critical thinking quality enhancement plan · 69.6% of new entrants (workforce readiness report...
TRANSCRIPT
CRITICAL THINKING
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN
TEAM MEMBERS:
Seth Blazer, School of Humanities and Communication
Nancy Duke, School of Humanities and Communication
Michael Flota, School of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Mary Goetteman, School of Nursing
Benjamin Graydon, School of Humanities and Communication
Holly Hollins, School of Humanities and Communication
Margaret Reinfeld Karda, School of Humanities and Communication
Michelle Lee, School of Humanities and Communication
Thaddeaus Mounkurai, School of Applied Business
Trey Orndorff, School of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Amy Osmon, School of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Elaine Perea, School of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Tracey Thornton, School of Humanities and Communication
2
SECTION I: SELECTED TOPIC
In December, 2005, in a keynote address to the Commission on Colleges, Derek Bok, President
Emeritus of Harvard University, stated that “Ninety-five percent of all American universities believe that
developing the powers of critical thinking of their students is not just a, but the most important objective
of a college education.” Consensus around such a goal, however, does not translate readily into better
student learning: A telling study done for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing found that
although 89 percent of faculty interviewed believed critical thinking to be of primary importance, only 19
percent could articulate what critical thinking was (Paul, et al., 1997). More important, over 75 percent of
those interviewed were unable to articulate how to teach disciplinary content and critical thinking at the
same time (Paul, et al., 1997). Furthermore, in a 2006 study, 77.8% of American employers surveyed saw
critical thinking as a vitally important skill for success in the workplace (Conference Board, Corporate
Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human
Resource Management). However, another national study identified critical thinking as a deficiency in
69.6% of new entrants (Workforce Readiness Report Card for New Entrants to the Workforce, qtd. in
Barnhill, p. 1). Studies like these have, over the last 15 years, prompted many colleges to develop
comprehensive programs to improve students’ critical thinking skills. (A list of schools that have prepared
QEPs related to critical thinking for SACS is contained in Appendix A).
Our own institutional studies show us a similar picture: Most of our students encounter lecture
and teacher-led discussion as the primary mode of instruction, methods which do not reliably foster the
development of critical thinking (DSC CCFSSE, 2011). In addition, our studies show that faculty
members believe they are doing “quite a bit” of critical thinking in their classrooms while students
perceive themselves as doing much less (DSC CCFSSE, 2009). These results show both a need to
reappraise our approach to integrating critical thinking into classroom instruction and a need to embrace
critical thinking explicitly, so that both students and faculty are able to articulate clearly what critical
thinking looks like. Daytona State College has already taken the first important step to that end by
including critical thinking as one of its four general education objectives. Given that commitment, it is
now incumbent upon us to take on the task of systematically promoting the best practices of critical
thinking instruction and accurately measuring our students’ critical thinking skills after these best
practices have been implemented.
Just Think! proposes to create a Critical Thinking Institute (CTI) as the most effective vehicle for
planning, implementing, and assessing critical thinking activities across DSC’s curriculum. The Institute,
which would be led by a director who is an expert in implementing critical thinking models in higher
3
education, is a crucial step toward turning our professed commitment to the development of our students’
critical thinking skills into a campus-wide reality. Until faculty embrace a clear and consistent way of
discussing critical thinking and identifying it in their classrooms, our ability to teach and measure critical
thinking effectively will be limited. The Critical Thinking Institute, developed around a train-the-trainer
model, will allow for the most powerful, comprehensive, and cost-effective measures to be implemented
at all DSC campuses. Such a centralization of efforts will also help develop a common language by which
DSC faculty can share their critical thinking ideas and practices in the classroom. It is through such a
concentrated, multi-disciplinary, curriculum-wide implementation of critical thinking skills that DSC
students’ abilities to find employment, reach higher education goals, and become effective, well-rounded
citizens can be ensured.
SECTION II: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Critical thinking is regarded as a pillar of undergraduate education in a wide range of disciplines
and fields, and DSC faculty are already engaged in the development of students’ critical thinking skills in
a variety of ways across the curriculum. However, in order to strengthen its commitment to critical
thinking college-wide, DSC revised its institutional student learning outcomes in 2011 to emphasize
critical and creative thinking. The college defines critical and creative thinking as “systematic and
creative thinking skills to analyze and evaluate issues and arguments, to solve problems, and/or to make
decisions.” Just Think! derives from this definition the following student learning outcomes.
