ThiNKU: Developing a Culture of Critical Thinking

2. Current Campus Environment and Fit to Place

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves skills around gathering, analyzing, assessing, and evaluating information to guide beliefs and actions. It is essential in all aspects of life today, but especially in school and at work. It is often mentioned as being emphasized in academic settings, but yet many college students lack sufficient understanding of it to know how to apply it in their school, work, or personal lives.

The need to show the development of students’ critical thinking skills is recognized among professional academic communities, stemming in part from the continued demand for stronger critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is one of the key learning outcomes emphasized in the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE), an ongoing project of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) (AAC&U, 2017). Overall, based on an assessment of the ratings by 288 faculty of nearly 21,000 samples of actual student work from 92 schools across the country, the study provided evidence that college student learning in all of the areas assessed was “on solid ground,” yet there is clearly room for improvement as well. Regarding critical thinking, students most lacked skill in situating their perspective on issues, using data and assumptions, and arriving at well-supported conclusions. Terrel Rhodes, Vice President of VALUE, stated that the findings indicated that students need “to not only know things, but know what to do with what they know” (Flaherty, 2017). NKU participated in the Multi-State Collaborative to Advance Quality Student Learning (MSC), the most widespread of the three consortia that contributed to the AAC&U study. The MSC involved faculty from a variety of colleges and universities in 12 states using the VALUE rubrics to assess student work. For critical thinking, results from the 2015-16 Demonstration Year of the student work voluntarily submitted by faculty (including NKU) were in line with the overall conclusions supporting the need for further development in all areas of critical thinking.

Employers of NKU graduates echo the call for better thinking skills. When we entered “critical-thinking” into the Indeed.com job search website, more than 60,000 job postings arose. Many of these accompanied the call for critical thinking with words like “strong” or “excellent.” Yet, approximately half of the over 700 managers responding to the American Management Association’s (AMA) 2012 Critical Skills Survey rated their employees’ critical-thinking skills as average or below. In a recent national survey of U.S. business and nonprofit leaders, 75% said they want more emphasis in education on critical thinking, complex problem solving, and written and oral communication (Hart Research Associates, 2013). PayScale’s 2016 Workforce-Skills Preparedness Report found that 60% of the over 63,000 managers surveyed believe critical thinking/problem solving to be the soft skill most lacking in recent college graduates (2017).

2

Critical Thinking at NKU

Our community at NKU is and has been well aware of the importance of critical thinking for some time. NKU’s Fuel the Flame 2013-2018 strategic plan specifically mentions strengthening students’ critical thinking skills across the disciplines as an element of student success (http://fueltheflame.nku.edu/goals.html). To date, NKU’s organized efforts around developing students’ critical thinking skills have been primarily through the Foundation of Knowledge general education courses. Critical thinking is listed first among the Foundations of Knowledge Student Learning Outcomes (http://gened.nku.edu/content/dam/gened/docs/Student%20Learning%20Outcomes%20for%20Foundation%20of%20Knowledge.pdf).

Comments from NKU’s Spring 2017 QEP survey indicate that faculty and staff feel an urgency around increasing NKU’s efforts to teach critical thinking. In response to the question "What knowledge areas or skills could be improved in our graduates?", with no prompts, over 25% of responses from faculty and staff indicated critical thinking skills. Student responses that named thinking, per se, were less frequent, but still compelling, as demonstrated by the following example student responses:

• Don’t tell us to do more critical thinking, show us how. • Being better in communicating with others, especially in a work environment, and also

applying more critical thinking to pretty much everything in life. • Stop teaching skills and experience. Let trade schools do that. Start teaching critical

thinking and frameworks. • Focus on critical thinking!....I mean this in the way that discussions should be

commonplace in the classroom and outside of it. Make the students evaluate what it is they're hearing. Make them a part of the learning conversation.

• For undergraduate education, please focus on providing a curriculum that encourages critical thinking and not just skill development.

• Being better in communicating with others, especially in a work environment, and also applying more critical thinking to pretty much everything in life.

Altogether, the QEP responses indicate that a more organized, supported set of systems—that is, a stronger culture of critical thinking—throughout the Foundation of Knowledge courses, and NKU at large, would enhance the quality of students’ education.

Implementing critical thinking systems that instill a culture of critical thinking at NKU will not disrupt existing systems within the university. The activities involved in inculcating students, and the entire NKU whole community, with this orientation happen within existing courses, starting with the Foundations of Knowledge courses. No changes to administrative processes outside the establishment, teaching, and assessment of learning outcomes are required. But we expect that instilling this thinking in students early in their NKU careers, and continuously through their experience here will have positive spillover benefits to staff, faculty,

3

and administration throughout NKU. When students think better, they will demand better thinking from staff, faculty, and administration—and together, we will elevate the level of discourse, the effectiveness of problem solving, and the collective ability to generate and tackle new opportunities.

This proposal outlines a strategy for developing a common basis for defining critical thinking and developing a culture of critical thinking throughout NKU. Clear definitions and models of critical thinking as well as consistent practice instill and reinforce a critical-thinking culture.

3. Literature Review/Best Practices

Developing Critical Thinking Dispositions In formulating this QEP, we draw on theories of critical thinking and dispositions toward

it (e.g., Wilson, 2003; Siegel, 1988) to argue that the objective of teaching critical thinking should be framed as a task around creating critical thinking dispositions in students, rather than as a skills-development task. Based on work by Tishman and colleagues (e.g., Tishman, Perkins, & Jay, 1995) and following Bloch & Spataro (2014), we believe that critical thinking dispositions can emerge from cultures in which critical thinking is actively developed and reinforced throughout the curriculum. In this QEP, we recommend that two curriculum design tenets are essential to developing such a culture: first, clearly defining critical thinking for the curriculum, including selecting a model to reflect the definition; and second, providing consistent practice in applying the definition and model throughout the whole curriculum. Both clear definitions and models of critical thinking as well as consistent practice instill and reinforce a critical thinking culture.

The ability to analyze and formulate good arguments is foundational to effective communication, both written and oral. Writing well involves thinking critically, so writing and critical thinking are inextricably linked (Carter, 2007). Critical thinkers use analytical skills to assimilate and evaluate information they receive from others, and they use critical thinking to formulate and advance their response. One effective means for teaching this complex set of abilities lies in helping students develop a disposition toward critical thinking.

