Clemson Thinks2

Clemson University Quality Enhancement Plan

SACSCOC On-site Visit April 15-18, 2013

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

Table of ConTenTsI. executive summary 1

II. Process Used to Develop the QeP 3

III. IdentificationoftheTopic 13

IV. student learning outcomes 27

V. literature Review and best Practices 29

VI. actions to be Implemented 46

VII. Timeline 49

VIII. organizational structure 51

IX. Resources 54

X. assessment 55

XI. Conclusion 59

XII. Works Cited 60

XIII. appendices 64

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

1

I. eXeCUTIVe sUmmaRy Oneofthemostimportantbenefitsthatauniversityeducationaffordsstudents is the ability to think critically. While most teachers claim to teachcriticalthinking,andwhilemanydo,fewcanarticulatepreciselyhow it happens. Clemson Thinks2, Clemson University’s Quality en-hancement Plan (QeP), is an ambitious experiment in critical thinking thataspirestotransformstudentlearningandfacultyteachingacrossthecurriculumandinthedisciplines.Thefoundationofthiseffortwillbeaseriesofsecond-yearcriticalthinking(CT2)Seminars,acohortofCT2

FacultyScholars,afacultydevelopmentprogram,arigorousassess-ment plan, and a scholarly research program. Clemson is a land-grant university that cultivates the intimate atmo-sphereofasmallerschool.Clemson Thinks2 capitalizes on this unique combinationbyleveragingtheresourcesofamajorresearchuniversitytocreateaclassroomenvironmentmoretypicalofaliberalartscol-lege. at a time when terms such as “massive” and “online” are used to describe pedagogical innovations, Clemson Thinks2 proposes small, engagedlearningexperiencestopromotecarefulreading,thoughtfulex-change,effectivewriting,andaboveallcriticalthinking.Modeledinparton courses taught in Clemson’s Calhoun Honors College, CT2 seminars willofferanhonorsexperiencetoallClemsonstudents. Aftersolicitingproposalsfromtheuniversitycommunity,analyzingassessment data pertaining to student learning outcomes, and thor-oughly reviewing the literature, the QeP steering Committee made two determinations: (1) the QeP will enhance critical thinking, and (2) the QeP will target second-year students. The committee drew on elements fromvariousQEPpre-proposals–submittedbystudents,faculty,andstaff–inordertoformulateaplanthatenhancesteachingandlearningat Clemson. CT2 seminars will be taught both in the general education

Modeled in part on

courses taught in

Clemson’s Calhoun

Honors College, CT2

Seminars will offer an

honors experience to all

Clemson students.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

2

curriculumand,whenpossible,invariousmajorcurricula.Facultywillhavesignificantflexibilityindeterminingthecontentofeachseminar,thoughallseminarswillbeopentoallstudentsregardlessofmajor.Theseminarswillenrollfewerthan20studentsandconductpre-andpost-seminarassessmentusinganationallyvalidatedassessmentofcritical thinking such as the Critical Thinking assessment Test (CaT) or theCaliforniaCriticalThinkingSkillsTest(CCTST).Inaddition,theCT2 Seminarswillbecommunication-intensive,involvingsignificantwrittenassignments and in-class discussions, thereby advancing Clemson’s award-winning Writing across the Curriculum initiative.

Clemson Thinks2hasthepotentialtotransformstudentlearningatClem-sonthroughallfouryearsofcollege.However,theQEPitselftargetsthesecondyear.Becausethistransitionaltimefallsbetweenfirst-yearexpe-riences and general education courses, on the one side, and engaged learningopportunitiesandmajorcourses,ontheother,itoftenreceiveslessfocusedattention.Forthosesamereasons,however,thesecondyearpresentsstudentswithanidealopportunitytobuildontheirfoun-dational courses by enhancing the critical thinking skills that will prepare them to engage at a higher level in the classroom, in the community, and in their careers. Clemson Thinks2 advances the university’s strategic plan, laid out in the “2020 Road map”: to become a top-20 Public University, to recruit a top-15freshmanclass,andtocreateanengagedlearningenvironmentandhonors college experience. above all, it accepts as a challenge Presi-dent James barker’s remark to the may 2012 General faculty meeting: “Ourplanneedstohaveastrong,clearfocusonthecoreofthecore–theheartoftheheart–whichistheclassroomexperience.”

Clemson Thinks2 has the

potential to transform

student learning at Clemson

through all four years of

college.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

3

II. PRoCess UseD To DeVeloP THe QePOverview Of the PrOcessClemson University is a large, public, land-grant university enrolling over 19,000undergraduate,graduate,andprofessionalstudents.Ithasalongstanding commitment to high-quality undergraduate education and a proudtraditionofpublicservice.DesigningaQEPthatwouldtransformeducation at Clemson was a challenging endeavor that required the sup-portofstudents,faculty,andstafffromthroughouttheinstitution.Thissection describes the process used to develop and adopt the Quality enhancement Plan at Clemson.

Clemson Thinks2 developed through an extensive process that includ-edgrassrootsinputfromteamsacrosstheuniversitywhosubmittedproposalsfortheQEP.MembersoftheSteeringCommitteeexaminedassessment data that pointed to areas where Clemson’s students were notmakingthekindsofgainsthatwouldbeexpectedofstudentswhocompletetheirdegreeatatop-25publicuniversity.Asurveyoftheliter-aturesuggestedthatthesophomoreyearwasoftenalostyearbetweentheexcitementofthefirst-yearexperiencesandthefocusanddepthofstudystudentsexperiencedintheirjuniorandsenioryears.Allthreesourcesofinformation–campusinput,assessmentdata,andthelitera-turereview–wereanimportantpartoftheearlyreviewprocess.

Afterconsideringalargenumberofproposalsandreviewingthevastliterature on student achievement and engagement, the steering Com-mitteedecidedthatafocusonthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingskillsduringthesecondyearofcollegewouldhavethemostsignificantimpactonstudentdevelopment.Thecorefeatureoftheproposaltooktheform

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

4

ofasecond-yearcriticalthinkingseminar that would build student critical thinking skills and serve as a gatewayforgreaterengagementinlearningthroughoutthejuniorandsenior years.

Priortofinalizingtheplan,thesteering Committee sought input fromawidevarietyofcampusgroupsincludingthefaculty,studentgovernment, alumni, university ad-ministration, community stakehold-ers,andtheBoardofTrustees.Thisfeedbackvalidatedthechoiceofcriticalthinkingasamajorfocusbutalso pointed out areas, particularly pertaining to implementation, that calledforfurtherdevelopmentandrefinement.TheSteeringCommitteeincorporatedthisfeedbackbeforefinalizingthetopicanddevelopingthe plan.

OncetheSteeringCommitteefinal-ized the QeP topic and approach, the members turned their attention to designing the critical thinking seminar,establishingneededfacultyresources, and implementing the plan. The team established that each critical thinking seminar would: (1) enroll under 20 students in a second-year, communication-inten-sive seminar; (2) be open to stu-dentsfromanymajor;(3)includeastandardized,objectivepre/post-assessmentofstudents’criticalthinkingskills;(4)betaughtbyfacultywhohavecompleteddevelopmentpro-grams aimed at instruction in critical thinking. Thus, the seminars will providesecond-yearstudentswithanopportunitytointeractwithfacultymemberswhohavedemonstratedexpertiseinboththeirownfieldandincritical thinking instruction and to do so in an intimate classroom setting. over time, such experiences will create an ongoing dialogue about crit-icalthinkingandtransformthecultureofteachingandlearningatClem-son University.

fOrmatiOn Of the QeP teamTheuniversitybegantodeveloptheQEPin2010whenfacultyandadministrativeleadersattendedaSACSCOCreaffirmationorientationinatlanta. University President James barker appointed a steering Com-mitteebasedonrecommendationsofCollegeDeansandVicePresi-

Over time, such experiences

will create an ongoing

dialogue about critical

thinking and transform

the culture of teaching

and learning at Clemson

University.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

5

dents.PresidentBarkerappointedDr.DebraJackson,ViceProvostforAcademicAffairsandAssistanttothePresident,andDr.WilliamSurver,AlumniDistinguishedProfessorofBiologyandformerFacultySenatePresident,asco-chairsoftheSteeringCommittee(AppendixA).

President barker charged the steering Committee with responsibility to select,plan,andimplementtheQEPonbehalfofClemsonUniversity.Inhis instructions to the steering Committee, President barker outlined six requirementsfortheQEP:

1. It must align with Clemson’s 2020 Road map (appendix b).2. It must be campus wide.3. It must be open to all.4. It must involve engagement.5. Itmustbetransformative.6. It must be sustainable.

Under this charge, the steering Committee began its work in september 2011.

sOlicitatiOn and evaluatiOn Of Pre-PrOPOsalsThe steering Committee began its deliberations by soliciting QeP pro-posalsfromacrossClemsonUniversity.Students,faculty,andstaffwereinvitedtosubmitfive-pagepre-proposalsthatdescribedanideaorcon-cept related to student learning, aligned with Clemson’s 2020 plan, and weresuitableforimplementationasacampus-widequalityenhancementinitiative. Pre-proposal requirements were deliberately kept relatively simple in order to secure the widest possible input.

TheSteeringCommittee’sleadershipestablishedawebsitewithinfor-mationaboutSACSCOCreaffirmationofaccreditationandtheQualityenhancement Plan process. The site also provided links to past suc-

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

6

cessfulQEPinitiativesatpeerinstitutionsfromacrosstheregion.Theseresources were intended to provide proposal teams with enough back-ground in order to develop a competitive proposal.

Groupsfromacrosscampussubmitted21proposals.SteeringCom-mittee members read all 21 proposals and scored them based upon alignment with the Clemson 2020 plan and potential to encourage broad-baseduniversityinvolvementaswellasidentificationofspecificandmeasurable student learning outcomes. Team members also scored eachproposalonsixqualitativeattributes:innovation,degreeofdaring,transformativepotential,uniqueness,relevance,andfocus.

Astheresultofthisprocess,sixofthe21proposalswereselectedas“finalists.”Eachoftheseissummarizedbrieflybelow:

“ClemsonGrandChallenges”:Thistwo-partQEPproposedajunior/se-niorlevelseminarinwhichstudentswouldworkwithafacultymemberwhohasexpertiseinoneofthe“grandchallenges”ofthe21stcentury(e.g., environmental sustainability, renewable energy resources, health disparities, literacy, deindustrialization, etc.). Participants in the seminar woulddevelopaprojectortechnologyproposaldesignedtoaddressthis challenge. students would then present their proposal at a two-day showcase modeled on the TeD (Technology, entertainment and Design)conferences.

“CUintheWorld”:Theintentofthisproposalwastoincreasestudents’engagement in cross-cultural and international educational experienc-es. This proposal combined service learning, study abroad, and class-roomengagementtoprovideamorecoherentframeworkwithinwhichstudentscouldmakeuseofinternationalexperiencestobetterpreparethemforlifeaftertheiruniversityeducationiscomplete.

“enduring Questions seminars”: The enduring Questions QeP aimed to enhance general education at Clemson by rethinking the existing arts andHumanitiesrequirementasaseriesofwriting-intensiveseminars.Theproposalcalledforeachyear’sseminarstobefocusedonaspecificquestion(e.g.,whatislife?,whatisfriendship?,whywar?,whatisevil?)andtoemployacoretext.TheproposalalsocalledfortrainingacadreofadvancedundergraduatewritingfellowstrainedbyClemson’sWritingCenter and assigned to work with students to develop their critical think-ing and writing skills.

“Reinventing General education”: This submission proposed revising generaleducationsothatitbetterreflectsthecomplexworldstudentsencounterwhentheygraduate.Specifically,theproposal’sauthorsrec-ommended modeling a reinvented general education around a one- or two-semester intensive immersion experience.

“Research skills and Critical Thinking”: This proposal recommended developing a three-semester course sequence designed to develop students’ research and critical thinking skills. The sequence would begin

Groups from across

campus submitted 21

proposals.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

7

withabasicoverviewofresearchandresearchmethodsfollowedbytwocoursesonformallogic.Theexperiencewouldculminateinanunder-graduateresearchprojectinthestudent’smajorfield.

“StewardsofPlace”:AuthorsofthisproposalcalledforthedevelopmentofanundergraduateresearchandservicelearninginfrastructurethroughwhichClemsonstudentscoulduseknowledgegainedintheirmajorstoaddresssocial,economic,andtechnicalchallengesfacingresidentsinPickens County, in which Clemson University is located.

linking finalist PrOPOsals tO assessment dataOncethesixfinalistproposalswereidentified,theteamturnedtoev-idencefromassessmentdatainordertoidentifyareasofstudentachievementthatwouldmostlikelybenefitfromaqualityenhancementplan.Threetypesofdatawerecentraltothisevaluation:GraduateRecord examination (GRe) scores, educational Testing service (eTs) ProficiencyProfiledata,andartifactsfromtheePortfoliosrequiredofallgraduating seniors at Clemson.

EvidencefromGREscoresshowedthatClemsonstudentsscorednearthe national mean on analytical writing and verbal reasoning. Given Clemson’s status as a top 25 public university, the committee viewed theseresultsasinsufficientandasevidenceoftheneedtogivegreat-erattentiontofosteringcriticalthinkingandwritingabilitiesamongourundergraduate students.

AssessmentdatafromClemsonUniversity’sETSProficiencyProfiletesting allowed the steering Committee to examine how a cross sample ofstudentsprogressedacrosstheirfouryearsatClemson.Theevidence

Three types of data

were central to this

evaluation: Graduate

Record Examination

(GRE) scores, Educational

Testing Service (ETS)

Proficiency Profile data,

and artifacts from the

ePortfolios required of

all graduating seniors at

Clemson.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

8

showedthattheweakestareawascriticalthinkingforwhich57percentoftheseniorsgraduatinginthe2008-2010academicyearswerejudgednotproficient.Similarly,48percentofgraduatingseniorswerescored“notproficient”inlevelthreewriting,acoreelementofeffectivecriticalthinking(AppendixC).Thus,theETSproficiencytestresultssignaledareasofneedthatwereconsistentwiththoseidentifiedfromtheGREdata.TheSteeringCommitteenotedinparticulartheapparentlackofimprovementbyClemsonstudentsintheareaofcriticalthinkingovertheirfouryearsofcollege.

Finally,theSteeringCommitteealsoexaminedfindingsfromClemsonUniversitystudentePortfolios.ThesedataweregatheredwhenteamsoffacultyevaluatedartifactsfromGeneralEducationcompetencies.Thesedata showed that, while overall critical thinking was among the highest scoringcompetencies,notableweaknesseswereidentifiedinstudents’abilitytoidentifycriticalthinkingtechniques,toselectandapplytech-niquesmostappropriatetoaspecifictask,andtoeffectivelycommuni-catetheresults,especiallyinwrittenform(AppendixD).

Afterevaluatingtheassessmentdata,theSteeringCommitteeconclud-edthatcriticalthinkingwastheareaofintellectualdevelopmentmostconducive to broad-based university participation and most likely to ben-efitfromthekindofsustainedfocusavailablethroughtheQEPprocess.at the same time, the steering Committee recognized that critical think-ingandeffectivecommunicationgohand-in-hand.Withthesedetermina-tionsinmind,theSteeringCommitteereturnedtothesixfinalistpropos-alsandrereadandreevaluatedtheminlightoftheassessmentdata.

Thereevaluationrevealedthatnosingleproposalprovidedthefocuson critical thinking indicated by the assessment data while also meeting the criteria cited by University President barker in his charge to the QeP committee:thattheQEPbeinnovative,daring,transformative,unique,relevant,engaged,andfocused.However,itwasclearthatbycombiningelementsofseveralofthefinalistproposals,itwouldbepossibletode-velop a QeP that builds upon student intellectual needs as demonstrated byassessmentdataandthatfulfillsPresidentBarker’scharge.

FromthisprocessemergedthebasicdesignofClemson Thinks2, the ClemsonUniversityQEP:aprogramofcriticalthinkingdevelopmentan-choredbyasecond-yearseminarexperienceandfocusedondevelopingstudents’abilitytothinkcriticallyandtocommunicateeffectively.Thisprogramwastoserveasaspringboardforstudentinvolvementinmoresophisticatedandsustainedtypesofintellectualworkthroughtheirmajorcourseworkandengagementexperiences.AnothercornerstoneoftheQEPwasastructurethatwouldpermitthedevelopmentofafacultycrit-icalthinkingcommunity–agroupofcriticalthinkingscholarswhohadcompletedacommonfacultydevelopmentprocessandwhooperatedastheirownself-reflectivecriticalthinkingcommunity.Clemson Thinks2 thereforeimaginescriticalthinkingasaskilldevelopedintheclassroom,as a practice employed in the lab and in the world, and as an ethos that definestheuniversitycommunityofscholars,teachers,andstudents.

After evaluating the

assessment data, the

Steering Committee

concluded that critical

thinking was the area of

intellectual development

most conducive to

broad-based university

participation and most

likely to benefit from the

kind of sustained focus

available through the

QEP process.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

9

solICITInG feeDbaCk fRom THe Clemson CommUnITyBeforeanyformalplanningbeganforClemson Thinks2, the QeP steer-ingCommitteesolicitedfeedbackthroughseveralavenues.AQEPweb-siteofferedablogformatwherequestionswereposedtotheuniversitycommunity and answers posted by respondents. In addition, the com-mitteeengagedinaseriesoftownhallmeetingsandpresentationstoimportant stakeholders in the university community. Three sessions were heldinMayandJuneof2012;onesessionwaslimitedtofacultyonly,theothertwosessionsincludedfacultyandstaff.ThesessionswereintendedtointroducetheinitialQEPproposalandtosolicitfeedbackandsuggestionsregardingitsappropriatenessasachoicefortheClemsonUniversity QeP (appendix e).

In addition to the town hall meetings, QeP steering Committee members presented the QeP to the faculty and student senates, the academic Council,theAdministrativeCouncil,theBoardofTrustees,theBoardofVisitors,theOrganizationofAcademicDepartmentChairs,andtheUndergraduate Curriculum Committee. During this period, the members oftheQEPSteeringCommitteealsometwithSACSCOCVicePresi-dentBarryGoldsteininordertoobtainpreliminaryfeedbackontheQEPproposal.

Ingeneral,thefocusoncriticalthinkingandtheoveralldesignforClemson Thinks2receivedaffirmativeresponsesbutuniversitystake-holdersalsoraisedanumberofimportantissuesthatneededtobedi-gestedandfoldedintotheplanbeforetheClemson Thinks2 design could befinalized.Thefollowingmodificationsweremadeand/orthefollow-ing components were added to Clemson Thinks2 in response to issues raised during this comment period:

1. CT2 seminars can be new courses or can be existing courses that aremodifiedtoincludeanexplicitemphasisoncriticalthinking.

2. CT2Seminarswillenrollfewerthan20studentsandbeopentoallstudents in their second year in college.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

10

3. CT2Seminarswillbetaughtasapartoffacultymembers’regularteaching loads rather than as additional courses.

4. InordertoqualifytoteachaCT2Seminar,facultymemberswillcomplete a week-long summer CT2 faculty Institute. The institute will provideabaselinelevelofexpertiseincriticalthinkingandcriticalthinking instruction.

5. TheinitialimplementationofClemson Thinks2 will not involve chang-es to Clemson’s existing general education curriculum. Decisions regardingtheinclusionofCT2 in general education will await assess-mentoftheprogramandabroaderdiscussionaboutgeneraleduca-tion among all stakeholders in the university.

6. CT2Seminarsmaybetaughtinthedisciplines–i.e.,aspartofama-jorcurriculum–providedtheymeettheabovecriteria.

7. CT2 seminars will be assessed to measure gains in students’ criti-calthinkingskillsandtheresultsofthisassessmentwillinformbestpractices, curricular revisions, and program administration.

8. CT2Seminarswillnotberequiredforgraduationuntilassessmentsindicate that the program is meeting its goals. However, across the fulllife-cycleoftheQEP,thenumberofavailableseminarswillin-crease to the point where virtually all second-year students will have an opportunity to enroll. Conversion to a requirement would then be possible.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

11

Ass

essm

ent D

ata:

ePor

tfolio

and

ETS

THE

CO

UR

SE

Pilo

t Stu

dyTo

Be

Dev

elop

ed

Defi

niti

on o

f Crit

ical

Thi

nkin

g:“C

ritic

al th

inki

ng is

the

inte

llect

ually

dis

cipl

ined

pr

oces

s of

act

ivel

y an

d sk

illfu

lly c

once

ptua

lizin

g,

appl

ying

, ana

lyzi

ng, s

ynth

esiz

ing,

and

/or e

valu

atin

g in

form

atio

n ga

ther

ed fr

om, o

r gen

erat

ed b

y,

obse

rvat

ion,

exp

erie

nce,

refl e

ctio

n, re

ason

ing,

or

com

mun

icat

ion,

as

a gu

ide

to b

elie

f and

act

ion.

In it

s ex

empl

ary

form

, it i

s ba

sed

on u

nive

rsal

inte

llect

ual

valu

es th

at tr

ansc

end

subj

ect m

atte

r div

isio

ns: c

larit

y,

accu

racy

, pre

cisi

on, c

onsi

sten

cy, r

elev

ance

, sou

nd

evid

ence

, goo

d re

ason

s, d

epth

, bre

adth

, and

fairn

ess

(Scr

iven

and

Pau

l, 19

87).”

Stud

ent L

earn

ing

Out

com

es1.

E

xplo

re c

ompl

ex c

halle

nges

2.

Ana

lyze

mul

ti-di

men

sion

al p

robl

ems

3.

Ext

rapo

late

from

one

con

cept

ual c

onte

xt to

ot

hers

4.

Syn

thes

ize

alte

rnat

ive

solu

tions

to m

ulti-

dim

ensi

onal

cha

lleng

es5.

C

omm

unic

ate

effe

ctiv

ely

com

plex

idea

s

To b

ette

r inf

orm

futu

re d

irect

ion,

the

Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

is p

ropo

sing

a fo

rmal

pilo

t pha

se; w

ith

resu

lts in

form

ing

and

chan

ging

the

dire

ctio

n of

im

plem

enta

tion

• W

ritin

g In

tens

ive

vers

us n

on-w

ritin

g

in

tens

ive

• U

nder

and

Ove

r 20

• In

terd

isci

plin

ary

vers

us d

isci

plin

e ba

sed

• Li

nks

to e

ngag

emen

t—us

ing

pre

and

post

as

sess

men

t stra

tegi

es

• S

econ

d Ye

ar C

ours

e•

Cla

ss s

ize

unde

r 20

• C

ritic

al T

hink

ing

• Ta

ught

by CT2

Sch

olar

s•

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y an

d D

isci

plin

ed B

ased

as

long

as

open

to a

ll st

uden

ts•

Com

mun

icat

ion

Inte

nsiv

e•

Enh

ance

aca

dem

ic a

nd e

ngag

emen

t exp

erie

nces

• A

sses

smen

t Stra

tegi

es

•

Pre

/Pos

t Tes

t in

the

cour

se

•

Sum

mat

ive

Ass

essm

ent

• eP

ortfo

lio A

rtifa

cts

• E

TS P

rofi c

ienc

y P

rofi l

e

•

Trac

king

sys

tem

of s

tude

nts

in CT2

co

urse

s

Cre

ativ

e In

quiry

Fel

low

s P

rogr

am(T

o be

dev

elop

ed w

ith s

imila

r cr

iteria

, bas

ed o

n th

e CT2

Fa

culty

Sch

olar

s m

odel

)•

Facu

lty D

evel

opm

ent

• A

ctiv

e P

artic

ipat

ion

• A

sses

smen

t Stra

tegi

es•

Stu

dent

Lea

rnin

g

Out

com

es

CT2

Fac

ulty

Sch

olar

s•

Facu

lty D

evel

opm

ent r

equi

red

to b

e a

CT2

Sch

olar

• 4-

day

prog

ram

dev

elop

ed

for

sum

mer

inst

itute

• A

ctiv

e P

artic

ipat

ions

in A

nnua

l

Pro

gram

s•

Pre

/Pos

t Ass

essm

ent o

f Cou

rses

• E

valu

atio

n

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Ince

ntiv

e M

odel

of “

Sch

olar

s”

reco

gniz

ed b

y th

e U

nive

rsity

, pr

ovid

ed $

5000

sup

plem

ent a

s lo

ng a

s re

mai

n a CT2

Sch

olar

(th

ink

Alu

mni

Pro

fess

or)

Bas

ed o

n re

view

of

the

liter

atur

e re

gard

-in

g fa

culty

teac

hing

cr

itica

l thi

nkin

g.