Students will be able to:
1. Evaluate arguments for their logic, validity, relevance, and strength.
2. Identify and define problems or issues, recognize their complexity, and consider alternative
viewpoints and solutions.
3. Use the critical skills of observation, analysis, and evaluation.
4. Use quantitative reasoning, such as computation, application, and inference.
5. Use qualitative reasoning, including personal experience, human perception, and human values
(e.g., creative thinking, aesthetic reasoning, and ethical reasoning).
SECTION III: BEST PRACTICES & CURRENT RESEARCH
Since Bloom’s Taxonomy was developed in the 1950’s, it has been widely used as a framework
for instructional innovation to enhance students’ critical thinking skills. In the six decades since,
countless studies have been conducted and critical thinking models developed that have confirmed the
importance of critical thinking skills to student success both in the classroom and in the world outside
4
school. For example, Barr and Tagg (1995), in a seminal essay, outline the paradigm shift that has
occurred in higher education away from instructor-centered to learner-centered education. They draw on a
vast literature describing the benefits of and need for this shift in higher education objectives. A central
cause for this shift is the growing diversity of the collective student body attending American higher
education institutions such as DSC. Given this diverse student body, learner-centered education addresses
this challenge by emphasizing student needs. The main goal is to give students the tools by which they
can conquer the challenges of higher education on their own terms.
At the heart of the sweeping change is critical thinking. Students must be able to apply
knowledge, not simply memorize or recall it, and this is the central goal of any attempt to infuse curricula
with critical thinking practices (Gardner, 1994). Furthermore, in pursuing their higher education goals,
students must be able to apply acquired knowledge across the college curriculum to be most effective. In
addition, critical thinking skills are essential because they can be transferred from the academic world to
the realm of employment (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2003).
Transferability of skills is an especially important goal at DSC, given the number of our students
in two-year, technical and occupational programs. Studies like those cited in Section I demonstrate the
widespread need for critical thinking skills across the educational and professional landscape. Also, given
the globalization of economies, education, and workplaces, as well as the sheer volume of information
available through digital sources to our students, it has become a necessity for students to develop skills
that enable them to evaluate and think critically about the information they use every day.
According to Leskes and Miller (2008), critical thinking skills are best achieved through an
integrated approach across the curriculum, rather than through the completion of any single course.
Hatcher (2006) provides compelling evidence that a coordinated and integrated approach to teaching
critical thinking across the curriculum provides the most robust results in pre-test and post-test measures
rather than only offering stand-alone courses in either critical thinking or formal logic, an integral part of
most critical thinking models. This focus on coordination and integration is essential to student success.
Best practices for such coordination include such programs as: coordinated content across disciplines,
service learning projects, capstone projects, internships, and research projects with faculty mentors
(Checkoway, 2001; Gilber, Schilt and Sheldon, 2005; Leskes and Miller, 2008; Stevenson, Duran, Barrett
and Colarulli 2005). Service learning, in particular, can elicit impressive results, but its success is
especially dependent upon coordinated intellectual preparation through earlier course work (Checkoway,
2001).
While there are several critical thinking models available to meet our critical thinking goals, Just
Think! has embraced the Paul and Elder model, a comprehensive approach which focuses on identifying
and clarifying the elements of thought, holding to clear intellectual standards, and developing intellectual
5
maturity. (The relationship among the elements of the model is illustrated in Appendix B.) This approach
holds promise for fostering the development of lifelong critical thinking skills that are transferable not
only from one discipline to another but also from students’ educational careers to their careers. The
Foundation for Critical Thinking offers a wealth of materials and services (for both faculty and students)
which are based on the Paul and Elder model.
Scholarship on critical thinking supports the Just Think! plan. To reach DSC’s stated goals for
improving students’ critical thinking, we will implement a comprehensive quality enhancement plan that
will prepare our students not only to think well but also to reflect on and then correct their thinking.
SECTION IV: ACTION PLAN
Implementation of the plan will be driven by an approach designed to achieve the student learning
outcomes described above (Section II). The plan contains three primary components: faculty
development, course development and assessment.
Faculty Development
Because student learning is most directly affected by what faculty do in the classroom, Just Think!
emphasizes a train-the-trainer approach for faculty that is student-centered, faculty-developed, and
institutionally embedded.