A critical thinking disposition consists of a general orientation focused on deep internalization of critical thinking habits (Nickerson, 2011). It reflects one’s frame of mind or spirit toward critical thinking (Wilson, 2003), including an inclination, sensitivity, and ability toward it (Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993), as well as general orientations toward objectivity, intellectual honesty, impartiality, use of principle, and curiosity (Siegel, 1988). Tishman, Jay, and Perkins (1993) call thinking dispositions “ongoing tendencies that guide intellectual behavior” (p. 148). Measures of critical thinking dispositions assess inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, systematicity, analyticity, truth-seeking, critical thinking self-confidence, and maturity (Wilson, 2003, pp. 120-121). A disposition toward critical thinking stands in contrast to

4

simple ability. Ability reflects the extent to which one can complete associated tasks, whereas a disposition towards critical thinking indicates a greater inclination to use critical thinking skills across various situations (Wilson, 2003). The disposition is thus more useful than simply possessing an ability to think critically.

This emphasis on deep internalization raises the question of how universities can instill dispositions toward critical thinking in their students. Critical thinking dispositions emerge from cultures of critical thinking (Tishman, Perkins, & Jay, 1995; Wilson, 2003). Thus, teaching critical thinking in a manner that students will retain and apply their skills involves creating a critical thinking culture that cultivates and supports critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinking cultures provide opportunities for students to explore and grow in their thinking skills by welcoming examination of different viewpoints, perspectives, and options. Such cultures also celebrate a critical thinking spirit, incorporating emotional factors in addition to cognitive ones (Wilson, 2003). Activities and processes within a critical thinking culture model critical thinking and nurture positive attitudes toward it (Wilson, 2003). Tishman et al. (1995) specify that a critical thinking culture in a classroom is rooted in (i) incorporation of exemplary thinking models, (ii) interaction among students, and (iii) direct instruction of concepts and skills. To bring these three principles to life, we offer here two essential steps toward creating a culture of critical thinking: first, clearly defining what critical thinking entails; and second, consistently practicing critical thinking throughout the curriculum.

Critical thinking includes many different components and is defined in a variety of ways. Critical thinking is sometimes thought of as the results-oriented thinking done by professionals rather than the knowledge-absorbing thinking that is often the focus of students. For example, Carrithers and Bean (2008) describe efforts to evaluate the critical thinking skills of finance majors by holistically scoring written memos based on the degree to which students displayed “thinking like a finance professional” (p. 16). Addressing a more general audience, Browne and Keeley (2018) distinguish between the non-critical “sponge” approach, where information is simply soaked in, and the critically-oriented “panning for gold” approach that takes a questioning approach (p. 3). One of the first steps in implementing this QEP will include a select QEP Implementation Committee choosing or writing a definition of critical thinking.

Definitions of Critical Thinking

As Braun (2004) and Page and Mukherjee (2007) point out, the elements of critical thinking are closely connected to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of learning, which includes knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. As such, definitions of critical thinking have a wide range of specificity. In their critical thinking textbook, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, Browne & Keeley (2018) define critical thinking quite narrowly as “(1) awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions; (2) ability to ask and answer these critical questions in an appropriate manner, and (3) desire to actively use the critical questions” (p. 4). In contrast, Nickerson (2011) offers a wide-ranging, yet “long and complex” (p. 6) seven-part definition, excerpted as follows (numbers added): “An exceptional critical

5

thinker (1) probes multiple points of view … (2) identifies concepts to help formulate problems as well as solve them … (3) is evenhanded and ethical in approaching problems and developing solutions, recognizing assumptions, implications, and practical consequences (4) draws conclusions and creates solutions … (5) is attuned to the possibilities of individual and group biases …. (6) communicates clearly … (7) is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitered …” (pp. 6-7). Taking a personally-oriented approach, Chartrand, Emery, Hall, Ishikawa, and Maketa (2012) offer another definition: “[Critical thinking] means you want to understand more fully all the aspects and perspectives of people or ideas, not so you can judge or find fault but rather so you can evaluate more clearly and see the big picture and assess the value in something…. critical thinking is all about you taking charge of your own thinking and owning your life” (pp. 96-97). Paul and Elder (2012), offer a shorter, yet also broad, “start-up” definition: “Critical thinking is the art of thinking about thinking while thinking to make thinking better. It involves three interwoven phases: It analyzes thinking, it evaluates thinking, and it improves thinking” (p. xix). Another text (Schwarze & Lape, 2011), taking an overtly Socratic approach, defines critical thinking as “open rational dialogue among friends” (p. 3). In a textbook that, as do Schwartze and Lape, includes discussions of logic, Epstein (2013) offers the following definition: “Critical thinking is evaluating whether we should be convinced that some claim is true or some argument is good, as well as formulating good arguments” (p. 5), and in another logic-oriented text, Vaughn (2016) defines critical thinking as “The systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards” (p. 4). In the American Philosophical Association’s “Delphi Report,” an international group of interdisciplinary experts stated the following: “We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1998/1990, p. 2).

The above are just some examples of the wide range of definitions of critical thinking spanning from specific aspects of evaluating arguments to the entire cognitive process from idea generation to logical progression to decision implementation. As can be seen from these definitions, critical thinking is a broad concept that can include many different components. We assert that agreeing upon a tightly bounded definition and using it consistently throughout the curriculum is a critical step in the process of developing a critical thinking mindset in students. A clear definition of what constitutes critical thinking can help by establishing boundaries around the concept so students know what it does and does not include: it delineates to faculty, staff, and students exactly what students are supposed to be learning, and it clarifies expectations. A clear definition is thus an important element in the process of helping students assimilate and internalize critical thinking. A clear, memorable model can work in tandem with a definition in enabling the application of critical thinking throughout the University, hence building a culture of critical thinking.

Models of Critical Thinking

6

As with definitions, textbooks and guides addressing critical thinking offer a wide range of models. For example, in the textbook, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, Paul and Elder (2012) identify eight “universal structures of thought” (p. 60): this model can be seen on the website of the Foundation for Critical Thinking at http://www.criticalthinking.org/ctmodel/logic-model1.htm. Nickerson (2011), in a guide used in the critical thinking seminar at Washington University, applies the acronym PPPICACC to these eight structures: point of view, purpose, problem, information, concepts, assumptions, conclusions, and consequences. Facione and Gittens (2016) offer the IDEAS model, providing several examples of how it can be applied in the lives of college students. This model consists of five steps: “(1) Identify problems and set priorities; (2) Determine relevant information and deepen understanding; (3) Enumerate options and anticipate consequences; (4) Assess the situation and make a preliminary decision; (5) Scrutinize the process and self-correct as needed” (pp. 43–44). Another model that includes an even shorter set of steps is the RED model, described in Chartrand, et al. (2012). These steps include (1) Recognize assumptions; (2) Evaluate information and (3) Draw conclusions (pp. 64-72). In contrast to these models that cover the entire process, the model offered in Browne & Keeley’s (2018) text, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, focuses more specifically on the evaluation of arguments and provides several questions to be used as the basis for critical thinking. These questions, which can be applied to arguments being made by oneself or others, deal with pinpointing the issue or problem being addressed, identifying the conclusion being argued, and evaluating the reasons being offered to support it. Once those key elements are found, the “right questions” guide critical thinkers in finding ambiguities, assumptions, and fallacies in the argument; evaluating the quality of the evidence; and looking for rival causes, misleading statistics, or omitted information.

