CRITICAL THINKING QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN · 69.6% of new entrants (Workforce Readiness Report Card for New Entrants to the Workforce, qtd. in Barnhill, p. 1). Studies like these

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


training


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.


program. Cohort 1

Fellows continue

series of workshops

and one-on-one

faculty mentoring.

Cohort 2 weekly



for Cohort 3.

Cohort 1 Fellows

continue


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.


program. Cohort 2



on-one faculty

mentoring.

Director selects

Cohort 3.

Cohort 2 Fellows

begin teaching CT

courses and/or



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.


program. Cohort 2

Fellows continue

series of workshops

and one-on-one

faculty mentoring.

Cohort 3 weekly



for Cohort 4.

Cohort 2 Fellows

continue


thinking in their


year).

CCSSE assessment

conducted

4


training


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.


program. Cohort 3



on-one faculty

mentoring.

Director selects

Cohort 4.

Cohort 3 Fellows

begin teaching CT

courses and/or



specific courses.

Pre/Post Test of

Everyday Reasoning

test conducted in

designated courses


Year 4:

SP 2017

CTI Director and

Cohort 3 review

assessment data and

make needed

adjustments to

curriculum.

Critical Thinking

trainers and CTI


train-the-trainer

courses.


program. Cohort 3

Fellows continue

series of workshops

and one-on-one

faculty mentoring.

Cohort 4 weekly



for Cohort 5.

Cohort 3 Fellows

continue


thinking in their


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.


program. Cohort 4



on-one faculty

mentoring.

Director selects

Cohort 5.

Cohort 4 Fellows

begin teaching CT

courses and/or



specific courses.

Pre/Post Test of

Everyday Reasoning

test conducted in

designated courses


5


training


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


train-the-trainer

courses.


program. Cohort 4

Fellows continue

series of workshops

and one-on-one

faculty mentoring.

Cohort 5 weekly



for Cohort 6.

Cohort 4 Fellows

continue


thinking in their


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)

Documents

CRITICAL THINKING QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN · 69.6% of new entrants (Workforce Readiness Report Card for New Entrants to the Workforce, qtd. in Barnhill, p. 1). Studies like these