Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking Rubric Validation Process Second Workshop Quality Enhancement Plan QEP Team and Faculty Champions

Assessment Rubric for Critical ThinkingRubric Validation Process

Second Workshop

Quality Enhancement PlanQEP Team and Faculty Champions

http://www.spcollege.edu/

December 12, 2008

Quality Enhancement Plan 2

Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking

Authentic Assessments

Authentic assessments serve dual purposes of encouraging students to think critically and providing assessment data for measuring improved

student learning.

These assessment techniques fall into three general categories: criterion-referenced rubrics, student reports (reflection or self-assessments), and student portfolios.

December 12, 2008



Rubrics

What is a rubric? Scoring guidelines, consisting of specific

pre-established performance criteria, used in evaluating student work on performance assessments

December 12, 2008



Criterion-referenced Rubrics

Complex, higher-order objectives can be measured only by having students create a unique product, whether written or oral, which may take the form of in-class essays, speeches, term papers, videos, computer programs, blueprints, or artwork (Carey, 2000).

December 12, 2008



Rubrics

SPC currently uses rubrics in such programs as…

College of Education College of Nursing Paralegal

December 12, 2008




A global rubric template developed to provide a snapshot view of how student learning is being affected by the critical thinking initiative.

Designed to be flexible enough to address a number of student project modalities including written and oral communications.

Will evaluate the student’s use of critical thinking skills in the development of the paper as opposed to specifically evaluating the quality of student’s writing skills.

December 12, 2008




Development of a rubric is an iterative process and will be improved and strengthened as it is used more widely

December 12, 2008




ARC was designed by the QEP staff and the Faculty Champions to…

Enhance the QEP Align with the College’s definition of critical

thinking Be flexible for use in multi-disciplines

December 12, 2008



Rubric Development Process

1. Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the task

2. Identify specific observable attributes students should demonstrate

3. Describe characteristics of the identified attribute 4. Write narrative descriptions for each level of

continuum 5. Collect samples of student work 6. Score student work and identify samples that

exemplify various levels 7. Revise the rubric as needed

Repeat as Needed

December 12, 2008




December 12, 2008




December 12, 2008




December 12, 2008



ARC Assignment Profile

ARC Assignment Profile is designed to provide consistency and accuracy in the evaluation of the ARC at the institutional level as well as provide guidelines for the use of the assessment at the course level.

For a tool to be effective it must be used in the correct situation or ‘job.’ The ARC is essentially a ‘tool’ to evaluate critical thinking, but for a tool to be effective it must be in the correct situation or ‘job.’

The purpose of the ARC Assignment Profile is to outline the most appropriate course assignment.

December 12, 2008




1. Participating faculty should have one assignment during the course that can be evaluated using the ARC scoring rubric. The course assignment could be a graded homework assignment or a major assessment for the course.

December 12, 2008




2. The course assignment for the ARC should include all of the elements of the rubric and should be aligned with the task outlined for each element. Assignments that only evaluate some of the elements or are not aligned with the specific ARC tasks will be considered incomplete and not used in the institutional analysis.

December 12, 2008




3. Faculty may add additional discipline specific rubric elements (such as grammar and punctuation in a composition class), but must maintain the ARC elements as listed.

December 12, 2008




4. Students should be provided a copy of the assignment rubric (ARC and any additional discipline specific elements). The specific elements and tasks include:

Communication: Define the problem in your own words. Analysis: Compare & contrast the available solutions within the

scenario. Problem Solving: Select one of the available solutions and defend it

as your final solution. Evaluation: Identify the weaknesses of your final solution. Synthesis: Suggest ways to improve/strengthen your final solution

(may use information not contained within the scenario). Reflection: Reflect on your own thought process after completing the

assignment. “What did you learn from this process?” “What would you do differently next time to improve?”

December 12, 2008




5. The evaluating scenario (selected or created) should be stated in such a manner to allow the student to address each of the tasks. The QEP team is willing to assist with the creation of the scenario or identify possible sources of existing scenario that could be used.