As these examples illustrate, several different models are available to guide students in applying critical thinking. We argue that models can be helpful, as it is easier to learn things with a schema to follow. However, we believe models are most helpful if they are intentionally chosen to be easily accessible and memorable to the audience and are applied consistently throughout the curriculum. A model that users can easily remember helps build a critical thinking mindset by making the relevant strategies and skills more accessible and therefore easier to apply. As NKU’s select QEP Implementation Committee chooses a model for critical thinking, we recommend that the model chosen (1) fit the selected definition of critical thinking; (2) be easily memorable, thus increasing the likelihood of student use and application across classes and even beyond the classroom; and (3) be general enough to allow individual faculty members to add, emphasize, and tailor aspects of the model according to their own styles and priorities (i.e., sufficient, but not too much, detail). .

Examples of Other Critical Thinking QEPs Because the ability to think critically is important in both school and the workplace, it is

not unusual for it to be selected as the focus for a QEP. In developing our recommendations for a

7

critical thinking QEP, we examined the plans of several other schools. Below, some examples are described.

In its “Forming the Critical Thinking Habit” QEP (2011), East Georgia College (EGC) devoted the first year of the QEP to faculty training. In the second year, it added a critical thinking component to selected sections of first-year required courses in English, political science, history, and math; these courses were selected because they represented each academic division of EGC. As a pre- and post-test instrument, EGC used the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) (Tennessee Technological University, 2017). In the first year, it was given in selected sections of a student success course. In the following years, it was given in courses with the critical thinking component. Additionally, EGC also developed an adaptable, holistic critical thinking rubric for faculty to use in assessment. Faculty training was also an important element of the first year so that faculty could implement critical thinking components in their courses in the QEP's second year. EGC's QEP provided that additional faculty be trained in subsequent years, eventually developing a critical thinking template that could be incorporated into any general education core course.

El Centro College's (ECC) QEP, “CT3: Critically Thinking Things Through—A Journey to Develop Student Critical Thinking” takes a similar form. It included three parts: assessment, professional development for faculty, and “explicit and engaged instruction.” ECC implemented critical thinking components in selected courses: student success, developmental reading, English composition, and psychology, with the goal of expanding it throughout the General Education Program within five years. It included a "CT3 Academy" (professional development for faculty involved) and a faculty driven compilation of “CT3 toolkits” for discipline-specific content and assessment tools, and campus-wide student events. In addition to the faculty-developed rubrics, EC’'s QEP assessment plan included the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) (Insight Assessment, 2017a), student surveys, focus group interviews, use of a CT3 rubric, and a modified Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE).

In its “Ideas to Action: Using Critical Thinking to Foster Student Learning and Community Engagement” QEP (2007), the University of Louisville (UofL) sought to “foster critical thinking as a habit of mind” (p. 5). Like other QEPs, UofL’s QEP sought to improve instruction on critical thinking in the General Education Program. It added the element of emphasizing transfer by also explicitly incorporating critical thinking into “culminating experiences for graduating students” (p. 39) such as capstone courses, internships infused with new critical thinking objectives, senior theses, service learning projects, and research projects. The first step in this QEP was to orient the university community to the QEP and provide professional development opportunities to help faculty develop ways of implementing critical thinking instruction into general education courses and in developing discipline-specific culminating experiences that involved critical thinking. Similar to other QEPs, UofL’s included a variety of both direct and indirect assessment methods, including the student course evaluations, California Critical Thinking Skills test (CCTST) (Insight Assessment, 2017a), items on the

8

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and rubrics for evaluating critical thinking in both the general education courses and the culminating experiences.

Brenau University's QEP “Critical Thinking for Extraordinary Lives” (2011) also focused on developing a culture of critical thinking. Brenau used graduate students to help incorporate critical thinking into undergraduate classroom discussions and to help modify assignments and pedagogy to be more critical-thinking oriented. This QEP also included faculty development opportunities such as lunch and learns, best practices sessions, and faculty grants. It also involved developing and providing resources on critical thinking, such as a QEP office and research assistant, print and online critical thinking resources, and a critical thinking library guide. Brenau used a variety of different assessments, such as NSSE questions and the Educational Testing Service Proficiency Profile (ETSPP) (ETS, 2017) given in students' senior year. Brenau’s Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (HCTSR) was also developed and used throughout the university.

The University of Texas Permian Basin’s QEP, “C4: Clarify, Collect, Consider, Conclude Enhancing Critical Thinking”—http://www.utpb.edu/docs/default-source/utpb-docs/pdf/sacs/qep.pdf?sfvrsn=2—focused on selected sections of two required general education English composition courses. Rubrics were developed and used in these courses to specifically assess the learning outcomes of clarity, collection/organization of information, analysis and evaluation, and logical conclusions. Additionally, the CAT (Tennessee Technological University, 2017) was given to all students at the beginning of the first course and at the end of the second course and scores of students in the critical thinking (C4) sections were compared to those in other sections.

Florida A&M University’s (FAMU) QEP, “Enhancing Performance in Critical Thinking,” (2009) also focused on freshman-level general education courses in English and African-American history taken by many students. It involved redesigning the curricula, pedagogy, and assessment methods used in four of these freshman-level courses to incorporate critical thinking into assignments. The QEP provided opportunities for faculty development. It included assessment of the learning and critical thinking of students through assignments such as critical essays and case study analyses (assessed using newly developed University uniform critical thinking rubrics). It also involved creating a freshman critical thinking seminar series and a freshman summer reading program. Additionally, the CAT and the Measure of Academic Progress and Proficiency (MAPP) test (now the ETS Proficiency Profile) (NILOA, 2009) were used to assess students’ critical thinking skills.

