,” whichincludes the sub-skills of querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, and drawing conclusions.

Each item on the CCTST is assigned to one of these three sub-scales. Together, these three forma full representation of the core CT skills, understanding, of course, that metacognitive self-regulation, while being exercised as one takes the CCTST, cannot be readily accessed apart fromthe operation of the other skills.

The two other sub-tests on the CCTST follow a more traditional conceptualization of reasoningwhich divides the realm into inductive and deductive reasoning. Putting aside the earlierdistribution of the 34 CCTST items, 30 of these 34 can readily be reclassified as either inductiveor deductive. It is worth noting that the labels “inductive” and “deductive” have become

B-3

notoriously ambiguous as a result of important differences in which they denote in differentdisciplines. Concern about this ambiguity explains why the words “deduction” and “induction”appear nowhere in the CCTST. In view of the continued use of this distinction, however theCCTST offers these final two sub-scales.

Following the lead of contemporary logicians, the CCTST grounds its concept of the deductivevs. inductive distinction on the basis of the purported logical strength of the inference.

Deductive Reasoning as used in the CCTST sub-scale means the assumed truth of the premisespurportedly necessitates the truth of conclusion. Not only do traditional syllogisms fall withinthis category, but algebraic, geometric, and set-theoretical proofs in mathematics (including“mathematical induction”) also represent paradigm examples of deductive reasoning.Instantiation of universalized propositions is deductive, as transitivity, reflexivity and identity.For valid deductive arguments, it is not logically possible for the conclusion to be false and allthe premises true.

Inductive Reasoning as used in the CCTST sub-scale means an argument’s conclusion ispurportedly warranted, but not necessitated, by the assumed truth of its premises. Scientificconfirmation and experimental disconfirmation are examples of inductive reasoning. The day today inferences which lead us to infer that in familiar situations things are most likely to occur orto have been caused as we have come to expect are inductions. Statistical inferences areinductive, even if the inference is the prediction of an extremely probable specific (rain today)based on general principles (meteorological laws) and a given set of observations. Inference usedto inform judgment by reference to perceived similarities or applications of examples,precedents, or relevant cases, such as is typical of legal reasoning, is inductive. Also inductive isthat common and powerfully persuasive – even if logically suspicious – tool of everydaydialogue, analogical reasoning. In the case of a strong inductive argument it is unlikely orimprobable that the conclusion would actually be false and all the premises true, but it islogically possible that it might.

B-4

The Seven Scales of the CCTDI

Below are the descriptions of the seven scales reported on the Critical Thinking DispositionInventory. These descriptions are taken from pages 2-4 of the California Critical ThinkingDisposition Inventory Manual, edited by Facione, et al. These scales and their descriptions arein part derived from the Delphi Report: “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus forPurposes of Education Assessment and Instruction” (1990), prepared for the AmericanPhilosophical Association, ERIC Doc. No. ED 315-423.

The Truth-Seeking scale (the T - scale) targets the disposition of being eager to seek the truth,courageous about asking questions, and honest and objective about pursuing inquiry even if thefindings do not support one’s interests or one’s preconceived opinions. The truth-seeker wouldrather pursue the truth than win the argument. This scale refines, focuses, and extends the Delphicharacteristics “willingness to reconsider and revise one’s views where honest reflectionsuggests that change is warranted,” “reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria,” and“flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions.”

The Open-Mindedness scale (the O - scale) targets the disposition of being open-minded andtolerant of divergent views with sensitivity to the possibility of one’s own bias. The open-minded person respects the rights of others to hold differing opinions. This scale refines andfocuses the Delphi characteristics of “understanding of the opinions of others,” “open-mindedness regarding divergent world views.” Open-mindedness differs from Truth-seeking inthat the truth-seeking person is inclined to pursue knowledge with the purpose of learning whatthe best information and ideas might be, regardless of whether learning these things mightrequire questioning, or perhaps abandoning, his or her current opinions or beliefs. Open-mindedness is concerned more with tolerance, in other words, with acknowledging the rights ofothers to hold their opinions. Open-mindedness in this sense is easy for the relativist who mightconsider such tolerance as general permission for people, including herself or himself, to holdwhatever opinions they might wish. In other words, a person can be open-minded but not truth-seeking, or truth-seeking but not open-minded.

