“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
Executive Summary
4
II.
The QEP at a Glance
5
III.
University Overview
(Historical facts, Mission, Vision and Core Values)
6
IV.
Process Used to Select the QEP Focus
(School meetings, Consultant’s workshops, Survey results,
Focus group results, Institutional data results)
9
V.
Literature Review and Best Practices
(Rationale and Justification for a Critical Thinking (CT) QEP,
Critical Thinking Model)
17
Design of the QEP
(The CT Focus, QEP Goals and Objectives, Developing CT SLOs and
List of Key Definitions)
26
Implementation of the QEP
(Implementation Timeline, Professional Development)
29
Assessment of the QEP
(Methods and Strategies for Assessment)
41
Resources: Sustaining the QEP
(Identifying Necessary Resources, Budget)
52
Strategies to Publish the QEP
(Marketing and Communications plan)
57
Benefits to the University and Its Constituencies
59
Organizational Structure
62
XIII.
Bibliography
63
XIV.
Appendices
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
a. QEP Committees
b. AAMU’s List of Definitions
c. University Critical Thinking Rubric
66
67
69
2
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
d. Rubrics Consulted
e. Job Description - QEP Director
f. Job Description - QEP Assessment Coordinator
g. Stakeholder Survey and Results
h. QEPs Consulted
i. Instructor CT Course Evaluation
j. Student CT Course Evaluation
k. General Education SLOs
l. Faculty’s Initial Concerns 2011
m. Focus Group Discussions - Comments
n. QEP Pilot Results
o. QEP Marketing Flyer
3
70
70
71
72
74
74
75
75
77
78
80
83
“Dare to Think!”
I.
Alabama A&M University
Executive Summary
During the spring 2012 semester, the Steering Committee focused on engaging the campus
community in conversation to develop a focus for the Alabama A&M University Quality Enhancement
Plan (QEP) by discussing and evaluating the institution’s needs and how some of those needs could be
implemented beginning in 2014.
The Alabama A&M University QEP was developed based on the needs of the student population
identified during the topic selection process. The purpose of the AAMU QEP is to enhance students’
critical thinking (CT) skills by improving higher order thinking in targeted general education courses
using effective learning strategies. Students will receive CT instruction at the freshman and sophomore
levels which will increase academic success by supporting and advancing their performance as they
matriculate.
To improve students’ CT skills, three (3) goals were identified along with four (4) student
learning outcomes (SLOs). A selected group of faculty in the targeted disciplines of the general
education curriculum will be trained to teach CT for the first time whereas other faculty will gain a better
understanding of how to continue teaching and improving CT skills through methodology, pedagogy and
effective assessment. This professional development will help faculty to develop students’ CT skills.
Faculty surveys will be administered to allow them to share challenges, effective teaching strategies, and
improvements needed at the end of each semester. Faculty will be observed and evaluated by their peers
to measure their effectiveness in teaching CT strategies through peer-to-peer evaluations.
Diagnostic assessment will be performed prior to the implementation of the QEP to determine the
students’ knowledge of CT. Formative assessments will be conducted throughout the courses that will
provide immediate feedback to be used to improve student learning (instructional strategies and student
learning) at the course level. Summative assessments (pre, mid, and post) will be used to evaluate student
learning outcomes at the end of the course.
4
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Other direct and indirect assessment methods will be utilized to provide a more rounded valuation
of the status and performance of CT implementation. Direct methods will involve the ways and means
utilized to assess student learning in the courses with objective tests, essays, research projects, and other
classroom assignments using internally developed rubrics. Indirect methods will entail student reflections
in which learners will be tasked to consider and think about their own learning and cognitive abilities
through surveys.
II.
The QEP at a Glance
Focus
The focus of the AAMU QEP is to enhance students’ critical thinking (CT) skills in general education.
Goals and Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
Goal 1: To enhance students’ ability to analyze information
SLO 1.1: Students will be able to identify the significant issue, concept, problem,
or argument in information.
SLO 1.2: Students will be able to differentiate between implicit and explicit
assumptions.
Goal 2: To enhance students’ ability to evaluate information
SLO 2.1: Students will be able to distinguish whether information reaches a
logical conclusion.
Goal 3: To enhance students’ ability to synthesize information
SLO 3.1: Students will be able to formulate a position and support it with
evidence from multiple sources.
Goal 4: To enhance faculty use of critical thinking pedagogy through the design of
instructional approaches and assessments.
Outcome 4.1: Faculty can define critical thinking in general and as it applies to
their discipline.
Outcome 4.2: Faculty will teach and model critical thinking in class lectures and
discussions.
Outcome 4.3: Faculty will use assessment techniques that measure different
forms/levels of critical thinking.
Implementation Strategies
The goals and outcomes will be addressed through the following strategies:
1. Designate critical thinking enhanced sections of courses from eight (8) disciplines in general education.
2. Use pilot courses to develop critical thinking pedagogy and to develop and test course embedded
assessments.
5
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
3. Create common course syllabi for CT enhanced sections in each discipline.
4. Enhance faculty’s use of critical thinking pedagogy.
5. Establish the Critical Thinking Teaching and Learning Community (CT-TLC) to support faculty in the
enhancement of CT skills.
Assessment
The assessment plan will use multiple measures (summative and formative, direct and indirect) to assess
student learning through:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A general critical thinking rubric for internal assessment.
Critical thinking rubrics designed for specific disciplines.
Course-embedded instruments/tools that require higher order thinking.
Use of the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) and the ETS® (formerly MAPP)
Proficiency Profile.
5. Use of student and faculty surveys on the understanding and use of critical thinking in the
classroom.
6. Use of selected questions from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).
Resources
A five-year budget containing projections for personnel, faculty development, faculty release,
instructional materials, marketing and promotion, consultants, office supplies and travel averaging
$115,321 per year was developed. The University will use existing physical resources and commit new
funds to ensure that the QEP is sustained over the five-year period.
III.
University Overview
Mission
Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University reflects the uniqueness of the traditional land
grant institution combining teaching, research, service, liberal arts, and vocational fields. The University
offers baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral level degrees that are compatible with the times to all qualified
and capable individuals who are interested in further developing their technical, scientific, professional,
and scholastic skills and competencies. The University operates in the three-fold function of teaching,
research, extension and other public service. Alabama A&M University, a center of excellence, provides
an educational environment for the emergence of scholars, scientists, leaders, critical thinkers, and other
contributors to a global society. In cooperation with business, industry, governmental agencies, and other
6
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
private and community-based institutions, Alabama A&M University provides a laboratory where theory
is put into practice globally through its commitment to:
1. Excellence in education and the creation of a scholarly environment in which
inquiring and discriminating minds may be nourished;
2. Education of students for effective participation in local, state, regional, national,
and international societies;
3. Search for new knowledge through research and its applications;
4. Provision of a comprehensive outreach program designed to meet the changing
needs of the larger community;
5. Programs necessary to address adequately the major needs and problems of
capable students who have experienced limited access to education; and
6. Integration of state–of-the-art technology into all aspects of University functions.
Vision
Alabama A&M University will continue its quest to be recognized globally as a world-class, land
grant, comprehensive university with a focus on:
� Expanding doctoral offerings in education, science and engineering;
� Increasing research, scholarly publications and other scholarly activities;
� Enhancing the University’s academic environment;
� Expanding extension/outreach/public service activities; and,
� Creating and implementing a national model for student retention/graduation with
emphasis on students with limited educational access.
Core Values
Six core values serve as the philosophical underpinning for the University. They provide the
foundation for molding and integrating activities of faculty, staff and students in their quest to implement
7
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
and access programs of instruction, research and extension/outreach. The core values stress leadership,
inclusiveness, scholarship, diversity, integrity, and service:
Leadership – The University will continue to promote a service oriented leadership through
involvement in internal University governance by faculty, staff and students; engagement in
public policy debates, and assumption of leadership roles by students, faculty and staff.
Engagement – The University through its faculty, staff, and students will be involved in meeting
the needs of the larger community with special emphasis on serving economically, culturally, and
educationally depressed constituencies, thereby ensuring the University’s unmitigated
engagement with and commitment to all segments of the community.
Access – The University will continue to serve as a beacon for capable students, including those
who have had limited access to education and students with disabilities. Access will continue to
be a core value that guides the University’s mission.
Diversity – The University will continue to view enhancing its diversity as an all-encompassing
effort that nurtures and respects a variety of ideas, cultures, ethnicities, programs, processes, and
procedures.
Scholarship – The University will provide an environment focused on excellence in student
scholarship, and through its faculty and staff, the creation of new knowledge and means of
expression through research and the creative arts.
Integrity – The University will maintain high ethical and moral standards in its administrative
and academic functions.
Connection to University Mission
The QEP constructs the framework through which the strategic plan for strengthening the
University and promoting excellence in its operations, faculty, and students may be actualized. It is
designed to foster an educational environment through the development of curricula and activities that
