got thoughts? let’s get critical chandler-gilbert community college’s think tank deb matayabas...
TRANSCRIPT
Got Thoughts? Let’s Get CriticalChandler-Gilbert Community College’s Think Tank
• Deb Matayabas• Roy Schiesser• A. Sue Steele
SURVEY • Please complete the short survey by going to the following site either using your computer/tablet or your phone
WHY ARE WE HERE?
BACKGROUND •The vision of the CGCC
Critical Thinking Project was to promote faculty best practices and students’ higher learning through a greater understanding, thorough identification, and meaningful use of the critical thinking skills students need for academic success.
MISSIONBuild capacity and provide opportunities among faculty to promote best practices in the design, development and collection of data on critical thinking applications in each department/discipline/cluster resulting in more effective program evaluations and ultimately improving CGCC students’ level of academic achievement.
Gen ED.
Wide array of courses, programs, divisions
Assessment of Student LearningCourse and Program Level
Gen Ed Outcomes
Critical Thinking Literacy -Communication Personal Development
Critical Thinking
Think Tank
Analogs, instrument
s, evaluation
s
Data analysis
Conclusions, Insights
ImprovementsHLC
Criteria evidence uploads
Program Review
Evidence Samples
Evidence Samples
Evidence Samples
Evi
denc
e
Sam
ples
PREMISE• In order to begin this process, “Think Tank”
project members recognize and accept the following warrants, as preliminary beliefs that all CGCC faculty members agree upon and accept:
• All General Education programs which are aligned to 4 outcomes of
(1) Literacy
(2) Personal Development
(3) Communication
(4) Critical Thinking
• Each discipline lends itself to unique assignments and assessment methodologies as it seeks to cultivate these 4 outcomes in students.
Step A: Design, Develop and Plan
• Create documents, presentations, and other communications regarding the “Think Tank Projects” goals and objectives to solicit faculty participation and establish a campus-wide commitment to program evaluation and improvement.
• Construct faculty surveys to establish a baseline and the progression of faculty attitudes toward critical thinking assessment, students’ achievement level attained, along with their willingness to participate in the project. (As envisioned at this stage, the survey will be administered in in two phases intended to provide pre- and post-measurements of faculty methodologies, attitudes and values regarding critical thinking assessment.)
• Provide support for each discipline through the variety of challenges it will experience while participating in a program assessment of this caliber.
Step B: Data Collection
• Quantitative and qualitative data regarding all CGCC program’s alignment to the 4 outcomes is necessary to continue CGCC’s dedication to program excellence.
• Faculty participation in the surveys described above will be “key” to gaining an effective evaluation of faculty involvement and dedication to the Think Tank’s mission.
• Each discipline’s completion of appropriate assessment instrumentation for the purpose of evaluating students’ critical thinking levels.
• Faculty will use these instruments in the assessment of their students’ critical thinking achievement.
• Faculty will begin evaluating their data and identify successes and improvement areas.
Step C: Data Analyses and Program Improvement Implementation Strategies
• Faculty will determine program improvement areas and means of implementation of the identified improvement needed areas.
• Faculty will report all of the data, analyses, and program improvement implementation plans.
• “Think Tank” Project members will seek to analyze all data results and provide a campus-wide perspective on students’ critical thinking achievement.
• Think Tank project members will compile and analyze the faculty survey results.
Step D: Project Evaluation
Through this evaluation of cross-disciplinary student achievement in critical thinking and the resulting implementation of program improvement plans, CGCCs General Education programs will be well- grounded in systematic and effective methods of improving students’ level of academic achievement and ensuring student success.
Critical Thinking Rubric Indicators
• Using Prior Knowledge and expertise in your discipline
• Gaining Essential knowledge through our “tool kits” for Assessment Design and Rubric Instrument Design
• Making Connections by recognizing the “designs” in existing examples and existing instruments (Sue)
• Analyzing how the designs transfer to your own assessments and rubric instruments
• Synthesizing and creating your own customized assessment instrument to match an assignment
• Sue’s Sample Rubric
Prior Knowledge
• Thinking of past projects or assignments you have created for your students, name the varying degrees of critical thinking you have required from your students and share your results with your group members.
• Self-assess and share your process or challenges in recognizing and identifying critical thinking indicators, concepts and project/assessment design?
• What ideas do you have about assessment of critical thinking in your specific course/discipline?
Essential Knowledge
•Project Design Matrix
•Assessment Instrument Design Matrix
Making Connections
• Read the sample Project for your group.
• Work with group members to determine where the project “lands” on the Project Design Matrix.
• Determine which indicators on the Critical Thinking Rubric would apply to this sample assignment, remembering it is customizable ; only apply those indicators you choose.
• What elements of your discipline or your pedagogical values are relevant to your choices?