The QEPs described above and other examples of QEPs addressing critical thinking are listed in Appendix A. While there is variation among these QEPs depending on an institution’s specific situation, the QEPs seem to have several of the following common characteristics:

• Training/professional development for faculty/staff in critical thinking pedagogy • Faculty-developed pedagogy and common rubrics in critical thinking

9

• Student learning outcomes related to critical thinking (see Appendix B for examples) • Definition of critical thinking (see Appendix C for examples) • Pre- and post-testing of students’ critical thinking skills, using a variety of methods

o Internally developed rubrics specifically designed to assess students’ critical thinking in accordance with the QEP’s definition and specified student learning outcomes (SLOs)

o Externally developed standardized assessment (e.g., CAT, CCTST) • Implementation in selected courses, expanding over time • Internally developed resource websites (see Appendix A)

As noted above, most of the QEPs we examined involved integrating critical thinking into courses rather than creating a new course focused solely on critical thinking. One drawback to the separate course approach is that students will often fail to apply critical thinking outside of that course. Antonacopoulou (2010), for example, described how a weekend-based critical thinking workshop at her university led to some dissatisfaction among students. She observed the need to “join forces” with other faculty so that they could reinforce these concepts across multiple courses (p. S21).

While many of the QEPs we examined focused on integrating critical thinking into general education courses, the idea of building a culture of critical thinking is that it should then be integrated into courses in any discipline, hence reinforcing the concept of “deliberate practice” (Ericcson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). Ericcson and colleagues have studied the idea of “deliberate practice” in developing expertise. They find that what they call deliberate practice is more important to becoming an expert than having innate skill. Deliberate practice “entails considerable, specific, and sustained efforts to do something you can’t do well—or even at all” (Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007, p. 118). This work implies that simply repeating application of the concept is insufficient for fully instilling dispositional internalization. Rather, a culture of critical thinking entails monitoring progress and identifying areas of weakness such that students spend their time focusing on the aspects of critical thinking that are most challenging to them. Such weaknesses can become apparent when students apply a complete critical thinking model (e.g., the student is very good at generating creative alternatives but has a difficult time recognizing assumptions), or they can emerge from difficulty translating the concept across domains (e.g., the student thinks critically in strategy contexts but is less successful applying it to operations, logistics, or finance). Deliberate practice in support of a critical thinking culture requires continual and varied application of critical thinking in multiple different contexts, which in and of itself enhances critical thinking dispositions (Chabrak & Craig, 2013).

We believe that integrating critical thinking into the curriculum is the best means to achieve consistent deliberate practice and to support a culture of critical thinking. In the approach presented here, this integration encourages faculty throughout NKU to anchor to the same definition and model of critical thinking. We recognize that this does present challenges.

10

For example, when business faculty were asked to integrate critical thinking, writing, or other elements of managerial literacy into their courses, one problem was that the time and effort needed to do so often get pushed aside by what is perceived to be more direct discipline-based instruction (e.g., Cyphert, 2002). One important advantage of integrating critical thinking at the cultural level is that it emphasizes that critical thinking is actually inherent in the disciplines, rather than separate from them.

4. Student Learning Outcomes The QEP Coordinators, along with the select QEP Implementation committee, will agree

upon a definition of critical thinking. At that time, it will be important to revisit the Foundation of Knowledge student learning outcomes (SLOs) for critical thinking to make sure they closely reflect that definition. While the definition itself should be a decision the faculty makes, it is critical that what they choose is communicated and adopted, consistently, across the University.

At this time, we are not recommending any changes to NKU’s existing Foundations of Knowledge critical thinking SLOs. Our plan for instilling a culture of critical thinking at NKU embraces the existing student learning outcomes from the Foundations of Knowledge general education program. These are as follows: (see http://gened.nku.edu/content/dam/gened/docs/Student%20Learning%20Outcomes%20for%20Foundation%20of%20Knowledge.pdf ):

A1: Students effectively gather material relating to a focused topic, using a variety of tools, sources, and search strategies.

A2: Students identify, interpret, and evaluate assumptions, evidence, conclusions, and theories.

A3: Students develop evidence based arguments.

A4: Students explore the implications and consequences of their initial conclusions and use them to generate new ideas, questions or directions for further inquiry.

This tight linkage to the Foundations of Knowledge efforts at NKU increases the likelihood of successful implementation of this QEP, as faculty will be working within existing systems. Additionally, the entire University also benefits from the existing alignment of the Foundation of Knowledge Student Learning Outcomes with NKU’s Fuel the Flame Strategic Plan. The “Student Success” goal of the plan, in the “Academic Rigor” section, explicitly calls for NKU to “Strengthen critical thinking, communication, and teamwork skills across the disciplines and through co-curricular programs” (http://fueltheflame.nku.edu/goals.html).

5. Action Plan In Fall 2017, after soliciting ideas and input on proposals from NKU faculty, staff, and

students, the QEP Committee will adopt a QEP. Two QEP Coordinators will be chosen (perhaps

11

by the QEP Committee and QEP proposers) to implement the selected proposal, with modifications as appropriate, based on the input received. The QEP Coordinators will meet with the QEP Committee Co-Chairs to learn more about the QEP process and its relationship to SACSCOC accreditation. A QEP Implementation Committee (approximately 10-12 members) with wide representation across campus—including faculty, staff, and students—will also be selected. As part of the announcement and marketing of the QEP throughout the University, applications should be solicited for the QEP Coordinator positions and the QEP Implementation Committee to generate interest in the importance and value of the QEP and give everyone who is interested an opportunity to be considered.

The following is a narrative description of an approximate five-year plan for implementing this proposed ThiNKU QEP (see also Section 9 of this proposal for a summary of the timeline). The timing and activities described below and in Section 9 are approximate. Part of the implementation of the plan would involve evaluating progress and making modifications to this proposal as necessary.

Year 1

If this ThiNKU proposal is selected for implementation, the QEP Coordinators and the QEP Implementation Committee will thoroughly research the topic of critical thinking, identifying key texts and concepts as well as best practices for the teaching and assessment of critical thinking. We suggest that the QEP Implementation Committee include in its preparation an examination of the results of the NKU General Education Committee’s assessment of the Foundation of Knowledge critical thinking student learning outcome for which data is being gathered in the 2017-18 academic year. Representatives from the QEP Implementation Committee, along with the QEP Coordinators, should attend professional development conferences and seminars, such as the International Conference on Critical Thinking (http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/37th-international-conference-on-critical-thinking-amp-educa/1267) to be held in Summer 2018. Other suggested materials include the wealth of materials on the website of the Foundation for Critical Thinking (http://www.criticalthinking.org// ) and resources such as those provided by Insight Assessment (2017b). Because critical thinking is an important topic to most universities, there are many resources already collected and available for review, such as the list of links to articles on critical thinking compiled by the University of North Carolina-Charlotte’s Center for Teaching and Learning (http://teaching.uncc.edu/best-practice/critical-thinking). Collaboratively, and with input from the General Education Committee and the rest of the NKU community as needed, the QEP Implementation Committee will select or develop a definition of critical thinking and a model for critical thinking that will serve as the foundation for building NKU’s culture of critical thinking.