Training through the Critical Thinking Institute
A cohort of fourteen faculty members will be selected annually as Institute Fellows, beginning in the
Spring of 2014. The Fellows will complete both a semester-long seminar and a two-week Summer
Institute studying critical thinking theory and developing related classroom assignments and teaching
materials in an intensive seminar. Nationally recognized leaders in critical thinking from the
Foundation for Critical Thinking and other organizations will participate in the seminars and offer
other learning opportunities for all DSC faculty and staff. Training materials will be made available
to all faculty and staff through a dedicated web site accessible to the entire DSC community. Upon
completing the Summer institute and a semester-long seminar with their cohort, the Fellows will
begin teaching an existing critical thinking course, like SLS2505, and they will integrate critical
thinking pedagogical strategies into their discipline-specific courses. Fellowship alumni will also
develop courses in their disciplines that are designed to develop students’ critical thinking skills. In
subsequent years, the Fellows will serve as faculty for each succeeding cohort in the CTI Fellowship.
Continuing Faculty and Staff Development
In addition to in-house training opportunities, the Institute will coordinate other training opportunities
in critical thinking for faculty and staff. The Institute may also arrange for faculty travel to
6
discipline-specific professional conferences for the purposes of gathering, evaluating, and
disseminating critical thinking best practices.
Course Development & Student Learning
In the first five years of implementation, student learning outcomes will be addressed in two
ways: by expanding the number of available sections of existing courses in critical thinking, like SLS
2505, and by integrating critical thinking teaching methodologies into existing courses across the
curriculum.
Expanding access to available critical thinking courses
As the Fellows of the Institute complete their training, they will be expected to teach at least one
section of an existing critical thinking course. Because the number of trained instructors will grow
rapidly with the addition of each new Institute cohort, by the end of the five-year implementation
period, over 20 percent of the faculty will be teaching these courses. This will establish the critical
mass of trained instructors needed to establish a common critical thinking language and teaching
approach throughout the college.
Integrating critical thinking into existing courses across the disciplines
Fellows will also be expected to adopt critical thinking approaches to the content of the courses they
teach in their disciplines. These courses will be designated as critical thinking-intensive courses in
the college catalogue and in other registration materials. Again, as the number of trained instructors
grows, the number and variety of critical thinking-designated courses will also grow, increasing the
opportunity for students to take multiple courses built on the same thinking model. In the future, the
College may consider implementing additional curricular changes to engage more students in critical
thinking-designated courses, including such strategies as incorporating designated requirements into
degree requirements, re-examining the role of critical thinking in the general education requirements,
and developing service-learning, research and capstone projects focused on developing critical
thinking skills.
Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills
Quantitative assessment of students’ critical thinking skills will continue throughout the plan’s
implementation period. The assessment will determine the effectiveness of Just Think! by examining
student outcomes through the use of nationally recognized testing instruments, by using the CCSSE
already conducted annually at DSC, and by measuring the participation by faculty, staff, and students in
critical thinking activities. Just Think! will reach the following goals at the five-year benchmark:
Over 20% of faculty will be trained to use critical thinking teaching methods and assignments.
7
At least 20% of staff will have participated in the Institute’s training programs.
At least 40% of students will have taken a class in critical thinking or a critical thinking-intensive
class (202 sections).
At least 20% of students will have participated in critical thinking activities outside their classes.
Figure 1 below illustrates the increasing number of students affected by Just Think! after ten years of
implementation. (Appendix C contains more information about how this information was calculated.)
Number of Impacted Students
Fig. 1: Number of students impacted by Just Think! over ten years
SECTION V: TIMELINE
The figure below clearly illustrates the timeline over five years for implementation of the Just
Think! QEP. (See Appendix D for further details).
8
SECTION VI: RESOURCES
The costs in Table 1 below represent the costs for establishing the Critical Thinking Institute, training the
Fellows who will then train other faculty, and assessing the program initiatives.
Table 1: Cost schedule for Just Think! QEP
*represents less than .02% of DSC’s overall budget
SECTION VII: ASSESSMENT
The College’s efforts to implement critical thinking as a QEP must be assessed on multiple
levels: faculty development, course development and student learning, and institutional integration of
critical thinking methodologies. Table 2 below summarizes the assessment methods for these different
areas.