December 12, 2008




6. At the end of the semester, please send the completed student assignments to the Janice Thiel, QEP Director, TE 1-111 (X3110). Completed student assignments should include a copy of the scenario, the assignment provided to the student (with the rubric), the students work and the final graded rubric.

December 12, 2008




Competency (KSA) Problemwith Multiple Solutions

Premise with Multiple Perspectives

CommunicationDefine Problem

Define Premise

AnalysisCompare & Contrast

SolutionsCompare & Contrast Alternative

Perspectives

Problem SolvingSelect & Defend

Final SolutionSelect & Defend Final Perspective

EvaluationIdentify Weaknesses

Final SolutionIdentify Weaknesses

Final Perspective

SynthesisSuggest Improvements

Final SolutionSuggest Improvements

Final Perspective

ReflectionReflect on

Thought ProcessReflect on

Thought Process

December 12, 2008



Sample Scenario (Deer)

Three teenagers were seriously injured in a car accident when swerving to avoid a deer on a two-lane road near a small, rural town in Florida. The residents of the town have seen more and more deer enter the town’s populated areas over recent years. Local law enforcement has been called numerous times this year to remove the animals from backyards and neighborhood streets, and one deer even caused considerable damage as it entered a restaurant in town. The mayor has been charged by the city leaders to keep the town residents safe.

December 12, 2008




Local crops have even been damaged by the animals. Some long time residents have requested that the hunting season and catch limits be extended in order to reduce the deer population. One city leader even proposed that the city purchase electronic devices to deter the deer from entering populated areas. Health concerns have recently been elevated as three deer carcasses were found at the edge of town and local law enforcement suspect that the animals had been poisoned.

December 12, 2008




Possible Solutions:1. Some long time residents have requested that the

hunting season and catch limits be extended in order to reduce the deer population.

2. One city leader even proposed that the city purchase electronic devices to deter the deer from entering populated areas.

3. Health concerns have recently been elevated as three deer carcasses were found at the edge of town and local law enforcement suspect that the animals had been poisoned.

December 12, 2008



Rubric Development Process

1. Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the task

2. Identify specific observable attributes students should demonstrate

3. Describe characteristics of the identified attribute

4. Write narrative descriptions for each level of continuum

5. Collect samples of student work 6. Score student work and identify samples that

exemplify various levels 7. Revise the rubric as needed

Repeat as Needed

December 12, 2008



ARC Scoring Workshop Process

1. After the completion of this PowerPoint Presentation, the workshop will begin with introductions from the participants

2. Workshop participants will be provided the ARC as well as scoring worksheets. Additional instruction will be provided on the scoring process.

3. A sample test item will then be presented on the screen, and various responses will be discussed and scored based on the scoring rubric given for that specific item.

4. Each scorer will then review the response provided for the first item on his/her first assessment, and scored it based on the scoring rubric. This process will be repeated for each of the five items on the assessment.

December 12, 2008




5. Scorers who encountered a response which did not clearly follow the rubric will discuss the response with the group for clarification.

6. Each scorer will then passed the scored assessment to their scoring partner, and the same assessments will be scored by the second scorer.

7. In the event that two scores differed significantly, the facilitator will provide the assessment to a third scorer, and a third score will be recorded.

8. When all scoring for an assessments is completed, the assessment will be provided to the facilitator.

December 12, 2008




9. Finally, steps 1 through 8 will be repeated for each assessment as time allows.

10. Workshop participants will complete the ARC Validity and Reliability Form at the end of the workshop.

11. Interrater reliability will also be calculated from ARC ratings after the completion of the workshop.

12. Rubric results will be reevaluated after each administration, and additional refinements and modifications may be made to the instrument as the assessment development and validation is intended to be an on-going dynamic process designed to provide the very best indicator of a student’s skills.