Ince

ntiv

e –

$500

0 to

su

ppor

t fac

ulty

an

d st

uden

t ex

pens

es

Ope

ratio

naliz

atio

n of

the

Cou

rse(

s)S

teer

ing

Com

mitt

ee d

evel

ops

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y co

urse

s th

at m

eet t

he

CT2

requ

irem

ent a

nd a

gen

eral

edu

catio

n re

quire

men

t for

sub

mis

sion

to

Und

ergr

adua

te C

urric

ulum

Com

mitt

ee.

CU

21X

(CT2

) Nat

ural

Sci

ence

and

Mat

hem

atic

s C

U 2

2X (CT2

) Sci

ence

, Tec

hnol

ogy

and

Soc

iety

CU

23X

(CT2

) Soc

ial S

cien

ceC

U 2

4X (CT2

) Cro

ss C

ultu

ral A

war

enes

sC

U 2

5X (CT2

) Hum

aniti

es a

nd L

itera

ture

CU

26X

(CT2

) Hum

aniti

es a

nd N

on-L

itera

ture

Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

dev

elop

s a

syst

em to

app

rove

Crit

ical

Thi

nkin

g de

sign

atio

n fo

r cur

rent

dis

cipl

ine

base

d co

urse

s. (

Sim

ilar t

o th

e H

onor

C

olle

ge m

odel

).

Exp

lore

opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r eng

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

to in

corp

orat

e C

ritic

al

Thin

king

thro

ugh

facu

lty d

evel

opm

ent/p

artic

ipat

ion

as CT2

Sch

olar

s

Eng

age

the

Und

ergr

adua

te

Cur

ricul

um C

omm

ittee

in

cour

se a

ppro

vals

.

Volu

ntee

r to

wor

k w

ith

UC

C to

impr

ove

the

Crit

ical

Th

inki

ng C

ompo

nent

of t

he

ePor

tfolio

.

RES

EAR

CH

FO

CU

S—LI

NK

ING

CR

ITIC

AL

THIN

KIN

G, C

REA

TIVE

INQ

UIR

Y, A

ND

EN

GA

GEM

ENT

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

12

PIloT CT2 CoURsesAcrucialelementofClemson Thinks2 is a two-year pilot phase in which smallernumbersofCT2Seminarsaretobeoffered,assessed,andfurtherdeveloped.Duringthisperiod,theoverallframeworkoftheQEPwillbetestedand,ifnecessary,modifiedpriortoscalingtheprogramupfordeliveryacrossthefullsecond-yearcohort.Duringthepilotphase,anumberoftypesofCT2 course methods will be employed, assessment toolswillbeevaluated,andfurtherstudentandfacultyfeedbackwillbegathered.Asaresult,awidevarietyofcourseapproacheswillbecon-sidered, including CT2 courses taught in sections enrolling more than 20 students and courses using alternative approaches to building criti-calthinkingskills.Thepurposeofthisexperimentationistoassesstheextenttowhichtheplannedapproachforteachingcriticalthinking(small,communication-intensive seminars) does, indeed, provide results that are superior to other approaches.

ThepilotphasebeganinFall2012withfivepilotCT2 seminars, including aninterdisciplinary,team-taughtcourseonsustainability;afirst-yearwrit-ing seminar in the Calhoun Honors College; a course on reading, writing, andcriticalthinkingintheDepartmentofEnglish;andtwosectionsofacourseinformallogicintheDepartmentofPhilosophyandReligion.Duringthisinitialsemester,thefocuswasprimarilyondevelopingamechanismforassessingindividualseminarsandforgatheringdataonexisting pedagogical practices. additional course pilots will begin in the 2013-2014 academic year.

PlannInG foR THe laUnCH of Clemson Thinks2

Universityadvancement,communications,andmarketingstaffjoinedtheQeP steering Committee in order to develop a branding strategy and communicationplanforClemson Thinks2. Their charge included identi-fyingacentralthemearoundwhichtheQEPlaunchcouldbeorganizedas well as developing and implementing a communication strategy that wouldgiveeverymemberoftheClemsoncommunityanunderstandingoftheQEP,itsgoals,andtheirroleinitssuccess.InNovember2012,the group proposed Clemson Thinks2asthetitlefortheQEP.Atitsfinalmeetingof2012,theQEPSteeringCommitteeofficiallyadoptedClemson Thinks2asthenameoftheClemsonUniversityQualityenhancement Plan.

University advancement, communications, and marketing

staff joined the QEP Steering Committee in order

to develop a branding strategy and communication plan

for Clemson Thinks2.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

13

III. IDenTIfICaTIon of THe ToPIC baCkGRoUnDIn april 2011, Clemson University approved a new strategic plan. The Clemson2020RoadMaphasastwoofitsstrategicprioritiesto1)en-hancestudentqualityandperformanceand2)toprovideengagementandleadershipopportunitiesforallstudents(AppendixB).TheQEPSteeringCommitteebelievesenhancingstudentperformancebeginsearlyinstudents’academiccareersandthatinordertoeffectivelyengagestudentsoutsideoftheclassroom,Clemsonfacultymustfirstdi-rectlyengagetheminsidetheclassroom.Theseprinciplesformthestra-tegicfoundationofClemson Thinks2. It is envisioned that the Clemson Thinks2Seminarswillbeanavenuethroughwhichparticipatingfaculty

canexploretheuseofinnovativeteachinganddeliverymodelsforteaching critical thinking skills to undergraduate students. Clemson Thinks2 also prepares students forengagementoutsideoftheclassroom because it gives them thekindsofhigh-levelreasoningand communication skills that will allow them to draw greater educa-tionalandprofessionalvaluefromengagement experiences.

Ifourstudentsaretovaluecriticalthinking skills, they must sense thesamevaluesinourfaculty.ThesuccessoftheCT2 semi-nars thus hinges on the active participation and pedagogical expertiseofthefaculty.Inordertobesuccessfulinteachingcritical

thinking,ourfacultymustnotonlybeenthusiasticaboutteachingcriticalthinkingskillsbutalsomusthavethecompetencyandfoundationtodoso. Clemson Thinks2thuscompensatesfacultyparticipationanddevel-ops critical thinking pedagogy.

ThebasicprinciplesofClemson Thinks2,therefore,areassimpleastheyarepotentiallytransformative:(1)allowfacultymemberstodevel-opseminartopicsbasedontheirareasofinterestandexpertise,(2)familiarizethosefacultymemberswithbestpracticesincriticalthinkingpedagogy,and(3)putfacultymembersinapositiontodevelopindividu-alandsustainedrelationshipswithasmallgroupofstudents.Basedonthese principles, we believe that Clemson Thinks2cantransformrequiredcourses into learning experiences designed to impart the critical thinking skills that will allow students to succeed in and beyond the classroom.

If our students are to value

critical thinking skills, they

must sense the same values

in our faculty.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

14

Clemson Thinks2 semInaRs CT2 seminars are designed to enhance critical thinking among Clemson students. Critical thinking is an abstract topic that, on its own, may appear irrelevant to students. However, the literature shows that coveringcriticalthinkinginthecontextoftopicsthatexcitestudentswillhelp increase motivation to learn and practice it. These seminars provide arich,shared,intellectualexperienceforsecond-yearClemsonstudentsinwhichtheyworkcloselywithfaculty,graduatestudents,andfellowundergraduate students to develop creative responses to challenging questions.Thisseminarprovidesafoundationtohelpstudentsaddressselected challenges and questions through critical thinking and engaged learning at Clemson and beyond.

Acommonelementforeachseminarwillbelearningobjectivesconsis-tentwiththeETSProficiencyProfile’sassessmentofcriticalthinking,whichareenumeratedinthefollowingsectiononStudentLearningoutcomes.

semInaR loGIsTICsThe CT2Seminarsaretargetedforstudentswithsecond-yearstanding:thosewhohavecompletedatleastoneyearofcollege.ThisisagroupofstudentsthattheQEPcommitteeandliteratureidentifiedasunder-served.Theygenerallylackthetargetedprogramsoffirst-yearstudentsandinmanycaseshavenotyetdevelopedsignificantidentificationwithaparticularmajorordepartment.

Toencouragemeaningfulinteractionbetweeninstructorsandstudents,each CT2Seminarwillbelimitedtofewerthan20students.Toencour-agestudentandfacultyinteractionacrossacademicunitsanddepart-ments, CT2 seminars will be open to all students and not restricted to studentsinaparticularmajorordepartment.Incertaincircumstances,CT2Seminarswillbeofferedinaspecificdisciplineoraspartofamajorcurriculum.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

15

To help ensure they are viewed as equally important as other courses, CT2 seminars will be three credits and graded on an a-f scale. best practicesshowthatgradedseminarsaremorelikelythanpass-failsemi-narstosucceedforbothstudentsandfaculty.

semInaR faCUlTyThosefacultywhocompletetheClemson Thinks2 faculty Development Program, including a CT2 faculty Institute and participate in continuing CT2 workshops, detailed below, are eligible to teach CT2 seminars. our goalistoprovidethebestinstructorsforthestudents,regardlessoftitle.Tenuredandtenure-trackfaculty,lecturers,staff,emeritifaculty,post-doctoralfellows,advancedgraduatestudents,andadministratorswillall be eligible to teach CT2 seminars provided they have the academic qualificationsrequiredtoteachattheuniversitylevel,completetheCT2 faculty Institute, and continue to participate in the Clemson Thinks2 fac-ulty Development Program. Team-teaching will be encouraged.

semInaR ConTenTAslongasSeminarsmeetthecriticalthinkinglearningobjectives,in-structorswillhavetheflexibilitytodefinecoursetopicsandcontent-specificlearningobjectives.Whilethecriticalthinkingstudentlearningobjectives(andtheirassessment)willbestandardacrosscourses,themeans by which they are achieved will vary depending on the instructor.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

16

Indeed,inlightofthelackofconsensusintheliteratureonasinglebestway to teach critical thinking, we envision Clemson Thinks2asaforumforexperimentingwithinnovativepedagogiesandstudyingtheireffec-tiveness.Wedoexpectthat,afterparticipatingintheClemson Thinks2 faculty Development Program, instructors will apply established best practicesforteachingcriticalthinking:readingtextscloselyandcritically;discussing and debating issues in class; as well as writing and revis-ing substantive papers. In addition, CT2 seminars will provide students withafoundationforincorporatingcriticalthinkinginfutureengagementexperiencesatClemsonandbeyond.ThisaspectoftheCT2 seminars is essential to ensure that they contribute to Goal 3, detailed in the next section.

AsubcommitteeoftheQEPSteeringCommitteehasinitiatedthepro-cessofintroducingCT2 seminars as options in multiple requirements ofClemson’scurrentgeneraleducationcurriculum.Afacultymemberwithexpertiseineachgeneraleducationareahasbeenidentifiedandisworking with the subcommittee to create courses and to shepherd them through Clemson’s curriculum approval process. The targeted comple-tiondateforthisprocessisMay2013.Proposedcoursesyllabiwouldfollowtherubricsasfollows:

• CU21XCriticalThinkingSeminarinNaturalSciences/Mathematics

• CU 22X Critical Thinking seminar in science & Technology in society

• CU 23X Critical Thinking seminar in social sciences

• CU 24X Critical Thinking seminar in Cross-Cultural awareness

• CU 25X Critical Thinking seminar in arts & Humanities (literature)

• CU 26X Critical Thinking seminar in arts & Humanities (non-literature)

for example, a proposed Clemson Thinks2 seminar called “sustainabil-ityLeadership”wouldbeclassifiedasaCU220course.AdescriptionforthisCT2 seminar in the course catalog would read: “Participants will learnhowprinciplesofenvironmental,social,andeconomicsustainabil-ityapplyincontextsrangingfrompersonallifestylechoicestothebuiltenvironmenttooperationofpublicandprivateinstitutions.ParticipantswillalsodevelopandpracticeskillstoactasagentsofchangeintheUniversity and the broader community” (appendix f).

Inadditiontothecriticalthinkinglearningobjectives,learningobjectivesspecifictothisCT2 seminar may be that students will be able to:

• definesustainability;

• identifyanddiscussfundamentalissuesofsustainability;

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

17

• analyze how their values relate to sustainability, and how their ac-tions impact sustainability issues;

• recognize interrelated systems;

• evaluatetheroleoftheirmajorinsustainabilityissues;

• apply sustainability concepts on local and global scales; and

• practicechangeagentskillsforsustainability.

Criticalthinkingseminarsthatfulfillotherrequirementsandcomeoutofotherdisciplineswilllikewisedevelopspecifictopicsbutachievesimilarlearningobjectives.Forexample,aseminaron“LiteratureandtheEn-vironment”couldbeofferedtomeetthe“Arts&Humanities:Literature”general education requirement; a seminar on “Inequality” to meet the “social science” requirement; a seminar on “Globalization” to meet the

“Cross-Cultural awareness” re-quirement; a seminar on “ethics” to meet the “arts & Humanities: non-literature” requirement; a seminaron“ScientificReasoning”to meet the “mathematics and natural science” requirement. SamplesofCT2 seminar propos-alssubmittedforapprovalcanbefoundinAppendixF.

aCRoss THe CURRICUlUmby developing course rubrics keyed to existing general edu-cation requirements, multiple benefitsensue.First,CT2 semi-nars can be incorporated across the curriculum without having to initiateawhole-scalerevisionof

Clemson’s general education curriculum during the pilot and phase-in portionoftheimplementationplan.WhilethereisdesirefromsignificantconstituenciesamongClemson’sfacultyandstudentsforsucharevi-sion, the process involved goes beyond both the purview and the time-lineoftheQEPSteeringCommittee.Thatbeingsaid,thebroadscopeandflexibledesignoftheCT2 seminars ensures that they could be implementedintoanyfuturerevisiontothestructureofgeneraleduca-tion at Clemson.

second, by linking CT2 seminars to general education requirements, stu-dents will be able to make progress toward completing their degree re-quirements through participation in a CT2Seminar.Thevalueofstudentsnotonlyreceivingcoursecreditbutalsofulfillingadegreerequirementthrough participation in a CT2Seminarcannotbeunderestimated.IfCT2 Seminarswerenotforcredit,oreveniftheyweregradedonapass/fail

The value of students

not only receiving course

credit but also fulfilling

a degree requirement

through participation in

a CT2 Seminar cannot be

underestimated.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

18

system, they would be seen by many students as an additional burden or asnotassignificantas“regular”courses.IfCT2 seminars counted only aselectivesanddidnotfulfilldegreerequirements,moreover,theywouldnotenrollasufficientnumberofstudentstoeffectauniversity-widechange.

Third,thebroaddisciplinarycoverageofthegeneraleducationrequire-mentsensuresthatfacultywillhavesignificantlatitudeandscopeindesigningthecontentofaproposedseminar.Asaresult,facultywillhave an incentive to participate in Clemson Thinks2, as it will allow them an opportunity to teach top-icsthatmaynoteasilyfitintothestandard curriculum. In addition, team-teaching opportunities will be fosteredandfacultyfromdepart-ments who typically do not teach coursesthatfulfillgeneraleduca-tion requirements will be able to contribute to the general education ofClemsonstudents.Evenmoreimportantly, students will have a widevarietyoftopicsfromwhichtochoose and thus will be able to en-roll in a seminar that captures their interest and piques their curiosity.

Fourth,theinfusionoffacultydevelopment and assessment into thecurriculumhasthepotentialtochangetheapproachofthefacultytodesignandimplementationofcourses.FacultywhoparticipateintheCT2 faculty Institute, discussed below, are likely to use the strategies theylearninalloftheircourses,notonlytheCT2 seminars. similarly, as morefacultycometounderstandhowassessmentoflearningoutcomescan be integrated into course activities, this approach is likely to become astandardofpedagogicalpracticeatClemson.Thus,wecanovertimeexpecttoseeimprovementsinteachingandlearningthatreachfarbe-yond the CT2 seminars.

Finally,theinfusionofenergyandresourcesintoexistinggeneraled-ucationrequirementspromisestoenhancethequalityofallClemsonstudents’ learning experiences. Whole-scale revisions to a general educationcurriculumatauniversitythesizeofClemsontakeyearstoaccomplishandrarelysatisfyallofthestakeholders.However,providingamechanismforfacultytoimprovegeneraleducationoneseminaratatime, and in the process to introduce critical thinking across the curricu-lum, could potentially revolutionize teaching and learning in the general educationcurriculumfromthegroundup.Whilethegeneraleducationcurriculum does not always receive the most attention or excite the mostinterest,itisoneoftheonlysharedexperiencesforallClemson

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

19

undergraduates. because Clemson Thinks2 directs university resources, facultyexpertise,andstudentinteresttowardthegeneraleducationcur-riculum,itpromisestoenhancelearningforallClemsonstudents.

In THe DIsCIPlInesThe Clemson Thinks2planrecognizesthatdespitethebenefitsaffordedby working within and across the general education curriculum, there willbefacultyinterestinandstudentdemandforCT2 seminars in the academicdisciplinesandmajorcurricula.Clemson Thinks2 is designed toaccommodatethisinterestanddemand.WhilethemajorityofCT2 seminars will be taught as general education courses (i.e., either exist-inggeneraleducationcoursesmodifiedtoalsobeCT2 seminars or the CU2XX courses described above), proposals to incorporate or adapt existingcoursesoutsideofthegeneraleducationcurriculumasCT2 Seminarswillbeencouraged,providedthatthosecoursesconformtothe guidelines about class size, enroll primarily second-year students, accommodatestudentsfromallmajors,andmeettherequirementsforstudent learning outcomes. as with CT2 seminars taught across the generaleducationcurriculum,facultyteachingCT2 seminars in the disci-plineswillberequiredtosuccessfullycompletetheCT2 faculty Institute.

Clemson Thinks2 is designed not only to allow CT2 seminars in the disciplines but also to help make them possible. for example, the CT2 officecouldfundanadditionalsectionofasophomore-levelcoursethatmeetsalloftherequirementsoutlinedaboveexceptfortheclasssize.Withsuchfunding,twoormoresmallerversionsofthecoursecouldbeoffered.TheassessmentdatayieldedfromdisciplinaryCT2 seminars wouldprovideusefulinformationabouttherelativevalueofteachingcriti-cal thinking in the disciplines as opposed to across the curriculum and in small seminar classes versus large lectures.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

20

obviously, not all or even most disciplinary classes will be as conducive to the CT2Seminarformatastheseminarsembeddedingeneraleduca-tion requirements. In some disciplines, even sophomore-level courses willcarryprerequisitesthateffectivelyprecludeopeningthecoursetoallstudents.Inothercases,enrollmentpressures,availablefaculty,andrelated considerations will be difficulttosurmount.Whilerec-ognizing these challenges, and in lightoffeedbackfromstudents,faculty,andadministrators,theQeP steering Committee worked todevelopamodelforClemson Thinks2thatfocusesprimarilyonteaching CT2 seminars across the general education curriculum while nevertheless remaining open to innovative approaches to teaching critical thinking within themajorcurricula.ThegoalofClemson Thinks2 is simple: to im-prove the critical thinking abilities ofClemsonstudents.Asaresult,the plan is designed to encour-ageavarietyofapproaches,toassesstheeffectivenessofthoseapproaches, and to develop and promotethoseapproachesthatprovemostsuccessful.

semInaR assessmenTFormativeassessmentofcriticalthinkingintheSeminarwillbemea-suredusingtheCriticalThinkingAssessmentTest(CAT)andtheCalifor-nia Critical Thinking skills Test (CCTsT). The “assessment” section de-scribes this assessment in more detail, including how it ties into overall QeP assessment.

semInaR DemanDseminars will not be mandatory. our plan is designed with the intention tocreateastudentdemandfortheseseminarsbecauseoftherelevanttopics, exceptional instructors, small class sizes, and multidisciplinary interest. our goal, as detailed in the sections “actions to be Implemented” and“Timeline,”istooffer40seminars(~750students)inthe2013-2014academicyear.(Thesewillbeapartoftheinstructionalpilotphase.)By2017-2018,wehopetohavescaleduptheprograminordertoaccommo-date up to 4,000 second-year students. based on current enrollment, this wouldrepresentover90percentofsecond-yearstudentsatClemson.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

21

faCUlTy DeVeloPmenTAnimportantcomponentoftheQEPwillbethedevelopmentofaformalfacultydevelopmentprogramfocusedoncriticalthinkingtocomplementtheopportunitiesforprofessionaldevelopmentthroughClemson’sOfficeofTeachingEffectivenessandInstruction(OTEI).Thisprogramwillpur-sue multiple, related goals:

• providethought-provokingdiscussionsofcriticalthinking

• learn best practices in critical thinking pedagogy

• buildandnurtureacommunityof“CT2 scholars” committed to im-provingtheteachingofcriticalthinkingskills

• delivernecessaryresourcestoassessstudents’masteryofcriticalthinking skills.

The faculty Development Program has a primary goal to develop the “communityoffacultyscholarscommittedtoandpreparedforinstructionincriticalthinking.”Thiscommunitywillformaroundasharedinterestincriticalthinkingandwillencompassinstructionalfaculty,co-curricularactivities, and mentoring relationships. Clemson Thinks2 seeks the en-

gagementoftheentireuniversityinthediscussionoftheimpor-tanceofcriticalthinkingskillsandthetangiblebenefittostudents,faculty,andstaffofincorporatingcritical thinking skills throughout the university. While the initial cohortofCT2 scholars will be small, the eventual goal will be to grow this community and to weave critical thinking skills throughout thefabricoftheuniversity.

ThefirstgoaloftheFacultyDe-velopmentProgramistodefine“critical thinking.” as the literature shows, and as discussed below in the “literature Review and best Practices” section, there is no simplestatementthatwillsufficeforalldisciplines.Theprofessional

developmentprogramwilladdressthebroadrangeofskills,capacities,practices, and activities denoted by “critical thinking” by working toward developinga“definitionspace”forcriticalthinkingasthefirstcomponentoftheprogram.Criticalthinkingdiscussionswillbeusedtomakecon-nectionsbetweenthevariousdisciplinesbutalsobeusedtoidentifyand

The Faculty Development

Program has a primary

goal to develop the

“community of faculty

scholars committed to and

prepared for instruction

in critical thinking.”

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

22

evaluatetheirdifferences,fosteringanatmosphereinwhichscientistsand artists, engineers and economists, poets and psychologists work toward a common goal.

ThetwomajorcomponentstotheFacultyDevelopmentinitiativearethe:

1. CT2FacultyInstitutedevelopmentprogramrequiredofCT2facultyandofgraduatestudentswhowillbeassistingfacultyinteachingCT2 courses

2. ContinuingeducationofCT2facultyandthedevelopmentofthecom-munityofscholars

Toensurefaculty“buyin,”Clemson Thinks2 faculty Development Pro-gram will provide evidence that critical thinking skills can be improved, andthatthereareprovenmethodsfordevelopingthoseskills.Assess-mentintheformofpre-andpost-testswillbeusedintheclassroomstogaugetheoverallimprovementofthestudents’criticalthinkingskillsintheshortterm.Asoffall2012,theETSProficiencyProfiletestisadmin-isteredtoallfirst-yearstudentsandgraduatingseniorsaspartofClemson’slong-termassessmentplan.Theprofessionaldevelopmentprogramwillgivetheparticipantstheopportunitytolearnaboutthedif-ferentassessmenttools,helpthemtolearnhowtobetterassesscriticalthinking through communication (writing, presentations, and discus-sions),andwillprovideanexchangeofideasthroughthecommunityofscholars on assessments that have or have not worked in the second-year seminar classes or even other classes that incorporate critical thinking.