Outcome to be Assessed Method of Assessment
Faculty development Participation in: CTI Fellowships, CTI Summer Institutes,
lectures/seminars, service-learning partnerships, Problem-Solvers
Group, growth in CTI Assignments Library, Discipline-specific CT
conferences
Course development and student
learning
Existing SLOs, pre- and post- Test of Everyday Reasoning (TER),
and other national instruments
Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals
Position: Director of Critical
Thinking Institute (Director II,
including benefits)
$89,600 89,600 89,600 89,600 89,600 448,000
Course Reassignment/ Overload Pay
for CTI Fellows (2-week summer
workshop + one semester) X 14
faculty
50,400 50,400 50,400 50,400 50,400 252,000
Materials for CT Fellow Training
(subscriptions to databases,
textbooks, other materials)*
15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 79,637
Visiting Speakers for CT Fellow
Training
18,000 16,200 14,580 13,122 11,810 73,712
Basic Operating Expenses for CTI 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,185 2,251 10,618
New Assessment Activities 12,960 16,200 16,200 16,200 61,560
TOTALS 175,000 186,670 188,815 187,898 187,143 $925,527*
9
Outcome to be Assessed Method of Assessment
Institutional integration of critical
thinking
CCSSE
Table 2: Summary of Assessment Strategies for Just Think!
Faculty Development
At the heart of Just Think! is the Critical Thinking Institute and its Fellows. We will track the
number of faculty who complete the Fellowship training, engage in peer mentoring, and teach critical
thinking-designated courses. Additionally, we will measure the annual growth of the Institute’s online
library, which will be populated with assignments and teaching materials created by Fellows.
We will also track the number of staff members who complete critical thinking activities, such as courses,
sponsoring critical thinking student projects, and attending Institute seminars.
Course Development and Student Learning
Faculty teaching critical thinking courses or designated courses will administer baseline tests of
students’ critical thinking at the beginning and end of each semester. The aggregate student data of the
pre- and post-tests should show significant performance improvement on critical thinking measures. If it
does not, then the CTI Director and Fellows will use the assessment instrument to guide changes in the
content of the training from year to year.
The Test of Everyday Reasoning (TER), is a nationally normed, 35-item multiple choice test that
is especially designed for assessing high school seniors and students at two-year colleges. Scores for each
test taker include a total and five sub-scales (analysis, inference, evaluation, inductive reasoning and
deductive reasoning). Many peer institutions have adopted the TER to assess improvement of critical
thinking skills.
In order to assess course-level critical thinking goals, departments will review existing SLO’s to identify
relevant learning outcomes. For these outcomes, existing measures will be consolidated to arrive at a
qualitative assessment of how critical thinking is being implemented within the curriculum. Performance
data will be provided to individual instructors for how their teaching compares to others in the
department. Departmental benchmarks may also be implemented to encourage specific improvements in
the curriculum. Other national tests may also be used to offer qualitative assessment of the plan’s
outcomes.
Institutional Integration of Critical Thinking
The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) is already used by DSC to measure
overall institutional achievement of outcomes and is conducted annually. Several items on the CCSSE
measure facets of critical thinking skills, and these survey items will be monitored as the implementation
10
of the plan progresses. The CCSSE also includes an item that has previously been shown to be negatively
correlated with key indicators of critical thinking (Stein, Haynes, Redding, Harris, Tylka, & Lisic, 2009).
We expect the reported frequency for one item (“Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses
and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same way”) to go down as faculty master new
techniques for developing and accessing critical thinking.
CONCLUSION Daytona State College has contributed to the Volusia-Flagler community for the past half century
through its ongoing mission to bring affordable, quality education to all. Just Think! will further this
mission significantly. By enhancing the basic intellectual tools employed by all students, this plan will
have a long-lasting effect on our educational community as well as on the broader community. The
underlying purpose of Just Think! is to cultivate that most basic and necessary skill of every citizen, the
ability to think for oneself and reflect on the quality of one’s thinking. Just Think! aims for better
thinking through better teaching and learning.
The proposed Critical Thinking Institute will strengthen and systematize critical thinking across
the curriculum by providing common training, discussions, and language through which critical thinking
skills can be distributed across all disciplines of the college. It will emphasize collaboration among
faculty colleagues who will ultimately be responsible for bringing higher-order thinking to their
respective disciplines. Assessing how we have pursued our own goals is essential to achieving success.