promote student scholarship, faculty development and institutional emphasis on critical thinking and best
practices. The University identified six college-level competencies consisting of twenty-six student
8
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
learning outcomes (SLOs) to be attained within the general education core. Critical thinking is one of the
six competencies and includes five student learning outcomes.
IV.
Process Used to Select the QEP Focus
Overview
The QEP Steering Committee was formed and given the responsibility to lead and oversee the
development of the QEP. The committee included faculty, staff and students.
NAME
DEPARTMENT/
POSITION
Dr. Constance Adams
Division of Academic Affairs
Ms. Bonnie M. Banks
Executive Director, Office of Retention and
Persistence
College of Business & Public Affairs Interim Director, QEP
Dr. Virginia Caples
Alabama Cooperative Extension
SACS Liaison, Ex-Officio
Ms. Cheryl Carpenter
College of Education, Humanities
and Behavioral Sciences
Division of Academic Affairs
Instructor, English Department
Dr. Thomas Coaxum
Dr. Lynne Edmondson
Mr. Ralph Johnson
Dr. Barbara Jones
Mr. Daniel Kasambira
Mr. Donald Morgan
Mr. Ezban Morrissette
Ms. Beatriz Romero
Mrs. Esther Phillips-Ross
College of Education, Humanities
and Behavioral Sciences
Business and Finance
Director, Institutional Research and
Assessment
Professor, Health, Physical Education
Vice President
College of Business & Public Affairs Interim Dean and Professor, Economics &
Finance, Coordinator of General Education
Division of Student Affairs
Director, Wellness Center
College of Agriculture, Life and
Student
Natural Sciences
College of Engineering, Technology Student
& Physical Sciences
College of Business & Public Affairs Student
Ms. Maya Shelton
College of Education, Humanities
Clinic Director, CSD Program
and Behavioral Sciences
College of Business & Public Affairs Student
Dr. Juarine Stewart
Division of Academic Affairs
Associate Provost, Undergraduate Studies
Mrs. Sandra Stubbs
Dr. Ken Ward
Alumni Affairs
College of Agriculture, Life and
Natural Sciences
College of Education, Humanities
and Behavioral Sciences
Director
Coordinator & Associate Professor, Forestry,
Wildlife Program
Assistant Professor, Elementary Specialist
Dr. Angela Williams
The development of the QEP was a two-year process that included University constituencies as
well as input from consultants and peer institutions as shown in the listing below:
9
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
QEP Development Timeline
Date
Fall 2011
January 2012
January 2012
February 2012
April 2012
April 2012
June-July 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
December 2012
January 2013
January 2013
January 2013
January 2013
February 2013
April 2013
April 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
July 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
Event or Activity
Presentation to schools – Dr. Barbara A.P. Jones visited schools to initiate
discussions and gather ideas on areas of needed improvement.
SACS Reaffirmation Kickoff – Dr. Josephine Davis of Ft. Valley State
(Consultant) conducted a QEP Workshop and engaged faculty in groups to
discuss improving student learning and how to select a focus.
Interim QEP Director named and the Steering Committee held an initial meeting.
Broad-based involvement – Focus survey developed, approved and posted online.
Students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders informed by email and hard copies
made available on campus.
Survey results presented to the Steering Committee and advertised to the campus
community.
Focus group team named to gather additional input and refine focus by
conducting “town hall discussions”.
Town hall discussions scheduled and conducted.
Attended QEP Summer Institute in Atlanta, GA.
Selected the critical thinking focus and working topic “Using the Basics to
Enhance Critical Thinking”.
Presented proposed focus and topic during the Fall Faculty/Staff Conference.
Discussed critical thinking definition; defined goals and objectives; developed
student learning outcomes for disciplines.
Critical thinking definition approved by Steering Committee.
Topic vetted by experts at other institutions.
Discussed refining the topic after receiving concerns from the President and the
SACS Leadership team. Topic appeared too broad.
Attended the SACS Conference in Dallas, TX.
Additional QEP teams formed: Assessment, Budget, Design, Writing & Editing
and Marketing.
Draft Table of Contents approved by the Steering Committee as a writing guide.
Design Team discussions conducted on plans for developing a critical thinking
QEP.
Design Team meetings held with faculty from five subject areas.
Engaged Dr. Barbara H. Jones (QEP Consultant) to assist with refining critical
thinking focus and topic.
Dr. Jones visited campus for a full day workshop.
Re-organized the design team.
Refined topic; re-visited goals and SLOs.
Re-defined critical thinking and revised focus statement.
Design team 2-day retreat held to write first draft of document.
Dr. Robin Hoffman (SACS) visited campus; met with QEP Committees to
discuss progress.
Four (4) work sessions held to make changes to the draft.
Completed second draft of QEP document.
Provided updates at Faculty/Staff Conference on QEP progress that included
topic: “Enhancing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills” and a critical thinking
activity.
Engaged Dr. Barbara H. Jones for document review (second draft).
Provided QEP update to the A&M Board of Trustees.
10
“Dare to Think!”
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
Alabama A&M University
Received report from Dr. Jones. Reviewed and discussed suggested changes.
Completed third draft of QEP document.
Submitted document to SACS Leadership Team for review.
Re-submitted document to SACS Leadership Team with recommended changes
for review.
Submitted final document to SACS Leadership Team.
The process began with brainstorming sessions during the fall 2011 semester in each of the
University’s colleges. Faculty and staff indicated areas that they believed needed improvement across the
University. The next step was an afternoon session led by Dr. Josephine Davis from Fort Valley State
University at the Spring 2012 Faculty/Staff Conference where a more structured discussion of possible
topics that could be the focus of the QEP was held. Also, during the spring 2012 semester, a survey was
administered to major stakeholders of Alabama A&M University including faculty, staff, students,
alumni, administrators, trustees, and local and regional employers.
The top three (3) responses from the survey were identified, and in the summer of 2012, the QEP
Focus Group Team met with major stakeholder groups and discussed their foremost preferences.
University data was analyzed and presented to the Steering Committee. A formal recommendation of the
QEP focus was then forwarded to the SACS Steering Committee and presented to the University’s faculty
and staff in the fall of 2012. A discussion of each of these steps is given below:
School Brainstorming Sessions
In fall 2011, the deans of each college called a meeting of faculty and staff to discuss the focus
for the 2014-2019 QEP. Participants were asked what they believed would be an appropriate focus. There
was no discussion of the topics suggested nor was there any effort made to assess the quality of their
recommendations. Each session lasted between 30 and 70 minutes. Following the discussions with
faculty and staff of the five (5) schools, (now four (4) colleges), recommendations were compiled,
organized, analyzed, and made available to the academic administrators. A preliminary assessment of
these results indicated a tremendous overlap in the proposed focuses from the various schools, and the
issues were listed in topic clusters rather than by colleges as shown in Appendix L.
11
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Structured Workshop with an Outside Consultant
The afternoon session of the Spring Faculty/Staff Conference, held on January 4, 2012, was
devoted to the focus for the 2014-2019 QEP and featured an invited workshop facilitator. Dr. Josephine
Davis, of Fort Valley State University, gave an overview of the overall purpose of the QEP, the process
for its development, and the steps necessary in selecting its focus. During the workshop, faculty and staff
were divided into work groups with an assigned recorder. During the breakout session, each work group
met in a classroom and was given the task of discussing areas of needed improvement related to students
and/or student learning at the University and generating a list of these improvements. When the general
session convened, each recorder read a list of areas discussed from the work group. After discussion, Dr.
Davis concluded that most faculty and staff were concerned about the following: technology, critical
thinking, literacy, and writing.
Stakeholder Survey
After reviewing input from the college brainstorming sessions and the faculty workshop with Dr.
Davis, during the spring 2012 semester, the Steering Committee developed a survey (Appendix F) that
was administered online and in paper format for faculty, staff, students, alumni, administrators, trustees,
and regional and local employers. Each respondent was asked to review a list of nineteen (19) possible
topics and to select the five (5) they believed would be most appropriate for a QEP focus. Space was also
provided for respondents to add topics. Oral and written communication and critical thinking were the top
three topics believed to be the most appropriate for AAMU’s QEP focus (Appendix G).
12
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Top Three QEP Survey Responses
Written
Communication Critical Thinking
29%
31%
Oral
Communication
40%
Focus Group Town Hall Discussions
During summer 2012, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the community were asked to meet in
groups with their peers to discuss the three top responses from the stakeholder survey and consider the
following three questions for each of the topics in these meetings:
o
Which topic will have the greatest impact on improving the professional success of
AAMU students?
o
Which topic addresses the most serious shortcomings for the preponderance of AAMU
students?
o
Which topic is AAMU the least adept in addressing at this time?
There were proponents and strong arguments in favor of each of the topics: oral communication,
critical thinking, and written communication. The minutes from each session were brought back to the
Steering Committee for review (Appendix M). The chief argument in favor of critical thinking as the final
choice was that students’ shortcomings in oral and written communication were often due to weaknesses
in their ability to formulate, support, analyze, or otherwise deal with arguments. The committee
concluded that enhancing students’ thinking skills would almost certainly improve their
13
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
abilities in these other areas while focusing on communication would not necessarily improve critical
thinking.
Review of Gathered Data
The general education faculty, in fall 2011, as well as the general education leadership team in
fall 2011 and spring 2012, identified critical thinking skills as a characteristic students should have when
they complete their first two years of education because critical thinking is an area of weakness for most
of them. To that end, a critical thinking student learning outcome was created (Appendix K).
The QEP Steering Committee reviewed information obtained through numerous channels and
from various entities to identify the focus for the QEP:

