1 / 15

The Washington State University Critical Thinking Project

The Washington State University Critical Thinking Project . Diane Kelly-Riley Kim Andersen Paul Smith Karen Weathermon Washington State University. History of the WSU Critical Thinking Project.

penha
Télécharger la présentation

The Washington State University Critical Thinking Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Washington State University Critical Thinking Project Diane Kelly-Riley Kim Andersen Paul Smith Karen Weathermon Washington State University

  2. History of the WSU Critical Thinking Project • Grant from the Weyerhaeuser Corporation--examine students’ abilities to think and write about environmental topics. • Grant from the Washington State HEC Board--pilot the rubric in classroom contexts. • Grant from U.S. Department of Education--FIPSE program. Implement rubric into all tiers of General Education courses and partner with two- and four-year institutions in Washington State.

  3. The WSU Critical Thinking Rubric • Articulates seven dimensions of critical thinking derived from the critical thinking literature, local expertise, and practice. • Acts as a diagnostic measure of student progress. • Helps instructors improve and assess the critical thinking abilities of their students. • Demystifies the expectations of instructors for students.

  4. Critical Thinking ProjectPurposes • Locate assessment directly within an instructional context. • Re-examine alignment of assessment expectations with instructional practices. • Provide faculty a means to re-examine their practices.

  5. The Assessment-Instruction Loop • Ensure that assessment and instruction inform and reform each other and the curriculum. • Assess yourself before someone else assesses you. --Ed White • Context is everything.

  6. Validation Studies of the WSU Critical Thinking Rubric • Factor analysis of discrete dimensions that may comprise “Critical Thinking.” • Compared the critical thinking rubric with WSU’s Writing Assessment measures. • Examined critical thinking gains in courses that used the rubric with a sample that did not. • Explored faculty development and student issues. • Rating methodology .76 inter-rater reliability.

  7. Preliminary Findings • Comparisons to WSU’s writing assessment—As critical thinking scores went up, freshman Writing Placement exam scores and junior Writing Portfolio exam scores went down. • Gains from freshmen to junior years—Critical thinking was significantly higher among juniors than among freshmen. But even the writing of juniors had only a mean of 3.1 on a 6 point scale. • Gains in courses when rubric is used—when the faculty in this project integrated the WSU Critical Thinking Rubric into their instruction and assessment, evidence of student gains in critical thinking increased dramatically.

  8. Entomology 401:one course/two semesters

  9. Faculty discussion groups. Paid CT evaluator. CT Project Participant (integrate CT practices into a course for two semesters). Book on best CT practices. State-wide CT retreat at the Sleeping Lady Resort. Potential state-wide senior-level outcomes measure. Critical Thinking ProjectEfforts

  10. WSU Faculty Adaptations • Expert-Jigsaw groups. • Guidelines for drafts of papers (from Entomology to Philosophy). • Physics problem solving. • Lab report guidelines. • Guidelines for small group facilitators. • Guidelines for online discussion. • Evaluation of multi-media projects.

  11. Faculty Development • Helps faculty articulate their goals and communicate expectations to students. • Serves as a jumping off point for discussion of critical thinking for people with very different approaches to learning. • Surfaces tension between grading and life-long learning goals. • Helps faculty consider the types of assignments they use in their courses.

  12. Faculty have felt that the rubric helps them to “clarify [previously] vague evaluation criteria.” provide language to “model appropriate participation” & “responsible…effective participation.” help students learn to “synthesize [their own] comments to highlight key issues.” And “ask questions to encourage elaboration and clarification.” “establish a community” based on academic engagement. “Create interaction by establishing replies and responses as important.” Faculty Feedback

  13. Implications for Students • Indicates that the greatest gains by WSU juniors reflected improved abilities to analyze issues from multiple perspectives. • Shows that the least gain existed in students’ abilities to articulate their own viewpoints relative to an issue. • Helps at-risk students gain access to course content. • Maintains the tension between grades and life-long learning.

  14. Teachers need to ask for critical thinking, and provide an environment that fosters it. Student critical thinking depends largely upon the character of the assignment. Expectations should be demystified. Faculty should reflect upon and align practices with expectations. Principle Considerations

  15. For more information, visit our websitehttp://wsuctproject.wsu.eduor contact Diane Kelly-Rileydokelly@mail.wsu.eduor509-335-1323.

More Related