The Analyticity scale (the A - scale) targets the disposition of being alert to potentiallyproblematic situations, anticipating possible results or consequences, and prizing the applicationof reason and the use of evidence even if the problem at hand turns out to be challenging ordifficult. The analytically inclined person is alert to potential difficulties, either conceptual orbehavioral, and consistently looks to anticipatory intervention, reason-giving and fact-finding aseffective ways to resolve matters. This scale is closely related to the Delphi characteristics of“alertness to opportunities to use CT,” “trust in the processes of reasoned inquiry,” “clarity instating the question or concern,” and “persistence through difficulties are encountered.”

The Systematicity scale (the S - scale) targets the disposition toward organized, orderly,focused, and diligent inquiry. No particular kind of organization, e.g. linear or non-linear, isgiven priority on the CCTDI. The systematic person strives to approach specific issues,questions or problems in an orderly, focused, and diligent way, however that might beaccomplished. The systematicity scale is closely related to the Delphi characteristics of using

B-5

“orderliness in working with complexity,” “diligence in seeking relevant information,” and “carein focusing attention on the concern at hand.”

The CT Self-Confidence (the C - scale) refers to the level of trust one places in one’s ownreasoning processes. CT self-confident persons trust themselves to make good judgements andbelieve that others trust them as well, since they believe others look to them to resolve problems,decide what to do, and bring reasonable closure to inquiry. The CT self-confidence scale startswith and extends the Delphi characteristic of “self-confidence in one’s own ability to reason.”

The Inquisitiveness scale (the I - scale) of the CCTDI measures one’s intellectual curiosity. Theinquisitive person is one who values being well-informed, wants to know how things work, andvalues learning even if the immediate payoff is not directly evident. The inquisitiveness scaletargets the Delphi characteristics of “inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of issues,”“concern to become and remain generally well-informed.”

The Maturity scale (the M - scale) targets how disposed a person is to make reflectivejudgments. The maturity scale addresses cognitive maturity and epistemic development. CCTDIscoring gives preference to those disposed to approach problems., inquiry, and decision makingwith a sense that some problems are ill-structured, some situations admit of more than oneplausible option, and many times judgments based on standards, contexts and evidence whichpreclude certainty must be made. The maturity scale refines and extends the Delphi findings. Itincludes and goes beyond the characteristics “fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning,”“prudence in suspending, making or altering judgments,” and “precision to the degree permittedby the subject and the circumstances.”

Appendix C

Samples of Possible Classroom-EmbeddedAssessment Activities and Instruments

Sample 1 – Critical Thinking Exercise for Basic Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Sample 2 – Critical Thinking Multiple Choice Questions in Response to Reading: Biology . . C-3

Sample 3 – Written Performance Assessment on Stem-Cell Research: Biology . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Sample 4 – Critical Thinking Standards and Corresponding Questions for Readers: History . C-7

C-1

Sample 1 – Critical Thinking Exercise for Basic Psychology

Assignment: Your friend is extremely gullible. He recently read a magazine advertisement for a $500correspondence course in self-hypnosis that is guaranteed to reduce anxiety in threatening situations. The course isoffered by the world-renowned hypnotist ‘Amazing Randy,’ who promises to “reveal magical keys to unlock theunconscious mind and produce inner peace and tranquility through self-hypnosis.” Your friend has come to you foradvice about enrolling in the course because he trusts your judgment and knows you are currently enrolled in apsychology course where topics such as hypnosis are covered.