The QEP Implementation Committee will establish objectives for faculty and staff professional development and will develop curriculum and pedagogy related to critical thinking. They will develop/ recommend professional development opportunities for faculty and staff,

12

including training for those faculty participating in the ThiNKU pilot for implementing critical thinking in their general education classes. Faculty participating in this pilot will become members of Critical Thinking Faculty Learning Communities (CTFLC) and will agree to serve as ThiNKU Champions, sharing their knowledge with their departments and programs and supporting future participants in the program. The professional development for faculty and staff will include education on content and could include an intensive summer workshop, a series of weekly or bi-monthly meetings or mini-workshops, webinars, online classes, or a combination of these strategies. In addition, it could include syllabus building, assignment scaffolding, and assessment strategies.

The QEP Implementation Committee will also choose a standardized assessment instrument (e.g., Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) (https://www.tntech.edu/cat/), California Critical Thinking Skills Test (https://www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST ), International Critical Thinking Test (http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/international-critical-thinking-test/619 ).

Additionally, the Committee will begin to develop a critical thinking resource website for all members of the NKU community. This website will be developed and expanded throughout the QEP. See Appendix A for example websites.

We suggest that a summer celebration be held each year of the program to reflect on the accomplishments and plan for the future, perhaps beginning with the completion of the initial training of the first group of ThiNKU Champions.

Year 2

Participating faculty and staff will implement new curriculum and pedagogy into one (or more) Foundations of Knowledge courses during the Fall 2018 pilot semester. Using rubrics and assignments developed in the faculty workshops, participating faculty will integrate pre-and post-assessments of critical thinking in their general education courses.

The critical thinking resource website will continue to be developed. Additionally, a variety of professional development opportunities for faculty and staff will be offered.

Assessment of the initial implementation of critical thinking will begin and additional faculty will be recruited to participate in the ThiNKU implementation of critical thinking in their general education courses.

The selected standardized assessment (e.g., CAT, CCTST), will be administered in selected courses and the results of participating and non-participating students will be compared.

The ThiNKU champions will help the Implementation Committee generate interest in the QEP and recruit additional participants to broaden the implementation of ThiNKU into additional sections of Foundations of Knowledge courses.

Years 3-5

13

Both in-class and standardized assessments of critical thinking skills will continue. Additional faculty and staff will be trained and more sections of selected general education courses will participate in ThiNKU. The QEP Implementation Committee and the ThiNKU Champions will begin to promote and pilot expansion of ThiNKU into courses within majors. Professional development opportunities for faculty and staff will continue, and the materials on the resource website will be expanded.

Results of assessments will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and adjustments to the implementation plan will be made as needed, with the goal of the plan to ingrain the definition, model, and application of critical thinking in the culture of courses throughout the university so that it becomes part of the culture at NKU.

6. Assessment & Evaluation A clear understanding of the established definition and model for critical thinking will be

an important aspect of assessment to form clear boundaries around what is included in critical thinking and also serve as a basis for assessment. This QEP will include two primary sources of assessment: rubrics used in participating classes on class assignments and a standardized test from an external vendor.

Assessment within ThiNKU and Other Foundation of Knowledge Classes

Standardized rubrics (with options for discipline-specific customization) for evaluating critical thinking within Foundations of Knowledge courses participating in ThiNKU will be developed by the QEP implementation committee, in consultation with the General Education Committee. These rubrics can and should build upon existing Foundations of Knowledge rubrics. The assessment can use various artifacts (based on established criteria) from the ThiNKU courses such as papers, cases, or analyses of real-life problem solving. Results of these assessments can be compared with those in selected Foundation of Knowledge classes that are not participating in ThiNKU. Additionally, qualitative data from student evaluations and other targeted Qualtrics surveys can be used to assess students’ knowledge of and use of critical thinking. These surveys could be given in Foundations of Knowledge and eventually other courses throughout the curriculum.

Externally Developed Standardized Assessment

We recommend that an externally developed standardized assessment of critical thinking also be used. For the pilot period, this test could be given to randomly selected first-year students as well as those participating in ThiNKU courses. The samples could then be expanded as needed. Examples of standardized critical thinking assessments include the following:

• Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) (https://www.tntech.edu/cat/), • California Critical Thinking Skills Test

(https://www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST )

14

• International Critical Thinking Test (http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/international-critical-thinking-test/619 ).

We recommend that the QEP implementation committee evaluate the options for the external assessment tool and present their analysis and suggestions to the General Education Committee for review and approval.

7. Conclusion As evidenced in Northern Kentucky University’s Fuel the Flame strategic plan and

Foundations of Knowledge Student Learning Outcomes, critical thinking has long been identified as an important goal of education at NKU, and most faculty already implement it in their classes in some fashion. The intent of the Quality Enhancement Plan described in this proposal is to provide a more intentional and unified way of overtly building critical thinking into the culture at NKU by uniting our efforts around a common definition and model and providing clear means of assessment and identification of outcomes.

The QEP will also provide faculty and staff with opportunities and resources to enhance their own skills in critical thinking to in turn enhance student learning through more solidified incorporation of critical thinking throughout the curriculum. It is the intent of this QEP that the efforts outlined here will be a first step in building a culture of critical thinking at Northern Kentucky University so that students can develop solid skills that they can take beyond graduation into fulfilling careers and meaningful lives.

8. Resources

Personnel

This model envisions two QEP Co-Coordinators to share the work of developing curriculum and educating faculty. All full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty should be given the opportunity to apply for these positions. Dividing the work among two members of the faculty or staff ensures that no one person must bear the entire weight of the QEP and that knowledge is not lost if one person moves into a different role on campus. The two QEP Coordinators would receive two course releases each per year, one during fall semester and one during spring semester, to plan and lead the proposed project.

In the first year of the QEP, a QEP Implementation Committee consisting of faculty, staff, and students should be assembled to assist the coordinators, in consultation with the General Education Committee, in developing/selecting a definition of critical thinking, a model for critical thinking, and evaluating and selecting a standardized assessment instrument. To emphasize the importance of the work of this committee, members could receive a course release or stipend, as funding, as deemed appropriate.