Analysis • Using what your group decided about the matrix and rubric levels reached in the sample project, work with group members to analyze whether the project ‘s requirements are a “match” for the level of student you find in your classes.
• Are the project requirements too high level? Or, too low? Discuss and share concrete reasons why or why not?
• Will the project challenge them? Or, is the level so high, it might take them “out of game”? What modifications would you make to adjust for students ability levels? Does the rubric, as it is, adequately assess student achievement? What modifications could be made?
Synthesis and Creativity
• Pair with one or two other individuals in your discipline or faculty who are teaching the same level (developmental, 100 level, 200 level)
• Use the Project Matrix to come up with your own project idea. The matrix provides many “hints” of how to reach any level of student.
• Once you have a project idea outline with a basic structure, determine which Critical Thinking rubric indicators will apply.
• Customize the rubric however necessary to meet your needs and the vision you have for your students completion requirements.
Accomplishments
• You were Willing to Engage and attend the Critical Thinking Session
• You tapped Prior Knowledge and expertise in your course/discipline
• We provided Essential knowledge through the “tool kits” for Assessment Design and Rubric Instrument Design
• You Made Connections by recognizing the “designs” in existing examples and existing instruments
• You Analyzed how the designs might apply to your own projects and rubric instruments
• You hopefully Synthesized the information and tapped your Creativity by coming up with a project idea and customizing an assessment instrument to match the project.
Critical Thinking Rubric Bank Indicators and Descriptors
•Indicators and Descriptors
•CGCC Critical Thinking Rubric
•CGCC Critical Thinking Rubric Site
Assessment Design Matrix
Assessment Design Principles• Do stretch the learner to a
challenging but appropriate degree
• Do require application as the minimum performance level
• Do equip and support learners for success in applications
• Do embrace the assessment as formative
• Do not design the assessment for maximum difficulty as the goal
• Do not assume that your course structure has no gaps
• Do not assume who can or cannot make the application jump
• Do not think of the assessment as a terminus
Lower Critical Threshold for Success
Moderate Critical Threshold for Success
Elevated Critical Threshold for Success
ROLE/CONTEXT
Concurring/SimilarVery similar to or identical to the context and role of the student
Similar but different to the context and role of the student
Disjointed/DisparateVery dissimilar to the context and role of the student
TRANSFER
NearApplication of learning is closely
aligned with the way in which students acquired the learning
Application of learning is not fully aligned with the
way in which students acquired the learning
FarApplication of learning is not closely aligned with the way in which students acquired the learning
COMPLEXITY
NaïveInformation, data and that which is ‘given’ is structured not self- initiated discovery and/or research
Information, data and that which is ‘given’ may include self-initiated discovery and/or research as well as structured information and data
SophisticatedInformation, data and that which is ‘given’ includes self-initiated discovery and/or research
SCOPE/SCALE
Local/LimitedResults, products, activities and engagement remain at the classroom level
Results, products, activities and engagement expand to include campus level
Global/UnlimitedResults, products, activities and engagement at expanded levels beyond the campus
Assessment Design Matrix
Roy A. Schiesser 2014
Role/Context
• Role could be as a professional assigned to do something
• Role could be in the shoes of another person
• Role could be considering the viewpoints/experiences of multiple stakeholders
• Role could be…
• Context is the setting
• Context could be contrived or real
• Context gives the role purpose
• Context could be…
Induces new brain activityDeeper connectionsNew thoughts
Scaled
Low Critical ThresholdConcurring/SimilarVery similar to student role
Elevated Critical Threshold
Disjointed/DisparateVery different from student
role
Transfer
• Transfer could be different variables but same…
• Transfer could be a metaphor of the real or the real from the metaphor
• Transfer could be the real from the contrived
• Transfer could be different people same….
• Transfer could be…
Critical design feature that induces critical thought
Indicator of understanding
Lacking transfer little or no critical thought or understanding will occur
Application of knowledge and skills in a way that is different from the way in which it was learned
Scaled
Low Critical ThresholdNearClosely aligned with learning ‘ways’
Elevated Critical Threshold
FarVery different from learning
‘ways’
Complexity
• Complexity is the research, data, background
• Complexity is the information in the context
• Complexity could be experiences
• Complexity could be geographical, biographical
• Complexity is excellent for common misconceptions
Grappling with complexity models the real world
Induces discovery
Creates tensions
Leads to solutions
Low Critical ThresholdNaiveNot self initiated
Elevated Critical Threshold
SophisticatedSelf initiated discovery
Scaled
Scope/Scale
• Scope/scale is the purpose
• Scope/scale are the logistics
• Scope/scale could be classroom or larger
• Scope/scale could contrived or real
• Scope/scale could include other people, locations
Creates the intent
Sets the stage for performance
Ideal for service learning
Can be value added
Low Critical ThresholdLocal/LimitedClassroom level
Elevated Critical Threshold
Global/UnlimitedBeyond the campus
Scaled