Work gathered from the general education faculty and general education leadership team;

Ideas from school brainstorming sessions,

Findings from the spring 2012 workshop session with consultant Dr. Josephine Davis
from Fort Valley State University;

Findings from the stakeholder surveys administered to faculty, staff, students, alumni,
administrators, and local and regional employers in spring 2012;

Focus group discussion sessions in summer 2012 with faculty, staff, and students;

QEP focus meetings with alumni and community in summer 2012.
Findings from Institutional Data
In addition to the above, the Steering Committee examined data provided by the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness. As early as fall 2007, AAMU began testing the basic skill competencies of
incoming freshmen using the Educational Testing Service ETS® MAPP, now Proficiency Profile.
Although scores in reading and writing as well as critical thinking were significantly below the national
average, students showed more improvement in those areas by the end of the sophomore year than they
showed in critical thinking. From the information below, it was determined that entering students need
14
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
more instruction in critical thinking. Only 1-3 percent of students had scores indicative of either
marginally proficient or proficient in this area. While weak proficiency in critical thinking was not limited
to AAMU’s freshmen, students are still notably below the national average. Only 10 percent of students
who took the MAPP at Master’s I and II institutions were proficient or marginal; whereas, each of the
years between 2007 and 2012, entering AAMU students scored no higher than the eighth percentile. (The
test was not administered in fall 2011). These results show that the greatest need is indeed critical
thinking.
Table 1. NUMBER OF ENTERING FRESHMEN PROFICIENT OR MARGINAL FROM
PROFICIENCY PROFILE EXAM AND NATIONAL DATA 2007-2012.
CLASS TEST NUMBER READING READING CRITICAL WRITING WRITING WRITING MATH MATH MATH
DATE TESTED
THINKING
Fresh Aug 07
579
Fresh Aug 08
546
Fresh Aug 09
642
Fresh Aug 10
707
Fresh Aug 12
Nat’l
557
Level 1
Level 2
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
49
13
42
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1
72
22
10
38
12
3
10
3
57
17
7
35
13
3
27
7
1
45
10
5
21
5
1
60
15
0
69
18
7
42
13
3
52
16
1
67
15
4
45
17
1
70
35
10
79
38
20
66
37
13
Results are shown in percentages (%).
The data presented in Table 1 show that AAMU students are neither proficient nor marginal in
critical thinking when they enter the University as freshmen. They do show some improvement by the
end of their sophomore year. However, even then, only a small minority meets national standards, and
virtually none is judged to be proficient. For comparison purposes, the Proficiency Profile was
administered in spring 2011 to students in English 203 and English 204 (also known as World Literature I
and II). Both are sophomore level courses required for all undergraduate students at the University.
15
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Table 2. NUMBER OF SECOND SEMESTER SOPHOMORES PROFICIENT OR
MARGINAL FROM PROFICIENCY PROFILE 2011-2013.
CLASS TEST NUMBER READING READING CRITICAL WRITING WRITING WRITING MATH MATH MATH
DATE TESTED
THINKING
Soph Apr ‘11
Soph Apr ‘12
Level 1
Level 2
163
68
18
190
59
22
23
62
Soph Apr ‘13
131
Results are shown in percentages (%).
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
0
79
30
13
34
8
0
4
73
21
7
43
16
4
0
75
19
6
45
18
3
A comparison of the data in Tables 1 and 2 shows improvement in reading, writing, and
mathematics from the time students enter as freshmen to their second semester as sophomores. However,
there was no improvement in critical thinking. Thus, conclusions indicate that students need a more
systematic program in this area and faculty need professional development to teach critical thinking and
to foster this skill set.
Selection of QEP Focus
There was general agreement that reading, writing, or critical thinking would have been an
appropriate focus for the AAMU QEP. Scores of the Proficiency Profile and results from the
faculty/staff/student/alumni survey all pointed to the need for more attention in each of these areas. It was
found, however, that the need in critical thinking was greater, and students showed less improvement in
critical thinking than in reading or writing.
Members of the QEP Steering Committee who are administrators at the university offered an
administrative perspective in discussions on selecting the focus for the QEP. In addition, the QEP
Director met regularly with the Provost and the SACS Steering Committee to give updates on
developments and to receive input. At one point, the QEP Steering Committee proposed “Using the
Basics to Enhance Critical Thinking,” a topic that would allow inclusions of writing, reading, and
speaking as well as critical thinking into the focus.
After extensive reflection and analysis of various stakeholders’ input and the results of
institutional data, the QEP Steering Committee proposed critical thinking as the focus for the Alabama
A&M University QEP.
16
“Dare to Think!”
V.
Alabama A&M University
Literature Review and Best Practices
Rationale and Justification for a CT Quality Enhancement Plan
Over the last two decades, the concept of critical thinking has increasingly preoccupied many of
those in academic circles. This is due to a variety of factors, but the two most important reasons are a) the
growing importance of critical thinking skills for professional success in the modern economy and b) the
scarcity of such skills among many college graduates. Numerous surveys have revealed that business and
economic leaders regard critical thinking and problem solving as essential skills for both individual and
corporate success in the twenty-first century. For example, a recent survey of over 2,000 business
executives by the American Management Association indicated that 68% of the respondents identified
critical thinking as the most important skill for business executives to possess. Moreover, about three
quarters of the respondents believed that these skills would be even more important in the
near future as technological and organizational change accelerates and global competition increases
(American Management Association, “2010 Critical Skills Survey,” 2010).
Yet, many, perhaps even most of today’s graduates are sorely lacking in the areas of critical
thinking and problem-solving. For example, in the report “Are They Really Ready to Work,” 70% of the
employers said that recently hired high school graduates were deficient in critical thinking. The statistics
for college graduates are not much better. In their exhaustive study of recent college graduates, Richard
Arum and Josipa Roksa found that 36% of the students studied showed no significant gain in high order
critical thinking skills over the course of their academic career—meaning they were often no better
prepared for work than before (Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, University
of Chicago, 2010).
However, critical thinking is important for more than just professional success. In order to
understand and solve personal or interpersonal problems and improve individual quality of life, critical
thinking is helpful. It is also necessary to possess critical thinking skills in order to be a functioning
member of society and help decide political issues. As citizens in a democratic society, people must
exercise critical thinking skills in order to analyze the assertions and policies advocated by political
17
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
parties, to evaluate the reports and claims of media spokesmen, and to weigh the evidence and logic of
myriad groups that seek to win their support (Facione, 2013, “Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It
Counts,” pp. 22-23). As students enter the real world, they will be confronted with a vast and often
contradictory amount of information that spans the gamut of human experience, financial and spending
choices, health and medical issues, personal and family life, religious, and spiritual ideas. Here, too, the
ability to discern sensible and effective choices requires the same critical thinking skills needed in one’s
professional and political life.
Defining Critical Thinking
While the importance of critical thinking is clear, exactly what constitutes critical thinking is less
obvious. It is subject to multiple definitions and interpretations, making it necessary to do some critical
thinking of our own to arrive at a suitable definition for our purposes. Two of the most well-known and
respected scholars on critical thinking are Richard Paul, the leading fellow at the Foundation for Critical
Thinking, and Peter Facione, the former provost of Loyola University Chicago, who is now head of a
private consulting company. In a collaborative report authored with Michael Scriven, Dr. Paul (1987)
describes critical thinking as
The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by,
observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and
action.
Facione (1990) makes many of the same points in his definition of critical thinking. Perhaps his
most famous work is “The Delphi Report” in Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for
Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction undertaken for the American Philosophical
Association. Summarizing the results of the collaborative undertaking, he states
We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results
in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the
18
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon
which that judgment is based. (p 2)
He emphasizes that critical thinking is a process of purposeful, reflective judgment, which manifests itself
in reasoned consideration of evidence, context, methods, standards, and concepts in order to help
someone, or a group of people, to decide what to believe or what to do.
Other colleges and universities that have chosen critical thinking as the focus for their QEPs have
used the ideas of both Paul and Facione to shape their own definitions of critical thinking. For example,
as part of their QEP, Eastern Kentucky University (2011) states,
Critical and creative thinking are dynamic and deliberate processes where learners are
active participants in intellectual activities in which they explore, evaluate, expand and
express in relation to problems, scenarios, and arguments in order to reach sound and
innovative solutions, decisions, and positions.
At North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (2010), the QEP Committee used
the same definition of critical thinking formulated by the Foundation for Critical Thinking headed by Dr.
Paul:
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in
which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing,
assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, selfmonitored, and self-corrective thinking.
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin (2010) adopted the very same definition as the
basis for their QEP on critical thinking and also chose to use the Paul-Elder paradigm for instruction in
critical thinking. Last, but not least, the General Education Assessment Committee at Florida A&M
University (2009) relied on the ideas of Facione when it summarized critical thinking as “the ability to
understand, apply, analyze and solve problems, develop new knowledge, and think creatively.”
In view of extensive scholarship behind the definitions of Paul and Facione and their widespread
use by other institutions, Alabama A&M University has chosen to adopt the following definition: Critical
19
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
thinking is analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information into logical conclusions. While not
exhaustive, we believe it is broad enough to capture the essential points of the various definitions cited
above, yet succinct enough for all stakeholders to understand and to be implemented with a minimum of
difficulty. Definitions used in this report can be found in Appendix B.
Critical Thinking Models
Just as there are various definitions of critical thinking, there are several different models on how
students acquire and/or develop critical thinking skills. The most well-known theory about the nature of
reasoning and the place of critical thinking is still Harold Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning from 1956.
While Bloom discussed three domains of knowledge—cognitive, affective, and psychomotor—most