Therefore, demonstrating the efficacy of our approach, at the student, curricular and institutional levels,
will permit us to quantify both our efforts and our successes. Our modest five-year budget represents an
investment with the potential to generate large returns in better student learning.
Research has repeatedly demonstrated the central role critical thinking must play in the life of an
educational community. Businesses have been clamoring for an increase in higher-order thinking from
their employees. The mandate for Daytona State College, its students and the community it serves is
therefore clear: Teaching students to think critically is critical to the future of our students.
11
References
Alexander, William A. (2004). Workplace Skills and the Skills Gaps Related to Employee Critical
Thinking Ability and Science Education Curriculum. (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State
University.
Bar, Robert B. and John Tagg. (1995). “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate
Education.” Change 27, 12-16.
Barnhill, Edith Jane. (2010). Teaching Strategies for Critical Thinking: Perceptions of Liberal Arts
Faculty. . (Doctoral dissertation). Arkansas State University.
Bok, Derek. (2005). Keynote address. Annual meeting of Commission on Colleges. Atlanta.
Business-Higher Education Forum. (2003). “Building a Nation of Learners”. Web.
http://www.bhef.com/publications/documents/building_nation_03.pdf
Checkoway, Barry. (2001). “Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University.” Journal
of Higher Education 72(2), 125-147.
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (1997). California Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical
Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. Paul, Richard W., Linda Elder, and
Ted Bartell.
Gardner, Lion. F. (1994). Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student
Learning. Washington D.C.: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George
Washington University.
Gilbert, Lucia A., Paige E. Schilt, and Sheldon Ekland-Olson (2005). “Integrated learning and research
across disciplinary boundaries: Engaging students.” Liberal Education 91.3: 44-50. Academic
One File. Web. 26 Jan 2011.
Hatcher, Donald L. (2006). Stand-alone versus integrated critical thinking courses. The Journal of
General Education, 55(3-4), 247-272.
Leskes, Andrea and Ross Miller (2008). Purposeful Pathways: Helping Students Achieve Key Learning
Outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Print.
Stevenson, Catherine B., Robert L. Duran, Karen A. Barrett, and Guy C. Colarulli (2005). “Fostering
Faculty Collaboration in Learning Communities: A Developmental Approach.” Innovative
Higher Education 30.1: 23-36. Omnifile Full Text Mega. Web. 26 Jan 2011.
12
APPENDIX A Schools Who Have Submitted Critical Thinking QEPs to SACS (2006 – 2011)
QEP School Year
1 Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: Putting the Pieces Together