Read the section of your text (Chapter 10) related to Hypnosis. As you read, make notes about similarities anddifferences between stage and professional hypnosis. When you have completed the reading, write in your ownwords, a 1-1/2 to 2 page paper addressing the following issues: (1) make a clear statement of the purpose of eachtype of hypnosis and briefly describe the process used by stage versus professional hypnotists; (2) identifyarguments that support the claims of each and indicate whether each claim is stated explicitly (obvious) or implicitly(implied). (3) critique the validity of each claim made in the text, (is the claim valid and strongly supported by theevidence presented or is it weak, invalid), and explain why in your own words. (4) Based on evidence presented inthe text, write a statement in your own words addressing the credibility of stage versus professional hypnosis a toolfor your friend.

ASSESSMENT RUBRIC:

SCORING SUPERIORCOMPETENCY

(4-5)

ADEQUATECOMPETENCY

(3)

MARGINALCOMPETENCY

(2)

NOT COMPETENT (0-1)

(1) makes a clear statement of the purpose of each type of hypnosis and briefly describes the process used bystage versus professional hypnotistsLearning Outcome1B: Identifyprecisely the majorpoints.

Learning Outcome1D: Write a clearproposition orpurpose statement.

Clearly states thepurpose of each typeof hypnosis andaccurately describesthe process.

Clearly states thepurpose but usessome ambiguity indescribing thehypnosis processaccurately.

Clearly states thepurpose butinaccuratelydescribes theprocess.

Description ofpurpose and processlack clarity and/orare inaccuratelydescribed.

2) identifies arguments that support the claims and indicates whether each claim is stated explicitly (obvious)or implicitly (implied).Learning Outcome1 E: Write a clear,concise, andlogically validargument.

States each claimclearly andconcisely, andaccurately identifiesarguments thatsupport the claimexplicitly and/orimplicitly.

States each claimclearly and conciselyyet fails to identifyall supportingarguments whetherexplicit or implicit.

Claims are statedambiguously and/orfew supportingclaims are accuratelyidentified.

Claims are statedinaccurately andsupporting claimsare not identified.

C-2

(3) critiques the validity of each claim (assesses the validity as strong or weak, valid or invalid) and explainswhy. Learning Outcome2F: Critique datathat support orchallenge the pointof view, argument,or proposition.

Appropriatelyassesses the validityof each claim andjustificationdemonstrates soundreasoning.

Minor errors inassessing the validityof claims yetdemonstrates soundreasoning injustifyingassessment.

Validity assessmentcontains minor errorswith some errorsalso demonstrated inreasoning.

Major errors inassessing thevalidity of claimsand/or major errorsin reasoning throughthe assessment.

(4) Based on evidence presented in the text, write a statement in your own words addressing the credibility ofstage versus professional hypnosis a tool for helping someone like your friend.Learning Outcome3E: Present acredible point ofview based onevidence, establishedcriteria, andcontextualconsideration.

Expresses a point ofview expressed based on evidenceand criteriaestablished in thetext as credible andconsiders the contextof learning self-hypnosis through acorrespondencecourse.

Ignores some of thecriteria in the textalthough theevidence presentedis credible and fitswith the context oflearning selfhypnosis through acorrespondencecourse.

Presents a barelycredible point ofview based onminimal evidenceand selective use ofcriteria that onlymarginally fit thecontext of learningself- hypnosisthroughcorrespondencecourse.

Fails to present acredible point ofview by providinginsufficientevidence, misinterpretingestablished criteriaand/or makinginappropriateconsiderations giventhe context oflearning.

C-3

Sample 2 – Critical Thinking Multiple-Choice Questions in Response to Reading: Biology

To be answered after reading assignment “PET scans show cigarette smoke affects peripheral organs”(http://www.drugabuse.gov/Newsroom/03/NR9-08.html) and after a lecture discussing the scientific method.

1) What would be the control in the PET scan experiments?a) MAO activity of smoker in the smoker/nonsmoker pairb) MAO activity of nonsmokers in the smoker/nonsmoker pairc) nicotine in the cigarettes d) blood pressure of nonsmoker in the smoker/nonsmoker paire) blood pressure of smoker in the smoker/nonsmoker pair

Learning Objective 1B: Identify precisely the major points, e.g. key themes, content, issues, conclusions.