AspectsofthedevelopmentprogramwillbeincorporatedintoNewFac-ulty orientation and subsequent workshops and other scholarly events willbetargetedtowardtheseincomingfaculty.Thereisnomoreeffectiveway to change the university culture than to draw on the energy and ex-periencesofthatculture’snewestfacultymembers,astheirenthusiasmcan spill over the entire campus. The programs should also remain open totheneedandopportunitytoprovidefacultydevelopmentassistanceto these new colleagues beyond those pertaining to critical thinking. This aspectcouldeventuallyresultinformationofaproposedNewFacultyDevelopmentProgram,whichwouldbenefitbothourenteringfacultyaswell as graduate students and post-doctoral associates who are pursu-ing academic careers.

Clemson Thinks2 faCUlTy InsTITUTeItisenvisionedthatthesubstantivecomponentoftheFacultyDevel-opment Program will be structured as a CT2 faculty Institute, providing trainingforfacultywhowillbeteachingtheCT2 seminars and other criticalthinking-orientedcourses,aswellasanongoingforumforideasharingandcommunicationamongthesefaculty,whowillformalargercommunityofCT2 scholars.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

23

TheinstructionalcontentofthecompleteCT2 faculty Institute will in-cludemanyparticipantactivitiesanddeliverables,suchasamapofstudent learning outcomes, critical thinking discussion questions, writing assignments, test questions, and assessment rubrics. The CT2 faculty InstituteisdesignedforthefacultywhowillbeteachingtheCT2 semi-narsfocusedoncriticalthinking.TheOfficeofTeachingEffectivenessand Innovation will assist in program development to be held two times (orasneeded)duringsummers,facilitatingtheinvolvementofinvitedexpertsincriticalthinkingaswellasClemsonfaculty.AnoutlineofthefacultyinstituteisfoundinAppendixG.

The CT2FacultyInstituteoutcomesfortheparticipantsinclude:

• design and develop a communication-intensive CT2 seminar on the topicorsubjectthefacultymemberchoosesandthatintegratestar-geted student learning outcomes related to critical thinking

• redesignandredevelopexistingfacultymembers’course(s)toin-tegrate the targeted student learning outcomes related to Clemson Thinks2

• developandintegrateactivitiesandassignmentsintofacultymem-bers’ courses that will develop the targeted CT2 skills in their students and enhance academic and engagement experiences

• developstrategiesforengagingstudentsandensuringtheycompre-hend assignments and are achieving CT2 learning outcomes

• identifyalternativesforassessingstudentCT2 skills.

• monitor and assess students’ competency in CT2 skills using multiple assessment instruments

DeVeloPInG a CommUnITy of Clemson Thinks2 faCUlTy Beyondprovidingformalprofessionaldevelopmentinteachingandas-sessing critical thinking, Clemson Thinks2seekstofosteranewuniversi-ty culture that prioritizes critical thinking as a student learning outcome. Thisculturewillreinforcecriticalthinkingintheclassroomandpromotefacultyandstudentinterestinthisoutcome.

Inaddition,theDirectorofClemson Thinks2 will contract outside speak-ersandworkshopfacilitatorswhoareexpertsincriticalthinkingtogivecampus-wide presentations and lead workshops, colloquia, and discus-sionsforfacultyandgraduatestudents.Thecampus-widespeakerswillbeaskedtohighlighttheimportanceofcriticalthinkingintheprofessionalandbusinessworldsothatstudentscanseethevalueofcriticalthinkingskillsanddevelopadesiretolearnthem.Inaddition,facultyleadersinthecommunityofcriticalthinkingscholarswillleadworkshops,colloquia,anddiscussionsamongtheircolleaguestosharewhattheyarelearningfromtheir own teaching experience, classroom research, and study.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

24

CLEMSON ThiNkS2 faculty Clemson Thinks2seekstodevelopacommunityoffacultyscholarscom-mittedtoandpreparedforinstructionincriticalthinking.ThisCT2facultycommunitywillconsistoffacultyteachingCT2Seminars,staffandfacul-tywhoareactivelyinvolvedinpromotingotherarenasforcriticalthinkingdevelopment, and graduate students who mentor undergraduates in both teachingandresearchendeavors.Thecommunityoffacultywillinclude(1) CT2 Instructors and (2) CT2 scholars.

CT2 Instructors:In order to teach a CT2Seminar,anymemberoftheClemsonfacultycanpropose to develop a new course or to revise a current one. Individuals whose proposals are selected must complete the CT2 faculty Institute and,uponsuccessfulcompletion,willbedesignatedCT2 Instructors.

CT2 scholars:faculty who have served as CT2Instructorsforatleasttwosemesters and who have demonstrated excellence in critical thinking instruction can apply to be designated as CT2 schol-ars at Clemson University. The CT2 scholar designation will be term-limited,compensated,andcontingentuponsuccessfulongoing review. CT2 scholars will be recruited via a selection process developed by the Clemson Thinks2Office.CT2 schol-ars will be expected to participate in scholarly research initia-tives related to critical thinking pedagogy. CT2 scholars will also participate in the CT2Instituteasinstructorsorfacilitatorsaswellasinongoingprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesthroughthe academic year. finally, CT2 scholars will continue to teach CT2 seminars, participate in assessment, and support the Clemson Thinks2 initiative.

lInkInG Clemson Thinks2 To sTUDenT enGaGemenTTheClemson2020RoadMapfocusesonprovidingstudentengagementopportunities.Clemsonhasdefinedstudentengagementas:

student engagement at Clemson University is characterized by active, collaborative, and experiential learning both in and outside the class-room. students are involved in real-world, problem-solving and creative learning activities, with the goal of fostering ethical judgment and further developing their creativity, critical thinking, communications, and entre-preneurial skills. These activities and experiences include but are not limited to creative inquiry, service-learning, internship and co-op experi-ences, living/learning communities, and study abroad.

In order to teach a CT2

Seminar, any member

of the Clemson faculty

can propose to develop a

new course or to revise a

current one.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

25

ThespecificobjectivesintheClemson2020RoadMaprelatedtostu-dent engagement are to:

• teachdifferentlytobuildacultureofcreativitythatstimulatesnewideas;

• incorporateengagementandleadershipthroughoutstudentlifepro-gramming;

• add or enhance two living-learning communities per year;

• offercoursecreditforstructuredengagementexperiences;

• doublethenumberofstudentsparticipatinginCreativeInquiry,un-dergraduate research, service-learning, and study abroad;

• use the university as a laboratory, engaging students in running the university through internships and internal cooperative education experiences; and

• nurture creativity, critical thinking, communication skills, and ethical judgmentinstudents.

engagement will be integrated throughout a student’s educational ex-perienceatClemsonandcanoccurpriorto,during,andaftertakingtheCT2 seminar. Clemson Thinks2,byvirtueofitsdesignanditspositionatthesecondyearofastudent’seducationprogression,isexpectedtofacilitateincreasedengage-ment. In the CT2 faculty Institute, facultywillexplorestrategiesforimproving academic and en-gagement experiences through their CT2 seminars. CT2 faculty might also require their students todevelopaplanforhowtheywillreinforceandbuildupontheCT2 skills they have learned in the seminar. a student’s plan could includeparticipationinspecificacademic engagement activities such as study abroad, internships, Creative Inquiry, service-learn-ingclassesintheirmajorarea,orinterdisciplinaryofferings.TheClemson Thinks2officewillworkwiththefacultyandtheirstudentsandassisttheminfindingacademicengagementopportunitiesrelatedtothestudents’majorareaofstudyand/orinterdisciplinaryofferingsthatmaybeofinteresttothestudent.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

26

CT2FacultymayalsochoosetocollaboratewiththeOfficeofResidentialLifetodevelopandofferuniqueandinnovativeCT2Seminarsspecifi-callyforClemsonLiving-LearningCommunities(LLCs).Thiswouldgiveundergraduate residents the opportunity to take a CT2SeminaraspartoftheacademicprogrammingofferedthroughanLLC.Anopportunityalsoexists to develop and market interdisciplinary CT2 seminars to students living in the sophomore year experience llC. The community currently houses283second-yearstudentsfromdifferentmajors.CT2 scholars interested in pursuing scholarly research related to student engagement orcriticalthinkingcoulddesignaresearchstudytodetermineifthereisany potential relationship between participation in student engagement activities and improvement in students’ CT2 skills.

In addition to these examples, Clemson Thinks2seekstofosterotherpossibilitiesforhowCT2 seminars can enhance academic and engage-mentexperiencesandresultinthedevelopmentofinnovativeteachinganddeliverymodelsforteachingcriticalthinkingskillstoundergraduatestudents. The individual passion and the synergy existing among the facultywhochoosetobecomeinvolvedintheCT2 learning community will no doubt lead to new ideas and new discoveries related to teaching, learning, service, and research.

PRofessIonal DeVeloPmenT PRoGRam bUDGeTCT2 faculty will participate in the CT2 faculty Institute and a payment incentivewillbepartofthetotalfinancialincentivepackageforpartici-patingfaculty.PaymentforcompletingtheCT2 faculty Institute will be processedattheconclusionoftheprogram;otherincentivesrelatedtoteaching CT2willbeprocessedafterfacultyteachacourseandmaintaininvolvement with ongoing initiatives.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

27

IV. sTUDenT leaRnInG oUTComesTheoverarchinggoalofClemson Thinks2 is to enhance the university’s culture and instructional processes in a way that enables measurable improvement in student critical thinking skills and in students’ ability to applythoseskillsinawidevarietyofacademicandnon-academiccon-texts. We believe that such a cultural change is most clearly indicated when Clemson University students show sustained improvement in spe-

cificandmeasurablecriticalthinkingabili-ties and when they are able to take these abilitiesandapplythemoutsidetheformalclassroomenvironment.Theheartofthiscultural change, thus, lies in what students learnasaresultoftheirinvolvementwithClemson Thinks2.

We envision that student learning will take place at multiple levels: in the CT2 semi-nars, as students apply critical thinking skills inupper-divisioncoursesintheirmajor,andas students apply these skills during en-gagement experiences such as internships, service-learningprojects,andundergrad-uate research. at all levels, however, we believethatthesamesetofstudentlearningoutcomes applies. What changes is the stu-

dents’masteryofthesecriticalthinkingtoolsandthecomplexityofthesituationsinwhichstudentsareabletomakeuseofthesetools.

definitiOn Of critical thinking“Criticalthinkingistheintellectuallydisciplinedprocessofactivelyandskillfullyconceptualizing,applying,analyzing,synthesizing,and/oreval-uatinginformationgatheredfrom,orgeneratedby,observation,experi-ence,reflection,reasoning,orcommunication,asaguidetobeliefandaction.Initsexemplaryform,itisbasedonuniversalintellectualvaluesthattranscendsubjectmatterdivisions:clarity,accuracy,precision,con-sistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness(ScrivenandPaul,1987).”

WedrawourlistofcriticalthinkingskillsfromtheETSProficiencyCriti-cal Thinking battery: 1. Determinetherelevanceofinformationforevaluatinganargumentor

conclusion

2. Recognizeflawsandinconsistenciesinanargument

3. evaluate competing causal explanations

4. Evaluatehypothesesforconsistencywithestablishedfacts

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

28

5. Determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported by evidence contained in a work

6. Recognizethesalientfeaturesorthemesinaworkofart

7. Evaluatetheappropriatenessofproceduresforinvestigatingaques-tionofcausation

8. Evaluatedataforconsistencywithestablishedfacts,hypotheses,ormethods

Clemson Thinks2focusesonthedevelopmentofthesecriticalthinkingskills.Theinitiative’ssuccesswillbemeasuredaccordingtothefollowinggoals and student learning outcomes. These outcomes represent the processofintellectualdevelopmentrequiredtorealizethepotentialofClemson Thinks2.

gOals Of the CT2 seminargoal 1: through their participation in Clemson Thinks2, students will develop university-level competence at the activities that char-acterize critical thinking. Importantly, not every CT2 seminar will teach allofthecriticalthinkingskillsenumeratedabove.Skills1-4(above)aregeneral skills that are relevant to any CT2 seminar whereas skills 5 and 6 are most relevant to CT2 seminars in the humanities and skills 7 and 8aremostrelevanttoCT2 seminars in the behavioral and traditional sciences.

goal 2: through their participation in Clemson Thinks2, students will describe the specific activities that characterize critical think-ing and to reflectively report on their own use of these tools.Ifstu-dentsaregoingtobeabletoeffectivelyemploycriticalthinkingoutsidetheclassroomenvironment,theymustunderstandwhataspectsoftheirintellectualworkconstitutecriticalthinkingandtheymustdevelopreflec-tiveself-awarenessoftheirowncriticalthinkingprocesses.

goal 3: students will apply critical thinking skills to solve prob-lems that occur outside the academic classroom.Inthecontextofthe CT2Seminar,thislearningoutcomewillbesatisfiedwhenstudentscanidentifyandevaluatewayscriticalthinkingcanbeappliedtobetterunderstandandsolverealworldproblems.However,forthosestudentswho pursue additional critical thinking opportunities this learning out-comemayexpandtothelevelofdemonstrationthroughaservicelearn-ingproject,anundergraduateresearchteam,aco-op,oraninternship.

student learning OutcOmesstudents will be able to:1. explore complex challenges2. analyze multi-dimensional problems3. Extrapolatefromoneconceptualcontexttoothers4. synthesize alternative solutions to multi-dimensional challenges5. Communicateeffectivelycomplexideas

The initiative’s success

will be measured

according to the

following goals and

student learning

outcomes.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

29

V. lITeRaTURe ReVIeW anD besT PRaCTICesClemson’s QUalITy enHanCemenT Plan In ConTeXTSince2007,around20ofClemson’speerinstitutionshavedevelopedqualityenhancementplansasapartoftheirSACSCOCreaffirmationofaccreditation.IntheprocessofdevelopingourownQEP,wereviewedmanyoftheseproposals.ItquicklybecameclearthatourQEPideareflectscommonlyheldprioritiesinhighereducation–andbyemploy-ers(Finley2012:3)–suchastheneedtoencouragegrowthincriticalthinkingthroughimprovementofstudents’reasoning,problemsolving,and writing skills (arum and Roska 2010). at the same time, our QeP is uniqueintwoways.First,itfocusesspecificallyonthesecondyearofthe undergraduate experience, which we believe is a crucial but over-looked period in students’ intellectual and social development. second, wearebuildingourQEPinlightofthesuccessofClemson’sCreativeInquiryprogram,whichhasinstitutionalizedfaculty-studentresearchcol-laborationsacrosscampus.Ourbeliefisthatbyimplementingateachingmodel that explicitly challenges students to develop the critical reasoning skillsneededtocollaboratewithprofessionalresearchers,ourstudentswillimprovetheirintellectualabilities–andbepreparedtobenefitfromtheintellectual,professional,anddevelopmentalopportunitiesofferedbyengagement programs such as Creative Inquiry, service learning, and study abroad. because Clemson already is a leader in engaging under-graduatesinout-of-the-classroomexperiences,wearewellequippedtoenhancethequalityofourstudents’educationbyformalizinghowweimpartthecriticalthinkingskillsrequiredtoexceloutsideoftheclass-room–whetherduringone’sundergraduateyearsorbeyond.

Oneofthecorequestionswehaveaskedourselvesiswhetheraped-agogicalinterventioncan,infact,leadtogrowthincriticalskills.Whatsortsofpedagogicalinterventions(ifany)workbest?Whicharemostex-pedientfordeliverytolargenumbersofundergraduates?ThisliteraturereviewwillinvestigatewhetherthereisacasetobemadeforeachofseveralpotentialcomponentsofourQEP:asinglepedagogicalinterven-tion,smallclasssize,asecond-yearcourseofstudy,communication-in-tensive courses, explicittreatmentofcriticalthinkinginclass,continuingstudentengagement,andfacultydevelopment.

literature review

THe Case foR a sInGle PeDaGoGICal InTeRVenTIonThe literature on critical thinking is, to say the least, quite heteroge-neous.Therearemanydifferentwaystodefine,operationalize,andmeasure“criticalthinking.”Thescientificstandardsofthe“studies”thathavebeenpublishedoftenareratherloose.TheendgoalofClemson’sQEPistogeneratequantitativedataconcerningtheeffectofaparticularkindofcoursedelivery–coursesthatrelyonformal,intentionalteachingofcriticalthinkingskills–onstudentlearningoutcomes.Wethereforehaverestrictedourselvestoliteratureofasimilarsort:studiesbasedonquantitativedatathatshowstatisticallysignificantgainsincriticalskills.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

30

Frankly,thisstrategicdecisionrulesoutusingthevastmajorityofpubli-cations purporting to study how to teach and assess critical thinking.

even within these strict standards, however, it is clear that critical think-ing interventions generally show positive results (kennedy, fisher, and ennis 1991). facione (2011) demonstrates that it is possible to learn to think critically. Two meta-analyses are especially interesting in this re-gard.First,ananalysisof29differentinternationalstudies(halfineithertheUnitedStatesorUnitedKingdom)foundeffectsizesofapproximately0.62, which is considered quite impressive compared to most education-alinterventionsofanysort(Higginsetal.2005).Abramiandcolleagues(2008)didanevenlargermeta-analysisof117differentstudies,findingamoremodestbutstillsizeableeffectsizeof0.34.Meta-analysessuchasthese are the gold standard given the tremendous variation in research designacrosssinglestudies–eventhosethatareconductedwiththegreatestscientificprecision.

Itisusefulaswelltomentionempiricalresultsfromthetwotestswehave chosen to assess student learning outcomes during the pilot phase ofClemson’sQEP.SeveralstudiesconductedontheCaliforniaCriticalThinkingSkillsTest(CCTST)showthatitispossibleforasingleunder-graduatecoursetohaveasignificantimpactonstudents’criticalthinkingskills.Onestudyfoundsignificantincreasesincriticalthinkingscoresacross39sectionsoffourdifferentclasseswithstrong,explicitcriticalthinking content (facione 1990). another study paired 260 students beforeandaftertakingacriticalthinkingclass;95percentofthesestu-dents’ scores on the CCTsT improved by 1-2 points (facione 1990). still anotherexperimenthadoneprofessoradministertheCCTSTpre-andpost-teststostudentsto28differentcriticalthinkingclassesandfoundsignificantimprovementsinscores(Anagnoson2000).

The Critical Thinking assessment Test (CaT), developed at Tennessee TechnologicalUniversitywithsupportfromtheNationalScienceFoun-dation,alsohasshownthatasingleclasscanproducesignificantin-creases in students’ critical thinking scores. for example, a recent study published in science shows that a biology research course can produce significantincreasesinCATscores(Gasperetal.2012).Severalothercourses have yielded similar results, including one at sam Houston state University that produces as much change in CaT scores as the aver-ageincreaseforanentirefour-yearcollegeexperience.Thereisalsoabiology course already taught at Clemson that has produced marked and demonstrable improvement in CaT results.

Inshort,thereiscompellingevidencesupportingthemeritsofimple-menting a single pedagogical intervention.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

31

THe Case foR small Class sIzeIf,asourreadingoftheextantliteraturestronglysuggests,asinglepedagogical intervention has the potential to yield marked improvement in students’ critical thinking skills, then we must ask what characteristics suchsingle-classinterventionsoughttofeature.First,whatsizeandstyleofcourseisbestsuitedforimpartingcriticalthinkingskillstostu-dents?

Ifthegoalismasteryofbasiccontent,classsizeseemsnottomattermuch.Thisresultiscounterintuitivetomanyfaculty,buttherealityisthatmany studies which seem to show that small class size matters do not correctforthefactthatbetterstudentstendtoseekoutsmallerclasses(Hou1994).Studies,however,alsotendtoclassifyanyclasswith70orfewerstudentsas“small,”leavingopenthepossibilitythatclassesof20or35mightbemoreeffectivestill.

on the other hand, there is some indication that small class size is especiallyusefulwhenthegoalistoimparthigher-orderskillslikecrit-icalthinking(MinnesotaStateUniversityMankatoCenterforTeachingand learning 2012). Discussion-based classes (assuming the instructor keepstightboundsonthedirectionofthediscussion)canbeextremelybeneficialforgettingpre-collegestudentstoquestiontheirassumptions(e.g.,Auerbach2012;ZwiersandCrawford2011);presumablythesamebenefitaccruestocollegestudents.

The evidence regarding whether small class size is essential to improv-ing critical thinking is mixed at best. However, we are eager to enhance Clemson’sstudent-focusedna-turebyofferingstudentsasmanyoptions as possible to engage meaningfullywithfaculty.AsArumandRoskanote,“student-focusedinstitutionsfacilitatestudentdevel-opment in many areas including critical thinking, analytical and problem-solving skills, and writing” (2011: 60).

Thus while there is reason to be-lieve that there is some association between small class sizes and improved critical thinking skills, theexistingresearchfallsshortofpresenting a thoroughly convincing case.Therefore,Clemson Thinks2 offersanopportunitytoimproveupon the existing research. The lack ofclarityinresearchontheimpor-tanceofsmallclasssizeispartof

If the goal is mastery

of basic content, class

size seems not to matter

much.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

32

the reason we have decided to have an extended pilot period in which multiple delivery mechanisms can be tried, including experimenting with classsizeslargerthan20.Theideaofasmallseminarstyleclassisintuitivelyappealingandlikelywillgeneratemanyimportantbenefitsforstudentsandfacultyalike,thoughitremainstobeseenwhetheritisasuperiormethodfordevelopingcriticalthinkingskills.Asthepilotphasedevelops,theimplementationteamwillmonitortheresultsoftheCT2 seminar assessments and determine the association between class size andimprovementincriticalthinkingskillsforClemsonstudents.

THe Case foR a seConD-yeaR CoURse of sTUDyWehavechosentofocusonsecond-yearstudentsbecausethesec-ondyearoftheundergraduateexperienceistheperiodduringwhichstudentsaremostlikelytowithdrawfromfullengagementwiththeiracademic work (Graunke and Woolsey 2005). In part, this withdrawal occurs because students in the second year, on average, receive less attentionandmentoringfromfacultyandotherinstitutionalstaffthandofirst-yearstudents,juniors,orseniors.First-yearstudentsgenerallyarethetargetofresourcesaimedatensuringtheirtransitiontocollegeandtheirsuccessfulretentionintothesecondyear.Upper-divisionstudentshavechosenamajorandthusbenefitfromtheresourcesavailabletothemthroughtheirhomedepartments.Incontrast,thesecondyearoftenbecomesa“lostyear,”situatedbetweentheexcitementofone’sfirstyearincollegeandthelaterfocusoncareerandgraduateschoolpreparation.

Todate,relativelylittleresearchhasexaminedwaysofaddressingthe academic, personal, and social challenges that are unique to sec-ond-yearstudents.Thosethathave,however,tendtooffersimilarrecommendations: (1) increasing second-year students’ opportunities toworkwithfaculty,particularlyinareasthatinterestthestudent;(2)increasingthelevelofchallengecontainedinsecond-yearcoursework;and(3)sustainingstudents’sensethattheyarepartofanintellectualcommunity (Gahagan and Hunter 2006; Gohn, swartz, and Donnelly 2001; Graunke and Woolsey 2005; Packard 2004; schaller 2005). our QEPisdesignedtoaddresseachoftheserecommendationsstraight-forwardly.Althoughtheevidenceismixedregardingwhethersmallclasssizeisnecessaryforgrowthincriticalthinkingskills,itisquiteclearingeneralthatstudentsdobenefitfromtherelationshipstheydevelopwithfacultyinsmallerclasses.Takingaparticularprofessor’sCT2 seminar mightinspirethestudenttoundertakefurtherresearch(forexample,un-dertheauspicesofourexistingCreativeInquiryprogram)withthatsameprofessor.BysituatingourCT2 seminars at the 200-level (i.e., designing thecoursessotheyareespeciallyappropriateforstudents’secondyearat Clemson), we aim to provide second-year students with a challenging, focusedintellectualexperiencethatwillprovidestructurefortheirfuturestudiesandout-of-the-classroomexperiences.Inasmallseminar,thereis nowhere to hide; students cannot help but encounter intellectual chal-lenges in such a setting.

