Upload
madison-thompson
View
234
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University-Level Assessment of Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Workshop, May 2010
Standardized TestsCalifornia Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)• Summer 2008 Freshmen• Non- College of Business,
Management and Economics• 961• “Process of purposeful, self-
regulatory judgment”• Analysis, Evaluation and
Inference = Total• Deductive and Inductive =
Total
Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)• Summer 2009 Freshmen• Random Sample – 60%• 848 with 824 completing at
least 75%• Voluntary System of
Accountability Requirement
• Reading I, Reading II, Critical Thinking (Reading III)
California Critical Thinking Skills Test
Number of Questions
ESU 4-Year College
Total 34 14.57 16.80
Analysis 7 4.09 4.44
Inference 16 6.76 7.85
Evaluation 11 3.72 4.52
Induction 17 8.36 9.53
Deduction 17 6.21 7.27
ESU’s 2009 Freshmen Cohort ESU’s 2009 Freshmen Cohort
Skills Subscores Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics
Mean Subscore No. of Instns.
Percent Below
No. of Instns.
Percent Below
No. of Instns.
Percent Below
No. of Instns.
Percent Below
126 to 130 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100125 to 125.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100124 to 124.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100123 to 123.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100122 to 122.99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100121 to 121.99 0 100 1 98 0 100 0 100120 to 120.99 0 100 2 95 0 100 0 100119 to 119.99 0 100 3 89 0 100 0 100118 to 118.99 0 100 8 75 0 100 0 100117 to 117.99 0 100 4 67 0 100 0 100116 to 116.99 0 100 17 36 3 95 0 100
115 to 115.99 0 100 4 29 5 85 2 96114 to 114.99 0 100 4 22 8 71 6 85
113 to 113.99 1 98 7 9 16 42 14 60112 to 112.99 4 91 2 5 10 24 13 36111 to 111.99 4 84 1 4 7 11 9 20110 to 110.99 8 69 0 4 3 5 5 11109 to 109.99 12 47 2 0 3 0 3 5
108 to 108.99 14 22 0 0 0 0 0 5107 to 107.99 7 9 0 0 0 0 2 2106 to 106.99 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0100 to 105.99 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of Institutions
55 55 55 55
Mean 109.30 (108.94) 116.12 (115.27) 113.18 (113.16) 112.29 (113.15)
MAPP
Reading Level III (Critical Thinking)Students who are proficient can:• evaluate competing causal explanations• evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts• determine the relevance of information for evaluating an
argument or conclusion• determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported
by evidence contained in a work• recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art• evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for
investigating a question of causation• evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses
or methods• recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument
Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress
Next Steps
Reading• University Assessment
Committee Reading Task Group
Assessments• Senior MAPP Results• Summer Freshmen 2010
and Senior Fall 2010