December 12, 2008



Validity and Reliability

December 12, 2008



Validity

Does the Rubric measure what it is suppose to measure?

“Validation is the process of accumulating evidence that supports the appropriateness of inferences that are made of student responses…” (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999)

December 12, 2008



Validity

1. Consequences: The effects of the assessment 2. Content Coverage: Comprehensiveness of assessment

content 3. Content Quality: Consistency with current content

conceptualization 4. Transfer and Generalizability: Whether assessment is

representative of a larger domain5. Cognitive Complexity: Whether level of knowledge assessed is

appropriate 6. Meaningfulness: The relevance of the assessment in the minds

of students 7. Fairness: Fairness to members of all groups 8. Cost and Efficiency: The practicality or feasibility of an

assessment

December 12, 2008



Validity

Consequences The effects of the assessment1. Is the assessment likely to produce results that will be used to

improve instructional programs or otherwise improve student learning?

Content Coverage Comprehensiveness of assessment content 2. Does the assessment comprehensively cover the content and

processes assessed?3. Is the content covered in sufficient breadth and depth?4. Does the assessment represent important (not trivial) components

of the content?5. Together, will the assessments provide sufficient evidence about

the content?

December 12, 2008



Validity

Content Quality Consistency with current content conceptualization6. Is the assessment consistent with the best available

conceptualization of the knowledge or skill assessed?7. Does the assessment represent current, rather than outdated,

perspectives? Transfer and Generalizability Whether assessment is representative of a larger domain8. Can the assessment results be generalized to the broader

domain (knowledge, skill, or learning outcome) they are intended to represent?

December 12, 2008



Validity

Cognitive Complexity Whether level of knowledge assessed is appropriate9. Do the assessment tasks or questions represent the cognitive complexity

of the knowledge or skill that it is intended to assess? (For example, if an outcome includes higher order or critical thinking skills--such as problem solving or synthesis--does the assessment measure them?)

10. Does the assessment actually require students to use higher-level knowledge or skills, or can students simply respond from memory without having to think?

Meaningfulness The relevance of the assessment in the minds of students11. Are assessment items or tasks meaningful to students? 12. Is the assessment relevant to problems students will encounter again in

school, work, or daily living?13. Does the assessment provide students with worthwhile or meaningful

experiences?

December 12, 2008



Validity

Fairness Fairness to members of all groups14.Is the assessment biased against students who are members of

various racial, ethnic, and gender groups or students with disabilities? Does it contain stereotypes of any groups?

15.Do students of similar ability, regardless of group membership, score the same?

Cost and Efficiency The practicality or feasibility of an assessment16.Is the assessment a reasonable burden on teachers, instructional

time, and finances?17.Is resulting information worth the required costs in money, time, and

effort?

December 12, 2008



Reliability

Consistency of the assessment scores Types of reliability…

Interrater Reliability – scores vary from instructor to instructor.

Intrarater Reliability – scores vary from a single instructor from paper to paper

A test can be reliable and not valid, but never valid and not reliable

December 12, 2008



Reliability Concerns

Reliability

1. Are the score categories well defined?

2. Are the differences between the score categories clear?

3. Would two independent raters arrive at the same score for a given student response based on the scoring rubric?

December 12, 2008



Improving Scoring Consistency

Provide rubric to students prior to assessment

Anonymous papers Anchor papers defining levels of

proficiency for reference Use of multiple scorers Interrater reliability statistics during

training and grading

December 12, 2008



Next Steps

The new faculty champions will administer coursework using the ARC rubric within their programs during the Spring semester

Faculty Champions will use the ARC assignment profile to ensure consistency

Process will be repeated (Steps 5 - 7)

Assessment Rubric for Critical ThinkingRubric Validation Process

Second Workshop

Quality Enhancement PlanQEP Team and Faculty Champions

http://www.spcollege.edu/

Documents

Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking Rubric Validation Process Second Workshop Quality Enhancement Plan QEP Team and Faculty Champions