In a small seminar, there

is nowhere to hide;

students cannot help but

encounter intellectual

challenges in such a

setting.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

33

We conclude that there is ample reason to attempt the implementation ofaprogramthatisdesignedexpresslyforsecond-yearstudents—withtheexplicitgoalofimprovingtheircriticalthinkingskillsandthebroadergoalofprovidingfocustothisoften“forgotten”yearoftheirundergrad-uate experience. a pedagogical intervention like the one we plan to implementinthesecondyearoftheundergraduatecareercouldguardagainst“driftingthroughcollegewithoutaclearsenseofpurpose”(Arumand Roska 2010: 34).

the case fOr writing-intensive vs. cOmmunicatiOn-intensive cOurses Itisoftenarguedthatteachingcriticalthinkingskillsrequiresawritingintensive approach rather than the communication intensive approach we have adopted with our QeP. for this reason, we examined the litera-tureinordertoassessevidencefortheargumentthatwritingistheonlyvehicle through which students can develop critical thinking skills. What becameclearinourreviewisthatfewstudieshaveexploredthismatterquantitatively.Tobesure,thereareplentyofarticlesthatpresentan-ecdotesorarguenormativelythatwritingisaneffectivewaytoteachcrit-icalthinking(e.g.,Duffy2012),butthereislittlequantitativedatatosup-portthisclaim.Infact,onestudyfoundaninversecorrelationbetweenthequalityofwritingandcriticalthinkingskills:thebetterthewriting,theworse the critical thinking skills (Condon and kelly-Riley 2004).

Partoftheprobleminthisthreadoftheliteratureistheaforementionedheterogeneityofthedata.Studiesofcriticalthinkingareeithertoospecificortoogeneraltoanalyzesomethingatthelevelofa“writing-in-tensiveapproach.”Somestudiesfocusonhighlyspecifictechniquesforteachingcriticalthinkingskills.Forexample,thereisagoodbitofliterature to suggest that feuerstein’s Instrumental enrichment approach iseffective,butthisinterventionisdesignedspecificallyfordevelopmen-tally delayed elementary school children (see Romney and samu-els2001)—andthushardlygener-alizable to the student population ofaselectivestateuniversity.more typically, studies analyze ahandfulofclasseswithaneyetowardidentifyingthosethatwork and those that do not work. such studies use enough data toallowthemtoidentifyclassesthat produce a change in critical thinking scores, but they lack sufficientdatatoteaseapartwhatspecificteachingstrategiesmat-tered most in these classes. even meta-analyses (e.g., abrami et al.2008;Higginsetal.2005)areforcedtoaggregateclasstypesand teaching strategies into broad

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

34

categoriesbecauseofthevaria-tion in research design across the many studies they are comparing. for example, most meta-analy-sesuseEnnis’(1984)schema,inwhichclassesaresortedintofour(possibly overbroad) categories: (1) General/separate—classesspecificallydevotedtoteachingcritical thinking skills; (2) in-fused—classesinwhichcriticalskillsareassertedtobeinfusedwithin traditional disciplinary content; (3) immersion—classeswherein critical thinking skills are supposed to emerge via student immersion in a discipline; and (4) mixed—classesthatcombineintentional critical thinking instruc-tionwithinfusionorimmersion.

ennis’ Immersion approach produces the smallest increase in critical thinking scores, while the mixed approach produces the largest increase. moreover, classes taught by instructors who have received explicit train-ingincriticalthinkingproducethegreatestimprovementsofall(Abramietal.2008).Thesefindingsindicatethatthebeststrategyavailabletousinvolvesprovidingourinstructorswithmeaningfultrainingaboutteach-ingandlearningcriticalthinkingskills—andsubsequentlyencouragingthemtouseexplicitcriticalthinkingmodulesalongsidediscipline-specificcontent. There is some evidence to suggest that interdisciplinary course contentcanbeespeciallypowerfulinthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingskills because students learn to integrate various disciplinary perspec-tives(Forrest1982;Terenzinietal.1995;Winter1981).

ThedearthofgooddataalsomeansthatwhatweareattemptinginourQEPtrulyisunprecedented.Notonlyisourproposaldesignedtobenefitourstudents,butwealsohopetopushtheboundariesofpedagogicalunderstandingofhowbesttoimpartcriticalthinkingskills.Thus,gath-eringanddisseminatingdatafromourQEPprogrammighthelpfacultyand students well beyond Clemson University.

Ifwritingistobeusedtoassesscriticalthinkingskills,itisessentialtodevelopanexplicitrubricforgradingsuchassignmentsthathasbeenproven valid and reliable. facione and facione (1994) developed an earlyversionofsucharubriccalledtheHolisticCriticalThinkingScoringRubric, but this tool seems not to have sparked much research. facione subsequently worked on developing the CTTsT test; substantial re-searchdidfollowthedevelopmentofthisinstrument.Asimilarrubricfortheassessmentofcriticalthinkinginstudentwritingrecentlywasdevel-opedatWashingtonStateUniversity.Theircriticalthinkingproject,de-

There is some

evidence to suggest

that interdisciplinary

course content can be

especially powerful in the

development of critical

thinking skills because

students learn to integrate

various disciplinary

perspectives.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

35

signedtodovetailwithavarietyofwritingprojectsoncampus,gaveriseto the WsU Guide to Rating Critical Thinking (Condon and kelly-Riley 2004).Thisrubricseemstopassmusterintermsofvalidityandreliability(Haswell1998,2001;Huot1996),buthassparkednoresearchwecouldfindbeyondtheWSUcampus.

In short, we see no compelling evidence to support a conclusion that our critical thinking seminars must be writing-intensive courses. for this reason,wehaveelectedtofocusoncommunication-intensive,ratherthan writing-intensive, course designs. To the extent that we do decide toassessevidenceofcriticalthinkingskillsinstudentwriting,wewillem-ploy a proven rubric. as with the debate over class size, we will also look toourpilotphaseforguidanceastowhetherwritingorcommunicationintensive courses produce better results.

the case fOr exPlicit treatment Of critical thinking in classOurreviewoftheextantliteratureoncriticalthinkingleadsustocon-clude that students need to know they are learning how to engage in criticalthinking.Amajorityofundergraduatestudentsbelievetheyattaincritical thinking skills in college, evaluating “themselves highly on many ofthesamemeasuresforwhichdirectevidenceindicatesotherwise”(finley 2012: 15). We believe students incorrectly assume that the col-lege experience teaches them how to think in large part because they rarely are asked to consider how to think in any explicit, systematic way. Reading a book such as Ruggiero’s The Art of Thinking (2012) or a crit-ical thinking guide such as Paul and elder’s miniature Guide to Critical Thinking (2009) might make students think about how to think without requiringthemtounderstandeverydetailofepistemology.Consciouslythinkingabouthowtothinkalsoconstitutesaformof“visiblethinking”(Ritchhart,Church,andMorrison2011)or“meta-learning”(Biggs1987),termsthatrefertobeingconsciousofone’sownthinkingandlearningprocesses.“It’sonethingforusasteacherstoarticulatethekindsofthinkingweareseekingtopromote;itisanotherforstudentstodevelopagreaterawarenessofthesignificantrolethatthinkingplaysincultivat-ing their own understanding” (Ritchhart, Church, and morrison 2011: 15).

Aswementionabove,discussion-basedcomponentsofcollegeclass-es–whicharepossibleonlyinlow-enrollmentseminars–helpstudentssharpentheirassumptionsbyexposingthemtothereactionsofothers.Activeformsoflearning,suchasin-classdebates,“producescriticalthinking, engages problem solving, and promotes communication skills” (Auerbach2012:518;seealsoOverholser1992).Discussionsandde-bates may be presented to students explicitly as exercises designed to fostertheircriticalthinkingskills.PartofthegoalofClemson Thinks2 is to give students the opportunity to see themselves and their own thinking process more clearly and to become skilled at recognizing and challeng-ing their own assumptions.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

36

faculty develOPment: learning tO teach critical thinkingThe CT2 seminar model has the potential to impact teaching and learn-ingatClemsonUniversityinwaysthatgobeyondthedirectcontextofthe critical thinking courses themselves. We hope to move incrementally towardamaterialshiftinhowClemsonfacultytendtothinkaboutteach-ing.Iftheplanissuccessful,benefitswillflowdirectlytoourstudents.Thepurposeofthefacultydevelopmentprogramistocreateaframe-workwithinwhichfacultyhavethetimeandresourcesneededtoengagein their own critical thinking experience and to carry that with them into their CT2 seminar designs.

Muchlikeuniversitystudents,alargemajorityofuniversityprofessorssay they value critical thinking (arum and Roska 2010: 35) and assume thattheyteachcriticalthinkingskillsintheirclasses(Finley2012:18).yet, longitudinal data suggest that the average college student’s critical thinkingskillsimproveonlynegligiblyoverthecourseofatraditionalcollege career (see arum and Roksa 2010; Clemson Quality enhance-ment Plan 2012) and the available extant research suggests that critical thinkingisgenerallynotthefocusofeffectiveorconsistentclassroominstruction(Glaser1984;Facione1990).Thispointstotheneedforaframeworkwithinwhichfacultyhavetheopportunitytoconsiderhowtheymightrevisetheirteachingtechniquessoastomoreeffectivelyimpart critical thinking skills. Clemson Thinks2willattempttofillthisgapwithitsfacultydevelopmentandCT2 scholars programs.

ReVIeW of ReleVanT Clemson UnIVeRsITy assessmenT DaTa

ClassificationClemsonUniversityisapublicresearchuniversityclassifiedbytheCarnegieFoundationasfollows:

Basic type: Research Universities (high research activity)size and setting: Largefour-year,primarilyresidential

Enrollment Profile: High undergraduateUndergraduate Profile: Full-timefour-year,moreselective,lowertransfer-in

undergraduate instructional Program: Professionsplusarts&sciences,highgraduatecoexistencegraduate instructional

Program: Doctoral, sTem dominantcommunity engagement: Curricular engagement & outreach and Partnerships

The CT2 Seminar model

has the potential to

impact teaching and

learning at Clemson

University in ways that go

beyond the direct context

of the critical thinking

courses themselves.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

37

historyTheClemsonAgriculturalCollegewasestablishedinNovember1889,withitstrusteesbecomingcustodiansofMorrillActandHatchActfundsmadeavailableforagriculturaleducationandresearchpurposesbyfed-erallegislativeacts.ClemsonCollegeformallyopenedinJuly1893withanenrollmentof446studentsand15facultymembersunderPresidentEdwinBooneCraighead.ThemissionofClemsonUniver-sitywastofulfillthecovenantbetweenitsfounderandthepeopleofSouthCarolinatoestablisha“highseminaryoflearning” through its historical land-grant responsibilities ofteaching,researchandextendedpublicservice.

Clemson College was initially an all-male military school. It remained this way until 1955 when the change was madeto“civilian”statusforstudents,andClemsonbecame a coeducational institution. In 1964, the college was renamed Clemson University as the state legislature formallyrecognizedtheschool’sexpandedacademicofferingsandresearchpursuits(clemson.edu/about/history). In December 1999 James f. barker, selected asClemson’s14thPresident,introducedavisionforClemsontoberankedinthetop-20ofpublicinstitutions.Clemsonwasrankedinthethirdtierofpublicuniversi-tieswhenPresidentBarkerassumedoffice;forthepastfiveyearsClemsonhasbeenrankedinthetop25ofpublicuniversi-ties.Thechangeinrankingoccurredbecauseofafocusonquality,theundergraduateandgraduatestudentexperience,thefaculty,focusedresearch,andaunifiedcampuscommitmenttothevisionandgoalsofthe university.

schools and CollegesThestructureofClemsonUniversity’sschoolsandcollegesreflectsitsmissionstatement:CollegesofAgriculture,ForestryandLifeSciences;architecture, arts, and Humanities; business and behavioral science; engineering and science; and Health, education, and Human Devel-opment; the Calhoun Honors College serves undergraduate honors students; the Graduate school administers graduate programs; the Librariesprovidecomprehensiveinformationservicestoallmembersofthe university community; the emeritus College serves as an academic hometoretiredfaculty.

enrollmentClemson University is a large, selective institution. for fall 2012, total enrollmentwas19,197FTE.Ofthese,15,948wereundergraduates,1,868wereenrolledinmaster’sprograms,and1,381wereenrolledindoctoral programs. Clemson’s enrollment includes approximately 1,100 internationalstudentsfromover90countries(clemson.edu/oirweb1/FB/factBook/CUfactbook.cgi).

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

38

WorkforceTheuniversitycurrentemployeesinclude1,325facultymembers,299administrators,and2,771staff,aswellasgraduateassistants,work-study students, and other student employees.

Clemson UnIVeRsITy CRITICal THInkInG assessmenT DaTaTheSteeringCommitteehasspentthelastseveralmonthscarefullyreviewing assessment data the University has been collecting over many years. several trends regarding our undergraduate students are appar-ent in these data. The University is admitting excellent students, increas-ingnumbersofwhomgraduatefromClemsoninfouryears.Andyetourscoresonnationallynormedtestsindicatelimitedevidenceofgrowthinwritingandcriticalthinkingskillsamongourstudentsoverthecourseoftheir academic careers.

for example, the university receives Clemson undergraduate students’ Graduate Record examination (GRe) scores. The average verbal score ofourgraduatingseniorsisaratherlow478.64(range200–800);thewritingmeanissimilarlyonthelowsideat3.96(range0–6).(Pleasenote that these scores and ranges are on tests taken prior to august 1,2011.TheGRErangesarenow130-170forverbalandquantitativereasoningand0-6foranalyticalwriting.)Separately,considerthefollow-ingdatafromtheEducationalTestingService’s(ETS)ProficiencyProfiletesting (appendix C):

CombinesTestScoresforfreshmen (2007-2010), in %

freshmen Proficient Marginal* NotProficient 75 15 9 47 21 33 8 19 73 76 18 6 30 39 32 13 35 53 73 17 10 43 28 28 12 26 62

* Astudentclassifiedasmarginalisonewhosetestresultsdonotprovideenoughevidencetoclassifythestudenteitherasproficientorasnotproficient.

ETS Proficiency Classification

Reading level 1Reading level 2Critical Thinking

Writing, level 1Writing, level 2Writing, level 3

mathematics, level 1mathematics, level 2mathematics, level 3

CombinesTestScoresforfreshmen (2007-2010), in %

seniors Proficient Marginal* NotProficient 83 11 6 59 18 23 17 26 57 79 17 4 34 39 27 14 38 48 83 11 6 60 23 17 26 30 45

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

39

TheETSProficiencyProfiledatasuggestthatClemsonstudentsappearnottoimprovetheirwritingskillsoverthecourseoftheirundergraduatecareers.Readingskillsimproveslightly,but23percentofourgraduatingseniorsarejudgednottobeproficient.Ofevengreaterconcern,fully57percentofourgraduatingseniorsarenotproficientincriticalthinking.TheseresultscontrastmarkedlywiththoseforquantitativeskillsatwhichClemsonstudentsfardemonstrategreaterproficiency.

moreover, the committee noticed little change in student raw scores ontheETSProficiencyProfileforseniorsoverthelastfouryears(seetable below). Though Clemson ranks slightly above the national average overall, Clemson students are not improving across time to the degree thattheyshould.Thisraisesthe“valueadded”dimensionofaClemsoneducation experience.

noRmeD sCoRes on eTs PRofIenCy PRofIle (senIoRs)

2008 2009 2010 2011national average

Critical Thinking 115.00 115.42 114.75 115.30 112.90

Reading 121.44 121.52 120.96 121.05 120.10

Writing 116.03 116.36 116.26 116.31 115.48

math 117.51 118.35 117.81 117.58 115.48

ePOrtfOliO findings On general educatiOn cOmPetenciesEachsummer,teamsoffacultyevaluatetheartifactsofGeneralEdu-cationcompetenciesincludedinstudentePortfolios(AppendixD).Themost recent Communication competency review yielded a 59.7 percent passrateandameanscoreof1.80forcontent(onascaleof1-4).Onceagain, our students appear to be doing work that is average or slightly above average.

Inthe2011aggregatedata,criticalthinkingartifactswerejudgedmostfavorably,withanaveragescoreof2.3(scale:1-4).Theremainingcom-petencymeanswere:NaturalScience,2.28;MathematicalLiteracy,2.15;science and Technology in society, 2.07; social science, 1.97; ethical Judgment,1.71;Cross-CulturalAwareness,1.48;andArtsandHuman-ities, 1.27.

although the critical thinking competency received the highest rating in 2011,therelativelylowscoreof2.3suggestsimprovementsareneeded.Inaddition,analysisoftheartifactssuggeststhatstudentsarenotyetemploying critical thinking skills in a way that will allow them to translate those skills to non-academic environments. Thus, in the steering com-mittee’sjudgment,thisrelativelyhighscoreoncriticalthinkingartifactsdoesnotbelietheneedforgreateremphasisoncriticalthinkingasapartofClemsonundergraduate’sacademicexperience.

Although the critical

thinking competency

received the highest

rating, the relatively low

score of 2.3 suggests

improvements are

needed.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

40

In2012,2,000artifactswerescoredby45facultyfromthefiveacadem-iccolleges.Themostfrequentlyassessedartifactwascriticalthinking(22.7 percent). The overall 2012 score on critical thinking was 1.6. over-all, all ratings had dropped in this review session. science and Tech-nologyreceivedthehighestaverage(2.1),followedbySocialScience(1.8),thenCriticalThinkingandNaturalScienceandMathematics(bothat1.6),followedbyEthicalJudgmentandArtsandHumanities(1.5)andCross Cultural awareness (1.4).

TheprocessoftheQualityEnhancementPlanhadraisedawarenessregarding critical thinking assessment data. following the 2012 summer reviewofartifacts,facultyontheUndergraduateCurriculumCommitteerecommendedthefollowingchangestothecompetencyandrubricforscoringartifactsincriticalthinking.

“Demonstrate the ability to assemble evidence relevant to a significantandcomplexissue,evaluatethequalityandutilityofthe evidence, and use this evidence to come to a logical con-clusionabouttheissue.”*1. assembles relevant evidence.2. Assessesthequalityandutilityoftheevidence.3. analyzes the evidence to reach a logical conclusion or solution.

Thefindingsandchangesinthecompetency,furthersupportthefocusoftheQEPandthestudentlearningoutcomesidentifiedinthisdocu-ment.

additiOnal sOurces Of assessment dataVarious advisory groups across campus continue to encourage theuniversitytodoabetterjobofpreparingstudentstowriteeffectivelyandtosolveproblems.meanwhile, national-level dis-courseonhighereducation—es-peciallythecostofacollegeed-ucation—hascreatedacultureofdemandforquantifiableevidenceofthevalueaddedbyacollegedegree. In short, the public is lookingfor“proof”thatuniversitiesreallydopreparegraduatesforjobs.

Various advisory

groups across campus

continue to encourage

the university to do a

better job of preparing

students to write

effectively and to solve

problems.

*Currentcompetency:“Demonstratetheabilitytocriticallyanalyzethequalityandutilityofknowledge gained throughout the undergraduate experience and apply this knowledge to a wide rangeofproblems.”

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

41

Curricular and co-curricular engagement is one way in which a Clemson educationpreparesstudentsfortheworkplaceofthefuture.Ourassess-mentdataon“engagedlearning”includenumbersofstudentsenrolledin Creative Inquiry, undergraduate research, service learning courses, andotherlearningexperiencesthattakeplaceoutsideofthetraditionalclassroom. fall 2011 data show that 295 students were enrolled in co-op experiences;476studentsdidinternships;and1,018studiedabroad(in2010-11). Creative Inquiry included 2,094 students and service learning involved 3,195 students.

TheSteeringCommitteealsohadaccesstostudent-reporteddatafromtheNationalSurveyofStudentEngagement(NSSE).Sixty-sevenper-centofourseniorsin2011saidtheycompletedaninternship,practicum,fieldexperience,orclinicalexperience.Seventy-sixpercentreportedcommunity service and volunteer work. Thirty-eight percent worked with afacultymemberonaresearch/scholarshipproject,andtwenty-fourper-cent had studied abroad.

Exitsurveys,alumnisurveysandfocusgroupsofClemsonstudentshighlightthebenefitsofacademicallystructuredlearningoutsidetheclassroom. students say internships, co-ops, service learning, and practicums are as important as traditional classroom learning, particular-ly because such experiences allow them to apply their knowledge in the workplaceandtobuildtheirconfidenceaboutapplyingforjobs.

clemsOn university’s current effOrts tO enhance critical thinkingInlightofassessmentresultsindicatingthatClemsonisnotreachingitsgoalsforstudentlearningoutcomesincriticalthinking,theQEPSteeringCommitteeexaminedcurrentandrecenteffortstoensureattainmentofcompetencyinCriticalThinking.TheseeffortsincludeaGeneralEdu-cationcompetencythatisdistributedoverthecourseoftheundergrad-uate program, our Creative Inquiry Initiative, Calhoun Honors Colloquia, Clemson’s Writing across the Curriculum program and the ethics across the Curriculum program and the university’s emphasis on engaged learningforourundergraduates.

General educationClemson’s General education requirements include a competency in critical thinking: “Demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the quality

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

42

andutilityofknowledgegainedthroughouttheundergraduateexpe-rienceandapplythisknowledgetoawiderangeofproblems”(www.registrar.clemson.edu/publicat/catalog/2012/gened.pdf). This compe-tency is considered a “distributed” competency, and every curriculum must incorporate it at multiple levels. every degree program shows on its “GeneralEducationChecklist”thespecificcoursesthataddresscriticalthinking and describes the method by which critical thinking will be as-sessed.Mostdegreeprogramshaveasenior-levelcoursewithspecificassignmentsthatareusedtoevaluatestudents’attainmentoftheCriticalThinking competency. additionally, students select work to demonstrate theirattainmentofthecompetency,whichtheyputintheirePortfolioalongwitharationalestatementdescribinghowtheselectedartifactre-latestothecompetency.Theseartifactsarereviewedbyfacultyevalua-tors each summer (appendix D).

Calhoun honors ColloquiaTheCalhounHonorsCollegeoffersseminarsonspecialtopicsthatarereading and writing intensive. although these seminars have not been evaluatedspecificallyforimpactoncriticalthinking,examinationofworksubmittedbythesestudentsinePortfoliosindicatesthattheseminarsdo

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

43

resultinsignificantintellectualengagementwiththetopics.Someofthefeaturesoftheseminarsthatareconsistentwithresearchfindingsre-latedtocriticalthinkingincludetheuseofdiscussion-basedratherthanlecture-basedteachingapproaches,frequentwritingassignmentsandin-depthinstructorfeedback,andtheuseofmorechallengingassign-mentsthanaretypicallyfoundinnon-honorscourses.

Creative inquiryCreative Inquiry is Clemson’s team-based undergraduate research initia-tive.Investigationsareledbyafacultymentorandtypicallyspantwotofoursemesters.Thegoalofthisprogramisforundergraduatestudentsto have a deep research experience that more closely resembles the activitiesofgraduatestudentsstudyingunderaspecificprofessor.Therearecurrentlymorethan300activeprojects,withmorethan2,000stu-dents participating. at the 2012 Creative Inquiry Poster forum, studentsfromtheseprojectscreated186posterpresentations.since the program’s inception, therehavebeen188presenta-tionsatprofessionalmeetingsand95 publications. There are current-ly three patents pending that are based on work done in creative inquiry teams. assessment re-sultsforCreativeInquiryindicatethat participating increases stu-dents’knowledgeoftheprocessofresearchandtheirconfidencein problem solving (clemson.edu/academics/programs/creative-in-quiry).