15

After the definition, model, and standardized instrument are selected, the QEP Coordinators will solicit and choose approximately 12 members of the faculty and staff involved in teaching Foundation of Knowledge general education courses each year to participate in professional development and education related to the topic and to become ThiNKU Champions and members of Critical Thinking Faculty Learning Communities (CTFLCs). The QEP Implementation Committee will decide whether applicants should be limited to particular Foundations of Knowledge courses. Each participant would receive a single course release (during the year in which they participate) or other compensation as appropriate (e.g., a stipend) to develop and/or revise their own curriculum and pedagogy in keeping with the goals of the QEP (including knowledge, content, and activities designed by coordinators to improve student learning). Throughout the QEP, depending on the budget available, additional compensation may be provided to other faculty attending workshops and implementing aspects of ThiNKU in their classes.

The coordinators may need a part-time administrative assistant to manage the logistics of implementation or be given additional release time or a summer stipend to do so themselves. This person could also assist in developing and maintaining the critical thinking resource website.

The coordinators and select members of the QEP Implementation Committee should have the opportunity to participate in the critical thinking community (http://www.criticalthinking.org// ), e.g., by attending conferences) and should also consider enlisting the services of an external specialist in critical thinking who could offer workshops on critical thinking and speak to the NKU community.

Physical Resources

Few additional physical resources will be needed to implement the critical thinking plan proposed here. The QEP Coordinators, the QEP Implementation Team, and the faculty/staff participants will occasionally need meeting and training space. But all instruction on critical thinking will take place within existing classes and classrooms. Technological resources and support will be needed for the critical thinking resource website. Funding will be needed to purchase the standardized critical thinking assessment tests.

Financial Resources

The tables below gives approximate costs for the resources needed to implement this ThiNKU QEP in the first and subsequent years. These costs are estimates only and will be subject to change once discussions and decisions by the QEP Implementation Committee are underway.

16

Year One – ThiNKU QEP – Approximate Annual Budget

Item Activity Cost

Two QEP Co-Coordinators

• Develop curriculum related to established learning outcome

• Implement project • One course release per semester 12 credits

$10,000

QEP Implementation Committee members 7-8 participants

• Work with QEP Co-Coordinators to select QEP definition, model, external assessment, and develop materials for faculty /staff professional development

$10,000

10-12 participants

• Participate in professional development related to topic • Revise pedagogy for one Foundations of Knowledge

course based on new knowledge • One course each release per year

$30,000

Part-time administrative help 20 hours/week

• Support coordinators in scheduling and in developing and maintaining QEP resource website

$20,000

Consultant

• Provides topic expertise • Contributes to workshop • Speaks to university • Returns for two or three years • Receives stipend and travel expenses

$10,000

Summer workshop

• Learn topic strategies and design curriculum • Includes costs for food, materials, supplies, and books • Includes $500 stipend for each participant and $1000 for

each coordinator

$12,000

Professional development

• Participants may choose to attend or present at a conference during the spring semester or purchases materials for further implementation

• Includes $500 professional development allowance for participants and $1,000 for each coordinator

• Spring event cost

$10,000

Total $102,000

17

Subsequent Years – ThiNKU QEP – Approximate Annual Budget

Item Activity Cost

Two Co-Coordinators

• Develop curriculum related to established learning outcome

• Implement project • One course release per semester 12 credits

$10,000

10-12 additional participants

• Participate in professional development related to topic • Contribute to pedagogy in existing Foundations of

Knowledge courses • One course each release per year

$30,000

Part-time administrative help 20 hours/week

• Support coordinators $20,000

Summer celebration event (each year)

• Recognize leaders in ThiNKU implementation, highlight latest developments, share best practices

• Includes costs for food, materials, supplies, and books • Includes $500 stipend for each participant and $1000 for

each coordinator

$12,000

Professional development

• Participants may choose to attend or present at a conference during the spring semester or purchases materials for further implementation

• Includes $500 PD allowance for participants and $1000 for each coordinator

• Summer event cost

$10,000

External evaluation instrument

• The QEP implementation Committee will evaluate and select an external evaluation instrument to be used in selected Foundation of Knowledge courses. The cost and number of these tests administered will be determined by the committee; therefore, the cost estimate here is very approximate. Depending on the method chosen, resources may also be needed to score the assessment.

$10,000

Total $92,000

18

9. Timeline Below is a rough timeline for the implementation of the ThiNKU QEP described in this proposal.

Year 1: Fall 2017–Summer 2018 • QEP Committee selects final QEP project • QEP is announced and promoted across campus, including solicitation of applications for

two QEP Co-Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee members • QEP Committee/QEP proposers select QEP Co-Coordinators • QEP Co-Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee participate in professional

development opportunities related to critical thinking • QEP Coordinators gather information about what is currently being done in NKU

Foundations of Knowledge courses to teach critical thinking (e.g., existing course activities, current assessments, rubrics)

• QEP Coordinators select a QEP Implementation Committee consisting of faculty, staff, and students

• QEP Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee develop consensus around a critical thinking definition and model that will form the basis for NKU’s culture of critical thinking, including supportive texts, pedagogy, professional development, resources, and events

• QEP Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee evaluate and select an external standardized assessment for critical thinking (e.g., CAT, CCTST, International Critical Thinking Test)

o Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee design teaching materials and assessments that can be used in ThiNKU Foundations of Knowledge courses

• QEP Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee, perhaps in consultation with selected outside experts, develop faculty training and design curriculum and pedagogy for integrating student learning objectives into FOK courses

• QEP Coordinators solicit faculty volunteers to participate in pilot ThiNKU training and Critical Thinking Faculty Learning Communities (CTFLC)

o Coordinators determine (with Committee approval) learning objectives, outside experts, authors, learning community leaders to bring to campus

o Coordinators decide scope of faculty training, who may/must participate, platform for training, ladder/pathway for expertise development (i.e. to become Critical Thinking Champions on campus)

o Selected faculty participate in a pilot of the training according to critical thinking learning objectives

o Participants will agree to serve as ThiNKU Champions, sharing their knowledge with their departments and programs and supporting future participants in the program.

