Discipline Based Panel for
Critical Thinking
Syracuse April 28, 2005
Who we are
Professor Andrew Costa
Philosophy and Ethics
Adirondack Community College
Professor David Hunter (Chair)
Philosophy and Religious Studies
Buffalo State College
Professor Gwen Crane
English
SUNY Oneonta
Professor Dorothy Laffin
Business Administration
Suffolk County Community College
Professor Shir Filler
English
North Country Community College
Professor Hedva Lewittes
Psychology
SUNY Old Westbury
Professor Clyde Herreid
Biological Sciences
University at Buffalo
Professor James Schofield
Social Science
Onondaga Community College
The Critical Thinking Competency
Students will
1
2
Identify, analyze and evaluate arguments
as they occur in their own and others’
work; and
Develop well-reasoned arguments.
First Task
Flesh out the key elements:




Identifying arguments
Analyzing arguments
Evaluating arguments
Developing well-reasoned arguments
Identify Arguments
What is an argument?
Identify Arguments
What is an argument?
A connected series of statements intended
to establish a proposition.
Monty Python’s Flying Circus
Identify Arguments
The Logic 101 Model:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Premises Are they true?
Conclusion Does it follow?
All As are Bs.
X is an A.
X is a B.
Logical Form Is it valid?
Identify Arguments
Can this model apply across the curriculum?
What about reasoning in biology, sociology,
history or fine arts?
Identify Arguments
These should count as arguments:





Designing an experiment to test an hypothesis.
Predicting the outcome of some process.
Deciding on the best measurement technique.
Explaining the causes of some historical event.
Evaluating a work of art or performance.
Identify Arguments
A better conception of argument:
Any reasoning aimed at deciding what to believe
or to do.
Students should be able to identify the
characteristic features of such reasoning.
Analyze Arguments
1.
Identify an argument’s premises,
definitions and assumptions
What evidence is put forward?
What results are reported?
Analyze Arguments
1.
Identify an argument’s premises,
definitions and assumptions
What do the key words and terms mean?
How might we define them?
Analyze Arguments
1.
Identify an argument’s premises,
definitions and assumptions
What is being left unsaid?
Can we make it explicit?
Analyze Arguments
2.
Identify the argument’s conclusion
What is the take home message?
What is the report’s recommendation?
What is the experiment claimed to show?
Isolate it from the premises.
Evaluate Arguments
1.
Judge whether an argument’s premises
support the conclusion, independently of
whether they are true.
Evaluate Arguments
1.
Judge whether an argument’s premises
support the conclusion, independently of
whether they are true.
If the premises were true, would that be
sufficient reason to believe the conclusion?
Evaluate Arguments
2.
Judge whether an argument’s premises
are reasonable to believe, independently
of whether they support the conclusion
Evaluate Arguments
What is the source of the premises and is it
credible?

When is an experiment well-designed?
 When is measurement accurate and
precise?
 When is testimony trustworthy?
 When can we rely on observation?
Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments
Develop an argument for some conclusion.
E.g.,





Proposing an experiment to test some hypothesis
Evaluating a work of art
Predicting the impact of some public policy
Explaining the decline of rust-belt cities
Arguing that we have no free will
Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments
Students should identify




Relevant qualifications and distinctions
Objections and respond to them
Questions about source credibility
Alternative conclusions and address them
Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments
Describe the broader context



Why does it matter whether the
conclusion is true?
What follows from it?
What would its truth show?
Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments
Apply similar reasoning in another case


Where else can we use this
 Experimental design
 Measuring instrument
How can we generalize the lessons of this
case?
Levels of Competence
We established levels of competence for
each outcome.
Students will identify, analyze, and
evaluate arguments as they occur in
their own and others’ work:
Exceeding: The student’s work
1.
Identifies the target argument(s) and
clearly distinguishes it from any
extraneous elements such as expressions
of opinion and descriptions of events.
Students will identify, analyze, and
evaluate arguments as they occur in
their own and others’ work:
Exceeding: The student’s work
2.
Carefully articulates the argument’s
conclusion, clearly distinguishes it from
its premises and identifies most relevant
definitions and/or hidden assumptions.
Students will identify, analyze, and
evaluate arguments as they occur in
their own and others’ work:
Exceeding: The student’s work
3.
Clearly and correctly assesses whether
the argument’s premises provide
sufficient logical support for the
conclusion, independently of whether the
premises are true.
Students will identify, analyze, and
evaluate arguments as they occur in
their own and others’ work:
Exceeding: The student’s work
4.
Clearly and correctly assesses the
reasonableness of the premises,
including the credibility of their sources,
independently of whether the premises
support the conclusion.
Students will develop well-reasoned
arguments:
Exceeding: The student’s work
1.
Develops a clearly articulated argument,
using evidence and/or systematic logical
reasoning in support of a conclusion or
point of view.
Students will develop well-reasoned
arguments:
Exceeding: The student’s work
2.
Identifies relevant qualifications or
objections or alternative points of view
and prioritizes evidence and/or reasons
in support of the conclusion.
Students will develop well-reasoned
arguments:
Exceeding: The student’s work
3.
Describes the broader relevance,
significance or context of the issue
and/or applies it to a novel problem.
Remaining Questions
1.
Have we captured Critical Thinking
across the curriculum?
Skills or kinds of arguments left out?
Remaining Questions
2.
Have we correctly identified the levels of
competence?
Are we expecting too much/little?
Remaining Questions
3.
Can we use this rubric to assess ?
Does it require student essays?
Could a multiple choice test suffice?
What about the “in-betweens”?
Remaining Questions
1.
2.
3.
Have we captured Critical Thinking
across the curriculum?
Have we correctly identified the levels of
competence?
How can we use this rubric to assess ?