Report of the SuAssessment of Critical Thinking in the Humanities-05=

= Report of the Subcommittee for the As= sessment of Critical Thinking in the Humanities

I. Subcommittee Members<= /p>

Communications = ; Joe Bellon

English = Audrey Goodman

MCL &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Georges Perla

Philosophy &nb= sp; = George Rainbolt, chair

II. Goal

The goal of the Subcommi= ttee was to conduct a pilot project to assess how well students in Area C courses of= the curriculum meet the University's critical thinking learning goals. The critical thinking learning goa= ls are:

1. Students formulate appropriate questions for research.

2. Students effectively = collect appropriate evidence.

3. Students appropriately evaluate claims, arguments, evidence, and hypotheses.

4. Students use the resu= lts of analysis to appropriately construct new arguments and formulate new questio= ns.

III. Plan

Each of the chairs of the departments which teach one or more courses in Area C was asked to nominate= a member to serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee discussed various options and decided to use the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) in post-test only format.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> While pre- and post-testing would = give us better data, the cost of giving the test twice had to be taken into acco= unt and the Provost only authorized enough money for post-testing. The tests were given to a selectio= n of classes in the four departments both at the end of the = Fall 2004 semester and at the end of the Spring 2005 semester.

IV. Data Collected

A summary of the data ca= n be found in the attached spreadsheet. As this was a pilot, the number of students taking the test is such = that the data cannot be used to draw any conclusions as to how well students are meeting the learning goals noted above.&nb= sp; For example, the N in philosophy in Spring 2005 was only 16. The intent of the pilot was not to collect data which could be used for assessment but to exa= mine this method of assessing critical thinking in the humanities.

V. Data Analysis and Recommendations

After reviewing the data= , the subcommittee discussed two questions: It is practical to use the CCTST to assessment critical thinking in the humanities? Does the CCTST provide data which = would allow Georgia State University to assess the learning goals noted above if the test were given more widely= and systematically?

As to the first question= , the main practical problem is resistance from the faculty. The resistance comes from two sources. Some faculty think that standardized tests such as the CCTST are useless. Other faculty = are reluctant to give up class time to give the test. The subcommittee understands and t= o some extent shares these concerns but feels that given the SACS mandates, the CC= TST is a practical way to assess critical thinking in the humanities. The subcommittee feels that there = are two keys to successfully implementation of a CCTST program. First, the testing needs to be coordinated by an active faculty member in each of the relevant departments= . Faculty have the respect needed to get other faculty to give the test. An active faculty member is requir= ed because many instructors simply forget to give the test, will not give it properly unless they are given clear instructions, will not correctly colle= ct the test, etc. Second, the te= sting needs to be accompanied by a clear explanation of why the test is being given. Because some faculty are not convinced that assessment as required = by SACS is an educationally sound practice, the best strategy is simply to say that assessment is required by SACS for our accreditation.

As to the second questio= n, the subcommittee feels that a program using the CCTST could be a good way to me= et the SACS mandate. The lack of pre-testing limits the usefulness of the data for program development. But the post-test-only format prov= ides enough data to answer the questions that SACS wants answered. If the decision is made to use the= CCTST in a systematic way, we recommend that it be given to random sections in ra= ndom semesters in order to reduce the cost and minimize the reduction in class t= ime that the test inevitably requires. <= /span>

One problem that must be= noted is motivation. Why should the students take this text seriously? Ideally, instructors would agree to make the score on the CCTST a pa= rt of the final grade. But a requirement like that would meet with great resistance. In other cases in which the CCTST = is used, monetary or gift rewards are given to students who perform well. That may not be possible at GSU be= cause of cost considerations. It ma= y not be possible to solve the motivation problem.