scholarly attention has focused on the cognitive domain, and that is also the focus of our concern. Bloom
divided this cognitive domain into six levels with each one related to a different type or stage of cognitive
ability. In this hierarchical scheme, the lower levels require fewer critical thinking skills, while the higher
ones require ever more complex and sophisticated thinking skills. According to Bloom, educators could
or should promote higher order thinking skills by designing activities and assignments that specifically
call on students to use such skills.
Bloom’s Taxonomy has been subjected to various critiques and revisions. In the 1990s, one of
Bloom’s students, Lorin Anderson, cooperated with another cognitive psychologist, D. R. Krathwohl
(2000), to create a revised taxonomy. The new model retained the hierarchical structure of six distinct
levels as the original, but revised the wording to refer to the functions of each level and switched the
highest two levels so that the epitome was “Creating” rather than “Evaluation.” Another revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy was undertaken by Norman Webb of the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
In the late 1990s, Webb began to develop a model to represent what he termed “Depth of Knowledge”
(DOK) to help educators align curriculum objectives, standards, and assessment techniques. Webb’s
model featured four levels instead of the six employed by Bloom and his successors and used multiple
criteria to differentiate between levels, but the intellectual practices and skills he incorporated into his
20
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
model are clearly derived from those first articulated by Bloom. Below is a graph illustrating these
various conceptions of the different levels of thought as indicated by Bloom and Webb.
Illustration I. Levels of Thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.
Retrieved from http://blogs.mtlakes.org/curriculum/2012/10/21/asking-good-questions-fostering-studentquestioning/
Few people will disagree with the distinction that all three models make between the lower level
and higher level thought processes and the way in which they link or identify critical thinking with the
latter. However, there are limitations associated with these models. One of these identified by Richard
Paul (1993) is that the hierarchical structure failed to recognize the interdependence of the tasks and
functions in the various levels (Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly
Changing World, p. 276). To meet these criticisms, especially the latter, some educators have
21
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
modified the Taxonomy into a circular model with areas or realms rather than levels and where elements
or activities from different areas occur simultaneously and interact with each other. Likewise, Peter
Facione, whose definition of critical thinking was mentioned earlier, collaborated with a group of scholars
to produce the “The Delphi Report” for the American Philosophical Association in 1990. This is one of
the most important and widely quoted works in the literature on reasoning. Like the various forms of
Bloom’s Taxonomy, the report identified six categories or areas of cognitive skills that were crucial to
critical thinking, but did not organize them in a strict hierarchical or linear manner because the experts
saw them as interconnected and having to be employed simultaneously whenever dealing with complex
problems (Facione, 2013, p. 7). This model has been illustrated a number of different ways, but the one
presented below is one of the more popular methods since it highlights how the elements of critical
thinking are connected and work together:
Illustration II. Core Critical Thinking Skills.
Retrieved from http://ctac.gmu.edu/documents/facione%20what&why2007.pdf
Yet another model of critical thinking has been developed by Dr. Paul and other scholars at the
Foundation for Critical Thinking. Like Facione and the American Psychological Association (APA),
their model emphasizes the inter-connections among the different spheres of reasoning and the processes
by which one becomes a more accomplished thinker. In the model, there are eight elements of thought—
purpose, question at issue, information, interpretation and inference, concepts, assumptions, implications,
22
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
and point of view—which they typically represent in a circular rather than hierarchical pattern. They also
identify nine universal intellectual standards which need to be taught explicitly to students so they can
apply them to their thinking. These standards are clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth,
logic, significance and fairness. When students consistently apply these standards to the elements of
thought, they gradually develop a set of nine (9) intellectual habits or traits such as humility, autonomy,
integrity, and empathy. Paul and Elder thus portray critical thinking as a continuous and dynamic
process, moving in a circular or spiraling manner rather than a linear, hierarchical manner. Below are two
well-known graphics they employ to illustrate their conception of critical thinking:
Illustration III. The Elements of Thought and the Critical Thinking Process
Retrieved from: Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, pp.3 & 20.
Although Paul and Elder’s model focuses on the process of critical thinking, its goal is clearly to
produce better thinkers. Also, the outline of Paul and Elder’s model identifies different stages of critical
thinking with each being defined by the degree to which individuals apply the intellectual standards and
skills to their thinking. Because Paul and Elder’s model operates at a higher level of abstraction, it is
unclear how it can or should be applied in specific contexts and what qualifies as good, better, and best
levels in the application of their Intellectual Standards. Likewise, the templates Paul and Elder suggest for
23
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
generalized rubrics to evaluate reasoning are not as clearly delineated or specific as one might wish and
are not particularly suited for generating measurable outcomes for purposes of assessment.
Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various models discussed above, the most
suitable approach for the AAMU QEP focus is to employ a hybrid model that combines the dynamic,
process-oriented model of Paul and Elder with the more concrete and readily measurable criteria of
critical thinking contained in the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy developed by Anderson and
Krathwohl. For the sake of simplicity and ease of application, the AAMU model has four discrete, yet
continuous levels or stages through which students will progress during their academic career. The levels
of this hybrid model are based somewhat on those of Paul, Elder, and Facione and are defined as Novice
Thinker, Developing Thinker, Competent Thinker, and Accomplished Thinker. Students will be expected
to demonstrate a variety of skills at each level, but their proficiency in these skills will vary, growing from
novice at the first level to accomplished at the fourth level. They will be encouraged to apply Paul and
Elder’s Intellectual Standards to the Elements of Thinking in each discipline to progress along the path of
becoming more effective thinkers. Because the chief goal is to inculcate higher level reasoning skills–
analysis, evaluation, and synthesis–these are the criteria that are most important in distinguishing the
higher levels from the lower levels. This model is illustrated below:
Illustration IV. Alabama A&M University Critical Thinking Framework
Paul and Elder + Bloom = AAMU Critical Thinking Framework
Just as scholars and educators often disagree on definitions and models of critical thinking, they
do not always agree on the best way to teach critical thinking skills. While all of the authors discussed
above have their own ideas on what constitutes the best methods to promote higher order thinking among
24
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
students, Paul and Elder (along with their colleagues at the Foundation for Critical Thinking) have
developed the most comprehensive approach based on decades of research and practice. Moreover, they
outline these pedagogical principles and practices in a series of easy- to- understand pamphlets that can be
employed by both instructors and students. Throughout their work, they emphasize that one of the most
important steps in teaching critical thinking is to clearly and consistently define it. To insure students
learn critical thinking skills, instructors need to make these skills explicit, including how they are
manifested in different disciplines. They also point out that teachers need to model these skills and/or
practices in classroom lectures, discussions, and activities. Next, they should provide carefully structured
assignments for students to practice these skills. Finally, they insist students need opportunities to reflect
on how they applied the skills, e.g. metacognition, to help them learn how to apply them more effectively
and in other situations.
Most other researchers share these views, or endorse very similar ones. However, some of them,
notably Facione, place greater emphasis on basing instruction on real world situations in order to engage
student interest and demonstrate the relevance of critical thinking. Perhaps the issue which inspires the
most debate is whether teaching effective critical thinking can be accomplished through domain-specific
courses infused with critical thinking elements or through stand-alone courses that focus on critical
thinking across disciplines. While both sides can and do marshal extensive research to support their
position, it seems that the domain-specific approach produces slightly better results, especially when the
courses provide at least some examples and exercises drawn from other disciplines and real life situations
as well.
After reviewing the literature and weighing both the merits and feasibility of using different
approaches for AAMU’s student body, the Design Team recommends the following approach:
1. Establish domain-specific critical thinking courses by redesigning certain sections of existing
courses and infusing them with critical thinking elements.
2. Base the critical thinking elements on materials from the Foundation for Critical Thinking in
order to insure a standardized set of definitions, standards and applications.
25
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
3. Train faculty for the domain-specific courses will be trained in critical thinking pedagogy through
workshops and other training and round-table discussion-based activities in order to promote
common application of best practices.
VI.
Design of the QEP
Because students enter AAMU with such a wide range of critical thinking skills, the Steering
Committee concluded that it is essential to address this issue as soon as they arrive on campus. The
Committee decided to base the QEP in General Education courses, especially those usually taken in the
first year. Another important decision was to spread the reach of the QEP across several disciplines to
have the greatest impact on students by showing them that critical thinking is part of every aspect of life.
Through a comprehensive literature review and discussion of various critical thinking models, the
Design Team wrestled with how to best achieve a definitive focus within courses. Although the initial
design sought to promote critical thinking through reading and writing, the team decided this was not as
clearly focused on critical thinking as it could be. While reading and writing are integral to critical
thinking, the plan had to be designed so that the whole campus would not lose sight of the primary
purpose—to enhance critical thinking skills in all disciplines. Working with external consultant, Dr.
Barbara H. Jones, the original Design Team was expanded to include more General Education faculty
from a wider variety of disciplines and representatives from Academic Affairs and the Office of
Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP). After a two-day retreat, the expanded Design Team clarified
the logic model for the QEP as well as the goals, objectives, and student learning outcomes to be aligned
more closely with the purpose.
Below is a graphic representation of the logic model guiding the design of our QEP followed by a
brief description of how the goals, objectives, and learning outcomes were developed:
26
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