Writing Across the CurriculumClemson Thinks2isanefforttoteachCriticalThinkingAcrosstheCur-riculum.Inthisrespect,weareabletodrawonarecordofsuccessinanalogous initiatives in Writing across the Curriculum (WaC), instituted in the 1990s, and ethics across the Curriculum, instituted in the 2000s. Given that the three distributed competencies in Clemson’s general edu-cationarecommunication,ethics,andcriticalthinking,itonlyfollowsthatClemsonlaunchanefforttoteachcriticalthinkingacrossthecurriculumthatbuildsontheprevioussuccessesofsimilarinitiativesgearedtowardwriting and ethics.

Clemson’s Writing across the Curriculum program, housed in the Pearce CenterforProfessionalCommunication,seekstoencourageanden-ablefacultytoincorporatewritingatalllevelsofinstructioninallaca-demicdisciplines.AcoretenetofWritingAcrosstheCurriculumisthata university education not only teaches students to learn to write but also to write to learn. That is to say, whether the class be accounting,

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

44

entomology,orchemistry,whenstudentsengageinstrategicactsofwriting,sometimesformalbutofteninformal,theybetterlearntobecomecognizantofandtoarticulatethecognitiveprocessandlogicalstepsinlearningthesubjectmatterinquestion.Inotherwords,akeypremiseofWACprogramsisthatstudentsdonotlearnsomethinginternallyandthen articulate it externally; rather, (1) a student has not truly mastered a concept until she or he can articulate and communicate it; and (2) writing isnotsomethingthatonlyoccursattheendoftheprocessoflearningbutinsteadisacatalysttotheprocessoflearning.Criticalthinkingisinlarge part meta-cognition, or think-ing about thinking. That process necessarily requires that students articulate and communicate what they learn, know, and do. In this respect, critical thinking and writingaretwosidesofthesamecoin.

Clemson’s WaC initiative was in-strumental in the university being named Time magazine’s Public CollegeoftheYearin2000.Inevery year since, Clemson has appeared on U.s.news & World Report’slistofBestSchoolsforWriting in the Disciplines.

ethics Across the CurriculumThe ethics across the Curriculum programoftheRutlandInstituteforEthicswasdesignedtoequipfacultyinanydisciplinetointegrateeth-icsintotheirregularclasses.Inanannualsummerseminarfacultylearnhowtofocusattentiononethicalproblemsinawaythatforcesstudentstothinkcarefullyaboutthepositionstheyholdandwhytheyholdthem,asopposedtomerelydefendingprioropinionswithoutmuchthought.Theyalsobecomefamiliarwithsomewrongmovestheirstudentswillalmostcertainlymakeandtechniquesforhandlingthem.Thesewrongmoves—logiciansandteachersofcriticalthinkingwouldcallseveraloftheminformalfallacies—arecommoninethicaldiscussions,buttheyare,sadly,ubiquitous.Inethicsasinscience,politics,oreconomics,forexample,ifoneisseriousaboutpursuingthetruth,itisessentialthatone is able to recognize these wrong moves in written or oral argument (another’sorone’sown).So,facultyintheEACseminarlearnhowtohelp students avoid them. avoiding missteps isn’t enough, however. ParticipantsintheEACseminarbecomefamiliarwithasetoftoolsforethicaldecision-makingandaframeworkfortheiruse,bothofwhich,itishoped,theywillusewhenengagingstudentsindiscussionsofethicalissuesthatariseinclassandconstituteteachablemoments.Theframe-workdirectsattentionto(i)identifyingissuesandstakeholders(takingnoteofhowthestakestheyhavemaydifferfromoneanother),(ii)using

The Ethics Across the

Curriculum program of

the Rutland Institute

for Ethics was designed

to equip faculty in any

discipline to integrate

ethics into their regular

classes.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

45

thetoolstoanalyzeoptionsand,subsequently,(iii)justify(byreasonedargument) the decision and action to be taken. In short then, RIe’s eaC programseekstoequipfacultytohelpstudentsacquire/developskillinethical decision-making, or put another way, to help students get in the habitofthinkingcritically(a)aboutapositionstakedoutbyanotherand(b)inmakingthecasefortheirownposition.

student engagementClemsonUniversityhasbeenrecognizedbytheCarnegieFoundationforcommunity engagement in both Curricular engagement and in outreach and Partnership. Clemson University’s 2020 plan includes engaged learningasamajorgoal.ThisgoalincludesCreativeInquiryandotherundergraduate research activities, participation in Cooperative education and internship programs, service learning, and growing and strengthen-ing Residential learning Communities. Clemson has been recognized forhighlevelsofstudentparticipationininternships(clemson.edu/media-relations/4608/clemson-ranks-high-among-universities-in-stu-dent-internships),withtheintentiontoincreaseopportunitiesforstudentsinthecomingyears.AswecollectmoreETSProficiencyProfiledataongraduatingseniors,wewillbebetterabletoseetheimpactoftheseexperiences to increased critical thinking as a learning outcome.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

46

VI. aCTIons To be ImPlemenTeDintrOductiOnClemson Thinks2 isdesignedtofostersustainedimprovementinClemsonstudents’criticalthinkingskillsandtotransformtheClemsoncultureinawaythatplacescriticalthinkingatthecenterofitseducation-alenterprise.ThesechangeswillgrowprimarilyfromtheimplementationofCT2Seminarsacrosscampus,manyofwhichaddressGeneralEdu-cation content and others that are disciplinary in nature. as noted above, theplanencouragesfacultywhoteachCT2 seminars to develop a va-rietyofpedagogicalapproaches.TheClemson Thinks2 Implementation Team and the Clemson Thinks2Officewillassesstheeffectivenessofthese approaches and subsequently promote approaches that are most empiricallysuccessful.

TheSteeringCommitteehasspecifiedfiveStudentLearningOutcomesaswellasaclearsetofguidingprinciplesfortheimplementationofClemson Thinks2.CarefulthinkingaboutexistingUniversityresourcesandbestpracticesoffersadditionalcontextforthelaunch,sustenance,andeventualgrowthofCT2 seminars. The implementation plan is a resultofinsightsprovidedbymembersoftheSteeringCommittee,theQEPliteraturereview,andinteractionwithawiderangeofcampusenti-tiesincludingallofthosereferencedabove.

CLEMSON ThiNkS2 imPlementatiOn teama Clemson Thinks2 Implementation Team was convened beginning in theFallSemesterof2012.ThisteamconsistsofsubcommitteechairsfromtheSteeringCommitteeaswellastheSteeringCommittee’sco-chairs.Itsmembersincludefaculty,staff,andrepresentativesfromAcademicAffairsandothercampusunitsthatwillinterfacewithandsupportCT2 seminars. The team is working on logistical matters including registration requirements and procedures, seminar requirements, and neces-saryfacultyandstudentresources.TheImple-mentationTeamwillcontinuetofunctionduringthefirstyearoftheimplementationofClemson Thinks2 in an advisory and transitional role.

actiOns tO Be imPlementedClemson Thinks2 will be implemented in two phases: “launching Clemson Thinks2” and “sus-taining and Growing Clemson Thinks2.”Specificactionstobeimplementedineachphasefallintofivecategories:DevelopmentofCT2 seminars, DevelopmentofInfrastructure,FacultyDevelop-ment, Communication, and assessment.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

47

• Development of CT2 seminars: Various concrete steps must be undertaken to develop the CT2 seminars. This process is being aidedsubstantiallybytheimplementationofasmallnumberofpilotseminars during the 2012-13 academic year. moreover, the Univer-sityUndergraduateCurriculumCommitteewillvoteonformalcourserubrics by may 2013 (appendix f). once the course rubrics are approved,specificsoftheseminarproposalandapprovalprocesswillbedevelopedandrefined.FortyCT2Seminarswillbeofferedduringthe2013-14AcademicYear,andthenumberofCT2 seminars offeredwillincreaseby20percentineachsubsequentacademicyear. By2017-2018,wehopetohavegrowntheprogramsufficientlytoaccommodate90percentofsecond-yearstudentsatClemson.In the longer term, the Clemson Thinks2programwillformthebasisforaproposaltotransformGeneralEducationattheuniversity.

• Development of infrastructure: Clemson Thinks2willrequireafull-timedirector.Thisindividual,whowillbeaninternalhirefromamongtheranksoftenuredfaculty,willassumehis/herresponsibilitiesduring the 2013-14 academic year (appendix H). The Director will beresponsibleforoverseeingactionsincludingbutnotlimitedto:recruitingfacultytoteachCT2Seminars,coordinatingthelogisticsofCT2 seminars, taking the lead on assessment and course evaluation practices,contractingoutsidespeakersandworkshopfacilitatorsto augment the campus-wide conversation about critical thinking, organizing the annual CT2 faculty Institute, compiling student en-gagement opportunities related to critical thinking, and overseeing the Clemson Thinks2 budget. an administrative assistant will be hired tosupporttheDirector.Supportingcommitteeswillincludetheafore-mentioned Implementation Team, which will be replaced by a more permanentAdvisoryCommittee(consistingofselectfaculty,staff,and students); a CT2 seminar Proposal Review Committee; and an assessment Committee.

• Faculty Development: Clemson Thinks2 includesanessential—andquiteintentional—facultydevelopmentcomponentforinstructors.ThefirstandmostimportantactiontobeimplementedwillbethedevelopmentoftheFacultyInstitute,whichwilltakeplaceforthefirsttimeinSummer2013(AppendixG).QEPSteeringCommitteememberswillbeusedas“testsubjects”asthefacultydevelopmentcomponentofClemson Thinks2 movesahead.Specificsregardingfacultycompensationandincentivesforfacultyparticipationwillneedtobedetermined.Oncefacultymembershaveparticipatedinthefaculty Institute and taught one or more CT2 seminars, they may be invited to play a larger, more permanent role in Clemson Thinks2 by becoming CT2 scholars. eventually, a new faculty Development Program could take shape around teaching critical thinking. The steering Committee also hopes that the Clemson Thinks2 program will stimulate a collaborative research program about critical thinking pedagogy at the University.

Forty CT2 Seminars will

be offered during the

2013-14 Academic Year,

and the number of CT2

Seminars offered will

increase by 20 percent

in each subsequent

academic year.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

48

• Communication: extensive campus-wide communication is planned forthelaunchandsustenanceofClemson Thinks2. The Implemen-tation Team and the Clemson Thinks2 Officewillutilizeavarietyofmodesofcommunication,includingprint,face-to-facemeetings,and digital media. beginning in summer 2013, the Clemson Thinks2 program will target new students during summer orientation and once they matriculate. faculty will be invited to attend the CT2 facul-ty Institute and subsequently to teach CT2 seminars. In addition, new facultywillbeinformedabouttheClemson Thinks2 program at their orientationsessions.Inallcases,thebenefitsofClemson Thinks2 willbehighlightedineverycommunicationwithstudentsandfaculty.

• Assessment:Multi-dimensionalassessmentsofcriticalthinkingskillacquisitionwilloccurthroughouttheimplementationoftheClemson Thinks2 program.Datawillbedrawnfrompre-andpost-assessmentofstudents’criticalthinkingskillsusingthe Critical Thinking assess-ment Test (CaT) developed by Tennessee Technical University, the CaliforniaCriticalThinkingSkillsTest(CCTST)developedbyInsightAssessment,andtheCriticalThinkingbatteryoftheETSProficien-cyProfileTest.AssessmentofbestpedagogicalpracticeswillbeundertakenbytheQEPOfficeusingdatafromtheseexaminationsbroken down by individual CT2 seminar (thus, by instructor), as well asstudents’CriticalThinkingartifacts(discussedbelow).

• Research:TheQualityEnhancementPlanprovidesawealthofresearchaboutourstudents,faculty,courses,andartifacts.Theuni-versityiscommittedtohiringtworesearchfacultytoensurethattheQuality enhancement Plan is an experiment in critical thinking and thatwemakethebestuseoftheassessmentdata.Theuniversitywill be able to track students who participate in CT2 seminars; who engage in Creative Inquiry, service and community learning, cooper-atives,andinternships;whoparticipateinstudentlifeactivitiessuchas living-learning communities and student government; as well as their course work, grades, and critical thinking longitudinal data. The robustandbroad-basedsourcesofmeasurementwillprovidefeed-back into course redesign, summer institute content and design, and promotingeffectiveteachingstrategies.Theresearchcanassistinlinkingtheclassroomtotheout-of-classexperiences.Researchfind-ingscansupportandenhanceourunderstandingofcriticalthinkingpedagogy. We have the opportunity to demonstrate what we teach, howourstudentslearn,andwhatismosteffective(AppendixI).

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

49

VII. TImelIneinitial actiOns: launching CLEMSON ThiNkS2 (sPring 2013)1. DevelopmentofClemson Thinks2 seminars2. SubmissionandapprovalofGeneralEducationCT2 Courses3. Developmentofadministrativeinfrastructure4. FacultyDevelopment–FirstFacultyInstitute5. Communication matrix developed6. Assessmentstrategiesdefined7. Visit by saCsCoC april 20138. ContinueCT2 pilot course assessments9. search and select founding Director and establish Clemson Thinks2

Office10. launch to campus community11. Design pilot study parameters

year One – 2013-20141. Implement CT2Seminars–10to402. Initiate student tracking system3. Intensivedatacollectionandevaluationofcourseassessmentdata

initiated4. Implement CT2 scholars Program5. Recruit,implementandassessmentofFacultyInstitute6. Visit and meet with various campus groups including colleges, de-

partments, student Government, faculty senate7. appoint a Clemson Thinks2 advisory Committee8. Reviewdatafrompilotstudyandmakeappropriaterevisionstothe

plan9. Hireresearchfacultymemberandresearchcoordinator.

year twO – 2014-20151. Increase CT2Seminars–80to100sections2. add administrative assistant3. Firstcohortofsecond-yearstudentstoenrollinCT2 seminars4. Continue faculty Institutes5. Travel to meetings to promote Clemson Thinks2

6. ContinueevaluationandassessmentofCT2 seminars7. ReviewdatafromstudentandcourseassessmentsbyAdvisory

Committee8. Makeappropriaterevisionstotheplan9. Hireresearchfacultymember10.Workcloselywithandsharedatafindingswith:UndergraduateGen-

eralEducationCommittee,ePortfolioArtifactReview,EngagementOffices,andotherrelatedcommitteesoncampus

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

50

year three – 2015-20161. Increase CT2Seminars–100-120sections2. add assistant Director and Research Coordinator3. Continue all activities initiated above and make improvements based

onassessmentandresearchfindings4. Begintosharedataanalysisrelatedtostudents–attendlocaland

national meetings5. Seekextramuralresearchfundstoexpandthestudyoftherelation-

ship between CT2 and engagement activities across the university

year fOur – 2016-20171. Increase CT2Seminars–Increaseto160sections,3,040undergrad-

uate students2. Continue all activities initiated above and make improvements based

onassessmentandresearchfindings

year five – 2017-20181. Increase CT2Seminars–Increaseto200sections;3,800undergrad-

uate students2. BeginsearchforpermanentDirector3. Continue all activities initiated above and make improvements based

onassessmentandresearchfindings

Thetimelinepresentedaboveisastartingpointforimplementation.ThroughouttheprocessofdevelopmentoftheQEP,ideasandplanshaveemergedandbeenaccepted,modified,ordiscarded(AppendixJ).Theassessmentandfindingswillbeusedthroughouttheprojecttoupdateandmodifythetimelineandactivities.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

51

VIII. oRGanIzaTIonal sTRUCTURe CLEMSON ThiNkS2 administratiOnThe Clemson Thinks2 program will be administratively housed in the OfficeoftheVicePresidentforAcademicAffairs,withintheOfficeofUn-dergraduateStudies.Initialstaffingfortheprogramwillconsistofapro-gram director and an administrative assistant. The program’s founding Directorwillbeselectedfromamongtenuredfacultyandwillleadeffortstorecruitfacultyfortheinitiallaunchoftheseminarsandwilldevelopplansfortheongoingrecruitmentoffaculty.ThedirectorwillidentifyandpartnerwithcampusofficestosupportClemson Thinks2 and will have oversightofthebudget.Thedirectorwillalsoprovideleadershipforevaluationandassessmentoftheseminarsforcontinualimprovement.ThedirectorwillreporttotheViceProvostandDeanofUndergraduateStudies.Thedirectorwillmanagetheday-to-dayoperationoftheoffice.Heorshewillalsoworkwiththeappropriatecampusofficesoncoursescheduling. The director will develop and maintain campus-wide distribu-tionofinformationaboutthecoursesandwillprovideassistancetoandsupportforfacultyinstructors.Anadministrativeassistantwillprovidethenecessarysupportforthedirector.

suPPOrting cOmmitteesTheImplementationTeamcomprisedoffaculty,staff,andrepresenta-tivesfromAcademicAffairsandcampusunitsthatinterfacewithandsupporttheseminarswillcontinuetofunctionduringthefirstyearoftheprogram’s implementation. an advisory Committee will be established toprovideinputandguidancefortheprogram.AFacultyProposalReviewCommitteewillbeformedtoreviewandrecommendapprovalofClemson Thinks2proposals.Inaddition,existingfacultyandstudentcommittees and boards will also provide input and guidance to sustain

the Clemson Thinks2 program; forexample,theTeachingwithTechnologyCommitteeoftheOfficeforTeachingEffectivenessand Innovation will provide input and counsel related to Clemson Thinks2facultyinstructionalsup-port. student groups such as the AcademicAffairsCommitteeofthe Undergraduate student sen-ate will be consulted each semes-terforinputandtogainstudents’perspectives.AdescriptionoftheImplementation Team and the supportingcommitteesfollows.

imPlementatiOn teamThe Implementation Team is com-prisedoffaculty,staff,andrepre-sentativesfromAcademicAffairs

An Advisory Committee

will be established

to provide input and

guidance for the

program.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

52

andcampusunitsthatinterfacewithandsupporttheseminars.Thisteam provides valuable input on matters such as registration require-ments and procedures, seminar requirements and how to implement them,andidentificationofnecessaryfacultyandstudentresources.TheImplementationTeamwillcontinuetofunctionduringthefirstyearoftheprogram’s implementation and provide input to the director.

clemsOn university CT2 OrganizatiOnal structureTheadvisorycommitteewillconsistoffacultyandstudentswhowilladvise on issues pertinent to the on-going development, implementation, andassessmentoftheseminarcoursesandprogram.Memberswillalsoprovidevaluableinputonstudentandfacultyfeedbackandconcerns.

faculty PrOPOsal review cOmmitteeAfacultygroupwillbenamedtoreviewcourseproposalsonarollingbasis.Thiscommitteewillberesponsibleforcloselyexaminingpropos-alstoensurethattheyaddressthegoalsoftheseminarsandincludetherequired seminar elements.

CLEMSON ThiNkS2 advisOry cOmmitteeThe Clemson Thinks2 advisory Committee will play an important role in thedevelopmentandimplementationofthevariousprogramsandactiv-itiesofClemson Thinks2.ThecommitteewillconsistoffacultymembersappointedbytheProvostbasedondemonstratedsuccessinfosteringstudents’ critical thinking skills and scholarship associated with critical thinking. It is anticipated that Clemson Thinks2willalsoofferoneormoreteachingawardstorecognizefacultyandgraduatestudentswhoaredemonstrating excellence in critical thinking pedagogy. Clemson Thinks2 AdvisoryCommitteewillscreennomineesfortheseawards.TheClemson Thinks2 advisory Committee will also provide expertise and supportforguidingthedevelopmentoffacultyteachingtheseminars.

university undergraduate curriculum cOmmitteeTheUniversityUndergraduateCurriculumCommittee,oneofthestand-ingcommitteesoftheFacultySenate,isresponsiblefordevelopingcurriculumpoliciesandproceduresforClemsonUniversity;reviewingproposeddegrees,majors,minors,newcourses,andcoursechanges;

and handling other matters relat-ed to curriculum. The Clemson Thinks2 program leadership will consult with the UUCC on issues related to the seminars and uni-versity requirements.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

53

undergraduate student gOvernmentInadditiontoservingasthegoverningbodyofthestudentpopulation,StudentGovernmentalsoparticipatesheavilyinthedailyaffairsoftheuniversitythroughinteractionwithuniversityofficialsandrepresentationon university committees and councils. student Government represen-tativesprovidecontinuousinputtotheadministrationandoffermanyrecommendations with regard to student sentiment. student Government alsoprovidesawidearrayofservicesandprogramsforthebenefitofallClemsonstudents,fromtheHomecomingPageantintheFalltoCampussweep in the spring. every Clemson student is represented through the electedandappointedmembersoftheExecutive,Legislative,andJudi-cialBranchesofStudentGovernment,andthoserepresentativeswel-comeandencouragevisitsfromstudentswhowishtovoicetheirideas,opinions,andconcerns.Asthechiefstudentadvocateoncampus,StudentGovernmentisdedicatedtotheserviceofallClemsonstudentsandtheenhancementoftheClemsonexperience.Undergraduatesarealso involved in the university at the college and department level. all colleges and many departments have student advisory boards whose membersprovidedirectinputtodeans,departmentchairs,andthefacul-ty.TheactivestudentinputisthemostvitalingredientinthefunctioningoftheClemsonUniversityStudentGovernment.Regularcommunicationwiththisgroupandfeedbackfromstudentswillbeessentialtothesuc-cessofClemson Thinks2.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

54

IX. ResoURCes

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18seCTIons TaUGHT 10 40 80 120 160 200faCUlTy sCHolaRs 0 20 40 60 80 100sCHolaR sTIPenDs ($5K/SCHOLAR/annual)

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000

sUmmeR InsTITUTe2 sessions each summer (20faculty,5gradstu-

dents per session)

95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000

Program Implementation 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

DIReCToR salaRy 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000assIsTanT DIReCToR 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000ReseaRCH CooRDInaToR

10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

aDmIn assIsTanT 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Pre/PostASSESSMENT 6,000 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 120,000sPeakeR fUnDs 5,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000offICe sUPPlIes 5,000 5,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000sTaff TRaVel 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000DIsCReTIonaRy fUnD 5,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000aWaRDs 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

ToTal ReQUesTeD 191,000 490,000 824,000 939,000 1,054,000 1,214,000

Other related funded activitieseTs assessmenT 100,000 100,000 105,000 110,250 115,775 121,550ReseaRCH link between CT2 and CI

300,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

enGaGemenT 2,362,987 2,363,309 2,898,547 3,199,869 3,199,869 3,199,869seRVICe leaRnInG 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000InTeRnsHIPs 521,535 612,245 793,267 1,112,854 1,112,854 1,112,854

Budget PrOPOsal fOr QeP

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

55

The plan incorporates

a central body, the

Clemson Thinks2

Assessment Committee,

to coordinate all

assessment activities

related to the QEP.

X. assessmenTassessment Of CLEMSON ThiNkS2

AssessmentisintegraltothesuccessoftheClemson Thinks2. Indeed, itwastheanalysisofassessmentdatathatenabledtheUniversitytoidentifycriticalthinkingskillsasanareainneedofimprovementandthustoformulateoftheplanforClemson Thinks2. early in the process theSteeringCommitteedeterminedthattheplanshouldbeinformed,nimble, and designed to accommodate continuous review and revision. Theassessmentplanisdesignedwithmultiplesourcesofmeasurement/evidence taken at multiple points. The plan incorporates a central body, the Clemson Thinks2 assessment Committee, to coordinate all assess-ment activities related to the QeP.

critical thinking testsTheassessmentmodelfortheCT2 seminars is based on multiple sourc-esofdatacollection.Oneofthemostimportantdatacollectionmethodsisthepre-andpost-testingofstudentsenrolledintheCT2 seminars. Thestudentsaretestedduringthefirstweekofclassandagainduringthefinalweek.Basedonourresearch,wedeterminedthattwoinstru-ments: The Critical Thinking assessment Test (CaT) developed by TennesseeTechnicalUniversityandtheCaliforniaCriticalThinkingSkillsTest (CCTsT) developed by Insight assessment were best suited to our needs.