University of the Cumberlands, TN
2006
2 Enhancing Critical Thinking for Students with Learning Disabilities
Beacon College, FL 2008
3 Critical Thinking for a Lifetime: The First Step Kentucky Wesleyan College, KY 2008
4 Seeking the OX: Developing Critical Thinkers at LFCC
Lord Fairfax Community College, VA
2008
5 Building Critical Thinkers Responsible for Life-long Learning
Nashville State Technical Community College, TN
2008
6 Launching Better Learners through Critical Thinking
Patrick Henry Community College, VA
2008
7 Improving Students’ Critical Thinking St. Petersburg College, FL 2008
8 Integrating Critical Thinking at the College Level Western Texas College, TX 2008
9 Critical Thinking: Lighting the Path to Lifelong Learning
Cape Fear Community College, NC
2007
10 Critical Thinking . . . for Learning, for Earning, for Life!
Howard College, TX 2007
11 Thinking Critically Across the Curriculum Madisonville Community
College, KY 2007
12 Enhancing Critical Thinking through First-Year Seminars
Christopher Newport University, VA
2007
13 The Development of Informed, Critical, and Creative Thinkers Who Communicate Effectively
Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY
2007
14 Cultivating Curious Minds: Critical Thinking across the Curriculum
Piedmont College, GA 2007
15 Ideas to Action: Using Critical Thinking to Foster Student Learning and Community Engagement
University of Louisville, KY 2007
16 Active Learning: Pathways to Higher Ordering Thinking at UT Arlington
University of Texas at Arlington, TX
2007
17 Improving Critical Thinking: A Plan for Quality Enhancement
Bethel College, TN 2008
18 Critical Thinking through Writing Georgia State University, GA 2008
19 R.E.A.S.O.N: Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students
Norfolk State University, VA 2008
20 Chowan Critical Thinking Program Chowan University NC 2009
21 Seminars in Critical Inquiry – An Introduction to Research, Thinking, and Writing at the College Level
New College of Florida, FL 2009
22 Critical Thinking through the WRITE Plan: South Georgia College, GA 2009
13
QEP School Year
Writing and Reasoning to Improve Thinking Effectiveness
23 Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum (CTAC) Fisk University, TN 2009
24 Enhancing Performance on Critical Thinking Florida A & M University
(FAMU), FL 2009
25 Engage the Mind, Engage the Student:” The Art of Critical Thinking
Huntingdon College, AL 2009
26 Advancing Student Learning Through the Enhancement of Critical Thinking and Analytical Reasoning
Tougaloo College, MS 2009
27 Improving Student Learning Outcomes through Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills
Clearwater Christian College, FL 2009
28 Enhancing Critical Thinking in the General Education Curriculum
Fort Valley State University, GA 2009
29 PRISM: Purposeful Reasoning, Inquiry, and Scholarship at Meredith
Meredith College, NC 2009
30 Critical Thinking for Productive Living Thomas More College, KY 2009
31 Problem-Solving with Reflective Judgment Tusculum College, TN 2009
32 Building Higher Order Thinking Skills in Tomorrow’s Health Care Professional (the “HOT” Plan)
University of North Texas Health Science Center at Ft. Worth, TX
2009
33 It’s Critical to Think Critically University of Texas MD
Anderson Cancer Center TX 2009
34 C4: Enhancing Critical Thinking The University of Texas at the
Permian Basin, TX 2009
35 Communication Skills Enhancement Grounded in Critical Thinking
Dillard University, LA 2010
36 THINK! Aiken Technical College, SC 2011
37 Forming the Critical Thinking Habit East Georgia College, GA 2011
38 Critical Thinking for Success! Ferrum College, VA 2011
39 Fulfilling the Promise: Enhancing Critical Thinking Skills among Students
Victory University, TN 2011
14
APPENDIX B
Paul and Elder Critical Thinking Model
Intellectual Standards
Accuracy Precision
Clarity Depth
Relevance Significance
Logical Fairness
Sufficiency Breadth
MUST BE APPLIED TO
Elements of Reasoning
Purpose Inferences
Question at issue Concepts
Point of View Implications
Information Assumptions
TO DEVELOP
Intellectual Traits
Humility Perseverance
Autonomy Empathy
Integrity Confidence in Reasoning
Courage Fair-mindedness
APPENDIX C Detail of Student Impact
2
APPENDIX D Timeline Details
Director CTI Activities Faculty & Staff
training
Cohorts Ongoing Cohort
Activity
Assessments
Year 1:
FA 2013
Recruit and hire
CTI Director.
Director develops
weekly seminar
curriculum for CT
fellows, parameters
for faculty
professional
development
workshops led by
CT fellows and
standards for faculty
mentoring program.
CTI Director will
provide an orientation
to QEP requirements,
implementation plans,
and CT model to all
department chairs.
Cohort 1 applications
due. Director selects
Cohort 1.
Year 1:
SP 2014
CTI Director
develops Staff CT
Certificate program
and Community
Speakers Lecture
Series.
Critical Thinking
trainers will come to
DSC to conduct a
train-the-trainer course
for Fellows Cohort 1.
Cohort 1 weekly
seminars begin. Issue
call for applications
for Cohort 2.
Cohort 1 Fellows
develop syllabi, CT
assignment repository,
and classroom
activities
incorporating CT
strategies and
pedagogical methods.
CCSSE assessment
conducted
Year 1:
SU 2014
CTI Website and
online ancillaries
launched (in
coordination with
IT).
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
3
Director CTI Activities Faculty & Staff
training
Cohorts Ongoing Cohort
Activity
Assessments
Year 2:
FA 2014
CTI Director and
faculty committee
review assessment
data and make
needed adjustments
to Fellowship/
Summer Institute
curriculum.
Community Speakers
Lecture Series.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 1
begins offering series
of workshops and one-
on-one faculty
mentoring.
Director selects
Cohort 2.
Cohort 1 Fellows
begin teaching CT
courses and/or
implementing critical
thinking in discipline-
specific courses.