The four goals for the QEP came out of discussions of the various models of critical thinking as
described in the previous section. The first three goals on enhancing students’ ability to analyze, evaluate,
and synthesize stem directly from the ideas of Bloom, Facione, Paul, and Elder. The fourth goal on
enhancing faculty use of critical thinking pedagogy is necessary to help them infuse critical thinking
concepts and techniques into classroom instruction.
After the first three goals were developed, the student learning outcomes (SLOs) were
established. Using terms associated with specific levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, the team created SLOs that
emphasized specific, measurable critical thinking skills in any and all disciplines. All of the designated
27
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
courses will be redesigned to emphasize critical thinking, but this redesign will occur within the context
of each specific discipline. Measurement of the SLOs will also vary across disciplines
through course-embedded assessment. Faculty will teach analysis, evaluation, and synthesis, but the
methodology, strategies, and assessment tools used will be different in each discipline.
QEP Purpose, Goals, and SLOs
Purpose: The purpose of the AAMU QEP is to enhance students’ critical thinking skills in general
education.
Goals and Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs):
Goal 1: To enhance students’ ability to analyze information
SLO 1.1: Students will be able to identify the significant issue, concept, problem,
or argument in information.
SLO 1.2: Students will be able to differentiate between implicit and explicit
assumptions.
Goal 2: To enhance students’ ability to evaluate information
SLO 2.1: Students will be able to distinguish whether information reaches a
logical conclusion.
Goal 3: To enhance students’ ability to synthesize information
SLO 3.1: Students will be able to formulate a position and support it with
evidence from multiple sources.
Goal 4: To enhance faculty use of critical thinking pedagogy through the design of
instructional approaches and assessments.
Outcome 4.1: Faculty can define critical thinking in general and as it applies to
their discipline.
Outcome 4.2: Faculty will teach and model critical thinking in class lectures and
discussions.
Outcome 4.3: Faculty will use assessment techniques that measure different
forms/levels of critical thinking.
Selected Courses
After consultation with faculty in various departments, the following were chosen as CTenhanced courses:
● All students must take a science course and a history course. The most common courses taken
are BIO 101: General Biology I, HIS 101: World History I, and PHY 101: Physical Science I.
These large, lecture-based sections with common syllabi and examinations offer students the
opportunity to understand and use information about the world around them.
● The math course, MTH 112: Pre-Calculus Algebra, is a required course for most students at
AAMU. This course focuses on problem-solving and logical thinking.
28
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
● ENG 102: Composition II. The driving forces behind this course are research, composition, and
documentation.
● For requirements in fine arts, most students take either ART 101: Art Appreciation or MUS 101:
Music Appreciation. These courses are designed to familiarize students with the elements and
principles of visual and aural communication, respectively, and to understand their broader
social contexts and implications.
● Students must also take a course in basic economics, and ECO 200: Basic Economics is the
course that most students take. This course focuses on using the principles of economics to
understand and solve problems.
VII.
Implementation of the QEP
The QEP will be implemented according to the following timeline:
2013-2014:
In fall 2013, the Proficiency Profile was administered to incoming freshmen, and the CAT was
administered to 200 freshmen in selected General Education courses. The Proficiency Profile data will be
used for comparison with data from past years, and the CAT data was collected for the first time.
The Design Team chose to start with two pilot courses in fall 2013. One section of HIS 101 and
one section of MTH 112 were selected to be used as CT-enhanced courses. These sections were limited to
20 students, and instructors were given release time to create class assignments and activities focused on
CT skills and to focus on CT assessments. In spring 2014, the pilot courses will be BIO 101 and ENG
102. Again, the teachers will be given release time, but they will also be aided by the experience of the
instructors of the pilot courses in the fall. Each semester, the Critical Thinking - Teaching and Learning
Community (CT-TLC) will develop more fully as more instructors bring firsthand knowledge from the
teaching of these courses so that faculty development through the CT-TLC will be enriched.
29
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
2014-2015:
In fall 2014, the Proficiency Profile test will be administered as an external assessment to all
incoming freshmen. In the CT-enhanced pilot courses, HIS 101, MTH 112, BIO 101, and ENG 102,
instructors of these courses will have the benefit of further development through general faculty
workshops and the CT-TLC.
In spring 2015, the first year of the QEP, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to
sophomores who have completed their General Education courses for comparison with the scores of
freshmen entering in 2013. Two sections of HIS 101 and ENG 102 will be the designated CT-enhanced
courses. Faculty in both disciplines will build on the information gleaned from the pilot classes, continued
faculty development, and participation in the CT-TLC. They will continue with their internal formative
and summative assessments. Additionally, in HIS 101, the CAT will be used as a pre- and postassessment measure.
2015-2016:
In fall 2015, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to all incoming freshmen. The CTenhanced courses will be HIS 101, MTH 112, ENG 102, and BIO 101. In addition to general faculty
workshops and speakers, CT faculty will join the CT-TLC for ongoing development, mentoring, and
support. CT faculty will continue with their internal formative and summative assessments. In MTH 112,
the CAT will be used as a pre- and post- assessment measure.
In spring 2016, the second year of the QEP, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to
sophomores who have completed their General Education courses. An additional course, MUS 101 will
be added to the discipline specific CT-enhanced courses. New CT faculty will join the CT-TLC for
ongoing development, mentoring, and support. CT faculty will continue with their internal formative and
summative assessments. In ENG 102, the CAT will be used as a pre- and post- assessment measure.
30
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
2016-2017:
In fall 2016, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to all incoming freshmen. The CTenhanced courses will include HIS 101, MTH 112, ENG 102, MUS 101, and BIO 101 as well as the
addition of ART 101 and PHY 101. Faculty development will continue through general
faculty workshops and speakers, and CT faculty will join the CT-TLC for ongoing development,
mentoring, and support. CT faculty will continue with their internal formative and summative
assessments. In BIO 101, the CAT will be used as a pre- and post- assessment measure.
In spring 2017, the QEP’s third year, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to sophomores
who have completed their General Education courses. Two additional courses will be added to the
discipline specific CT-enhanced courses, PHY 101 and ECO 200. New CT faculty will join the CT-TLC
for ongoing development, mentoring, and support. CT faculty will continue with their internal formative
and summative assessments. In MUS 101, the CAT will be used as a pre- and post- assessment measure.
2017-2018:
In fall 2017, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to all incoming freshmen. The CTenhanced courses will include HIS 101, MUS 101, MTH 112, ENG 102, BIO 101, PHY 101, ART 101,
and ECO 200. Faculty development will continue through general faculty workshops and speakers. CT
faculty will join the CT-TLC for ongoing development, mentoring, and support, and CT faculty will
continue with their internal formative and summative assessments. In PHY 101, the CAT will be used as
a pre- and post- assessment measure.
In spring 2018, the fourth year of the QEP, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to
sophomores who have completed their General Education courses. New CT faculty will join the CT-TLC
for ongoing development, mentoring, and support. CT faculty will continue with their internal formative
and summative assessments. In ART 101, the CAT will be used as a pre- and post- assessment measure.
2018-2019:
In fall 2018, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to all incoming freshmen. The CTenhanced courses will include HIS 101, MUS 101, MTH 112, ENG 102, BIO 101, PHY 101, ART 101,
31
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
and ECO 200. Faculty development will continue through general faculty workshops and speakers. CT
faculty will join the CT-TLC for ongoing development, mentoring, and support. CT faculty will continue
with their internal formative and summative assessments. In ECO 200, the CAT will be used as a pre- and
post- assessment measure.
In spring 2019, in the fifth year of the QEP, the Proficiency Profile will be administered to
sophomores who have completed their General Education courses. New CT faculty will join the CT-TLC
for ongoing development, mentoring, and support. CT faculty will continue with their internal formative
and summative assessments.
Faculty
Pre-implementation - Faculty who are teaching the initial pilot courses will have designated
sections for CT enhancement while continuing to teach the same courses without CT enhancement. This
allows the faculty to track the differences in student response to a different emphasis. The CT faculty are
given general faculty resources for critical thinking and participate in meetings with the CT-TLC before
the beginning of the semester to redesign their courses. Instructional strategies, assessment tools, and
syllabi are also reviewed. The Design Team continues to be available to these faculty as they teach their
courses. At the conclusion of their experience with the CT-enhanced courses, these faculty will become
mentors for other faculty as they teach CT-enhanced courses.
Implementation - As faculty focus more on teaching CT, they will be using the same skills they
teach students. They will analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the information and the data they collect
throughout the teaching of their courses to determine what works and what does not work for them and
their students. Students’ responses to the Faculty Course Evaluation will enable faculty to assess student
response to the CT enhancement in their classes, and self-assessment will be available to faculty through
the faculty survey. To continue to meet future demands, changes, and challenges in education as well as
students’ academic growth and needs, faculty will meet with their colleagues and departments in faculty
workshops and with the QEP Implementation and Assessment teams to refine their pedagogies, rubrics,
32
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
approaches, and methods to improve their SLOs in CT. The CT-TLC will be developed and expanded as
more faculty teach CT enhanced courses.
Faculty Development
Initial discussions between the Design Team and faculty from various disciplines pointed to the need for
professional development for faculty in the theory and pedagogy of critical thinking, but also pointed to
the need for discipline-specific training in order to achieve the fourth goal.
Goal #4: To enhance faculty use of critical thinking pedagogy through the design of instructional
approaches and assessments.
Outcome #1: Faculty can define critical thinking in general and as it applies to
their discipline.
Outcome #2: Faculty will teach and model critical thinking in class lectures and
discussions.
Outcome #3: Faculty will use assessment techniques that measure different
forms or levels of critical thinking.
Faculty involved in teaching critical thinking are expected to attend and participate in necessary
foundational training prior to teaching a CT enhanced class. These faculty are expected to continue
professional development during the implementation of the QEP that will include:

An understanding of the overall rationale for teaching higher order thinking skills;

The basic vocabulary of critical thinking;

How to form a basic concept of critical thinking;

The intellectual standards necessary for higher-order learning;

The basic components of critical thinking and ways to build those components into the design
within disciplines;

An understanding of the challenges of implementation of critical thinking as a teaching model;

How to integrate critical thinking while teaching content;

How to design assignments, activities, and tests that require critical thinking;

Learning and reflecting on ways that critical thinking strategies might be included in a variety of
classroom activities;
33
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University

Language usage and how to question students;

Materials and methods that can be used in critical thinking assessment;

How to assess critical thinking skills and abilities;

An understanding of why critical thinking is important for effective day-to-day problem solving;

How to practice using critical thinking in the solution of everyday problems.
In summer 2013, faculty were introduced to critical thinking during a workshop, “Teaching
Critical Thinking for Academic Success, Career Readiness and Personal Development.” The QEP
Director introduced all faculty to the focus on critical thinking with a PowerPoint presentation at the fall
2013 Faculty-Staff Conference and engaged faculty with team-based activities that focused on critical
thinking. Also, in fall 2013, two workshops,” Critical Thinking & the First Year: Pedagogy, Challenges
and Assessment” and “Creating Tests that Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills” were conducted for
faculty in the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). Faculty were able to collaborate
on ideas offered by the presenters and discuss best practices. Other workshops will continue to be offered
to help faculty develop skills in critical thinking pedagogy.
To teach critical thinking, faculty will use The Thinkers Guide Library series from The
Foundation for Critical Thinking and additional critical thinking supplemental resources (critical thinking
guides and books) for classroom use placed on reserve in the AAMU Learning Resource Center (LRC).
Faculty were given a listing of items on reserve. Booklets on critical thinking (Foundation for Critical
Thinking) were ordered and distributed to faculty interested in teaching critical thinking enhanced
courses. Additional speakers, conferences, and workshops will be offered on a continuing basis
throughout the implementation of the QEP.
A resource course shell has been developed in Blackboard for faculty and the CT-TLC
community and will be made available spring 2014. It will serve as an online location for resources that
faculty may use in teaching CT courses such as rubrics, links to critical thinking articles, activities,
websites, and tools. A student library guide on critical thinking is being developed and should be
34
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
available in spring 2014 for student use and for faculty to include in course syllabi and online course
information.
Detailed Pre-Implementation and Implementation Schedule from 2013-2019
When?
Timeline
What?
Primary Tasks
How?
Method/Strategy
Who?
Primary Participants
Summer
2013
Faculty Development
Faculty (University-wide)
QEP Director
Beginning
Fall 2013
Collection of Data
Faculty CT Workshop:
“Teaching Critical Thinking for
Academic Success, Career
Readiness and Personal
Development”
Administration of Critical
Thinking Assessment Test
(CAT) to establish baseline and
Proficiency Profile (External)
Fall 2013
CT Pilots
September
2013
Faculty Development
November
2013
Faculty Development
Faculty CT Workshop: “Creating
Tests That Assess Higher Order
Thinking Skills”
Spring
2014
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
Spring
2014
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking Trainer –
Speaker TBA
Spring
2014
CT Pilots
Teach CT and assess SLOs in 2
pilot disciplines.
Fall 2014
QEP STARTS!
QEP STARTS!
200 Students (CAT)
All incoming freshmen
(Proficiency Profile)
Teach CT and assess SLOs in 2 Course Disciplines – HIS/MTH
pilot disciplines.
(1 section each/20 students)
C. Patton/C. Webb
QEP Assessment Team
QEP Design Team
Faculty CT Workshop: “Critical Faculty (University-wide)
Thinking & The First Year”
QEP Director
35
Faculty (University-wide)
QEP Director
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Faculty (University-wide)
QEP Director
Course Disciplines –
ENG/BIO (1 section each/20
students) J. Hayes/S.
Hopkinson
QEP Assessment Team
QEP Design Team
QEP STARTS!
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
When?
Timeline
What?
Primary Tasks
How?
Method/Strategy
Who?
Primary Participants
Fall 2014
CT Pilots
Fall 2014
Collection of Data
Fall 2014
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Post)
HIS 101 – 20 Students
QEP Assessment Team
Fall 2014
Faculty Development
Faculty CT Teaching Workshop
Presenter: (TBA)
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Fall 2014
Faculty Development
Faculty CT Workshop: “Creating
CT Faculty
Tests That Assess Higher Order
QEP Director
Thinking Skills”
QEP Implementation Team
Fall 2014
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2015
1st Year
Instruction and Assessment
ENG 102, HIS 101
(2 sections each/20 students) J.
Hayes/C. Patton
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2015
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking Trainer –
Speaker: TBA
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Spring
2015
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
Sophomores
(Proficiency Profile)
Spring
2015
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
HIS 101 – 20 Students
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2015
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Fall 2015
2nd Year
Instruction and Assessment
ENG 102, HIS 101, MTH 112,
BIO 101
(2 sections each/20 students)
J. Hayes/J. Hargrove/C. Patton/C.
Webb/S. Hopkinson/C. Sheeler
QEP Assessment Team
Teach CT and assess SLOs in 4
Course Disciplines –
pilot disciplines.
HIS/MTH/ENG/BIO (1 section
each/20 students)
C. Patton/D. Leisher/J.
Hargrove/S. Hopkinson
QEP Implementation Team
QEP Assessment Team
Administration of Proficiency
All incoming freshmen
Profile (External)
(Proficiency Profile)
36
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
When?
Timeline
What?
Primary Tasks
How?
Method/Strategy
Who?
Primary Participants
Fall 2015
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
All incoming freshmen
(Proficiency Profile)
Fall 2015
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
Fall 2015
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
MTH 112 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2016
2nd Year
Instruction and Assessment
HIS 101, MTH 112, BIO 101,
MUS 101, ENG 102
(2 sections each/20 students)
S. Allen/C. Patton/C. Webb/K.
Sartor/S. Hopkinson/C. Sheeler/P.
Lott/L. Hawley/J. Hayes
QEP Assessment Team
ENG 102 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Spring
2016
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
Spring
2016
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking Workshop –
Speaker: TBA
Spring
2016
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2016
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
Sophomores
(Proficiency Profile)
Fall 2016
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking Workshop –
Speaker: TBA
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Fall 2016
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
All incoming freshmen
(Proficiency Profile)
Fall 2016
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
Fall 2016
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
BIO 101 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
37
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
When?
Timeline
What?
Primary Tasks
How?
Method/Strategy
Who?
Primary Participants
Fall 2016
3rd Year
Instruction and Assessment
HIS 101, MTH 112, BIO 101,
ENG 102, MUS 101, ART 101,
PHY 101 (2 sections each/20
students) C. Patton/K. Sartor/C.
Webb/C. Sheeler/J. Hargrove/J.
Hayes/P. Lott/S. Smith/M.
Tiemann/P. Guggilla/V. Edwards
Fall 2016
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking
Workshop/Training– Speaker:
TBA
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Spring
2017
3rd Year
Instruction and Assessment
HIS 101, MTH 112, BIO 101,
MUS 101, ENG 102, ART 101,
ECO 200, PHY 101
(2 sections each/20 students)
S. Allen/K. Sartor/C. Webb/S.
Hopkinson/P. Lott/ S. Smith/M.
Tiemann/J. Hargrove/S.
Abdullah/V. Edwards/P. Guggilla
QEP Assessment Team
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2017
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
Spring
2017
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking
Workshop/Training – Speaker:
TBA
MUS 101 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Spring
2017
Fall 2017
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
Sophomores
(Proficiency Profile)
All incoming freshmen
(Proficiency Profile)
Fall 2017
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Fall 2017
4th Year
Instruction and Assessment
ART 101, HIS 101, MTH 112,
BIO 101, MUS 101, ENG 102,
ECO 200, PHY 101
(3 sections each/20 students)
S. Allen/K. Sartor/C. Webb/S.
Hopkinson/P. Lott/J. Hargrove/J.
Hayes/S. Smith/M. Tiemann/S.
Abdullah/V. Edwards/P. Guggilla
Collection of Data
QEP Assessment Team
38
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
When?
Timeline
What?
Primary Tasks
How?
Method/Strategy
Who?
Primary Participants
Fall 2017
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
PHY 101 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
Fall 2017
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking Workshop –
Speaker: TBA
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Spring
2018
4th Year
Instruction and Assessment
ART 101, HIS 101, MTH 112,
BIO 101, MUS 101, ENG 102,
ECO 200, PHY 101
(3 sections each/20 students)
S. Allen/K. Sartor/C. Webb/S.
Hopkinson/P. Lott/J. Hayes/S.
Abdullah/V. Edwards/P. Guggilla/
S. Smith/M. Tiemann
Spring
2018
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2018
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
Spring
2018
Faculty Development
Critical Thinking
Workshop/Training-Speaker:
TBA
ART 101 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Implementation Team
Spring
2018
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
Sophomores
(Proficiency Profile)
Fall 2018
Collection of data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
All incoming freshmen
(Proficiency Profile)
Fall 2018
5th Year
Instruction and Assessment
ART 101, HIS 101, MTH 112,
BIO 101, MUS 101, ENG 102,
ECO 200, PHY 101 (3 sections
each/20 students) S. Allen/K.
Sartor/C. Webb/S. Hopkinson/P.
Lott/J. Hargrove/S. Abdullah/V.
Edwards/S. Smith/M. Tiemann/P.
Guggilla
Fall 2018
Collection of Data
Administration of CAT (Pre and
Post)
ECO 200 – 40 Students
CT Faculty
QEP Assessment Team
QEP Assessment Team
QEP Assessment Team
39
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
When?
Timeline
What?
Primary Tasks
How?
Method/Strategy
Who?
Primary Participants
Fall 2018
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2019
5th Year
Instruction and Assessment
ART 101, HIS 101, MTH 112,
BIO 101, MUS 101, ENG 102,
ECO 200, PHY 101
(3 sections each/20 students)
S. Allen/K. Sartor/C. Webb/S.
Hopkinson/P. Lott/J. Hayes/S.
Abdullah/ S. Smith/M.
Tiemann/V. Edwards/P. Guggilla
Spring
2019
Faculty Development
CT-TLC (Teaching & Learning
Community) Discussions
CT Faculty
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
Spring
2019
Collection of Data
Administration of Proficiency
Profile (External)
Sophomores
(Proficiency Profile)
Summer
2019
5th Year
Report to SACS
QEP Cumulative Report
QEP Steering Committee
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Team
QEP Assessment Team
40
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
QEP Implementation Schedule by Semester and Course
41
“Dare to Think!”
VIII.
Alabama A&M University
Assessment
The creation of appropriate assessment strategies is vital to the measurement of student learning
outcomes. External measures from past years have pointed to deficiencies in critical thinking, and internal
measures have not been collected and analyzed university-wide. After much examination and discussion
of various standardized tests and rubrics, the Design Team has chosen
●
to continue using the Critical Thinking Subscale of the ETS Proficiency Profile, formerly known
as Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP),
●
to continue using specific questions from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE),
●
to institute the use of the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT),
●
to develop new internal CT-enhanced examinations and assessment rubrics, and