ClemsonUniversityadministeredtheCATtesttohalfthepilotcoursesinthefallsemesterof2012andtheCaliforniatesttotheotherhalf.Wearefollowingthissameprocedureforthepilotcoursesduringthespring2013 semester. During summer 2013, we will compare our results in: easeofadministration,easeofscoring,qualityofdata,amenabilitytostudents,facultybuy-in,andotherfactorstodetermineafinalassess-mentforthecourse.

ets PrOficiency PrOfileTheadministrationoftheETSProficiencyProfilewillprovideinsightintothelong-termeffectivenessoftheCT2Seminars.ETSProficiencyprofilehas been used by the university since 2007 to assess general educa-tioncompetencies.Randomizedsamplesoffreshmenandseniorsweretested.Beginninginfall2011,ClemsonUniversitybeganadministeringtheETSProficiencyprofiletoallincomingfreshmen.InconcertwiththeestablishmentoftheClemson Thinks2, we will begin testing all seniors withtheclassof2015.Thisassessmentwillprovideuswith“bookends”to measure, particularly with respect to Clemson Thinks2, critical thinking and communication skills. since the students are required to provide theirnamesandstudentIDnumbersontheETSProficiencyProfile,wewillbeabletodoalongitudinaltrackingofindividualstudents.Whencorrelated with the critical thinking tests in the CT2 seminars and the criticalthinkingartifacts,describedbelow,wewillgaininsightintotheeffectivenessofdifferentclassesandmethodsofteachingaswellasthe

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

56

synergiestheyhaveinotherareasofthecurriculum.Forexample,wecan assess empirically whether students who take a CT2 seminar are betterpreparedforengagementactivitiesandvice-versa,orwhetherstudents who do both a CT2 seminar and service learning have higher overall gains in critical thinking ability.

critical thinking artifactsstudents enrolled in CT2Seminarswillberequiredtoassembleartifactsdemonstratingcriticalthinkingskills.Theseartifactswillbecollectedatvariouspointsinthesemesterandmayspanavarietyofmodalities:writ-tendocuments,audioandvideofiles,artwork,etc.Artifactsshouldbeassociated with the three critical thinking student learning outcomes and mayalsoincludeareflectiveessaydesignedtodemonstratemeta-cog-nitive abilities.

The Clemson Thinks2 assessment Committee will review and score asampleoftheartifactseachsemester. This committee will coordinatewithrepresentativesofClemson’sePortfolioprogramtodeterminethesuitabilityofparticu-larartifactsforstudents’ePortfoli-os and to establish best practices inevaluatingartifacts.CT2artifactswillprovideabaselinesubmissionforePortfoliodocumentation.

CLEMSON ThiNkS2 assessment cOmmitteeClemson Thinks2isdesignedtobeinacycleofcontinuousmonitoringand quality improvement. Central to this will be the Clemson Thinks2 AssessmentCommittee.Inconstitutingthiscommittee,theDirectorofClemson Thinks2willdrawonvariousmembersoftheuniversitycommu-nity.ThecommitteewillcoordinatewiththeOfficeofInstitutionalEffec-tiveness and the University assessment Committee in order to ensure theestablishmentandobservanceofbestpracticesinthecollection,evaluation,anduseofassessmentdataaswellasthereviewandrevi-sionoftheassessmentplan.

The committee will meet regularly in order to execute its charge: to analyze all data collected pertinent to Clemson Thinks2andtoformulateand implement improvements based on the data. The committee is also responsibleforthecoordinationofalltestsandsurveyspertainingtoClemson Thinks2.Theprimarysourcesofdatawillbethecriticalthinkingpre-andpost-tests,thecriticalthinkingartifactcollections,andStudentEvaluationsofInstructors.Additionaldatawillbegatheredfromfocusgroupsofstudentsandinstructorsandclassobservation.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

57

Inaddition,theAssessmentCommitteewillreviewasampleofCriticalThinkingartifactseachsemester,employingthesamerubricutilizedbytheinstructors.Thecommitteeresultswillbecomparedtothoseoftheinstructorsandstrengthsandweaknesseswillbeidentified.Thisinfor-mation will be correlated with the critical thinking tests and other sources ofevidencediscussedabove.TheassessmentprocessfortheClemson Thinks2willberobustandbroad-basedwithmultiplesourcesofmea-surement and evidence. The data results will be used in redesigning the facultyinstitute,theoverallCT2 program, and research design.

By analyzing these

data, we will be able

to develop evidence-

based answers to what is

presently unclear: how

best to instill critical

thinking skills

in students across an

entire university.

CT2 researchThedesignofClemson Thinks2 is unique in that its systematic approach to assessing what actually works in the classroom will result in a dataset ofuniquesizeandquality.Byanalyzingthesedata,wewillbeabletodevelop evidence-based answers to what is presently unclear: how best to instill critical thinking skills in students across an entire university. The collectionofthesedatawillpositionClemsontotaketheleadinresearchonanissueofvitalimportance.

Withinfiveyears,Clemson Thinks2willassesssomethingontheorderof300differentclassestaughtby100differentfacultyandtouchingthou-sandsofstudentsdrawnfromeverydisciplineoncampus.Sincewearealsotheonlyuniversity(accordingtoETS)totesteveryenteringfresh-manandgraduatingseniorwiththeETSProficiency,whichcontainsacritical thinking component, we will also have control data showing how thecriticalthinkingabilitiesofourstudentsevolvedoverthecourseoftheir college careers (whether or not they completed a CT2 seminar). Inshort,wewillbeinvestingthetime,effort,andfundingtocarryouttheanalyticalresearchtheproblemdemandsbutthatthefieldcurrentlylacks.

prepare to engage

critical assessment Points

ct2 assessment committeeAssessmentModeldevelopedbyClemsonUniversityOfficeforInstitutionalEffectivenessandAssessment

feedbackandimprovement evidence

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

58

Inordertomakebestuseofthedata,thebudgetincludesfundingfortwofull-timeresearchers:onewithexpertiseinmetacognitionandtheotherwithafocusonpedagogicalinnovation.Togethertheseresearch-erswillworkwithClemson’scohortofCT2 scholars to design classroom experiments,createthedataset,minethedataforusefulconclusions,anddisseminateClemson’sfindings. With two dedicated researchers, plustheirattendantgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralfellows,Clemson Thinks2willhavearesearchteamcapableofcreatingauniqueandcomprehensivesourceofdataoncriticalthinkingpedagogy.Theconnections between critical thinking and engagement activities will be akeycomponentoftheresearcharmoftheQualityEnhancementPlan.TheClemsonmodel,ifsuccessful,hassignificantpotentialtoinfluencewhat we know and the way we think about the teaching, learning, and assessmentofcriticalthinkinginhighereducation.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

59

XI. ConClUsIon Havingsolicitedinputfromthecampuscommunity,analyzedexistingassessment data, and reviewed the relevant literature, Clemson Univer-sitynowlooksforwardtoreviewofitsQEPbySACSCOC,discussionswith saCsCoC onsite team members about the plan, and eventual implementationofClemson Thinks2. We present this plan with a shared senseofenthusiasm.Thatsenseisbasedonbroad-basedinputfromstaff,students,andfaculty;acarefulandthoroughplanningprocess;andastrongcommitmentofsupportfromtheuniversityadministration.

Morethananything,however,ourenthusiasmstemsfromtheprom-ise that Clemson Thinks2holdsfortransformingteachingandlearningatClemson.Criticalthinkingisaconceptoftendiscussedbutseldomdefined,oftenassumedbutseldomunderstood,andoftendesiredbutseldom instituted. Clemson Thinks2seekstodefine,understand,andin-stitutecriticalthinkingbychallengingfacultyandstudentstoworkinten-tionally and collaboratively in order to improve the teaching and learning across the university.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

60

XII. WoRks CITeD abrami, Philip C., Robert m. bernard, evgueni borokhovski, anne Wade,MichaelA.Surkes,RanaTamim,andDaiZhang.2008.“Instructionalinterventionsaffectingcriticalthinkingskillsanddispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis.” Review of educational Research78(4):1102-34.

anagnoson, J. Theodore. 2000. Analyses of the Critical Thinking Assessment Test Results.CaliforniaStateUniversity,Losangeles.

arum, Richard, and Josipa Roksa. 2010. Academically Adrift: limited learning on College Campuses.Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press.

auerbach, arthur H. 2012. “Teaching diversity: Using a multi-facetedapproachtoengagestudents.”Ps: Political science & Politics 45(3): 516-20.

bean, John C. 2011. engaging ideas: The Professor’s Guide to integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active learning in the Classroom, 2nd ed. san francisco: Jossey-bass.

Biggs,JohnB.1987.student Approaches to learning and study-ing.Hawthorn,Victoria:AustralianCouncilforEducationalRe-search.

Brookfield,StevenD.2012.Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to help students Question Their Assumptions. san francisco: Jossey-bass.

Clemson University. 2012. Clemson Quality enhancement Plan. DraftreportdeliveredtotheSouthernAssociationofCollegesand schools.

Condon, William, and Diane kelly-Riley. 2004. “assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities.” Assessing Writing 9(1): 56-75.

Duffy,John.2012.“Virtuousarguments.”InsideHigherEd-ucation (16 march). available at www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/03/16/essay-value-first-year-writing-courses.

Ennis,RobertH.1984.“Problemsintestinginformallogic,criticalthinking, reasoning ability.” informal logic 6(1): 3-9.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

61

facione, Peter a. 1990. The California Critical Thinking skills Test: College level Technical Report #1.Millbrae,CA:Californiaacademic Press.

facione, Peter a. 2011. Critical Thinking: What it is and Why it Counts.Millbrae,CA:CaliforniaAcademicPress.

facione, Peter a., and noreen C. facione. 1994. holistic Criti-cal Thinking scoring Rubric.Millbrae,CA:CaliforniaAcademicPress.

finley, ashley. 2012. making Progress? What We know about the Achievement of liberal education outcomes. Washington, DC: AssociationofAmericanCollegesandUniversities.

Forrest,Aubrey.1982.increasing student Competence and Persistence: The Best Case for General education. Iowa City: american College Testing Program.

Gahagan, Jimmie, and mary stuart Hunter. 2006. “The sec-ond-year experience: Turning attention to the academy’s middle children.” About Campus 11(1): 17-22.

Gardiner,LionF.1998.“Whywemustchange:Theresearchevidence.” Thought & Action14(1):71-88.

Gasper, brittany J., Dennis J. minchella, Gabriela C. Weaver, laszlo n. Csonka, and stephanie m. Gardner. 2012. “adapting to osmoticstressandtheprocessofscience.”science 335(6076): 1590-91.

Glaser,Robert.1984.“Educationandknowledge:Theroleofknowledge.” American Psychologist 39(2): 93-104.

Gohn, lyle, James swartz, and sharon Donnelly. 2001. “a case studyofsecondyearstudent persistence.” Journal of College student Retention 2(4): 271-94.

Graunke, steven s., and sherry a. Woolsey. 2005. “an explo-rationofthefactorsthataffecttheacademicsuccessofcollegesophomores.” College student Journal 39(2): 367.

Haswell,RichardH.(1998).“Multipleinquiryinthevalidationofwriting tests.” Assessing Writing5(1):89-108.

Haswell, Richard H., ed. 2001. Beyond outcomes: Assessment and instruction within a University Writing Program. Westport, CT: ablex.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

62

Higgins,Steven,ElaineHall,VivienneBaumfield,andDavidMoseley.2005“Ameta-analysisoftheimpactoftheimplementa-tionofthinkingskillsapproachesonpupils”projectreport.Lon-don:UniversityofLondonEPPI-Centre,SocialScienceResearchUnit.

Hooks, bell. 2010. Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. new york: Routledge.

Hou,JackW.1994.“Classsizeanddeterminantsoflearningef-fectiveness.”EducationResourcesInformationCenter,MicroficheeD 377239.

Huot,Brian.1996.“Towardanewtheoryofwritingassessment.”College Composition and Communication47(4):549–66.

kennedy, mellen, michelle b. fisher, and Robert H. ennis. 1991. “Critical thinking: literature review and needed research.” In edu-cational values and cognitive instruction: implications for reform, ed. by lorna Idol and beau fly Jones, pp. 11-40). Hillsdale, nJ: lawrence erlbaum and associates.

MinnesotaStateUniversityMankatoCenterforTeachingandlearning. 2012. “Class size.” available at www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingresources/articles/classsize.html.

nilson, linda b. 1997. “Critical Thinking as an exercise in Cour-age.” The national Teaching & learning Forum 6(2): 1-4.

overholser, James C. 1992. “socrates in the Classroom.” College Teaching 40(1): 14-19.

Packard, becky Wai-ling. 2004. “mentoring and retention in collegescience:Reflectionsonthesophomoreyear.”Journal of College student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 6(3): 289-300.

Paul, Richard, and linda elder. 2009. The miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. Tomales, Ca: foundation forCriticalThinking.

Perry, William G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical Develop-ment in the College Years: A scheme. new york: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Ritchhart, Ron, mark Church, and karin morrison. 2011. making Thinking Visible: how to Promote engagement, Understanding, and independence for All learners. san francisco: Jossey-bass.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

63

Romney, D. m., and m. T. samuels. 2001. “a meta-analytic eval-uationofFeuerstein’sinstrumentalenrichmentprogram.”educa-tional and Child Psychology18(4):19-34.

Ruggiero, Vincent R. 2012. The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Criti-cal and Creative Thought, 10th ed. new york: longman.

schaller, molly a. 2005. “Wandering and wondering: Traversing theuneventerrainofthesecondcollegeyear.”About Campus 10(1): 17-24.

Scriven,Michael,andRichardPaul.1987.Presentation,8thAn-nualInternationalConferenceonCriticalThinkingandEducationReform.Sourcematerials:RichardPaulandLindaElder,The miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, founda-tionforCriticalThinkingPress,2008.

Terenzini, Patrick T., leonard springer, ernest T. Pascarella, and AmauryNora.1995.“InfluencesAffectingtheDevelopmentofstudents’ Critical Thinking skills.” Research in higher education 36(1): 23-39.

van Gelder, Tim. 2005. “Teaching Critical Thinking: some les-sonsfromCognitiveScience.”College Teaching 53(1): 41-6.

Winter, David G., David C. mcClelland, and abigail J. stewart. 1981.A new Case for the liberal Arts. san francisco: Jossey-bass.

Zwiers,Jeff,andMarieCrawford.2011.Academic Conversations: Classroom Talk that Fosters Critical Thinking and Content Under-standings. Portland, me: stenhouse.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

64

XIII. aPPenDICes

lIsT of aPPenDICes

a. steering Committee membershipb. 2020 Road mapC. ETSProficiencyProfileDataSummariesD. EvaluationoftheePortfolio a. 2011 b. 2012E. TownHallMeetings—Summaryf. Course Descriptions (nine courses are provided) a. sustainability leadership Course Description b. CT²Seminar—ArtsandHumanities(Literature) c. CT²Seminar—ArtsandHumanities(Non-Literature) d. CT²Seminar—CrossCulturalAwareness e. CT²Seminar—Math&NaturalScience f. CT²Seminar—SocialScience(General) g. CT²Seminar—SocialScience(GlobalChallenges) h. CT²Seminar—SocialScience2(SocialScience) i. CT²Seminar—Science,TechnologyandSocietyG. Clemson Thinks2 faculty InstituteH. founding Director Job PositionI. strategic Research HiresJ. Timeline and Changes Throughout the Process

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

65

aPPendix aQuality enhancement Plan steering committee membership

College of Engineering and ScienceWilliam Pennington, Ph.D.Professor,ChemistryChair, Town Hall subcommittee

leidy klotz, Ph.D.Professor,CivilEngineeringChair, Critical Thinking seminar sub-committee

College of Business and Behavioral scienceellen Granberg, Ph.D.Professor,Sociology

James Gaubert, mbasenior lecturer, marketing

laura olson, Ph.D.Professor,PoliticalScienceChair, literature Review and best Practices subcommittee

College of Architecture, Arts and humanitiesmary beth mcCubbin, m.l.a.lecturer, landscape architecture

David Hartmann, m.f.a.Chair,PerformingArtsProfessor,Theatre

michael lemahieu, Ph.D.Professor,EnglishChair, editors subcommittee

College of Health, Education and human developmentWindsor sherrill, Ph.D.Professor,PublicHealthScienceChair,ProfessionalDevelopmentSub-committee

francis mcGuire, Ph.D.AlumniDistinguishedProfessorEmer-itus, Parks, Recreation and Tourism management

Eugene T. Moore School of educationRoy Jones, Ph.D.executive Director, Call me mIsTeR Program

College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Scienceskirby Player, m.s. Director, College Relations

David Tonkyn, Ph.D.Professor,BiologicalSciences

William surver, Ph.D.Professor,BiologicalSciencesChair, QeP steering Committee and Chair, Implementation subcommittee

undergraduate studiesbarbara speziale, Ph.D.ProfessorandAssociateDean,Under-graduate studies

Student AffairsVerna Howell, m.a.ed.associate Vice President, student AffairsandInterimDeanofStudents

kathy Hobgood, m.s.ed.Director,ResidentialLife

Public service alliancekathy Woodard, m.P.a.Coordinator, service allianceChair, student engagement subcom-mittee

Board of Trusteesallen Wood, aIaTrustee emeritus

advancementneill Cameron, mbaVice President, advancement

clemson university librariesEricShoaf,M.L.I.S.,M.P.A.associate Dean, administrative ser-vices and librarian

faculty senate president-electkelly smith, Ph.D.Professor,PhilosophyandReligion

co-chairDebra Jackson, Ph.D.assistant to the President andViceProvost,AcademicAffairs(Co-chair, QeP steering Committee)

studentsanna eskridge, m.a.Graduate student Government Presi-dent

erin mcCave, b.s.Graduate student

mckee Thomason Undergraduate student body President

Joey maxwellUndergraduate student Representative

Perry austinUndergraduate student Representative

Carlisle kennedyformer Undergraduate student body President

Ex-officio Dori Helms, Ph.D. VicePresident,AcademicAffairsandProvost

Janice murdoch, Ph.D.Dean, Undergraduate studies

karen burg, Ph.D.Interim Vice Provost and Interim Dean, Graduate school

David knox, Ph.D.Director, Institutional assessment

John Cooper, m.s.OfficeforInstitutionalAssessmentResearch associate

Jim fatzinger, Ph.D.Visiting aCe fellow

Teresa HenryOfficeforInstitutionalEffectivenessadministrative support, QeP steering Committee

AijaSeflicOfficeforInstitutionalEffectivenessadministrative support, QeP steering Committee

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

66

aPPendix B

2

Clemson 2020 Road Map — 4/15/11

The Clemson 2020 Road Map

Vision

Clemson will be one of the nation’s top-20 public universities.

Goals

Fulfill Clemson’s responsibility to students and the state of South Carolina …

• to provide talent for the new economy by recruiting and retaining outstanding students and faculty and providing an exceptional educational experience grounded in engagement;

• to drive innovation, through research and service, that stimulates economic growth, creates jobs and solves problems;

• to serve the public good by focusing on emphasis areas that address some of the great challenges of the 21st century — national priorities such as health, energy, transportation and sustainable environment.

Objectives

Invest in four strategic priorities:

• Enhance student quality and performance

• Provide engagement and leadership opportunities for all students

• Attract, retain and reward top people

• Build to compete — facilities, infrastructure and technology

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

67

7

Clemson 2020 Road Map — 4/15/11

Building Blocks of a 10-Year Plan — Investments, Divestments, New Revenues

Four Critical Investments

1. Enhance student quality and performance

Not surprisingly, the list of investment priorities starts with students. Clemson will focus more aggressively on strategic enrollment management to recruit and retain a top-15 caliber freshman class.

That doesn’t mean recruiting just the best and brightest. Clemson plans to increase the diversity of the undergraduate student body and enroll more students — graduate and undergraduate — who are interested in energy, environment, transportation, health and other focus areas. And while this is not a plan to increase overall enrollment, it will leverage capacity for strategic growth, which varies by major and department.

To help recruit top students, Clemson will offer more competitive scholarships and graduate stipends, provide support services that increase retention and graduation rates, and create more opportunities for students to compete for national awards and make presentations at national meetings.

2. Provide engagement and leadership opportunities for all students

Providing every student with a real-world, problem-solving, creative engagement or leadership opportunity is a core concept of the 2020 Road Map. The 21st century economy and society demand graduates who are well-schooled in a discipline but also creative and entrepreneurial — graduates who are prepared to start a career with an established company or launch their own business.

This means increasing participation in existing programs — such as Creative Inquiry, service-learning, living-learning communities and study abroad — and creating new programs, such as internal “co-op” and internship opportunities at Clemson locations on campus and across the state.

It means nurturing creativity, critical thinking, communications capabilities, and ethical judgment and entrepreneurial skills.

It means using the campus — from the central steam plant to the adjacent experimental forest — as a laboratory, and giving students professional-level work experiences running the university machine.

It also means adopting new ways of teaching, creating a culture that values engagement, rewarding faculty and staff for these initiatives, and providing academic credit for rigorous engagement activities.

3. Attract, retain and reward top people

Competitive Compensation The sentiment in many states since the beginning of the recession has been to cut positions and compensation, but

Clemson plans to invest in people — strategically and based on performance and contributions to the bottom line. A compensation strategy developed with counsel from faculty and staff leaders will provide

• “bottom-line bonuses” to provide incentives for people to generate revenue and cut costs;

• bonuses for significant external recognition, such as National Science Foundation CAREER Awards;

• raises for top faculty and staff, based on market data and performance evaluations;

• evaluation of staff development program participation and results.

Guidelines and a funding pool for performance-based raises and bonuses will be established on an annual basis.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

68

8

Clemson 2020 Road Map — 4/15/11

Research Faculty and Endowed ChairsRecruiting more outstanding faculty will allow Clemson to continue generating the innovations that stimulate economic growth, create jobs and solve major problems facing society.

Searches will get under way this fall to fill seven prestigious endowed chairs funded through the S.C. Centers of Economic Excellence (CoEE) program. Established by the state Legislature and funded with lottery revenue, the CoEE is a challenge-grant program that funds endowments for research centers in knowledge-intensive economic clusters, such as biotechnology, automotive engineering and advanced materials. Universities must raise non-state, dollar-for-dollar matching funds to earn the state match. To date, the program has provided $45 million to Clemson for support of 16 endowed chairs in 13 Centers of Economic Excellence.

While maintaining support for strong programs in all eight emphasis areas, Clemson will add approximately 80 research faculty or teams over the next five years in areas that align with state economic development and national priorities, specifically

• sustainable environment: wind resources, water resources, power systems, energy/green campus

• health/biomedical and biotechnology: biomedical engineering, molecular/infectious diseases, smart hospitals, food systems, functional genomics, translational animal medicine

• transportation: Deep Orange, systems engineering, mechanical/automotive design, sustainable infrastructure

• advanced materials: optoelectronics, metals, polymers/composites

• information technology: high-performance computing, cyber-infrastructure, human-centered computing

“Champions”Successes at the Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR) and Clemson University Restoration Institute (CURI) innovation campuses demonstrate the value of having dedicated, focused leaders for high-profile, critical University initiatives. Over the next five years, similar “champions” will be identified to ensure the success of large economic development projects, major revenue opportunities and mission-critical programs such as summer programs, distance and online education, student engagement and economic development projects.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

69

9

Clemson 2020 Road Map — 4/15/11

4. Build to compete — facilities, infrastructure and technology

With no state capital bond bill for higher education in a dozen years, 75 percent of academic and administrative space with an average age of 49 years, a $230 million deferred maintenance backlog and an aging utility system, Clemson must make substantial capital investments over the next decade. In addition to fixing what’s broken, the plan will provide the type of academic, research, student life and athletics facilities needed to attract top faculty and students and help them be nationally competitive and deliver expected results.

The majority of projects in the plan can be funded with existing debt capacity, private gifts and generated revenues. The plan also rewards entrepreneurialism: If a department can generate its own revenues to fund a facility project, it can move to the head of the line.

