Assessment Of Critical Thinking Research Articles

Critical Analysis

This study compared changes in psychology and philosophy classes in two distinct components of critical thinking (CT): general skills and personal beliefs. Participants were 128 undergraduates enrolled in CT in psychology, other psychology courses, or philosophy courses. CT and philosophy students significantly reduced beliefs in paranormal phenomena at the end of the semester compared to other psychology students. Only philosophy students improved on the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. The Watson–Glaser may not fully measure CT emphasized in psychology, but psychology instructors can still effectively teach students to examine their own beliefs and think differently in their daily lives. Differentiated assessment of CT is important as instructors evaluate student learning against specific goals.

Validation of a Scenario-Based Assessment of Critical Thinking Using an Externally Validated Tool

With medical education transitioning from knowledge-based curricula to competency-based curricula, critical thinking skills have emerged as a major competency. While there are validated external instruments for assessing critical thinking, many educators have created their own custom assessments of critical thinking. However, the face validity of these assessments has not been challenged. The purpose of this study was to compare results from a custom assessment of critical thinking with the results from a validated external instrument of critical thinking. Students from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western University of Health Sciences were administered a custom assessment of critical thinking (ACT) examination and the externally validated instrument, California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), in the spring of 2011. Total scores and sub-scores from each exam were analyzed for significant correlations using Pearson correlation coefficients. Significant correlations between ACT Blooms 2 and deductive reasoning and total ACT score and deductive reasoning were demonstrated with correlation coefficients of 0.24 and 0.22, respectively. No other statistically significant correlations were found. The lack of significant correlation between the two examinations illustrates the need in medical education to externally validate internal custom assessments. Ultimately, the development and validation of custom assessments of non-knowledge-based competencies will produce higher quality medical professionals.

Assessment of Critical Thinking:

Abstract Ensuring university students' ability to demonstrate and express critical thinking through competent writing is vital to students' future success. In this article, the authors describe one university's efforts to respond to external pressures to assess the critical-thinking skills of upper-division students, presenting the implementation of a critical-thinking assessment strategy through the lenses of three distinct stages of development, arguing that the successful assessment of critical thinking requires the acceptance of and patience with an evolutionary approach to implementation. They conclude with a discussion of what factors appear to be necessary conditions for the successful implementation of critical-thinking assessment in practice.

Thirty Great Ways to Mess Up a Critical Thinking Test

Finals week already! At Michigan State in 1967 the general education course was called' 'Logic. In 1989 at California State University Fullerton we call it Logic. Although I would now describe my goal in both cases as teaching critical thinking (CT), so much is different: my conceptualization of CT and its relationship to logic has changed, my curricular and pedagogical ideas about how CT is best taught, and even my sense of why it is important to teach CT. Yet one thing remains: then and now at MSU and at CSUF we give final exams. And exams are what this paper is about. Specifically CT exams. Like anyone's, my CT course boldly assumes (1) CT can be learned, (2) CT can be assessed, and (3) CT can be taught. I sleep easier these days knowing that (1) is probably true in spite of anything I might do in the classroom. I pray (3) is true, and I most certainly conduct myself on campus as if it were. Imagine the budgetary bloodshed should the campus curriculum committee demand empirical evidence! And, I worry about how to defend (3). One sure fire defense would show how much students have improved in CT as a result of taking my course. But that leads right to assumption (2)-that CT can be assessed. This little paper is a tongue-in-cheek look at the practical aspects of framing a CT assessment tool-a chore each of us undertakes whenever we prepare a final examination. If you follow the advice given here-advice hard won through personal experience, trial and error, especially erroryou will be able to construct a truly dreadful CT test. Make no mistakes. This abysmal goal, I'm confident, is achievable. I know because I've hit pay dirt a few times myself. Having elsewhere defended multiple-choice CT assessment strategies, this venerable mode of assessment will come in for special attention in a moment, but let's start with basic seven rules which apply to both essay testing (ET) and multiple-choice testing (MCT).