Pre/Post Test of
Everyday Reasoning
test conducted in
designated courses
taught by CTI
Fellows.
Year 2:
SP 2015
CTI Director and
Cohort 1 review
assessment data and
make needed
adjustments to
curriculum.
Critical Thinking
trainers will come to
DSC to conduct a
train-the-trainer course
for Fellows Cohort 2.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 1
Fellows continue
series of workshops
and one-on-one
faculty mentoring.
Cohort 2 weekly
seminars begin. Issue
call for applications
for Cohort 3.
Cohort 1 Fellows
continue
implementing critical
thinking in their
courses (at least 3 per
year).
CCSSE assessment
conducted
Year 2:
SU 2015
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Year 3:
FA 2015
CTI Director and
faculty committee
review assessment
data and make
needed adjustments
to Fellowship/
Summer Institute
curriculum.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 2
begins offering series
of workshops and one-
on-one faculty
mentoring.
Director selects
Cohort 3.
Cohort 2 Fellows
begin teaching CT
courses and/or
implementing critical
thinking in discipline-
specific courses.
Pre/Post Test of
Everyday Reasoning
conducted in
designated courses
taught by CTI Fellows
Year 3:
SP 2016
CTI Director and
Cohort 2 review
assessment data and
make needed
adjustments to
curriculum.
Critical Thinking
trainers and CTI
Fellows will conduct
train-the-trainer
courses.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 2
Fellows continue
series of workshops
and one-on-one
faculty mentoring.
Cohort 3 weekly
seminars begin. Issue
call for applications
for Cohort 4.
Cohort 2 Fellows
continue
implementing critical
thinking in their
courses (at least 3 per
year).
CCSSE assessment
conducted
4
Director CTI Activities Faculty & Staff
training
Cohorts Ongoing Cohort
Activity
Assessments
Year 3:
SU 2016
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Year 4:
FA 2016
CTI Director and
faculty committee
review assessment
data and make
needed adjustments
to Fellowship/
Summer Institute
curriculum.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 3
begins offering series
of workshops and one-
on-one faculty
mentoring.
Director selects
Cohort 4.
Cohort 3 Fellows
begin teaching CT
courses and/or
implementing critical
thinking in discipline-
specific courses.
Pre/Post Test of
Everyday Reasoning
test conducted in
designated courses
taught by CTI Fellows
Year 4:
SP 2017
CTI Director and
Cohort 3 review
assessment data and
make needed
adjustments to
curriculum.
Critical Thinking
trainers and CTI
Fellows will conduct
train-the-trainer
courses.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 3
Fellows continue
series of workshops
and one-on-one
faculty mentoring.
Cohort 4 weekly
seminars begin. Issue
call for applications
for Cohort 5.
Cohort 3 Fellows
continue
implementing critical
thinking in their
courses (at least 3 per
year).
CCSSE assessment
conducted
Year 4:
SU 2017
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Year 5:
FA 2017
CTI Director and
faculty committee
review assessment
data and make
needed adjustments
to Fellowship/
Summer Institute
curriculum.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 4
begins offering series
of workshops and one-
on-one faculty
mentoring.
Director selects
Cohort 5.
Cohort 4 Fellows
begin teaching CT
courses and/or
implementing critical
thinking in discipline-
specific courses.
Pre/Post Test of
Everyday Reasoning
test conducted in
designated courses
taught by CTI Fellows
5
Director CTI Activities Faculty & Staff
training
Cohorts Ongoing Cohort
Activity
Assessments
Year 5:
SP 2018
CTI Director and
Cohort 4 review
assessment data and
make needed
adjustments to
curriculum.
Critical Thinking
trainers and CTI
Fellows will conduct
train-the-trainer
courses.
Staff CT Certificate
program. Cohort 4
Fellows continue
series of workshops
and one-on-one
faculty mentoring.
Cohort 5 weekly
seminars begin. Issue
call for applications
for Cohort 6.
Cohort 4 Fellows
continue
implementing critical
thinking in their
courses (at least 3 per
year).
CCSSE assessment
conducted
Year 5:
SU 2018
CTI Director and
faculty committee
review assessment
data; complete
report to EVP on
implementation of
QEP to date,
including student
outcomes and
faculty/staff
training; and make
recommendations
for closing the loop
across the
curriculum.
Summer Institute (2
weeks)
Summer Institute (2
weeks)