Facilities, infrastructure and technology priorities over the next five years

• Complete major projects currently under way — a new home for the Academic Success Center, a life sciences complex, and renovations and addition to Lee Hall, which houses Clemson’s highly regarded architecture program.

• Double annual expenditures for maintenance, routine renovations and repairs.

• Complete phase 1 of utility system upgrade, including elimination of coal.

• Complete major HVAC and air-quality projects in high-use buildings (Daniel, Lehotsky, Poole, Martin, Barnett and Sikes).

• Enhance teaching and research facilities: • Engineering and science building

• CURI graduate education center

• Freeman Hall renovation

• Sirrine Hall renovation

• Charleston Architecture Center

• Flexible lab research space and equipment

• Expand and enhance student housing and student life facilities — complete phase 1 of the housing master plan (Douthit Hills, core campus development, Greek Village, additional student recreation facilities). Completion of the housing master plan will require regulatory changes to allow for private developments on campus.

• Expand and enhance athletics facilities — a $50 million commitment that will enhance the experience for student athletes and fans and create a dramatic new entrance to campus. Priorities include an indoor football practice facility, a new pedestrian bridge and plaza to enhance safety and access to soccer and tennis facilities, and upgrades to Kingsmore baseball stadium and Littlejohn Coliseum.

• Provide support systems that reduce transactions costs and increase productivity, including a new student information system and enhanced business systems.

• Increase the number and quality of technology-enhanced classrooms and conference facilities.

• Enhance digital library resources and technology.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

70

aPPendix cclemson university ets® Proficiency Profile

Summary of Scaled Scores and Proficiency Levels 2007-2012

Freshmen Fall 2007 – Fall 2012 Summary of Scaled ScoreNumber of students included in these statistics: 9331

Possible range

mean score

95% con-fidence

Limits* for mean

standard deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

total score 400 to 500 455.77 455 to 456 18.1 442 456 469skills subscores:critical thinking 100 to 130 114.44 114 to 115 6.1 110 114 120reading 100 to 130 120.78 120 to 121 5.85 118 121 124writing 100 to 130 116.36 116 to 117 4.35 114 117 120mathematics 100 to 130 117.01 116to118 5.89 113 117 121context-Based subscores:humanities 100 to 130 117 116to118 6.22 112 117 122social sciences 100 to 130 115.85 116to118 5.56 112 115 120natural sciences 100 to 130 117.77 116to118 5.03 114 118 121

Freshmen Fall 2007 – Fall 2012 Summary of Proficiency ClassificationsNumber of students included in these statistics: 5996skill dimension Proficiency Classification

Proficient marginal NotProficientreading, level 1 79% 14% 7%reading, level 2 53% 19% 28%critical thinking 10% 24% 66%writing, level 1 80% 16% 4%writing, level 2 32% 40% 28%writing, level 3 13% 37% 50%mathematics, level 1 78% 14% 8%mathematics, level 2 51% 26% 23%mathematics, level 3 17% 28% 55%

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

71

Seniors Spring 2008 – Spring 2012 Summary of Scaled ScoresNumber of students included in these statistics:3158

Possible range

mean score

95% con-fidence

Limits* for mean

standard deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

total score 400 to 500 458 457 to 459 19.53 443 457 473skills subscores:critical thinking 100 to 130 115.11 114 to 116 6.46 111 115 120reading 100 to 130 121.21 121 to 122 6.11 118 123 126writing 100 to 130 116.23 116 to 117 4.44 114 117 120mathematics 100 to 130 117.93 117 to 119 6.16 113 119 123context-Based subscores:humanities 100 to 130 117.66 117to118 6.43 113 118 122social sciences 100 to 130 116.48 116 to 117 5.87 112 116 120natural sciences 100 to 130 117.96 117 to 119 5.28 114 119 121

Seniors Spring 2008 – Spring 2012 Summary of Proficiency ClassificationsNumber of students included in these statistics:3158skill dimension Proficiency Classification

Proficient marginal NotProficientreading, level 1 82% 11% 7%reading, level 2 58% 18% 24%critical thinking 16% 26% 57%writing, level 1 79% 17% 4%writing, level 2 34% 39% 27%writing, level 3 14% 38% 48%mathematics, level 1 83% 11% 6%mathematics, level 2 60% 22% 18%mathematics, level 3 26% 29% 45%

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

72

aPPendix de-Portfolio Report Of 2011

executive summary

PURPose:

Thisreportprovidesevaluationdatafromthe4th AnnualePortfolioSummerAssessmentconductedsummer2011.Thisreportincludesfacultyscoresofthestudentartifactsandfacultyrecommendationsonhowtohelpstudentsbetterunderstandandsubsequentlydemonstratetheirunderstandingofthesecompetencies.Thefacultyevalua-tionprocesswasintendedtoprovideinsightonthequalityofstudentartifactstaggedtoClemson’sgeneraleduca-tioncompetencies,aswellastheclarityofthescoringrubrics.Inaddition,suggestionsonhowtobettersupportstudentsintheePortfoliodevelopmentprocess,howtoeducatefacultyontheePortfolioProgramandhowtostrengthentheePortfolioProgramweresoughtfromthefacultyevaluators.

meTHoD:

Studentartifactsforthe8competencieswereexaminedandscoredby19facultyevaluatorsacrosstheuniver-sity.Thisprocessoccurredovertheperiodofoneweekduringthecollegesummersession.Over800artifactswerescoredforcontentandcommunication.

key fInDInGs1:

• ThemostsampledartifactscamefromtheCollegeofBusinessandBehavioralScience(COBBS).Arti-factsfromCOBBSrepresented28.4%oftheentiresample.ThenexthighestgroupofartifactscamefromtheCollegeofEngineeringandScience(CES)(22.2%).

• ThemostfrequentlyassessedcompetencywasSocialScience(SS),representing19.3%ofthetotalnumberofartifactsevaluated.Only8.1%ofalltheartifactsthatwereexaminedrepresentedtheNaturalsciences competency (ns), making this the least represented competency in this assessment.

• CriticalThinking(CT)receivedthehighestaverageoverallscore²of2.30acrosscolleges,whichwascloselyfollowedbyNaturalSciences(NS)(2.28).TheaveragescoresforMathematicalLiteracy(M)was2.15, science and Technology in society (sTs) 2.07, social sciences 1.97, ethical Judgment 1.71, Cross CulturalAwareness1.48andArtsandHumanities1.27.

• CriticalThinkingalsoreceivedthehighestscoreofallcompetencygroupsintheCollegeofBusinessand behavioral sciences (Cobbs) and Health, education and Human Development (HeHD) (2.07 and 3.30 respectively).

• Acrosscompetencies,approximately34.3%ofallartifactsscoredI/A(N=559),thehighestfrequencyofIAswerefoundforCrossCulturalAwareness(CC)with47.5%(N=47),andthelowestnumberofIAsbeingfoundforCT(11.2%,N=11).ArtifactsaregivenascoreofIAwhentheartifactcannotbeaccessedbecauseofabrokenlink;whentheartifactismisplaced(meaningitdoesnotworkforthecompetencytowhichitwastagged,butwouldworkelsewhere);ortheartifacthasnoconnectiontothecompetency.

• Acrosscompetencies,approximately8.8%ofallartifactsscoreda3orabove.Individually,thehighestfrequencyof4swerescoredintheCTcompetency(17.4%,N=17),andthelowestwasfoundinSocialScience(SS)(0.7%,N=1).NoartifactssubmittedforAHscoreda4.

• score Dimensions:

o Overall,acrossallcollegesandcompetencies,56.7%(N=432)ofallartifactsreceivedapassingscoreontheCommunicationdimensionoftheassessment.Oftheartifactscreatedinthestudent’ssenioryear59.7%(N=138)receivedpassingscoresoncommunication3.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

73

o Overall,acrossallcollegesandcompetencies,29.2%(N=254)ofallartifactsscoredanIAinContentdimensionofscores.Thiswascloselyfollowedbyscoresof1(28.4%,N=247),2(26.2%,N=228)and3(12.2%,N=106).Fourpercent(N=36)ofallartifactsscoreda4incontent.Theaverageover-allscoreoncontentis1.89(IAsareexcluded).

1 Scoresrefertocontentunlessotherwiseindicated.

2 Allscoresareona5-pointscale,including0(IA);however,IAisexcludedfromthisanalysis.

3 ThescoresforcommunicationexcludeArtsandHumanities.

e-Portfolio Report Of 2012executive summary

PURPose:

Thisreportprovidesevaluationdatafromthe5thAnnualePortfolioSummerAssessmentconductedsummer2012.Thisreportincludesfacultyscoresofthestudentartifactsandfacultyrecommendationsonhowtohelpstudentsbetterun-derstandandsubsequentlydemonstratetheirunderstandingofthesecompetencies.ThefacultyevaluationprocesswasintendedtoprovideinsightonthequalityofstudentartifactstaggedtoClemson’sgeneraleducationcompetencies,aswellastheclarityofthescoringrubrics.Inaddition,suggestionsonhowtobettersupportstudentsintheePortfoliode-velopmentprocess,howtoeducatefacultyontheePortfolioProgramandhowtostrengthentheePortfolioProgramweresoughtfromthefacultyevaluators.

meTHoD:

Studentartifactsforthe8 competencieswereexaminedandscoredby45facultyevaluatorsacrosstheuniversity.Thisprocessoccurredovertheperiodofoneweekduringthecollegesummersession.Over2000artifactswerescoredforcontent and communication.

key fInDInGs1:

• ThemostsampledartifactscamefromtheCollegeofAgricultureForestryandLifeSciences(CAFLS).ArtifactsfromCAFLSrepresented23.4%oftheentiresample.ThenexthighestgroupofartifactscamefromtheCollegeofEngineeringandScience(CES)(21.8%).

• ThemostfrequentlyassessedcompetencywasCriticalThinking(CT),representing22.7%ofthetotalnumberofartifactsevaluated.Only6.2%ofalltheartifactsthatwereexaminedrepresentedtheCrossCulturalAwarenesscompetency (CC), making this the least represented competency in this assessment.

• ScienceandTechnologyinSociety(STS)receivedthehighestaverageoverallscore²of2.1acrosscolleges,whichwasfollowedbySocialSciences(SS)(1.8).TheaveragescoresforNaturalScience(NS),Mathematics(MA)andCriticalThinkingwere1.6,whiletheaveragescoresforEthicalJudgment(EJ)andArtsandHumanities(aH) were 1.5, and Cross Cultural awareness 1.4.

• ScienceandTechnologyinSociety(STS)alsoreceivedthereceivedthehighestscoreofallcompetencygroupsintheCollegeofEngineeringandScience(CES),CollegeofAgricultureForestryandLifeSciences(CAFLS),andCollegeofHealth,EducationandHumanDevelopment(HEHD)(2.64,2.38,and2.18respectively).SocialSciencesreceivedthehighestscoreofallcompetencygroupsintheCollegeofBusinessandBehavioralScience(COBBS)(2.04)whileCrossCulturalAwareness(CC)receivedthehighestscoreintheCollegeofArchitecture,arts and Humanities (aaH) (1.67).

• Acrosscompetencies,approximately57.1%ofallartifactsscored1(N=665),thehighestpercentageof1swerefoundforCrossCulturalAwareness(CC)with73%(N=53),andthelowestnumberofIAsbeingfoundforSS(33%,N=27).Artifactsaregivenascoreof1foravarietyofreasonswhicharecompetencyspecific.SeeAp-pendix1foradescriptionofthesereasons.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

74

• Acrosscompetencies,approximately14%(N=159)ofallartifactsscoreda3orabove.

• score Dimensions:

o Overall,acrossallcollegesandcompetencies,57.5%(N=478)ofallartifactsreceivedapassingscoreontheCommunicationdimensionoftheassessment,

o Overall,acrossallcollegesandcompetencies,57.1%(N=665)ofallartifactsscoreda1incontentdimensionofscores.Thiswascloselyfollowedbyscoresof2(29.5%,N=344)and3(10.7%,N=125).Threepercent(N=34)ofallartifactsscoreda4incontent.Theaverageoverallscoreoncontentwas1.6.

1 Scoresrefertocontentunlessotherwiseindicated.

2 all scores are on a 4-point scale.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

75

aPPendix etown hall meetings Overview

Three“townhall”meetingswereheldattheendofthespring2012semestertogatherinputfromfacultyandstaffontheQEP.ThesewereheldintheMadrenCenteronthefollowingdates:May9th, may 22nd, and June 4th. all meetings were heldintheearlyevening,andlightrefreshmentswereserved.Thefirstmeetingwaslimitedtofaculty,andthelattertwowereopentoallfacultyandstaff.Theformatwasinformal,withopendiscussionofallparticipantquestions.Attendancewasquitegood,rangingfrom~20atthefirstmeetingto~50atthelasttwo.

Manyexcellentideasweregeneratedfromthesediscussions,andtheQEPwasaccordinglymodifiedtoaddressthecon-cernsofthefacultyandstaff.An faQ list was generated, along with answers. It should be pointed out that the answers takeintoaccounttheconcernsofthefaculty–i.e.,theyaren’taresponsetotheparticipants,butrepresentanacceptableapproach based on the discussion in these meetings.

FAQ: How are we going to do this for students in a major with very few free electives?Thisshouldnotincreasetheburdenonyourstudentsastheycanfulfillthisrequirementeitherbytakingageneraleduca-tioncoursewhichmeetsitor,ifyourdepartmentchoosestoofferthem,majorcourseswhichdo.

FAQ: Is this going to be a single, “one size fits all” sort of course?Duringthepilotphase,no.WearetryingtobeasflexibleaspossibleforthefirsttwoyearstoseejustwhatworksatClemson.However,ifthatdatasuggeststronglythatsomeapproachesworkbetterthanothers,thenthiswillbefactoredintotherequirementsforacourseoncetheplanisfullyimplemented.

FAQ: Are faculty or departments going to be forced to teach these courses?No.Therewillbeincentivesbothforfacultyanddepartmentstoteachthesecourses,butifyouchoosenottodoso,youwillnotbeforced.

FAQ: Will there be adequate resources to do this correctly?Thisisstillbeingnegotiated,buttheadministrationhastakenthepositionthat,ifwearedoingtodothis,thenweshoulddoitcorrectly.Theyrealizethatthisultimatelymeansasignificantinvestmentofresourcesandsignsareexcellentthatwecanmakethathappen.Ifthatchanges,thentheQEPwillalsohavetochange.

FAQ: You promise resources to provide incentives, but how do we know these promises will be kept over time?Werealizethereisalotoffacultydistrustonthisissue.WeexpectPresidentBarkertomakeaclearpublicstatementabouttheimportanceofthisprojectanditsfunding.Ifyouarestillunconvinced,thenconsiderthis:Clemsonhastogiveadetailed implementation plan to saCsCoC and, once this is done, we cannot really back down.

FAQ: Will these courses be taught by anyone other than tenure track faculty?Perhaps.Weareveryoptimisticthat,withtheincentivesprovided,wewillhaveenoughtenuretrackvolunteerstostaffallthesectionswewillneed.Ifnot,however,wewillhavetoexploreotherinstructionalresourcesinawaythatstillmaintainsthequalityofthestudentexperience.

FAQ: Isn’t this another top down proposal?It’srequiredbySACSCOC,sowewouldnothavethisifnotforthatrequirement.However,thecommitteeisaverybroadcollectionoffacultythathasbeen,andcontinuestobe,veryopentoinputfromoutside.Thecommitteehasnotbeenpushed in any particular direction by the administration, other than what is required by saCsCoC.

FAQ: Do we have to do this?WehavetohaveaQEP.ThisisacorerequirementforSACSCOCaccreditation,withoutwhichClemsonwouldloseourqualificationtohandleanyfederalmonies,bothresearchfundsandstudentloans.WedidnothavetodothisparticularQEP,butthisistheplanthecommitteehasdecideduponafterexamining21proposalsoveraninemonthperiod.Atthispoint,wecanstillmodifyaspectoftheplan,butwecannotstartoveragainfromscratch.

FAQ: Will departments be able to teach courses for their own majors which count?Yes.Anycoursecancountasasophomoreseminar,aslongsasitfulfillstherequirements.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

76

FAQ: What evidence do you have that we aren’t already doing a good job teaching critical thinking?Wehavefacultyinputthattheyteachcriticalthinkingintheircourses,buttheliteraturetellsusthatthisdoesnotalwaysholdtrue.Anecdotalreportsfromfacultyandstudentsindicatewedoagreatjobincriticalthinking.WehaveETSProfi-ciencyProfilescoresofourstudents;andtheyareaboveaverageasfreshmen,andaboveaverageasseniors,butnoproofthattheirtimewithushasmadeadifference.WehaveartifactreviewsfromePortfolioandfacultyreviewsarejustokay,andthechangefrom2011to2012showsadropfrom2.3to1.6incriticalthinkingartifacts.

FAQ: What evidence do you have that critical thinking can be changed at all?The literature strongly suggests that with intentional instruction you can increase critical thinking skills.

FAQ: What evidence do you have that a single class or specific methodologies within a single class can have a significant impact on critical thinking?Tosomeextent,thisisthewholepointofthetwo-yearpilotphase.However,thereisevidencethatasingleclasscan,ifdesignedproperly,haveasignificantimpact.Forexample,amultidisciplinarygeneraleducationcourse,Foundations of science, wasdevelopedtoimprovestudents’criticalthinkingandscientificliteracyatSamHoustonStateUniversity.ThecourseistaughtcollaborativelybyfacultyinGeography/GeologyandBiology.ItwasevaluatedusingtheCriticalAssess-ment Test (CaT), a new instrument being developed by the national science foundation. Taking this one course produced asmuchchangeinstudents’criticalthinkingabilityistypicallyseeninafullfouryearsofcollege.(seewww.tntech.edu/cat/links-to-successful-projects/)

FAQ: How will improvement in critical thinking be measured? Can we trust the metric?We need to determine how best to assess critical thinking during the pilot phase, but we will probably use multiple meth-ods.Therearemanyoptions:ETSisamultiple-choiceinstrumentapprovedbythefederalgovernmentandforwhichwehavelotsoflongitudinaldata.TheCATisbeingdevelopedbytheNationalScienceFoundationandallowsstudentstowritefreeresponsestocriticalthinkingchallenges,whicharethengradedbytrainedfaculty.

FAQ: Will this involve changes to general education?Notduringthepilotphase,thoughit’spossiblewewillwanttorecommendchangesafterthisiscompleted.Ifwedo,wewillhavetoworkwiththeUniversityCurriculumCommitteeandotherstofigureoutwhatwewishtochangeandmakethat happen.

FAQ: Won’t this endanger creative inquiry?No,infactitmayhelpCI.Thereisnoplanto“stealfunding”fromCIandthisseemsunlikelygiventhesuccessoftheprogram.WewillassessCIclassesasameansoffosteringcriticalthinkingand,iftheydothiseffectively,thenwemaybeabletofindawaytofurtherincentivizetheteachingofCIoverthecurrentsystem.Atworse,though,thetwoprogramswillrun in parallel.

FAQ: Why can’t we just use creative inquiry for our QEP?WeunderstandthatmanypeopleloveCIandwouldprefertoseeanenrichedCIasourQEP.Thecommitteedidconsiderthis,alongwithmanyotherproposalsfromfaculty,andultimatelydecidedtogoinadifferentdirection.Wehope,however,thatasuccessfulsophomoreseminarprogramcanbeusedasameanstobetterprepareourstudentstotakefulladvan-tageofengagementactivitieslikeCI,servicelearning,studyabroad,etc.

faQ: could a department do something which is woven throughout the curriculum, not taught in a single course?Perhaps.Duringthepilotphase,wewanttobeopentointeresting,“non-standard”methodsfordeliveringthecriticalthinking experience. for example, PRTm has a new “immersion experience” which might work very well here. However, thiswillhavetobedecidedonacase-by-casebasis,andultimatelywillbedrivenbythedataontheeffectivenessoftheprograminfosteringcriticalthinking.

FAQ: What must faculty stop doing in order to do this?Nothing.First,thisisstrictlyvoluntary,soifyouaretoobusytodoit,thenyoudon’thaveto.Second,ifyoudochoosetodoit,teachingthesecourseswillcountaspartofyourregularload(unlikecreativeinquiry).

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

77

FAQ: How can something like this really work in the culture we have now where teaching is just not valued?Manyofusagreethatourcurrentcultureisaproblemandareworkingtochangeit.However,wecannotopposeanycurricular innovation that comes along, especially one required by saCsCoC, simply because we have work to do to improve the teaching climate.

FAQ: What is the timeline for implementation?Afive-yeartimelinehasbeendeveloped,implementingtheCT²facultyinstituteinsummerof2013,andcompletingourfive-yearreportin2018.

FAQ: What exactly does SACSCOC require in the QEP?TheinstitutionmustdevelopanacceptableQualityEnhancementPlan(QEP)thatincludesaninstitutionalprocessforidentifyingkeyissuesemergingfrominstitutionalassessmentandfocusesonlearningoutcomesand/ortheenvironmentsupportingstudentlearningandaccomplishingthemissionoftheinstitution.TheinstitutionmustdevelopaQualityEn-hancementPlanthat(1)demonstratesinstitutionalcapabilityfortheinitiation,implementation,andcompletionoftheQEP;(2)includesbroad-basedinvolvementofinstitutionalconstituenciesinthedevelopmentandproposedimplementationoftheQEP;and(3)identifiesgoalsandaplantoassesstheirachievement.

FAQ: How many sections of sophomore seminar will be required?Oncetheprogramisfullyimplemented,wehopetohave200sectionsof19studentseach.

FAQ: What do students think about this idea?Undergraduate and graduate student government leaders serve on the QeP steering Committee and helped us present thepreliminaryideastotheirgroupsattheendofthespringsemester.StudentsalsoparticipatedintheQEPproposalsolicitationinfall2011.IdeasfromstudentproposalsarecentraltotheQEPplanwehavenow.Generally,thestudentswehavespokenwitharesupportiveoftheQEPandareencouraging/admonishing/pleadingwiththecommitteetobeambitiousinmakingchange.Oncestudentsreturnforthefallsemester,weareplanningaseriesofstudenttown-hallstylemeetingsandwillalsocollectfeedbackfromstudentadvisoryboardsforeachcollege.

FAQ: Who will make sure the courses are taught the way they are supposed to be taught?Remember that this is an assessment driven process, so we will have to demonstrate to saCsCoC that we are actually havinganimpactonstudentlearning.Ifallwedoisapprovesyllabiandthenletfacultyanddepartmentsdoastheywish,there will likely be no impact to report (since we have good evidence we are not teaching critical thinking very well at present).Thus,wewillhavetoexercisemorecontroloverthesecoursesthanfacultyareusedto.Wewillnottellyouhowtoteach,butwewillrequirethatyoureffortsareassessed.Coursesandinstructorsthatarenotachievingtheendsoftheprogramwillnotbeinvitedtoreturntotheprogram.Thejobofreviewingproposalsforcoursesandtrackingtheresultswillbegiventoacommitteeoffaculty.Dr.LeidyKlotzhastakentheleadershiproleinworkingwithfacultychampionstodevelopthefirstsyllabiforapproval.

FAQ: Can courses already on the books meet this requirement?Yesandno.Youcancertainlytakeacoursethatyourdepartmentalreadyoffers,redesignasnecessarytofitthecriteria,andthenhaveitapprovedforthesophomoreseminar.However,theapprovalisforthatparticularsection(iftherearenon-seminarsectionsalsooffered)andthatparticularinstructor.Inotherwords,youcan’thaveallsectionsofPHIL101,seminar and non-seminar, taught by whomever, approved.

FAQ: Will there be faculty development for teachers?Absolutely!Ultimately,allfacultywhoteachthesecoursesmustgothroughtraining,butfacultydevelopmentneedstobemorethanthis.Weunderstandtheimportanceofprovidingstrongandcontinuingsupportforfaculty,whichcouldtakeanumberofforms.Oneresultofthisprogramwehopetoseeisincreaseddiscussiononcampusaboutjustwhatcriticalthinkingisandhowbesttoteachitthatwillhelpbuildupapermanentcadreofcriticalthinkinginstructorspassionateabout these courses.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

78

aPPendix fsecond year seminar course descriptions

Course approved:

CU 201 sustainability leadership

Course Description: Participants,representingClemson’sdiversestudentbody,willlearnhowprinciplesofeconomic,social,andenvironmentalsustainabilityapplyincontextsrangingfrompersonallifestylechoices,tothestructureofthebuiltenvironment,totheoperationofpublicandprivateinstitutions.ParticipantswillalsodevelopandpracticeskillstoactasagentsofchangeintheUniversityandthebroadercommunity.

CourseObjectives:Studentswillworkacrossdisciplinarylinestothinkcriticallyabouthowtheycanaddressgreatsocietalchallenges related to sustainability. To achieve this course goal, students will:

• definesustainability;• identifyanddiscussfundamentalissuesofsustainability;• analyze how their values relate to sustainability, and how their actions impact sustainability issues;• recognize interrelated systems; • evaluatetheroleoftheirmajorinsustainabilityissues;• apply sustainability concepts on local and global scales;• practicechangeagentskillsforsustainability;• develop a plan to address sustainability challenges through engagement at Clemson and beyond.

Withinthecontextofthecoursecontent,studentswillalso:• evaluate competing causal explanations;• evaluatehypothesesforconsistencywithestablishedfacts;• determinetherelevanceofinformationforevaluatinganargumentorconclusion;• evaluatetheappropriatenessofproceduresforinvestigatingaquestionofcausation;• evaluatedataforconsistencywithestablishedfacts,hypotheses,ormethods;and• recognizeflawsandinconsistenciesinanargument.

Courses submitted:

CT²Seminar—CU250ArtsandHumanities(Literature)CatalogDescription:Varioustopicsinliteratureandthehumanities.Thisseminarprovidesafoundationtohelpstudentsaddress chosen challenges and questions through critical thinking and engaged learning. students will work closely with facultyandfellowstudents.

CT²Seminar—CU260ArtsandHumanities(Non-Literature)CatalogDescription:Thisseminarfocusesondebatesconcerningpressingethicalissuesthathaveaglobaldimension(e.g.poverty,theenvironment,women’srights).Theseminarprovidesafoundationtohelpstudentsthinkcriticallyandreflectivelyregardingtheseandrelatedissues.

CT²Seminar—CU240CrossCulturalAwarenessCatalogDescription:Thisseminarmovesbeyondsuperficialcomparisonsofcustomstoanunderstandingoftheconceptofculture,culturalanalysis,andmethodsforcross-culturalcomparison.Throughcriticalthinking,studentsexplorehowculturalbeliefsandpracticesgivemeaningtotheexperiencesofcontemporaryGlobalChallenges(e.g.,population,re-sources,technology,information,economicintegration,governance).

CT²Seminar—CU211Math&NaturalScienceCatalogDescription:Thiscoursewillincreasestudents’criticalthinkingskillsthroughadetailedanalysisofscienceasareliablemethodofacquiringknowledge.Studentswilllearntodistinguishsciencefromnon-science,badscience,andpseudosciencebyanalyzingavarietyofclaimsandcasestudiesinahighlyparticipatoryfashion.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

79

CT²Seminar—CU231SocialScience(General)CatalogDescription:Varioustopicsinsocialsciences.Thisseminarprovidesafoundationtohelpstudentsaddresscho-senchallengesandquestionsthroughcriticalthinkingandengagedlearning.Studentswillworkcloselywithfacultyandfellowstudents.

CT²Seminar—CU230SocialScience(GlobalChallenges)Catalog Description: Drawing upon social science methodologies, students in this seminar develop critical thinking skills whileexploringcontemporaryGlobalChallenges(e.g.,population,resources,technology,information,economicintegra-tion,securityandgovernance).These,likeallglobalissues,arebestunderstoodusingavarietyofsocialsciencemethod-ologies. The class will introduce at least 3 social science approaches to Global Challenges.

CT²Seminar—CU232SocialScience2(SocialScience)CatalogDescription:Introductiontothesociologicalperspectivethroughanexaminationofhowinequalityisestablished,maintained,andreproduced,aswellastheconsequencesofinequalityforindividualsandsociety.Specificareasoffocusmayvaryfromsemestertosemester.

CT²Seminar—CU220Science,TechnologyandSocietyCatalogDescription:ThiscourseisaninterdisciplinarysubjectwithemphasisoncriticalthinkingandcommunicationtoeducateandencouragethedevelopmentofgloballycompetentcitizensinthefieldofS&Tinsociety.StudentswilllearnaboutglobalchallengesofbothtodayandinthenearfutureinScienceandTechnologies.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

80

aPPendix gClemson Thinks2 faculty institute

ItisenvisionedthatthesubstantivecomponentofFacultyDevelopmentProgramwillbestructuredasaweeklongsummerinstitute,providingtrainingforfacultywhowillbeteachingtheCT2 seminar and other critical thinking-oriented courses,aswellasanongoingforumforideasharingandcommunicationamongthesefaculty(thecommunityofCT² scholars).

Theinstructionalcontentofthecompletefour-dayClemson Thinks2 faculty Institute is described below. It will include manyparticipantactivitiesanddeliverables,suchasalistofstudentlearningoutcomes,anoutcomesmap,criticalthink-ingdiscussionquestions,writingassignments,testsquestions,andassessmentrubrics.TheInstituteisdesignedforthefacultywhowillbeteachingtheClemson Thinks2Seminarsfocusedoncriticalthinking.TheOfficeofTeachingEffective-nessandInnovationwillassistinprogramdevelopmenttobeheldtwotimes(orasneeded)duringsummers,facilitatingtheinvolvementofinvitedexpertsincriticalthinkingaswellasClemsonfaculty.

Faculty,staff,andgraduatestudentswillapplytoparticipateintheClemson Thinks2 faculty Institute. The application willrequiretheparticipanttoindicatewhatcourse(s)theyintendtoteachandhowtheywilladaptthiscoursetofittheCT² seminar learning outcomes. once the applicant is accepted to attend the faculty Institute they will be provided with selected literature on critical thinking and a questionnaire to assess the critical thinking strategies they already use in their course(s).

outcomes:TheFacultyInstituteoutcomesfortheparticipantsinclude:

• design and develop a communication-intensive CT²Seminaronthetopicorsubjectthefacultymemberchoosesandthat integrates targeted student learning outcomes related to critical thinking;

• redesignandredevelopexistingfacultymembers’course(s)tointegratethetargetedstudentlearningoutcomesrelat-ed to Clemson Thinks2;

• developandintegrateactivitiesandassignmentsintofacultymembers’coursesthatwilldevelopthetargetedCT² skills in their students and enhance academic and engagement experiences;

• developstrategiesforengagingstudentsandensuringtheycomprehendassignmentsandareachievingCT² learning outcomes;

• identifyalternativesforassessingstudentCT² skills;

• monitor and assess students’ competency in CT² skills using multiple assessment instruments.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

81

InsTITUTe sCHeDUle:

Day 1: introduction to Critical Thinking and Clemson Thinks2

What is the QeP (Clemson Thinks2)?WhatisCriticalThinking?–FacultyInstituteLeadership/KeynoteSpeaker• WhatistheQEPjustificationforcriticalthinkingfocus?• Howcanthisbeapplied?(IntroductionofLouisvilleQEP)• Defineandunderstandcriticalthinkingbyreviewingrelatedliterature• Discussionofwhatfosterscriticalthinkingincurrentcourses

ExplanationoftargetedstudentlearningoutcomesforClemson Thinks2 and other CT² courses, according to 1) the eTs Profileand2)CaliforniaCriticalThinkingSkillsTest• Participants will take the online CCTsT and the Critical Thinking assessment Test (CaT).• Participants will discuss the experience.

Day 2: interactive Faculty Development

Explanationoftheassessmenttoolsthatwillbeusedforthesecondyearseminar:ThetwoinstrumentsareCriticalThinkingAssessmentTest(CAT)originallydevelopedatTennesseeTechandtheCaliforniaCriticalThinkingSkillsTest(CCTsT, P. facione)• When to administer the test to students• Who will see the scores• How data will and will not be used

CaT as a development tool, participants will:• experience CaT scoring• AssessCTskillswithobjectivequestionsandpreparingstudentstotakemultiplechoiceassessmentinstruments• GainpracticeininterpretingresultsofboththeCATandtheCaliforniaassessmentinstruments

Day 3: Critical Thinking Strategies for the Classroom/Course Development

FacultyPanel:sharingteachingexperiencesusingfacultyfromdifferentcollegestodiscusssuccessstoriesandstrate-gies in critical thinking• What do we think works in CT²instruction?• How do we engage students with CT² instruction, and how do we integrate and encourage engagement activities

into the CT²Seminar?

StrategiesforCriticalThinkingintheclassroom:EngagingstudentsinCT²; teaching CT² skills (mentoring and teaching tools)• stages to guide students through (three models)• Self-regulatedlearningactivities,includingreflectivewritingtoarticulatebeliefs• Logicalfallacies• CT²questionsandtasksforlearningactivities(discussion,exercises,lab)andassessment• mapping arguments• socratic method • CT² in engineering disciplines• Integrating engagement activities into the CT² seminar

Designing and developing a course with a CT²focus:• formulating good student learning outcomes• Dealingwithstudents’faultymentalmodels/misconceptionsaboutsubjectmatterandCT² • Ordering/sequencingCT² outcomes and integrating them with content-oriented outcomes

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

82

Day 4: Engagement/Assessment/Courses/Conclusions

engagement Panel Discussion: Ways to integrate engagement activities into your CT² course (see engagement discus-sion below) • Whatconstitutesengagement?• How does CT²fitinengagement?• How to use engagement in CT²courses?• Howhasengagementbeenusedinthepast,howtoincorporateitnow?• Whatsafeguardsneedtobeusedintheengagementexperiences(especiallyiftravellingoutsidetheUniversity)

§ Safetyprecautions§ IRb and studies using IRbs§ How to protect students§ Risk management issues

Engagingstudentsinmeaningfuldiscussions• CT² questioning techniques• Socialsideofdiscussionmanagement:elicitingbroad,active,civilparticipation

monitoring and assessing students’ CT² progress• General assessment guidelines• Maintypesofassessmentinstrumentsandwhatcognitiveoperationstheycanassess:

1. Objectivetestitems2. Student-constructedwork(e.g.,writingassignments,oralpresentations,projects)

• assessing CT²skillswithstudent-constructedwork(focusonwritingassignments)§ formulating good CT²writingassignmentsandessayquestions;examplesfromourfaculty§ evaluating writing and CT²,includesdevelopinggoodrubricsandprovidingusefulfeedback;examinationof

model rubrics

Critical Thinking and scholarship:• Ways to incorporate teaching CT² into grant proposals• Publishing on teaching pedagogy

Discussionofcoursedevelopment,strategiestobeusedinClemson Thinks2 seminar courses, and assessments to be used in courses

faculty Institute evaluation

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

83

aPPendix hfOunding directOr

CLEMSON ThiNkS²

ClemsonUniversityseekstoidentifyaFoundingDirectorforanewClemson Thinks2. Clemson Thinks² is a quality im-provementinitiativedesignedtodramaticallyenhanceClemsonstudentlearningintheareaofcriticalthinking.Byofferingstimulatingsecond-yearcriticalthinkingseminarstaughtbyafacultyofexpertCT² scholars, Clemson Thinks² has as its goaltotransformtheundergraduatelearningexperienceatClemsonUniversity.Clemson Thinks² is the university’s QeP (QualityEnhancementPlan)undertheSACSCOCreaffirmationrequirements.

TheFoundingDirectorwillprovideleadershiptothisinitiativebeginningwiththelaterphasesofprogramdevelopmentthroughearlyimplementation,afterwhichtimeasearchforapermanentdirectorwillbeconducted.

Clemson Thinks² isapartofClemson’sDivisionofAcademicAffairs.TheFoundingDirectorwillreporttotheViceProvostforAcademicAffairsandDeanofUndergraduateStudies.

Primary Responsibilities1. Program development & administration

a. OverallresponsibilityformanagingallaspectsoftheCT² program.b. WorkwithOfficeofInstitutionalEffectivenessandQEPAdvisoryCommitteetoensurethattheprogramis

effectivec. budget oversightd. Programpromotion–leadspokesperson;communications;fund-raising

2. Staffinga. Develop position descriptionsb. Recruit and hire; supervise and develop

3. CT² faculty & Graduate studentsa. Recruit CT²facultyb. Designandimplementfacultydevelopmentprogramc. Managefacultyincentivesd. oversee CT² scholar evaluation processe. OverseedesignandimplementationofgraduatestudentCT² participation

4. CT²CourseOfferingsa. Evaluatecourseofferingb. shepherd courses through curriculum approvals

5. Assessment–WorkwithOfficeofAssessmenttoa. CoordinatescoringofCT²learningassessmentsbycourseandETSProficiencyresultsb. Reviewandfollow-uponindividualcourseassessment(s)c. AnalyzetotalityofCT² assessment data and take action as needed

6. Teach at least one CT² seminar per year7. Research

a. oversee CT²researchactivitiesofresearchcoordinatorsb. facilitate interactions between research coordinators and CT² scholars

Qualifications • Ph.D.degreeandacademiccredentialssufficienttosecuretenureinaClemsondepartment• Recordofcommitmenttoundergraduateteachingandlearning• knowledgeable about critical thinking–whatitis,howtoteachstudentstodoit,howtoassessit• familiarity with saCsCoC Quality enhancement Plan requirements• administrative experience (program development, budget, supervision)• Demonstrated commitment to assessment and “closing the loop”

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

84

aPPendix istrategic hire Pre-Proposal:

A Research Team for Clemson Thinks2

abstract

AcorerequirementforSACSCOCreaffirmationisprovidingauniversity-widequalityenhancementplan(QEP),whichmakesitvitalthatourQEPissuccessful.Clemson,alongwithsixteenotheruniversitiesnationwide,hasidentifiedcriticalthinkingasanimportantstudentlearningoutcomeinneedofimprovement.ThebasicplanoftheClemson Thinks2 initia-tiveistodevelopacadreofCriticalThinkingScholarsacrosscampuswhowillteachavarietyofsophomorelevelcriticalthinking seminars as well as undertake other activities to help build a vibrant campus culture around critical thinking. The design is unique in that it emphasizes a systematic approach to assessing what actually works in the classroom that will resultinadatasetonteachingcriticalthinkingofunprecedentedsizeandquality.ThisproposalseekstoleveragethatdesigninawaywhichwillenhancethegoalsoftheQEP,putClemsonattheveryforefrontofresearchonanimportantnationaleducationalissue,andhelpattractsignificantexternalsupport.

Wearethusrequestingtwofacultymemberswhosejobitwillbetocapitalizeonthedatawewillbegeneratinganduseittodevelopamajorresearchinitiative.TheywillensurethatClemson Thinks2 1) becomes theleadingmodelofmetacog-nitiveassessmentandcriticalthinkingpedagogy,2)isintegratedintotheresearchofothersinterestedincriticalthinking,and3)attractssignificantexternalfunding.Inaddition,weenvisionthattheresearchteamcanassistinexaminingcriticalthinkinganditslinktoengagement.Engagementisanimportantcomponentofthe2020RoadMap,andresearchintotheeffectivenessofengagementaspartofanacademiccoreisimportant.

PresidentJimBarkerhassaidthatwhathappensintheclassroomatClemsonisthe“coreofthecore”.Itisinthatspiritthat we proposed Clemson Thinks2,sinceithasthepotentialtotransformthewayweeducateourstudents.Thebasicideaistocreateacommunityofcriticalthinkingscholarswiththesupporttheyneedtofocustheirenergyoninnovativeteachingofcriticalthinkinginaseriesofsmallseminarsacrosstheentirecampus.Theseseminarswillquicklygrowintoasetofhundredsofexperiments,withdatafrompreandposttestingofthousandsofstudents,whichwouldbemannafromheaventoafieldsorelypressedforhighqualitydata.Andthefactthatnolessthan17schoolshaveidentifiedcriticalthinkingasthefocusfortheirownqualityenhancementplansshowsthatthisisawidespreadproblemfacinguniversitiesingeneralandthusamajornationaleducationalissue.

Thereisclearconsensusamongacademicsthatcriticalthinkingisoneofthemostimportantskillsstudentsshouldlearninauniversityenvironment.Thedataisalsoquitecompellingthatuniversitiesdonotcurrentlydoaverygoodjobgivingtheir students what they need in this respect. on the other hand, there is very little consensus as to how best to go about addressing this problem because the available data is so poor. The problem is that the literature on critical thinking is very diverse–whatcountsascriticalthinkingvariesfromstudytostudy,asdotheassessmenttools,samplesizes,etc.Itisextremelycostlyanddifficulttoconductlargescaleexperimentsandthusitisverydifficulttodrawclearconclusionswith-outtheuseofmeta-studies,inwhichcasetheresolutionaffordedisverylimited.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

85

year

01

year

02

year

03

year

04

year

05

2011

-201

2s

umm

er 2

012

fall

2012

spr

ing

2013

2013

-201

420

14-2

015

2015

-201

620

16-2

017

2017-2018

Dev

elop

the

Qe

P-D

raft

re-

leas

ed a

pril

23,

2012

✔

mee

t with

Con

-su

ltant

s: B

arry

g

olds

tein

, Jun

e 12

, 201

2 ✔

Com

plet

e th

e formalreportfor

sa

Cs

Co

C s

ub-

mis

sion

✔

ApprovalofQ

EP

by s

ite V

isit

Team

-apr

il 20

13

beg

in Q

eP

impl

e-mentation—

Sem

i-narsinitiated—10

to 4

0

Increaseto80to

100

sect

ions

Incr

ease

to 1

20

sect

ions

Incr

ease

to 1

60

sect

ions

Incr

ease

to 2

00

sect

ions

Identifybarriers

and

solu

tions

mee

t with

uu

c

5/8/

12 re

gard

ing

core

cur

ricul

um

✔

Con

sulta

nt re

: Incentivesfor

Cha

ngin

g G

ener

-al

ed

(Un

C-C

H

reco

mm

ende

d)

Rec

omm

end

for-

mal

org

aniz

atio

n-alStructurefor

implem

entationof

CT2

✔

Rec

omm

end

initialdirectorfor

impl

emen

tatio

n to

Pre

side

nt a

nd

Pro

vost

Job

Pos

ition

subm

ittedfor

post

ing ✔

full

Tim

e D

irec-

tor,

supp

orte

d by

U

nder

grad

uate

s

tudi

es; H

ire

Res

earc

h fa

culty

m

embe

r and

R

esea

rch

Coo

rdi-

nato

r

add

ass

ista

nt

Dire

ctor

; 2nd

adm

inis

trativ

e a

ssis

tant

see

k op

portu

ni-

tiesforextramural

funding

Dis

sem

inat

e on

andoffcam

pus

rese

arch

and

as

sess

men

t act

iv-

ities

in C

T2

Dis

sem

inat

e on

andoffcam

pus

rese

arch

and

as

sess

men

t act

iv-

ities

in C

T2

Com

mun

icat

e th

e pl

an to

the

cam

pus-

Tow

n H

all m

eet-

ings

sch

edul

ed-

tostart5/8/12

Blog—

started

3/7/12✔

Wor

k w

ith n

eill

Cam

eron

and

m

arke

ting ✔

Cle

mso

n Th

inks

2 —need

logo

Draftprovided,

need

det

ails

and

sp

okes

pers

on ✔

Hig

hlig

ht

sa

Cs

Co

C V

isit

and

Qe

P ac

tivi-

ties

prio

r to

apr

il on

site

vis

it

Initi

ate

stud

ent

track

ing

sys-

tem

, int

ensi

ve

data

col

lect

ion,

co

urse

eva

luat

ion

syst

ems

(com

mu-

nica

tion

inte

nsiv

e,

assessment,pre/

post

test

ing,

eTs

)

firs

t sop

hom

ores

to

enr

oll i

n C

T2 s

emin

ar a

s a

requ

irem

ent

link

eng

agem

ent

act

iviti

es; b

egin

to

sha

re d

ata

anal

ysis

rela

ted

to s

tude

nts

Use

ass

ess-

mentfindingsfor

courseandfacul-

ty d

evel

opm

ent

Use

ass

ess-

mentfindingsfor

courseandfacul-

ty d

evel

opm

ent

Pro

pose

stru

c-turefortheC

T2 co

urse

to a

llow

w

ide

spre

ad p

ar-

ticip

atio

nsu

bcom

mitt

ees

assi

gned

for

sem

inar

and

ac-

adem

ic e

ngag

e-m

ent—

3/7/

12 ✔

Consultant—ex-

pert

on te

achi

ng

criti

cal t

hink

ing;

Sentfacultyto

prog

ram

s ra

ther

th

an b

ringi

ng

cons

ulta

nts

to

cam

pus

lion

f. G

ardi

ner

✔

Seekapprovalof

CT2 s

emin

ar a

nd

deve

lop

cour

ses

to m

eet G

ener

al

edu

catio

n R

e-qu

irem

ents

Gen

eral

edu

ca-

tion/CT2courses

to b

e su

bmitt

ed in

Ja

nuar

y 20

13 ✔

Impl

emen

t CT2

sch

olar

s P

ro-

gram

s

exp

and

to in

clud

e a

nnua

l Pro

gram

s forC

T2 sch

olar

s,

deve

lopm

ent

and

trave

l

Continuationof

theCom

munityof

sch

olar

s in

CT2

Continuationof

theCom

munityof

sch

olar

s in

CT2

Continuationof

theCom

munityof

sch

olar

s in

CT2

facu

lty a

nd

Gra

duat

e s

tude

nt

Wor

ksho

pses

tabl

ishe

d su

bcom

mitt

ee

5/3/

12 ✔

sub

com

mitt

ee

esta

blis

hed;

in

volv

e o

TeI ✔

Dev

elop

fac

-ul

ty a

nd G

rad-

uate

stu

dent

W

orks

hops

on

Teac

hing

Crit

ical

Th

inki

ng-l

imite

d P

ilot ✔

Prepareforfirst

facu

lty In

stitu

te.

Invi

te p

artic

ipa-

tion—

letterstoall

faculty

Rec

ruit,

impl

e-m

ent a

nd a

sses

s-mentofFaculty

Inst

itute

s

Rec

ruit,

impl

e-m

ent a

nd a

sses

s-mentofFaculty

Inst

itute

s

Rec

ruit,

impl

e-m

ent a

nd a

sses

s-mentofFaculty

Inst

itute

s

Rec

ruit,

impl

e-m

ent a

nd a

sses

s-mentofFaculty

Inst

itute

s

Rec

ruit,

impl

e-m

ent a

nd a

sses

s-mentofFaculty

Inst

itute

s

IdentifyCom

po-

nentsofProfes-

sion

al D

evel

op-

mentC

ertificate

forG

raduate

stu

dent

s e

stab

-lis

hed

sub

com

-m

ittee

5/3

/12

✔

sub

com

mitt

ee to

be

est

ablis

hed

with

Gra

d D

ean

and

Gra

d s

tude

nt

Gov

ernm

ent

Pilo

t tes

ted

sev-

eral

ass

essm

ent

inst

rum

ents

✔

Con

tinue

pilo

t ofC

T2 cou

rses

an

d as

sess

men

t st

rate

gies

; use

Q

eP

ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

as

“test”subjects

app

oint

an

adv

i-so

ry C

omm

ittee

forC

T2

adv

isor

y C

om-

mitteeidentifies

actio

ns n

eede

d

adv

isor

y C

om-

mitteeidentifies

actio

ns n

eede

d

adv

isor

y C

om-

mitteeidentifies

actio

ns n

eede

d

adv

isor

y C

om-

mitteeidentifies

actio

ns n

eede

d

App

endi

x J:

Tim

elin

e an

d C

hang

es M

ade

Dur

ing

the

Proc

ess

of D

evel

opm

ent