Ideas to Action (I2A)

1. Ideas to Action (I2A) Using Critical Thinking to Foster Student Learning and Community Engagement Presentation for Psychological & Brain Sciences Faculty April 28, 2008

2. Introductions • I2A Team Dr. Patty Payette Dr. Cathy Bays Dr. Edna Ross Executive Director Delphi Specialist Delphi Specialist for Assessment for Critical Thinking Hannah Anthony, Program Assistant Senior

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

4. I2A and “Connecting the Dots” “Our extensive consultation with all University constituencies yielded a surprisingly strong and clear call for education focused on the skills and knowledge needed to deal with real-world issues and problems, an education in which students can see the importance of the parts (the courses) to the whole (their education as citizens and workers).” [QEP Report, 2007] skills and knowledge real-world issues & problems the parts to the whole http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/files/finalreport.pdf

5. I2A: What are the components? I2A Thematic Priority: Community Engagement

6. Central Messages about I2A • Prompted by Undergraduate Program Accreditation • Enhancement of critical thinking, student engagement • Psychological & Brain Sciences Department an exemplar • Renewed focus on community engagement • Assessment process under development • Some programs in place; more being developed U of L Strategic Plan 2020: http://louisville.edu/provost/fromtheprovostitems/stratplan0308.html

7. Critical Thinking Definition adopted for I2A (From: Scriven and Paul, 2003)

8. A Well-Cultivated Critical Thinker: • Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely • Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively • Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards • Thinks open mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as needs be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences • Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems (Richard Paul and Linda Elder, the Foundation for Critical Thinking: http://www.criticalthinking.org/)

9. Richard Paul-Linda Elder Critical Thinking Model Intellectual Standards must be applied to The Elements of Thought in order to develop Intellectual Traits which will produce a well-cultivated Critical Thinker

10. Intellectual Standards CLARITY ACCURACY PRECISION RELEVANCE DEPTH BREADTH LOGIC SIGNIFICANCE FAIRNESS COMPLETENESS Miniature Guide, 2008, p. 8-10

11. Miniature Guide, 2008, p. 3-6

12. Intellectual Humility Intellectual Courage Intellectual Empathy Intellectual Autonomy Intellectual Integrity Intellectual Perseverance Confidence in Reason Fairmindedness The Intellectual Traits Miniature Guide, 2008, p. 13-15

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

14. Paul Elder Model Pilot Program Participants William A Brantley--Communications Karen Chandler--English Julia Dietrich--English Stuart Esrock--Communications Gerald Evans--Engineering Karen Gray--Humanities William Hoston—Physics Rich Lewine--Psychology Mary Makris—Modern Languages Carol S O'Neal—College of Education and Human Development Edna Ross--Psychology Robert S Urekew--Philosophy

15. Psych 201 Assignment: 1. INTRODUCTION What basic question is the Experimenter trying to answer? What is the general problem area? 2. METHODS a) What or who were the experimental subjects? • What task did they perform, or what test(s) did they take, or what characteristic(s) were measured? • What was the design of the study? Was it experimental or correlational? If experimental: Were there different groups of subjects or were the same subjects exposed to different treatments at different times, or both? What independent variable or variables were manipulated? What dependent variable or variables were measured? If correlational: How many variables were measured, and what were they? 3. RESULTS What were the results? Did groups differ inperformance, or did subjects' performance differ under as a result of treatment? If correlational, what were the relationships found among the variables measured? 4. DISCUSSION What are the implications of thestudy? What questions remain for further research? This is the section to summarize the contribution of the study to research in the area of the study focus. BEFORE

16. Psych 201 Assignment 1. What is the main purposeof this article? (State as accurately as possible the author’s purpose for writing the article or for doing the research.)  2. What is (are) the important question(s) the author of this article is trying to address? (Figure out the key question(s) in the mind of the author when s/he wrote the article about the research that was conducted.)  3. What kind of study was done? (Case study, survey, etc.)  3a. Justify your answer as to why it is what you say it is.  3b. What are the independent and dependent variables?  3c. Who are the subjects? 4. What facts, data, evidenceor experiences does the author use to address the important question of the article? 5. What are the main inferences/conclusions in this article? (Identify the key conclusions the author comes to and presents in the article) 6. Do the author’s conclusions follow from the data/evidence presented? Why or why not? 7a. What are the implications ifwe take the author’s line of reasoning seriously? (What consequences are likely to follow if people take the author's line of reasoning seriously?)  7b. What are the implications if we fail to take the author’s line of reasoning seriously? (What consequences are likely to follow if people ignore the author's reasoning?) AFTER

17. Psych 201 Assignment Instead of summarizing, we are now asking students to critically analyze.

18. Some reactions from Pilot Program Participants • “Being involved [in this program] reinvigorated my teaching.” • “Very helpful to hear other [instructors] talk about their experiences teaching critical thinking.” • “I’m becoming a better teacher because of [this program].” • “I spend more time thinking about how the students think and I also spend more time explaining to students why I do things in a certain way.”

19. New Program Coming for Fall ‘08 Faculty Learning Community on Critical Thinking • A community of 10-12 faculty members • Cross-disciplinary ongoing dialogue, structured activities & reflection • Sustained and scholarly support for instructional design and assessment principles • Use of the Paul-Elder critical thinking model

20. What are the goals/objectives? • To increase and enhance faculty engagement in I2A • To increase and enhance faculty expertise and application of the Paul-Elder critical thinking model in a specific course • To create a library of faculty and student artifacts related to I2A implementation • To increase faculty collaboration across disciplines • To develop a cohort of FLC graduates who can serve as I2A advocates after completing the program • To nourish scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and its application to I2A and student learning.

21. Who is eligible? • Any part-time, term, tenure track, or tenured faculty member who will be teaching during Fall 2008 may be nominated. • The I2A FLC can include faculty members with and without prior experience with I2A and/or the Paul Elder critical thinking model.

22. For more information Please visit: http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction