Nashville State's Plan: Building Critical Thinkers for Lifelong Learning, Exams of Grammar and Composition

Download Nashville State's Plan: Building Critical Thinkers for Lifelong Learning and more Exams Grammar and Composition in PDF only on Docsity! Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning NSCC seeks to enhance critical thinking skills in student learning campuswide so that NSCC students are better able to make confident, sound decisions in the classroom, about their education, and throughout their lives. Draft Mid-March 2007 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Contents [To be completed on next/final draft] Section 1: Focus The Problem: Where is student learning most deficient? ........................................[pg] Current Assessments of NSCC Students Our Solution: A New NSCC Vision Terms & Definitions Best Practices Student Learning Objective 1: Campus Environment Student Learning Objective 2: Faculty Professional Development Student Learning Objective 3: Critical Thinking in the Curriculum Student Learning Objective 4: Education & Career Matrix Proposed Timeline for Project Implementation Section 2: Resources QEP Organization Budget Section 3: Assessment Objective 3 Assessment Plan Section 4: Community Background Attachment A: QEP Proposal Form Attachment B: General Education Outcomes Attachment C: Critical Thinking Survey Attachment D: Survey Responses by Division Attachment E: Best Practices Citations Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 2 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning 11. Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view 3.9 3.8 12. Acquiring an interest in learning more by asking questions and seeking answers 4.0 3.8 Information is available on the IDEA website at http://www.idea.ksu.edu/. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Approximately 720 NSCC students participated in CCSSE for the first time in Spring 2005. This survey includes five items that relate to critical thinking. Table C provides the responses of NSCC students on the critical thinking items compared to responses of students at 389 community colleges. Table C: Student Perceptions of Course Content for NSCC and National CCSSE Database Academic Challenge 5. During the current school year, how much has your coursework at this college emphasized the following mental activities: (1=Very Little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a Bit, 4=Very Much) NSCC Mean 2005 / 2006 Medium Colleges Mean 2005 / 2006 b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory 2.76 / 2.76 2.80 / 2.81 c. Synthesizing or organizing ideas, information, or experiences in new ways 2.68 / 2.70 2.65 / 2.66 d. Making judgments about the value or soundness of information, arguments, or methods 2.50 / 2.48 2.52 / 2.51 e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations 2.62 / 2.58 2.59 / 2.60 f. Using information you have read or heard to perform a new skill 2.78 / 2.79 2.68 / 2.70 Educational and Personal Growth 12. How much has your experience at this college contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas: (1=Very Little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much) e. Thinking critically and analytically 2.80 / 2.81 2.82 / 2.83 i. Learning effectively on your own 2.83 / 2.85 2.84 / 2.85 Items 5b-f are part of the larger Academic Challenge benchmark identified by CCSSE. That benchmark includes these five items on the complexity of cognitive tasks presented to students plus five items that ask about the nature and amount of assigned academic work and the standards that faculty members use to evaluate student performance. While NSCC students are close to the national average on these reports, it is clear that there is room for improvement. More information is available on the CCSSE website at www.ccsse.org. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 5 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) The CCTDI was given in Fall 2005 to 176 NSCC students registered into ENGL 1010. The results reflect the disposition of students regarding critical thinking on seven scales: Truth- seeking, Openmindedness, Analyticity, Systematicity, CT Self-Confidence, Inquisitiveness, and Maturity. Table D shows the Means for the seven CCTDI scales. According to Insight Assessment: The recommended cut score for each scale is 40 and the suggested target score is 50. Persons who score above 50 on a scale are strong in that dispositional aspect. A scale score between 40 and 30 indicates ambivalence toward that disposition. Any score below 40 could be considered weak at best, since scoring below 40 requires responding to some items negatively. Persons who score below 30 on a given scale are negatively disposed in that CT dispositional aspect. …. Just a score of less than 40 shows weakness; an overall CCTDI total score of less than 280 could be used as a cutoff indicator of overall deficiency in the disposition toward CT. Table D: NSCC Mean for the Seven Scales of the CCTDI Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory NSCC Mean Fall 2005 Truth-Seeking 36.188 Openmindedness 40.159 Analyticity 43.256 Systematicity 40.915 Critical Thinking Self-Confidence 43.170 Inquisitiveness 45.313 Maturity 43.102 Total 292.10 More information is available on the Insight Assessment website at www.insightassessment.com. Faculty Survey of Student Disposition Toward Critical Thinking During 2005 and 2006, faculty participated in two surveys assessing their views of their students’ critical thinking skills. While in most cases, faculty rated their students as average in many components of critical thinking, some of the finds were instructive for future curriculum planning: 41% of faculty rated students as “very weak” or “weak” in their ability to assess statements or arguments. 58% rated students as “very weak” or “weak” in their ability to define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas. 36% rated students as “very weak” or “weak” in their ability to suspend judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered. 40% rated students as “very weak” or “weak” in their ability to look for proof. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 6 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning 37% rated students as “very weak” or “weak” in their ability to reject information that is incorrect or irrelevant. Furthermore, in preparation for developing and implementing the QEP, all full-time faculty took the CCTST. Janusz Polanowski, a Philosophy instructor and the developer of the online critical thinking course, held an inservice discussing the reasoning required for the different types of questions. Based on a post-test survey, faculty drew two conclusions from the experience: While they are teaching critical thinking skills in their classroom, faculty are not explicitly defining these skills. In many classes, specific critical thinking skills are not listed as major course objectives. Students had little experience taking tests such as the CCTST that relied on reasoning skills and took place within a timed format. These conclusions were reinforced when students completed an exit survey after taking the CCTST. Most students rated their programs highly in helping them to think critically, but as shown on Table E, few saw a connection between their programs and the questions on the CCTST: Table E: Exit Exam Survey Total (in percentages) (226 people surveyed) Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree My program of study prepared me to do well on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test. 4 30 41 17 8 My program of study has improved my ability to think critically (to analyze, to evaluate, to solve problems). 14 52 27 4 3 As a result, NSCC planned to implement the following steps: Sample questions were placed on the Testing Center website so that students will be able to practice the format. By providing practice with sample test questions, NSCC can better determine which weaknesses are based on test-taking skills and which are due to poor critical thinking skills. There should be more reasoning types of questions on course examinations. As research points out, students should not only be able to recall specific course material, but also to analyze, evaluate, and make inferences about such material. More faculty will include explicit critical thinking outcomes on their syllabi. California Critical Thinking Skills Test Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 7 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Because some of the projects4 associated with Objective 1 directly involve students’ developing and applying their critical thinking skills, this objective addresses student learning at both the knowledge and skills levels. Student Learning Objective 2—Faculty Professional Development Help faculty, through Professional Development, hone their skills both teaching and assessing Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction in the classroom. Through a series of projects under this objective, we intend to help faculty improve their teaching and assessment skills when it comes to Critical Thinking and Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction; to help faculty share their coursework strategies; and to reward faculty for developing successful approaches to the overt inclusion of critical thinking in their courses. Improving instruction and assessment—the goal of professional development—should correspond directly to improved student learning: students’ understanding about what critical thinking is (knowledge) and their developing and applying better critical thinking skills (skills). Student Learning Objective 3—Critical Thinking in the Curriculum Make Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction explicit, overt, and assessed elements of the curriculum. One California study found that though most faculty rank critical thinking as an essential skill,5 many not only fail to overtly teach it or explicitly include it within coursework, but also fail to assess it. Through three phases, moving from a pilot course in each academic division to all General Education Core courses and then to every program on campus, this objective seeks to make Critical Thinking—specifically, Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction—explicit and assessed components of students’ courses campuswide. As a result, student learning should improve: Knowledge about the thinking process, as well as course content, should deepen because students are not only memorizing data but also actively putting it in context. Skills should improve as students overtly develop and apply better thinking. An emphasis on increasing student knowledge and understanding about critical thinking and on explicitly requiring students to exhibit critical thinking in the course should also result in changed behaviors and values: Students who think better should take responsibility for their thought processes and decisions, therefore making more sound decisions. 4 The detailed plans for implementing each objective, which include a series of specific projects, begin on page XX. 5 Paul, Richard W., Linda Elder, and Ted Bartell. California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Sacramento California, 1997. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 1997. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 10 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Student Learning Objective 4—Education & Career Matrix Make Critical Thinking an overt element of noncourse-specific campus life, particularly the registration and advising processes, so that students are better able to make sound decisions about their education and careers. Because our focus encompasses more than student advancement in coursework, this objective is designed to address weaknesses perceived in the advising and registration processes. Although faculty advise students about their courses of study, we believe that part of student learning includes students’ taking greater responsibility for their own educational and career decisions. The project attached to this objective is to design a matrix with a series of questions that will help students think through their career goals and therefore decisions about their course of study. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 11 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Terms & Definitions For the purposes of our Quality Enhancement Plan, we have selected a broad definition of Critical Thinking that we believe addresses the specific issues we seek to improve in student learning: Critical Thinking is “careful and deliberate determination of whether to accept, reject, or suspend judgment.”6 Inherent in this definition is an emphasis on thoughtful, fully aware, intentional judgment or decision. When the tendency of many students is to “go with the gut (or the authority figure),” pick the first three hits of a Google search, or pencil in every “C” on a multiple-choice exam, helping students understand that “careful and deliberate determination” leads to better decision-making becomes essential to our task. A critical thinker embodies many traits; these are but a few: • Careful and deliberate thought • Curiosity • Desire to seek the truth • Clear and logical communication • Ability to recognize complexities and work within them • Fairmindedness • Intellectual empathy • Integrity • Intellectual courage But one trait strikes us as key to the rest and is the most assessable: • Ability to develop reasonable conclusions using analysis, evaluation, inference, and deduction Therefore, we are emphasizing the following characteristics of critical thinking: Analysis To dissect questions, problems, arguments, and issues Evaluation To determine the strength or weakness of a position or argument To determine the validity of a work, an idea, or evidence Inference To develop conclusions based on analysis, evaluation, and evidence Deduction To use generalizations in order to develop conclusions for a specific situation 6 Moore, Brooke, and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Mountain View: Mayfield, 2001. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 12 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Realizing the need, many colleges have made critical thinking a key component of their curriculum. According to Cynthia A. Barnes,11 these successful colleges have three elements in common: “a forward-thinking champion, cross-disciplinary immersion, and solid documentation of success that spreads across the campus walls.” While there is a plethora of research on critical thinking instruction, there are common ideas that undergird most successful attempts: A. It is important to direct instructional programs at the students’ appropriate level. As Susan Wolcott12 points out, “Students are unlikely to develop desired critical thinking skills if educational efforts are aimed at skills that are either too simplistic or too complex.” In Wolcott’s College Faculty Handbook: Steps for Better Thinking, she describes students’ critical thinking patterns as they move from being weak to strong thinkers and shows why those skills need to be taught at the developmental level of each student. B. Critical thinking must be taught explicitly. Faculty can not just assume that students will become critical thinkers; they must carefully plan for instruction in critical thinking. Critical thinking outcomes should be placed on faculty syllabi, and students should know that they will be assessed on critical thinking skills, as well as course content. As Thomas Angelo13 notes, positive teaching approaches positively correlate with students’ ability to think critically: student discussions, explicit emphasis on problem solving, and modeling and teaching of metacognitive techniques. C. Active learning techniques tend to inculcate critical thinking more than lectures. Students are better critical thinkers when they are forced to encounter real-life problems or situations. These include discussions, case studies, lab experiments, and research. Richard Paul and Linda Elder14 recommend the following strategies for instructors to incorporate active learning in the classroom: 1. Summarize what has been said in class. 2. Relate a topic to personal experience. 3. Give examples. 4. Make connections between topics. 5. Compare and contrast points of view. 6. Write down questions about the topic. D. Strong critical thinking programs often include a heavy emphasis on Socratic questioning techniques. One of the pioneers of critical thinking, Chet Myers, asks three major questions to his students: 1. How do you get your information? 11 See note 8. 12 Wolcott, Susan K. College Faculty Handbook: Steps for Better Thinking. Bellevue, WA: Wolcott Lynch Associates, January 2006 draft. 17. 13 Angelo, Thomas. “Classroom Assessment for Critical Thinking.” Teaching of Psychology 22 (1995): 6-7. 14 Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. A Miniature Guide for Those Who Teach on How to Improve Student Learning: 30 Practical Ideas. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 2006. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 15 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning 2. How do you know that it is viable? 3. What does it really mean?15 For Myers, “Students will learn to think critically when faculty challenge learners about what they think they believe.”16 Asking essential questions is one of the critical thinking competency standards developed by Paul and Elder17. The two also recommend systematically questioning students using the Socratic method.18 E. Instructors should model critical thinking in their classrooms. As Paul and Elder point out, most students come to college “unaware of what highly skilled thinking looks like.”19 Even in classes that have emphasized critical thinking, often the modeling has been implicit. Paul and Elder emphasize that this modeling needs to be explicit, with the instructor thinking aloud with the students and also calling attention to the actual thinking processes being used. F. Critical thinking must be assessed in the classroom. There needs to be a clear way to tell if students’ critical thinking skills are improving. If students find that their grades come from other factors, then they will be less likely to take critical thinking seriously, despite what the instructor says. Noreen and Peter Facione20 stress that critical thinking assessment should be multifaceted and include both skills, such as analysis and evaluation, and habits of mind, such as inquisitiveness and courage of thought. Much of the research points to using rubrics as an effective way of assessing critical thinking skills. Dannelle Stevens and Antonia Levi21 note several of the advantages of using rubrics: 1. They speed up the grading process, a concern for faculty as they move from objective tests to assessments that more accurately evaluate critical thinking. 2. Discussion of the rubric before grading allows students to see explicitly the critical thinking components required and assessed for the project. 3. Rubrics also provide timely and necessary feedback that students need to evaluate and improve their own work. G. Faculty must be trained in order to teach critical thinking skills most effectively. As the research has repeatedly noted, many faculty do not know how to define critical thinking, nor are they sure how to teach it to their students. Therefore, any program that hopes to make critical thinking a key element of its 15 Qtd. in Barnes (see note 8). 16 Id. 17 Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking Competency Standards: Standards, Principles, Performance Indicators, and Outcomes With a Critical Thinking Master Rubric. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 2005. 18 See note 14. 19 Id. 20 Facione, Noreen, and Peter Facione. “Assessment Design for Evaluating Critical Thinking in Nursing.” Holistic Nursing Practice 10.3 (1996): 41-53. 21 Stevens, Dannelle, and Antonia Levi. Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback, and Promote Student Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. 2005. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 16 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning curriculum will need to provide professional development activities for its faculty. Almost all researchers agree that the one-shot workshop is not helpful in this endeavor. But there are models that bear results and that can be copied by the small college. Barnes delineates a ten-point plan:22 1. Find a champion, preferably a faculty member, who will motivate and inspire other faculty to become interested and involved. 2. Carefully select participants for training. Choose those who are interested and enthusiastic. 3. Be sure faculty have input in the planning of any activities. 