2) Which of the below is the acknowledged independent variable in the PET scan experiments?a) MAO-B activityb) Nicotine levelsc) blood pressured) gender of research participante) cigarette smoking

Learning Objective 1B: Identify precisely the major points, e.g. key themes, content, issues, conclusions.

3) What is the dependent variable in the PET scan experiment?a) MAO activityb) nicotine levelsc) blood pressured) gender of research participante) number of cigarettes smoked per day

Learning Objective 1B: Identify precisely the major points, e.g. key themes, content, issues, conclusions.

4) The most dramatic MAO-B activity difference in non smokers versus smokers occurs ina) brainb) heartc) kidneysd) livere) stomach

Learning Outcome 2A: Recognize data (illustration, examples, information) that support or challenge the intendedpurpose or major points argued.

5) Based on the PET scan article, which of the below statements is correct?a) PET scan would allow the detection of abnormally metabolizing cells, such as cancer cellsb) PET scan employ computer technology and nonradioactive compoundsc) PET scan is an ideal method to identify the presence of broken bonesd) PET scan shows that monoamine oxidase is present throughout the body at high levels

Learning Objective 1B: Identify precisely the major points, e.g. key themes, content, issues, conclusions. Learning Outcome 2B: Recognize statements that are compatible with the logical structure of the reading

assignment.

C-4

6) Which of the below statements best summarizes the results of the experiments discussed in this article?a) decrease in MAO-B is associated with smokingb) decrease in MAO-B is the cause of lung cancerc) smoking decrease MAO-B activity in several organs, medical consequences being increased depressionand other disturbances in mental healthd) smoking is a major health problem

Learning Outcome 2B: Recognize statements that are compatible with the logical structure of the readingassignment.

7) Since the researchers did not find high activity of MAO-B in the lungs of nonsmokers or smokers (as shown inthe illustration), does this mean that MAO-B activity is not likely to be relevant to lung cancer?

a) yesb) maybec) nod) experiment discussed does not provide enough information to answer this question

Learning Outcome 2B: Recognize statements that are compatible with the logical structure of the readingassignment.

8) As stated in the paper, MAO-B is needed to break down blood-pressure elevating chemicals in foods and thosereleased by the action of nicotine. So the lower levels of MAO-B in the kidney and brain of smokers may

a) increase the blood pressure within the organsc) cause increased incidence of kidney damage in smokersd) cause increase strokes in smokerse) all of the above

Learning Outcome 3A:Evaluate the implications of the material within a discipline or between disciplines.

9) Which variable should be considered while choosing the matching smoker and nonsmoker ‘pairs’?a) genderb) number of cigarettes smokedc) aged) (a) and (c) abovee) all of above

Learning Outcome 2B: Recognize statements that are compatible with the logical structure of the readingassignment.

C-5

Sample 3 – Written Performance Assessment on Stem-Cell Research: Biology

Suggested process for the analysis and exercise of student critical thinking skills within the written performance area(area B) (discipline - biology):

ASSIGNMENT PART A: Compare/contrast two separate position papers on stem-cell research: one pro stem-cellresearch, the other against stem-cell research

Specific questions for student to address within writing:– Clearly state in your own words the proposition of each article, and briefly describe each proposition

(Learning Outcome 1D: Write a clear proposition or purpose statement).– Clearly and concisely state the claims in support of the proposition of each article, and identify any

subarguments meant to support the claims (explicit or implicit) (Learning Outcome 1 E: Write a clear,concise, and logically valid argument).

– Evaluate the validity of the claims (as either valid/invalid or on a strong-weak scale) – make sure tojustify your choice (Learning Outcome 2F: Critique data that support or challenge the point of view,argument, or proposition).

RUBRIC FOR PART A ASSIGNMENT:

Superior (score 6-7)

Proficient (score 4-5)

Essential (score 2-3)

In-Progress (score0-1)

Task: Clearly state in your own words the proposition of each article, and briefly describe each propositionLearningOutcome 1D:Write a clearproposition orpurpose statement.