19

• Based on the results of the pilot ThiNKU training and CTFLC, QEP Coordinators and Committee make modifications as necessary

• Hold summer celebration event to recognize progress and share best practices

Year 2: Fall 2018–Summer 2019 • Offer additional sessions of faculty/staff training and continue establishing and

maintaining CTFLCs • Conduct student baseline assessments using both internal and external methods • Implement ThiNKU critical thinking pedagogy in designated Foundations of Knowledge

classes (pilot in Fall; adjust and broader roll out to more Foundations of Knowledge courses in the Spring)

o Solicit faculty input for feedback from teaching perspective. • Continue development of website with critical thinking resources • QEP Implementation Committee develops a plan for revisiting a means of integrating

ThiNKU in major courses (for example, design a challenge to the Colleges to see how each would implement and/or mandate it in major capstone courses)

o Design and pilot training for faculty across NKU majors to revisit integrating ThiNKU in their courses (could be centrally coordinated or perhaps Colleges could do this on their own)

o Design plan to get ThiNKU Champions in each department • QEP Co-Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee participate in professional

development opportunities related to critical thinking • Hold summer celebration event to recognize progress and share best practices

Year 3: Fall 2019–Summer 2020 • Continue and refine implementation in Foundations of Knowledge courses • Committee finalize and implement schedule of assessments (including NKU assessments

and standardized assessments). • Continue to involve/train faculty teaching courses in the majors. • Pilot ThiNKU methods in selected major courses. • Adjust course materials and learning plan according to feedback from assessments. • QEP Co-Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee participate in professional

development opportunities related to critical thinking • Hold summer celebration event to recognize progress and share best practices

Year 4: Fall 2020–Summer 2021 • Continue implementation of ThiNKU in Foundations of Knowledge courses. • Continue to promote expansion of implementation of ThiNKU to courses within majors. • QEP Co-Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee participate in professional

development opportunities related to critical thinking • Hold summer celebration event to recognize progress and share best practices

20

Year 5: Fall 2021–Summer 2022 • Evaluate assessments and adapt • Evaluate extent of implementation of critical thinking material in Foundations of

Knowledge and major courses to assess the strength of NKU’s critical thinking culture • Make plans for ongoing implementation, with modifications as necessary based on

assessments and evaluations • QEP Co-Coordinators and QEP Implementation Committee participate in professional

development opportunities related to critical thinking • Hold summer celebration event to recognize progress and share best practices

10. References and Bibliography American Management Association (AMA). (2012). Executive summary: AMA 2012 Critical Skills Survey. Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/uploaded/2012-Critical-Skills-Survey.pdf

Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2010). Making the business school more “critical”: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact. British Journal of Management, 21, S6-S25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00679.x

Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). (2017). On Solid Ground: Value Report 2017. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/FINALFORPUBLICATIONRELEASEONSOLIDGROUND.pdf

Bloch, J., & Spataro, S. E. (2014). Cultivating critical-thinking skills throughout the business curriculum. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 77, 249-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2329490614538094

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.

Braun, N. M. (2004). Critical thinking in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 232-236. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ745210

Brenau University (2011). Critical thinking for extraordinary lives. Retrieved from https://www.brenau.edu/about/qep/

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2018). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Carrithers, D., & Bean, J. C. (2008). Using a client memo to assess critical thinking of finance majors. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 10-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569907312859

21

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58, 385-418. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ776205

Chabrak, N. & Craig, R. (2013). Student imaginings, cognitive dissonance and critical thinking. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 91-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa/2011.07.008

Chartrand, J., Emery, S., Hall, R., Ishikawa, H., & Maketa, J. (2012). Now you’re thinking! Change your thinking . . . transform your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Cyphert, D. (2002). Integrating communication across the MBA curriculum. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 81-86. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/108056990206500310

East Georgia College. (2011). Forming the critical thinking habit. Retrieved from http://www.ega.edu/images/uploads/East_Georgia_College_QEP_Revised_Feb_2011.pdf

Educational Testing Service (ETS) (2017). ETS Proficiency Profile. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/about

El Centro College (2017). CT3: Critically thinking things through: A journey to develop student critical thinking. Retrieved from http://alt.elcentrocollege.edu/sites/default/files/about/pdf_qep_doc.pdf

Epstein, R. L. (2017). Critical thinking (5th ed.). Socorro, NM: Advanced Reasoning Forum.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224827585_The_Role_of_Deliberate_Practice_in_the_Acquisition_of_Expert_Performance

Ericcson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 114-121. https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert

Facione, P. A. (1998/1990). Executive summary - the Delphi report - Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. San Jose, CA: Peter A. Facione and Insight Assessment.

Facione, P., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Flaherty, C. (2017, February 23). Large-scale assessment without standardized tests. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/23/aacu-releases-report-national-large-scale-look-student-learning

22

Florida A&M University (2009). Enhancing performance in critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.famu.edu/QEP/UserFiles/File/FAMU_QEP_Feb2009.pdf

Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org//

Hart Research Associates. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Liberal Education, 99. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp13/hartresearchassociates.cfm

Hatcher, D., & L. A. Spencer. (2000). Reasoning and writing: From critical thinking to composition (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: American Press.

Insight Assessment. (2017a). California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). Retrieved from https://www.insightassessment.com/Products/Products-Summary/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Tests/California-Critical-Thinking-Skills-Test-CCTST

Insight Assessment. (2017b).How to create a SACS QEP critical thinking competency. Retreived from https://www.insightassessment.com/BLOG/How-to-create-a-SACS-QEP-critical-thinking-competency

National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). (2012). Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP). Retrieved from: http://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/test_MAAP.html

Nickerson, J. (2011). Critical thinking@Olin: A guide to understanding, learning, and practicing critical thinking. St. Louis, MO: Washington University.

Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting critical-thinking skills by using negotiation exercises. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 251-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.5.251-257

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Payscale, Inc. (2017). 2016 workforce-skills preparedness report. Retrieved from http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/job-skills/methodology

Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1–21.

Schwarze, S., & Lape, H. (2011). Thinking socratically: Critical thinking about everyday issues (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

23

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2003). Critical thinking: Where to begin. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York: Routledge.

Tennessee Technological University. (2017). CAT: Critical-thinking assessment test. Retrieved from https://www.tntech.edu/cat/

Tishman, S., Perkins, D., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

University of Louisville. (2007). Ideas to action: Using critical thinking to foster student learning and community engagement. Retrieved from http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/-/files/final-report.pdf

University of North Carolina-Charlotte’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Articles on critical thinking. Retrieved from http://teaching.uncc.edu/best-practice/critical-thinking

University of Texas-Permian Basin. C4 : Clarify, collect, consider, conclude: Enhancing critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.utpb.edu/docs/default-source/utpb-docs/pdf/sacs/qep.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Vaughn, L. (2016). The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, B. A. (2003). The effect of a business communications course on students’ disposition to think critically. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, XLV, 118–132.

