Assessing Writing and Critical Thinking Throughout the Curriculum

1
Assessing Writing and Critical Thinking
Throughout the Curriculum

• Terri Flateby
• Director of Assessment
• University of South Florida
• Allen Dupont
• Director of Assessment
• North Carolina State University

2
Overview of Assessment Process

• 2
• Select or develop measures consistent with the
  outcomes

1 Select or develop measurable student learning
outcomes (course or program)

• 3
• Assess Student learning Outcomes

5 Make adjustments in curriculum, instructional
strategies, or activities to address weaknesses
and strengths identified

• 4
• Analyze Assessment Results

3
Background and Context

• Initiated Over 10 Years Ago
• In a learning community environment
• Became focus of General Education Assessment
• Initially assessed writing holistically

4
Background and Context Response

• Discovered holistic methods limitations
• Developed an analytical scale
• Cognitive Level and Quality of Writing
  Assessment
• (CLAQWA)
• http//www.usf.edu/assessment

5
Background and Context

• Initially Created To
• Be used by faculty
• Provide flexibility
• Provide a language of discourse about writing
  between faculty and students

6
Background and Context

• Based On
• Commonly used writing handbooks
• Blooms Taxonomy of Educational
  ObjectivesCognitive Domain
• Collaborative and iterative approach

7
The Classroom Writing Skills Assessment
8
The Classroom Cognitive Level Assessment
9
Blooms Taxonomy Cognitive Domain
10
Evolved Into an Online System of Assessment

• For individual faculty members
• For student peer review
• For program assessment teams
• For inter-institutional collaboration

11
Triggers for Change

• Need for greater scoring consistency 5 levels
  described
• Need for addressing weaknesses peer review
• Need for readily accessible resource CLAQWA
  online

12
Program Assessment Trait Coherence Devices

• Level 5 Transitional words, phrases, sentences
  and paragraphs (coherence devices) smoothly
  connect the papers elements, ideas and/or
  details allowing the reader to follow the
  writers points effortlessly.
• Level 4 Coherence devices are rarely missing
  and do not impact the readers understanding.
• Level 3 Coherence devices appear throughout the
  paper, but additional and appropriate connectors
  would enhance the flow.
• Level 2 Coherence devices are attempted, but
  are ineffective.
• Level 1 Coherence devices are absent or
  inappropriate.

13
Online Writing and Thinking Assessment System
14
Online Writing and Thinking Assessment System
15
Online Writing and Thinking Assessment System
16
Online Writing and Thinking Assessment System
17
Online Writing and Thinking Assessment System
18
CLAQWA for GE

• Advantages
• Common rubric for writing and critical thinking
  assessment across the institution
• Well developed system has been in use for many
  years
• Allows for inter-institutional comparison

19
CLAQWA for GE

• Challenges
• Convincing faculty members to adopt this
  system/rubric
• Finding/developing resources to support the
  system
• Training faculty members who do agree to use it

20
CLAQWA for GE

• Overcoming the challenges
• Guerilla marketing
• Approach faculty members individually (at least
  in the initial stages)
• Do not talk about general education talk about
  students in the major

21
CLAQWA for Accreditation

• SACS CS 3.5.1 refers to college level general
  education competencies
• CLAQWA provides evidence about two common ones
  writing and critical thinking
• Decentralized meaningful to faculty but can
  be rolled up

22
Critical Thinking Elements

• Based on Blooms Taxonomy of Educational
  Objectives Cognitive Domain and APAs 1990
  Delphi Report
• Inference
• Analysis
• Evaluation
• Added to Main Idea and Progression of Ideas from
  CLAQWA