Clearly states bothpropositions,describes thepropositionsaccurately

Clearly states bothpropositions, butthere is someambiguity in thedescription of thepropositions

Clearly states bothpropositions, butthere are majorinaccuracies in thedescription of thepropositions

Propositions arenot clearlypresented, noradequatelydescribed

Task: Clearly and concisely state the claims in support of the proposition of each article, and identify anysubarguments meant to support the claims(LearningOutcome 1 E:Write a clear,concise, andlogically validargument.

Clearly andconcisely stateseach claim,identifies thesubarguments insupport of theclaims (explicitand implicit)

Clearly andconcisely stateseach claim, butdoes not identifyall subargumentsin support of theclaims (explicitand implicit)

Some ambiguity inthe statement ofclaims, few to nosubargumentsidentified

Claims are notstated, nor aresubargumentsidentified

Task: Evaluate the validity of the claims (as either valid/invalid or on a strong-weak scale) – make sure tojustify your choices.LearningOutcome 2F:Critique data thatsupport orchallenge the pointof view, argument,or proposition.

Appropriatelyassesses validity orstrength of claims,justificationdemonstratessound logic

Minor error inassessment ofvalidity or strengthof claims,justificationdemonstratessound logic

Minor error inassessment ofvalidity or strengthof claims, somefaulty logic used injustification

Major errors inassessment ofvalidity or strengthof claims, majorlogically flawswithin justification

C-6

ASSIGNMENT PART B: After listening to lecture “Stem Cells: Promise and Peril” re-evaluate the previous articles(and your summary of the articles) and answer the following questions:

C List the types of stem cells and explain briefly how they are generated, and discuss the promises andperils inherent to the use of each type of stem cell (Learning Outcome 1D: Write a clear propositionor purpose statement).

C Re-read your paper summarizing the articles presenting argument for or against stem-cell research. Based on what you have learned from the lecture, re-write the paper, this time providing new evidence(i.e. claims) to strengthen the arguments for and against stem-cell research (Learning Outcome 2E: Demonstrate the ability to evaluate and revise organization to improve clarity; Learning Outcome 1D:Write a clear proposition or purpose statement).

RUBRIC FOR PART B ASSIGNMENT:

Superior (score 6-7)

Proficient (score 4-5)

Essential (score 2-3)

In-Progress (score0-1)

Task: List the types of stem cells and explain briefly how they are generated, and discuss the promises andperils inherent to the use of each type of stem cellLearningOutcome 3C: Integrate a varietyof objectiveevidence andaffectiveexperience relevantto the writtenpurpose.

Identifiesappropriate mainpoints (about stemcells) anddescribes themaccurately,discusses keypromises and perils

Identifiesappropriate mainpoints but there areminor errors indescription, selectskey promises andperils

Identifiesappropriate mainpoints butdescription is poor,misses a few keypromises and perils

Fails to identifyappropriate mainpoints about typesof stem cells, failsto identifypromises andperils

C-7

Sample 4: Critical Thinking Standards and Corresponding Questions for Readers: HistoryReading Assignment: “The Right, Duty, and Privilege to Love Our Country,” by Philip Martin in We the People: A Concise Introductionto American Politics, edited by Thomas E. Patterson

Critical Thinking Standards Superior Proficient Essential In-Progress

ClarityIdentify and explain the author'sdefinition of patriotism, includingthose activities or statements hisdefinition would accommodate andthose it would exclude? (LearningOutcome 1B)

Defines patriotism clearly andaccurately; is able to clearly andaccurately identify and explain therationale that includes some activitiesbut excludes others.

Defines patriotism clearly andaccurately; some ambiguity inidentifying and explaining therationale.

Defines patriotism partially,but inadequately; identifiesand explains the rationalepartially, but inadequately.

Defines patriotisminappropriately or gives nodefinition; identifies and explains the rationaleinappropriately or gives noexplanation for the rationale.