4. Base the program on research, particularly regarding successful activities at other colleges. 5. Decide what model the critical thinking initiative will base itself on and then develop the program. 6. Have faculty coach each other. 7. Make sure the institution fully supports the effort. 8. Assess. 9. Revise efforts based on assessment data. 10. Make changes based on the institution’s commitment to enhancing their students’ critical thinking skills. Linda Elder notes some other crucial components of an effective critical thinking plan: There must be administrative commitment and support of the plan. Budget funds must be allocated to critical thinking projects. Critical thinking must become part of the campus’s strategic plan, as well as a key part of faculty evaluation.23 She cites Surry Community College in North Carolina as an example of a college that is committed to critical thinking. The chief academic officer has provided resources and leadership, as well as attending training in critical thinking development. An advisory council and committees on campus are charged with instilling critical thinking across the campus. Assessment occurs across the campus as well. For example, random student papers are collected and assessed according to critical thinking criteria. Faculty evaluations are linked to critical thinking, and faculty are required to submit critical thinking assignments for evaluation and feedback. Another effective model is that of Prince George’s Community College in Maryland. In Fall 2003, the college planned for “The Year of Critical Thinking.” The goal, according to William Pierce, was to “enhance faculty development in order to engage all full-time and adjunct faculty in working to improve the teaching of critical thinking across the curriculum.”24 Major components of the plan included a keynote speaker, an online critical thinking course for faculty, a handbook of critical thinking resources, a conference, and workshops. One key element was the Critical Thinking Institute, consisting of 24 faculty 22 See note 8. 23 Elder, Linda. "Critical Thinking as the Key to the Learning College: A Professional Development Model." Critical thinking: Unfinished Business. Ed. Christine McMahon. New Directions for Community Colleges. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 2005. 39-48. 24 See note 9. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 17 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Project 2: Student Design Competitions In order to involve students in this process as a learning and critical thinking exercise and to take advantage of our existing resources, we will sponsor a series of student competitions: Design the poster that defines Critical Thinking, Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction in an engaging way Create cartoon characters that represent Susan Wolcott’s scholars—“Confused Fact-Finder,” “Biased Jumper,” “Perpetual Analyzer,” “Pragmatic Performer,” and “Strategic Re-visioner.”25 The focus here will be to create characters that show the existing tendencies and potentials Wolcott describes and that depict a movement toward better thinking but that do not demean or stereotype anyone. These character designs should offer a funny, positive approach to academic achievement. Students should see these scholars as representing goals in their own thinking processes. Design t-shirts that depict the QEP and critical thinking. Design buttons that define Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, or Deduction. Suggest a better name than “Critical Thinking Day” (see Project 4). In addition to publication, awards for winning student entries could include the following: a stipend toward tuition a bookstore gift certificate an interview published on NSCC’s homepage mention in the upcoming student catalog Project 3: Student Handbook A redesigned and value-added student handbook will be completed Spring and Summer 2007 and will be available for students online and in hard copy beginning Fall 2007. A redesign should make the handbook easier to use and increase its perceived value for students. More important, though, the handbook will include new elements that move it from the collection of policies that it is now to a resource that students will bring to the classroom. New elements will include the following: The Critical Thinking Rubric being developed this semester for use in the classroom (see Objective 2, Project 2). Definitions and examples of Critical Thinking, specifically Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction Boxed quotations about Critical Thinking so that the idea of critical thinking runs throughout the handbook Boxed humorous, brief examples of the types of questions students are likely to see (particularly on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)). 25 See note 12. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 20 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Project 4: Critical Thinking Day Beginning Fall 2008, NSCC will launch a Critical Thinking Day on the main campus. This festival will include games, skits, and competitions that involve critical thinking or that incorporate the vocabulary we are emphasizing. CT Day will become part of each fall semester thereafter. Though we refer to “day” here, we anticipate that this event will cover more than a single day, so as to involve evening and weekend students, as well. Moreover, activities and awards associated with this event will also be made available on satellite campuses so that all students are able to participate. T-shirts designed by students will be worn by all participants and will be available as prizes. Activities will include: Critical Thinking Activity Hunt in which students receive a punch card for attending or participating in the activities. Prizes, garnered by completing the listed activities, might include: o critical thinking bookmarks o critical thinking keychains o critical thinking t-shirts o flashdrives Skits, scenarios, or presentations that demonstrate critical thinking in specific situations, with an emphasis on showing students that sound thinking enhances any career: o Philosophy could present a moral or ethical dilemma. o Police Science could process a scene or review a case. o Culinary Arts could show how critical thinking is used in the process of cooking. Physical games promoting critical thinking, such as a modified ropes course. Launch of the Student Critical Thinking Competition Project 5: Student Support/Resource Site The Student/Instructional Support Subcommittee is developing a website where students can go to learn more about critical thinking and to practice it through a series of activities. Project 6: Practice Test for the California Critical Thinking Skills Test In Fall 2006, we developed and launched a 30-question practice test that simulates the multiple-choice types of questions on the CCTST. The correct answer is explained for each question. The practice test is currently linked to the Testing Center page (www.nscc.edu/testing/exit.html) but will be linked to the Student Support/Resource Site. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 21 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning The next step is to enhance this practice test by adding feedback to explain why an answer is incorrect. Project 7: Ongoing Student Critical Thinking Competition Along with the launch of Critical Thinking Day, a new website will open that offers an ongoing Student Critical Thinking Competition. Posters across campus will invite students to “Win a Flashdrive” or “Win Cash” for demonstrating critical thinking by visiting the website and correctly solving one of the posted problems. The site will house a collection of math, word, logic, and other problems that involve critical thinking. Any student may try to solve any problem, but the first student to successfully solve a given problem—and provide the narrative describing his or her thinking process—will receive an award. Each winning answer, along with the process narrative, will go onto the site. Some (if not all) winning answers and narratives will appear on a poster in a central location. That way, students have a model for how they might think through the problems. Project 8: Ongoing Library Display As part of the Fall 2007 launch of the QEP, the Kisber Library will host a Critical Thinking Display. This display will change each year but continue throughout the next few years. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 22 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Assessing Ourselves These inservices will present results from specific parts of the plan, such as the use of the rubric in courses and the implementation of each phase of Objective 3. Project 4: Critical Thinking for Faculty (semester-long course) Dr. Janusz Polanowski is developing a semester-long course for faculty that emphasizes how best to explicitly involve critical thinking when teaching classroom content. Project 5: Annual Faculty Competition for Excellence in Critical Thinking Assignment Design & Implementation In an effort to celebrate and model successful critical thinking assignments, each Spring two faculty members will receive a monetary award for excellence in critical thinking assignment design and implementation. Specific guidelines will be developed by a Competition Team prior to the competition’s launch. Guidelines will include requirements that the instructor: Use the established critical thinking rubric Incorporate the shared vocabulary and definitions Assess specifically for critical thinking Provide student work that demonstrates success Present an inservice for all faculty at the beginning of the following semester Each of the five divisions will sponsor its own competition and nominate two assignments. From those 10 submissions, two will be selected as winning assignments that year. Those two instructors will receive monetary awards and recognition at the spring General Assembly. The winning entries will also be highlighted on the website. Project 6: Critical Thinking Activities Modules More developed than the CT Activities in Project 1, these modules will be designed as “plug and play” activities adaptable across a broad range of courses. For example, a Critical Reading module would not be tied to specific texts so could be adapted easily to any reading in any course. Similarly to the Critical Thinking Activities, the Critical Thinking modules will be housed in D2L’s Learning Objects Repository. Some planned modules include: Critical Reading Analyzing Instructions and Guidelines Effective Research Revision/Self-editing Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 25 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Source Credibility Project 7: Faculty Resource Site The QEP Communications Subcommittee is developing a faculty resource site, which will include such elements as: Practical Tips for the Classroom—Ground & Electronic Links to Outside Source Materials Project 8: Faculty Participation—Reflective Practice Faculty will be encouraged to document in their performance evaluations the ways in which they have explicitly stressed critical thinking in their courses. This may include: attending critical thinking inservices presenting critical thinking inservices posting critical thinking activities to the D2L Learning Objects Repository using activities from the Learning Objects Repository inserting a critical thinking section into their syllabi Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 26 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Student Learning Objective 3—Critical Thinking in the Curriculum Make Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction explicit, overt, and assessed elements of the curriculum. Overt implementation and assessment of critical thinking in the classroom is the primary goal of Objective 3. Rather than break this objective into discrete projects, this single objective will be implemented in distinct phases: Phase 1—Pilot Each of the five academic divisions will select at least one course, program, or series of courses in which to implement an overt critical thinking element (or elements) that focuses on the shared definition, the established CT rubric, and the characteristics of Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction. The courses may include broader approaches to critical thinking, depending on the program needs, but for the purposes of this project, the assessment will focus on Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, and Deduction. While each pilot will include the CT rubric, each division, with the help of the Assessment team, will be responsible for devising and administering local assessments. The pilots will run in Spring 2008 and be assessed in Fall 2008. Phase 2—General Education In tandem with new TBR requirements that by 2008 all General Education courses include learning outcomes that stress critical thinking, Phase 2 of coursework implementation requires that every Gen Ed course include a critical thinking element that is both explicit and assessed. Each course involved will use the CT rubric, and each division will be responsible for devising and administering local assessments. Phase 2 implementation will run in Spring 2009 and be assessed in Fall 2009. Phase 3—AAS and Certificate Programs The third phase of implementation involves every (1) Associate of Applied Science (AAS) technical and career degree program and (2) academic and technical certificate program offered by NSTCC. Each program (and each course, depending on the division) will include a critical thinking component that is overt and assessed. Each course will include the CT rubric, and each division will be responsible for devising and administering local assessments. Phase 3 implementation begins in Spring 2010 and will be assessed beginning Fall 2010. Phase 