24

Appendix A: Examples of Critical Thinking QEPs

Brenau University (2011). Critical thinking for extraordinary lives. QEP: https://www.brenau.edu/about/qep/ Website: https://www.brenau.edu/about/qep/

East Georgia College (2011). Forming the critical thinking habit. QEP: http://www.ega.edu/images/uploads/East_Georgia_College_QEP_Revised_Feb_2011.pdf Website: http://www.ega.edu/academics/critical_thinking

El Centro College (2017). CT3: Critically Thinking Things Through - A Journey to Develop Student Critical Thinking. QEP: http://alt.elcentrocollege.edu/sites/default/files/about/pdf_qep_doc.pdf Website: https://www.elcentrocollege.edu/aboutecc/curriculum-assessment-and-accreditation-office/quality-enhancement-plan/pages/default.aspx

Florida A&M University (2009). Enhancing performance in critical thinking. QEP: http://www.famu.edu/QEP/UserFiles/File/FAMU_QEP_Feb2009.pdf Website: http://www.famu.edu/index.cfm?QEP&AboutQEP

Florida State (2014). Think FSU: Improving critical thinking in the disciplines QEP: https://sacs.fsu.edu/documents/FSU_QEP.pdf Website: http://criticalthinking.fsu.edu/

Howard College (2007). Critical thinking … for earning, for learning, for life! QEP: http://www.howardcollege.edu/pdf/abouthc/QEP/QEP_Info.pdf

St. Petersburg College (2012). Improving Students’ Critical Thinking Website: https://go.spcollege.edu/CriticalThinking/about/QEP.htm

University of Houston-Clear Lake (2012). Applied Critical Thinking (ACT) for Lifelong Learning and Adaptability QEP: https://www.uhcl.edu/about/administrative-offices/institutional-effectiveness/quality-enhancement-plan/ Website: https://www.uhcl.edu/about/administrative-offices/institutional-effectiveness/documents/quality-enhancement-plan.pdf

University of Louisville (2007). Ideas to action (i2a): Using critical thinking to foster student learning and community engagement. QEP: http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/-/files/final-report.pdf Website: http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking

University of South Florida-Sarasota-Manatee. Incredi-Bull Critical Thinking Website: http://usfsm.edu/ibct/

University of Texas-Permian Basin (2010). C4 : Clarify, collect, consider, conclude: Enhancing critical thinking. QEP: http://www.utpb.edu/docs/default-source/utpb-docs/pdf/sacs/qep.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Website: http://www.utpb.edu/services/academic-affairs/administrator-staff/faculty-resources/qep/c4---clarify-collect-consider-conclude

25

APPENDIX B: Examples of Critical Thinking SLOs from Other QEPs

UT-Permian Basin: • Student Learning Outcome 1: Students will be able to clearly identify and clarify

problems, questions, and issues. Measurement: Students will have an overall satisfactory score on the course-embedded assessment(s) of Clarity as measured by the finalized critical thinking rubric(s).

• Student Learning Outcome 2: Students will collect and/or effectively organize information. Measurement: Students will have an overall satisfactory score on the course-embedded assessment(s) for Collection/Organization of Information as measured by the finalized critical thinking rubric(s).

• Student Learning Outcome 3: Students will carefully consider, analyze, and evaluate information in terms of its support for conclusions. Measurement: Students will have an overall satisfactory score on the course-embedded assessment(s) for Analysis and Evaluation as measured by the finalized critical thinking rubric(s).

• Student Learning Outcome 4: Students will draw well-reasoned, logically supported conclusions from information. Measurement: Students will have an overall satisfactory score on the course-embedded assessment(s) for Logical Conclusions as measured by the finalized critical thinking rubric(s).

• Student Learning Outcome 5: Students who take the two-semester ENGL 1301 and 1302 sequence in which critical thinking skills have been explicitly taught will show greater improvement in critical thinking than comparable students in 1 The University of Texas of the Permian Basin ENGL 1301 and 1302 classes in which critical thinking skills have not been emphasized. Measurement: Students in the C4 sections of ENGL 1301 and 1302 will have higher critical thinking scores on the critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT) than comparable students in ENGL 1301 and 1302 who have not been exposed to the explicit teaching of critical thinking skills.

• Student Learning Outcome 6: At the end of the ENGL 1301 and 1302 two-course sequence, students in the C4 classes will demonstrate improvement in their critical thinking scores over their performance at entry in ENGL 1301. Scores for students in the non-C4 courses, will be unchanged. Measurement: The CAT will be administered to all participating students upon entry to ENGL 1301 and exit from ENGL 1302. Each student’s entry and exit score will be compared to determine whether the score has changed.

26

APPENDIX B: SLOs from Other QEPs (continued)

Brenau University: Students will be able to: Evaluate the meaningfulness of data. Articulate and defend positions or arguments using evidence and logic. Create, develop or revise solutions to problems by using existing information and materials.

East Georgia College: The measurement of specific critical thinking skills will be facilitated through the assessment of the following student learning outcomes based on the College’s definition of critical thinking. Question - Students will be able to identify a problem or conflict, determine the related factors and outline the necessary steps for a solution. Analyze - Students will be able to analyze primary data or sources to determine their structure, validity and usefulness. Discuss - Students will be able to engage in productive verbal communication of ideas in a classroom setting, working toward a solution or conclusion. Debate - Students will be able to use facts and viewpoints to present a persuasive argument in a forum of competing perspectives to achieve rational conclusions and effective compromises. Critique - Students will be able to research opposing arguments in a controversial issue and evaluate the strength of the arguments to determine the student's stance

El Centro College: 1. Apply critical thinking terms within a given context. 2. Formulate pertinent questions that clarify and focus an issue. 3. Evaluate quality and relevance of information. 4. Formulate well-reasoned conclusions and solutions. 5. Implement continuous improvement in thought processes, through reflective thinking

27

APPENDIX C: Examples of Critical Thinking Definitions from Other QEPs

University of Texas-Permian Basin. Used the definition from Hatcher and Spencer (2000): “Critical thinking is thinking that attempts to arrive at a decision or judgment only after honestly evaluating alternatives with respect to available evidence and arguments” (p. 21).

Brenau University. Adopted the definition of critical thinking provided in the APA Delphi Report, “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment.” As outlined by the Delphi Report, critical thinking is demonstrated through interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation.

El Centro College. “A disciplined and continuous process of asking the right questions and practicing logical thought processes to come to justifiable conclusions” (p. 17)

East Georgia College. Critical thinking involves questioning, analyzing, discussing, debating, and critiquing data to develop sound conclusions. Questioning is the process of identifying problems and determining related tasks and issues. Analyzing is the process of investigating data to determine the structure, validity, and relevance of the data. Discussing is a method for multiple parties to engage in a productive, verbal exchange leading to sound conclusions. Debating is the ability to use supporting facts and arguments to persuasively present a case in a forum of competing perspectives to reach rational conclusions and effective compromises. Critiquing is the process of evaluating arguments using logic and inference.

University of Louisville (http://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking/what ). UofL adopted the following definition that Scriven and Paul (1987) presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform: “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” Scriven and Paul’s definition also indicates that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.”