DiscernmentBill is opposed to the war in Iraqand participated in a publicdemonstration last weekend. IsBill a patriot, according to theauthor's definition? Why or whynot? (Learning Outcomes 2F)

Takes the author's definition ofpatriotism, applies it correctly to Bill'sactivities, and explains clearly whyBill's activities are not unpatriotic.

Takes the author's definition ofpatriotism, applies it correctly toBill's activities, but leaves someambiguity in explaining why Bill's activities are not unpatriotic.

Takes a partial or incompletedefinition of patriotism andapplies it correctly; gives apartial or incompleteexplanation of why Bill'sactivities are not unpatriotic.

Misunderstands the author'sdefinition of patriotism and/orapplies it inappropriately;cannot explain or incorrectlyconcludes that Bill's activitiesare unpatriotic.

Integration(1) Identify any textbook (Chap. 1)attributes of American identity andevaluate whether these attributesenlarge, complete, or contradict the“first principles” of the essayauthor. (Learning Outcome 3B)

(2) Name some alternative basesfor American identity, apart fromthose offered by the author of thisessay. Are any of thesealternatives stronger sources ofAmerican identity? Why or whynot? (Learning Outcomes 3A &3C)

(1) Clearly identifies textbook elementsof American identity and offers a clearand convincing explanation for how theelements modify, expand, or contradictthe essay author’s “first principles.”

(2) Identifies several (at least 3)alternative bases for American identityand offers a clear and convincingcomparison to essay author’s “firstprinciples.”

Clearly identifies textbookauthor’s elements of Americanidentity; relates these elements tothe essay author’s “firstprinciples” partially.

Identifies some (at least 2)alternative bases for Americanidentity, but the comparison toessay author’s “first principles” isnot as clear and convincing as itshould be.

Gives a partial or incompleterendering of textbookelements of Americanidentity; relates these elementsto the essay author’s “firstprinciples” partially.

Identifies some (at least 2)alternative bases of Americanidentity, but the comparison tothe essay’s “first principles” isweak or unconvincing.

Fails to identify textbookauthor’s definition ofAmerican identity; fails torelate these elements to essayauthor’s “first principles.”

Fails to identify anyalternative bases of Americanidentity or offers nonsensicalones; no comparison to essayauthor’s “first principles.”

Appendix D

Written Communication Assessment

Standard Written Communication Assessment Rubric for CTAC Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

D-1

Standard Written Communication Assessment Rubric

Cadre professors will use this rubric, or adaptations of this rubric, for embedded and formativeclassroom assessments of critical thinking skills. Cadre professors will not necessarily assess allnine student learning outcomes because all nine may not apply to a particular assignment ordiscipline. However, normally at least one student learning outcome from each category (clarity,discernment, integration) will be assessed.

The results of assessments using this instrument will be reported to the QEP Director and may bereported to students as the professor deems appropriate.

Student Learning Outcome Assessment ScaleNot Competent Marginally

CompetentCompetent Not

Assessed0 1 2 3 4 5

CLARITYWrite a clear proposition or purposestatement (Learning Outcome: 1D)Write a clear, concise, and logicallyvalid argument (Learning Outcome:1E)DISCERNMENTDemonstrate cogent planning andorganization in the writing process(Learning Outcome: 2D)Demonstrate the ability to evaluateand revise organization to improveclarity (Learning Outcome: 2E)Critique data that support orchallenge the point of view,argument, or proposition (LearningOutcome: 2F)Avoid unfair, irresponsible, andinadequate resources (LearningOutcome: 2G)INTEGRATIONIntegrate a variety of objectiveevidence and affective experiencerelevant to the written purpose(Learning Outcome: 3C)Acknowledge and respond to otherpoints of view, includinginterdisciplinary contexts, indeveloping and supporting the writtenpurpose (Learning Outcome: 3D)Present a credible point of view basedon evidence, established criteria, andcontextual consideration (LearningOutcome: 3F)

Appendix E

CTAC (QEP) Budget

2005-2006 Budget with Projections for 2006-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1