4—Campuswide Implementation The final phase of implementation involves every program on campus. Each program (and each course, depending on the division) will include a critical thinking component that is Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 27 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Proposed Timeline for Project Implementation Project Start Date Objective 1—Campus Environment Project 1: Shared Vocabulary Fall 2007 Project 2: Student Design Competitions Spring 2008 Project 3: Student Handbook Fall 2007 (Copy due by May 2007 for summer printing) Project 4: Critical Thinking Day Fall 2008 Project 5: Student Support/Resource Site Fall 2007 Project 6: Practice Test for the California Critical Thinking Skills Test Fall 2006 (Completed) Project 7: Ongoing Student Critical Thinking Competition Fall 2008 (Launch as part of CT Day) Project 8: Ongoing Library Display Fall 2007 Objective 2—Faculty Professional Development Project 1: Critical Thinking Activities & Assessment Database Fall 2008 (Part of Desire2Learn Learning Objects Repository) Project 2: Critical Thinking Rubric Spring 2007 Project 3: Critical Thinking Inservices Fall 2007 (Begin with CT Rubric) Project 4: Critical Thinking for Faculty (semester-long course) Fall 2008 Project 5: Annual Faculty Competition for Excellence in Critical Thinking Assignment Design & Implementation Fall 2009 Project 6: Critical Thinking Activities Modules Fall 2009 (Part of Desire2Learn Learning Objects Repository) Project 7: Faculty Resource Site Fall 2007 Project 8: Faculty Participation—Reflective Practice Spring 2008 Objective 3—Critical Thinking in the Curriculum Phase 1—Pilot (At least one program or course in each division) Spring 2008 Phase 2—General Education (All Gen Ed courses) Spring 2009 Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 30 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Phase 3—AAS/Certificate Programs (All AAS and Certificate programs) Spring 2010 Phase 4—Campuswide Implementation (All programs) Spring 2011 Objective 4—Education & Career Matrix Project 1: Education & Career Matrix Fall 2007 (Multi-year project) Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 31 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Section 2: Resources QEP Organization QEP Oversight Coordinator—The person in this position will oversee the campuswide implementation of the Plan. Student Services—The Dean of Students will oversee the teams formed to accomplish projects directly related to Student Services. Institutional Research—IR will be responsible for correlating the assessment data and drafting the 2013 Report. Campus Projects—Teams will be formed for each project; team members will include staff and faculty from all areas of the college. Online Projects—Teams will be formed for each online project; team members will include staff and faculty from all areas of the college. Academic Divisions—Each of the five academic divisions (Business & Applied Arts; English, Humanities & Arts; Information & Engineering Technologies; Mathematics & Science; and Social & Life Sciences) will have one or two coordinators with release time to oversee that division’s involvement with Campus and Online Projects, Academic Projects, and Implementation/Assessment of the phases of Objective 3. See the organizational chart on the next page. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 32 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning imperative that this coordinator actively apply and assess critical thinking activities into his or her own courses. It may be determined that more or less release time will be necessary as the plan becomes part of the campus culture. The duties for this coordinator are as follows: Ensure that all divisions have their plans ready to implement Monitor implementation activities Ensure and gather all assessment activities Plan and maintain the budget Write necessary reports Provide feedback and disseminate information to the campus Plan professional development activities This individual will be selected by the QEP team in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Division Coordinators. There will be five Division Coordinators, one coordinator from each division. Each coordinator will receive one course release time each semester. The duties of the Division Coordinators are to oversee the following: Implementation of overt critical thinking instruction and assessments into courses and programs Division involvement in all campus faculty, student, and online QEP projects These faculty members will be selected by the Academic Deans. Proposed Budget NSCC has approved a budget for the QEP over a five-year period. QEP Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 QEP Oversight Coordinator (adjunct replacement 50% released time) $10,800 $10,800 $10,800 $10,800 $10,800 Division Coordinator (adjunct replacements for 5 instructors—3 hours’ release time each semester beginning 1/08) $13,650 $13,650 $13,650 $13,650 $13,650 CAT Test $500 $500 $500 $500 Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 35 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Operating $5000 $2500 $2500 $1000 $1000 Professional Development $2500 $5000 Student Awards $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 Assessments: CCTST CCSSE IDEA Already budgeted Secretarial support will be provided by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs initially, until need can be determined. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 36 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Section 3: Assessment Assessment Subcommittee: Plan for Assessment Objective 3: Critical Thinking in the Curriculum Course and Program Assessments Phase 1 Timeline Spring 2007: o Identify one course or program per division to pilot QEP implementation. o Select representatives for the identified course or program to serve as the division representative for the Phase I QEP Assessment Committee. Fall 2007: o Develop QEP activities specific to selected courses. o Explore current assessment tools available for each program/course, or develop in-house tool to assess critical thinking skills—plan to use a pretest, post-test format. Spring 2008: o Implement QEP in selected courses. o Deliver pretest and post-test assessments. o Develop division-specific QEP Assessment Committees, at this phase, targeted specifically towards General Education coursework. Fall 2008: o Analyze data from S08 implementation. o Continue assessments. o Share data with division QEP Assessment Committees. o Review effectiveness of chosen assessment tools, revise as needed. o Review division QEP implementation plan to determine whether additional assessments are needed (determined by program). Phase 2 Timeline Spring 2009 o Analyze data from F08. o Review effectiveness of chosen assessment tools, revise as needed. o Implement QEP activities in all General Education courses. o Administer assessments. Fall 2009 o Analyze data from S08. o Review effectiveness of chosen assessment tools, revise as needed. o Expand division QEP Assessment committees expanded to include one representative from each program. o Evaluate implementation activities for each program and choose assessment methodologies. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 37 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Selection Rationale There were several reasons that critical thinking became the QEP for Nashville State Technical Community College: 1. As a technical institute, prior to becoming a community college in 2002, the college’s mission emphasized employment skills such as critical thinking. Seventy- five percent of the degrees awarded in 2004-05 were A.A.S. degrees. 2. Critical thinking is one of the designated outcomes of the General Education core. 3. Advisory committees in the business, engineering, and information technologies areas consistently state that graduates need to be stronger in their problem-solving skills and need to strengthen their ability to translate their “school learning” to workplace situations. 4. In division meetings, faculty members often discuss the inability of students to synthesize information effectively or to transfer skills to subsequent courses. 5. There is also a good foundation of students’ critical thinking ability on which to base the QEP. NSCC has used the California Critical Thinking Skills Test as a required exit test for all degree graduates since 2000, thus giving the college several years of student outcomes information to analyze and use as a basis for curriculum improvement. 6. The college has been the recipient of an National Science Foundation grant to develop courses in the Engineering and Information Technology programs around a real-world case-study approach. Faculty are rethinking their approach to curriculum and requiring students to focus on the thinking skills that will provide the best workable solutions for their cases. 7. Critical thinking instruction corresponds with the college’s Strategic Plan for 2005- 2010, especially those under Goal 3 Quality: Objective 3.1. Effective Programs/Services: As areas conduct academic audits, the findings will help steer the QEP into the activities that will most benefit students and programs. Objective 3.2.2. Faculty Recruitment—Professional Development accountability: One of the goals of the QEP is to provide campus-wide education on ways to increase students’ critical thinking skills. Since this is one area that faculty often identify as a weakness in students, this should provide a clear benefit to faculty’s professional development. Objective 3.4.1-3.4.3. Peer comparisons: As our students become stronger in their critical thinking skills, they should be more successful when they transfer to universities and enter the workplace. They also should rate their Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 40 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning satisfaction with the college more positively if they are more successful after graduation. Leadership Team Selection 1. In December 2004, Margaret Faye Jones was chosen as the QEP chair. Dr. Jones is Dean of Learning Resources. Previous to this assignment, she taught in the English department for 10 years. 2. Working with the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Jones formed the following committees: Best Practices o Co-chairs: Janusz Polanowski, Assistant Professor, Philosophy; James Formosa, Associate Professor, Computer Accounting Implementation o Chair: Michelle Adkerson, Assistant Professor, English Assessment o Chair: Donna Whitehouse, Assistant Professor and coordinator of Occupational Therapy Instructional and Student Support o Chair: Linda Lyle, Associate Professor and Instructional Services coordinator Campus Education o Chair: Dale Rogers, Instructor, Graphic Design While the primary consideration in choosing the leadership team was to provide expertise in each area, there was also an effort to include representation from across campus: three out of the five academic divisions and the Learning Resources Center are represented. All committee chairs were urged to look at all areas of the campus when choosing members. In May 2005, Dr. Jones then sent an email to the campus explaining the committees and asking for volunteers. Goals in Preparation for the QEP: For spring semester 2005, the QEP committee established the following goals: Goal 1. Have a definition of critical thinking that would be used during the entire QEP process. Result: In 2004, the Outcomes Assessment Committee was formed. One of its subcommittees focused on Critical Thinking. That group presented a definition of critical thinking, which was approved by that committee. It was then presented to the QEP committee, which approved it as the standard definition to be used in the QEP process. The definition is this: “Critical thinking is the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject or suspend judgment about a claim—and of the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it.”27 The committee also 27 Moore, Brooke, and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Mountain View: Mayfield, 2001. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 41 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning developed a list of key attributes of the critical thinker, including the following: a. Asks pertinent questions b. Assesses statements and arguments c. Clearly defines a set of criteria for analyzing ideas d. Examines beliefs and opinions and weighs them against facts e. Looks for evidence to support assumptions f. Rejects incorrect or irrelevant information Goal 2. Survey faculty about their perceptions of their students’ critical thinking abilities. Results: The Critical Thinking Subcommittee developed a 10-question survey for faculty. These questions were placed in a WebCT shell and made available to all full-time and adjunct faculty from March to May 2005. Sixty-three faculty members, including 40 full-time faculty and 23 adjunct faculty, completed the survey. While most respondents labeled students as average in specific thinking attributes, some trends did emerge: o The majority of faculty labeled students as very weak to weak in their ability to clearly define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas. (Attribute C) o One-third of the respondents labeled students’ ability to look for proof as very weak or weak. (Attributes A and B) o Almost 40 percent of the respondents said students’ ability to look for evidence to support an assumption was very weak or weak. (Attribute E) o More than 40 percent of respondents reported that students were very weak or weak in their ability to assess statements and arguments. (Attribute B) There were also differences among the academic divisions (Attachment D). For example, the English/Humanities/Arts faculty were more likely to rate students as weak in their capacity to assess statements and arguments than their peers. On the other hand, the Business and Applied Arts faculty were more likely to rate students as weak in their ability to look for evidence to support an assumption. Goal 3. Decide on a pre-assessment instrument to use in coordination with the California Critical Thinking Skills Test. We will continue to use the CCTST as an outcome for degree graduates since the college already has historical data available. Results: The QEP Leadership Team decided to use a disposition toward critical thinking instrument as its pre-assessment because “dispositions are crucial to critical thinking; without them critical thinking does not happen or may be substandard.”28 The committee then looked at two tests: The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) and The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI). The CCTDI was selected since there is more research on this instrument at the college level. The 28 (Profeto-McGrath)—Need full cite. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 42 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Attachment A: QEP Proposal Form NASHVILLE STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEFINING OUR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN (QEP) ISSUE FOR SACS You might begin discussion of possible issues with questions such as: What issues negatively impact student learning and success at NSCC? What systems or process are involved in this impact? Is it a campus-wide issue? What outcome would you like to see? What are some ways of addressing this issue? Then use this matrix to assess each QEP issue. Put an X in the corresponding box. The suggested QEP issue is: Criteria for Evaluation Doesn’t meet criterion Barely meets criterion Meets criterion adequately Meets criterion exceptionally Is this issue strategically important for NSCC? Does this issue impact student learning at NSCC? Is it an area of current weakness? Is it focused and well- defined? Does the College have sufficient expertise and other resources to complete this QEP? Can the College identify ways to measure the success of the QEP? Does this issue cross multiple areas of campus? Can all sectors of the campus be involved in the planning on this topic? Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 45 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Attachment B General Education Outcomes Write a clear, well-organized paper using proper punctuation, grammar, and documentation. Evaluate sources for validity and reliability and use appropriately to defend a position. Give a clear, well-organized oral presentation using presentation software when appropriate. Use mathematical concepts to make reasonable inferences and solutions to problems in the workplace and in their personal lives. Use critical thinking skills by recognizing problems, reviewing pertinent information, developing reasonable solutions, and evaluating results. Use and adapt technology in order to be successful in the workplace and educational situations. Understand past and present culture through arts, humanities, history, and social sciences. Apply scientific thought processes to laboratory situations and other classroom situations as well as to job and life experiences. Use skills learned in the general education core to analyze problems in the workplace and educational situations. Become an active and informed citizen of the community, nation, and world. Participate as a responsible member of a team, using such skills as leadership, conflict resolution, goal setting, and listening. Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 46 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Attachment C Critical Thinking Survey Question: 01 Please rate students' ability to ask pertinent questions regarding the material resented a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 4.4% 19.1% 54.4% 16.2% 5.9% 0.0% Question: 02 Please rate students' capacity to assess statements and arguments a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 8.8% 32.4% 44.1% 11.8% 0.0% 2.9% Question: 03 Please rate students' ability to clearly define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 10.3% 48.5% 26.5% 8.8% 1.5% 4.4% Question: 04 Please rate students' willingness to examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weigh them against facts. a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 8.8% 19.1% 42.6% 19.1% 5.9% 4.4% Question: 05 Please rate students' willingness to listen carefully to others and give feedback a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 0.0% 13.2% 60.3% 17.6% 7.4% 1.5% Question: 06 Please rate students' ability to suspend judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 5.9% 30.9% 39.7% 17.6% 1.5% 4.4% Question: 07 Please rate students' ability to look for evidence to support an assumption a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 5.9% 33.8% 39.7% 16.2% 1.5% 2.9% Question: 08 Please rate students' ability to adjust opinions when new facts are found a. Very Weak b. Weak c. Average d. Strong e. Very Strong f. Not Observed 2.9% 20.6% 45.6% 19.1% 5.9% 5.9% Question: 09 Please rate students' ability to look for proof Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 47 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Q3, Ability to clearly define a set of criteria for analyzing ideas 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Business English Health Engineering Science Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Not Observed Q4, Willingness to examine beliefs, assumptions, and opinions and weigh them against facts. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Business English Health Engineering Science Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Not Observed Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 50 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Q6, Ability to suspend judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Business English Health Engineering Science Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Not Observed Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 51 Q5, Willingness to listen carefully to others and give feedback 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Business English Health Engineering Science Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Not Observed Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-Long Learning Q7, Ability to look for evidence to support an assumption 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Business English Health Engineering Science Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Not Observed Q8, Ability to adjust opinions when new facts are found 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Business English Health Engineering Science Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Not Observed Nashville State Technical Community College Quality Enhancement Plan—Mid-March 2007 Draft 52