●
to collect and analyze student and faculty surveys on the understanding and use of CT within the
classroom.
Formative and Summative Assessment
●
Formative assessment will include ongoing assessment within the classroom. These assessments
will be created and administered during learning activities to monitor and guide learning while it is still in
progress. Faculty will choose from various classroom assessment techniques such as those suggested by
Angelo and Cross (1993) in Classroom Assessment Techniques: minute papers, problem recognition
tasks, documented problem solutions, directed paraphrasing, application cards, classroom opinion polls,
and other ideas such as exit slips.
●
Summative assessment will include assessment activities done at the end of the learning
process to evaluate the success of the process at its completion. To judge whether strategies have been
effective, instructors will use examinations, papers, and projects for internal assessment. External
summative assessment will include the Proficiency Profile, the CAT, and the NSSE.
42
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Internal Assessment Measures
Although external measures provide valuable information, especially in comparative assessment,
they do not necessarily address the specific content and skills taught in the AAMU CT curriculum. To
mitigate this problem, CT faculty will also design and use course-embedded assessments. Courseembedded assessment offers opportunities for more direct involvement with student learning and allows
faculty to collect a wider range of both formative and summative data. In course-embedded assessment,
faculty have a direct connection with the outcomes.
Critical thinking (CT) enhanced courses will focus on the QEP goals and student learning
outcomes (SLOs). Common syllabi and common assessment measures will be required for the designated
CT courses, but each of these will be designed and appropriate for a specific discipline. After training,
faculty will create discipline-specific measures that assess critical thinking. The data from the courseembedded assessments will be collected by the Assessment Coordinator for analysis. Faculty of the CT
courses will then meet in large groups and in discipline-specific groups to discuss these findings and
determine how to improve SLOs.
● BIO 101: General Biology I, HIS 101: World History I, and PHY 101: Physical Science I.
Assessment for all of these disciplines will be accomplished through common examinations as
described in Internal Assessment Measures. Machine scoring and computer applications will
enable quick analysis of selected questions.
The primary mode of assessment in CT enhanced courses in biology, physical science, and
history will be multiple-choice examinations that include questions designed to assess specific SLOs. The
questions on these examinations will be faculty-created questions and textbook publisher-supplied
questions that are nationally normed. The emphasis on specific questions and specific SLOs is to ensure
that the examination questions address higher order critical thinking. Faculty in these CT courses will
o
Identify questions which address a specific SLO;
43
“Dare to Think!”
o
Alabama A&M University
Categorize questions on the examination that involve higher level critical thinking skills of
analysis, evaluation, or synthesis;
o
Create examinations in which 30% of the questions require students to demonstrate mastery
of the SLOs;
o
Use a scoring machine and its computer application to create a summary that reports
responses to specific questions;
o
Analyze the results to see how well students met the SLOs;
o
Close the loop (process evaluation) by meeting in faculty focus groups in cooperation with
the Assessment Coordinator to share what worked and what did not work in order to discern
any crucial changes or modifications in the course or in instruction to ensure that more
students master specific SLOs.
● MTH 112: Pre-Calculus Algebra. Students will not only solve problems, but they will use
metacognition as they explain their solutions in writing. Faculty believe that expanding the
course work into this non-traditional method will cause students to see their work in a broader
context and move them to higher order thinking via analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.
● ENG 102: Composition II. This course will continue to focus on research-based writing but with
a new emphasis on CT skills. Through metacognition, students will not simply find sources and
create a paper, but they will be taught to reflect on how they make choices in their analyses,
evaluations, and syntheses to create documented research papers.
● ART 101: Art Appreciation or MUS 101: Music Appreciation. Both courses will use writing to
broaden students’ CT in visual and aural contexts. Students in ART 101 will demonstrate visual
literacy in written formal analyses of selected works of visual art. Students in MUS 101 will
hone their CT skills as they create written artifacts after listening to live performances.
44
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
● ECO 200: Basic Economics. This discipline will emphasize CT through enhanced teaching
strategies, an emphasis on student metacognition, and a change in assessment. In solving
specified problems, students will produce written artifacts that demonstrate their ability to
analyze and evaluate issues and synthesize their conclusions.
Music, art, mathematics, economics, and English courses will assess the SLOs using student
writing scored with an established and normed rubric. A general rubric for use throughout the University
has been developed by the Design Team (Appendix C); however, faculty within specific disciplines will
develop rubrics that assess SLOs within their respective disciplines.
Faculty from mathematics, English, art, music, and economics will use written artifacts as the
primary assessment tool of CT. Because well written rubrics are widely accepted as valid and reliable
measures, faculty worked with the Design Team to create rubrics authentic to their disciplines that reflect
CT within their disciplines. Faculty in these CT courses will
o
Use the University CT rubric (Appendix C) or create discipline-specific rubrics that are
in compliance with the University rubric;
o
Develop a discipline-specific writing assignment that addresses specific SLOs;
o
Examine and ensure that the assignment meets the requirements of the higher order CT
skills of analysis, evaluation, and/or synthesis;
o
Explain the rubric and its criteria to students prior to submission of the assignment;
o
Meet in faculty norming sessions with sample student work;
o
Assess writing artifacts using the normed rubric;
o
Analyze the results to see how well students met the SLOs;
o
Close the loop (process evaluation) by meeting in faculty focus groups in cooperation
with the Assessment Coordinator to share what worked and what did not work in order
to discern any crucial changes or modifications in the course or in instruction to ensure
45
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
that more students master specific SLOs.
External Assessment Measures
As Robert Ennis (1993), noted scholar of critical thinking, has pointed out, standardized testing
for critical thinking abilities is beset with problems, yet valid and reliable standardized tests offer national
norms that are useful for data and comparison purposes. After examining various external measures, the
Design Team decided to continue to use the ETS Proficiency Profile, which includes a subscale on critical
thinking. One advantage of this examination is that data has been collected at AAMU since 2007, and
progress can continue to be monitored using the same test.
Scores from the Proficiency Profile show that in 2010, AAMU freshmen entered with a 0%
proficient or marginal score in critical thinking compared to the national average of 10%. Two years later,
4% of these students who were now sophomores leaving General Education scored at the proficient or
marginal level. (It should, however, be noted that sophomores the year before and the year after had 0%
proficient or marginal.) Students who entered in 2010 with low scores did not show enough improvement
in critical thinking after two years of instruction in General Education courses. One of the major reasons
for the focus of this QEP on critical thinking is the low scores on the Proficiency Profile as students enter
and after they have completed two years of instruction. This measure will continue to be used to assess
whether students’ critical thinking skills have been enhanced. The goal of the AAMU QEP is to show the
enhancement of students’ critical thinking skills. The Proficiency Profile will be used as a value-added
measure of student growth in critical thinking from entering freshmen to sophomores exiting the General
Education level.
There is concern about the limitations of all standardized tests, especially in getting students to do
their best. As Ekman and Pelletier (2008) noted, when stakes are not high, students do not achieve at their
highest level of ability. To combat this problem, AAMU will concentrate on how these standardized tests
are administered.
46
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
The Proficiency Profile will not be the only or even the primary external assessment measure
because, as Ekman and Pelletier (2008) noted, it is dangerous to use only one assessment tool. The
relatively new instrument, the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT) developed at Tennessee
Technological University (TTU) with a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, offers more
information. TTU described the CAT on their website:
The CAT Instrument is designed to assess a broad range of skills that faculty across the
country feel are important components of critical thinking and real world problem
solving. The test was designed to be interesting and engaging for students. All of the
questions are derived from real world situations. Most of the questions require short
answer essay responses and a detailed scoring guide helps insure good scoring reliability.
The CAT Instrument is scored by the institution's own faculty using a detailed scoring
guide. Training is provided to prepare institutions for this activity. During the scoring
process faculty are able to see their students' weaknesses and understand areas that need
improvement. Faculty are encouraged to use the CAT instrument as a model for
developing authentic assessments and learning activities in their own discipline that
improve students' critical thinking and real-world problem skills. These features help
close the loop in assessment and quality improvement. (“Overview”)
The active involvement of faculty in scoring the exam is especially appealing. The in-depth
Train-the-Trainer sessions offered by TTU taught designated AAMU faculty to score the CAT so that
they can then teach other AAMU faculty to score the CAT. The training not only trains how to score but
also teaches faculty what constitutes different levels of critical thinking. When faculty score the tests of
the students at their own institution, they see firsthand the specific strengths and weaknesses of their own
students. The scoring of these short essays will improve faculty’s grasp of student thinking, which will
impact teaching methodology. Faculty can identify specific areas for improvement and develop
47
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
appropriate strategies to improve in these areas, thereby closing the loop in assessment and improvement
as described above.
The CAT was administered for the first time in fall 2013 in designated General Education classes.
In fall 2013, selected faculty attended a Train-the-Trainer workshop to learn how to score and to teach
other faculty how to score. Because this instrument has not been used at AAMU, baseline data after the
initial scoring must be determined. Once a baseline is set, yearly tests to assess growth in students’ critical
thinking skills will be administered. Not only will this test provide general information but also specific
information about students’ weaknesses that can be used by faculty to improve CT teaching strategies and
course assessments.
To assure quality data, faculty will administer the CAT instrument in specific classes during class
time and stress the importance of doing well on the test.
External Attitudinal Measure
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has been used at AAMU since 2008, and
both baseline data and comparative data collected from this instrument are available. Questions that
address student engagement in academics will be used to assess whether there is improvement in this area
as noted by students. On the 2010 NSSE, the randomly selected AAMU freshmen responded to these
questions on course work emphasis at AAMU:

Question 2a. Emphasis on memorizing facts, ideas, or methods, 78%

Question 2b. Emphasis on analyzing basic elements of an idea or theory, 74%

Question 2c. Emphasis on synthesizing and organizing ideas, 72%

Question 2d. Emphasis on assignment/activity making judgments about the value of
information, 83%

Question 2e. Emphasis on assignment/activity applying theories or concepts, 79%

Question 11e. Institution contributed to skills in thinking critically and analytically, 64%
48
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
In every area of these questions, the QEP should make a difference. Each year of the QEP, the
expectation is an increase in positive responses except question 2a. The question about memorizing facts,
ideas, or methods will be followed as a measure of a change in classroom pedagogy as well as the other
questions.
Internal Qualitative Assessment Measures
Surveys
Faculty and students in the CT courses will complete surveys near the end of each semester.
These surveys will be administered, collected, and analyzed by the Office of Institutional Research and
Planning (OIRP). The purpose of this direct measure is to receive feedback from faculty and students who
have been directly engaged in the CT enhanced courses. Faculty will be asked to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the CT course(s) they have just taught (Appendix I). On the Faculty Course Evaluation
form, students will be asked to assess the CT instruction they have received during the semester and their
perceived CT skills (Appendix J). The data from these forms will be further analyzed by the Assessment
Coordinator and the Implementation Team for use in future faculty development.
49
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Summary of Assessment Plan
External / Internal
Quantitative /
Qualitative
External
Quantitative
External
Quantitative
External
Quantitative
External
Internal
Qualitative /
Attitudinal
Qualitative /
Attitudinal
Quantitative
Internal
Quantitative
Internal
Qualitative
Internal
Qualitative
Internal
Qualitative
External
Assessment Tool
Who
Proficiency Profile: Sample of freshmen
Critical thinking
students
subsection
Proficiency Profile:
Sample of
Critical thinking sophomore students
subsection
after 47 credits
CAT
Students enrolled in
designated courses
NSSE
Sample of freshmen
students
NSSE
Sample of
graduating seniors
Questions in courseStudents in
embedded
designated CT
examinations
courses
developed by faculty
teaching the course
Course-embedded
Students in
written artifact
designated CT
developed by the
courses
faculty teaching the
course and assessed
by a critical thinking
rubric
Faculty surveys
Faculty teaching the
developed by the
CT course
Design Team and
administered by
Assessment
Coordinator
Student surveys
Students who are
developed by the
completing a
Design Team and
designated CT
administered by
course
OIRP
Course evaluation Students who have
instrument with
taken a designated
specific questions
CT course
developed by the
Design Team and
administered by
OIRP
50
When
Fall
Spring
Fall/Spring
Spring
Spring
Each semester
the course is
taught
Each semester
the course is
taught
End of each
semester the
course is taught
End of each
semester the
course is taught
End of Fall and
Spring semester
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Goals for Improvement
The baseline for the CAT instrument must be determined; however, the goal for the AAMU QEP
is a 1% achievement increase per year over a five year period. The goal for the Proficiency Profile and the
NSSE is a 1% achievement increase per year for five years.
Although the baseline for the internal quantitative measures must be determined, a minimum of
70% achievement of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) within course-embedded assessments is
expected after the first year of implementation of the QEP. For example, 70% of the students who take the
course-embedded examination should correctly answer the identified critical thinking (CT) question, and
70% of the students who complete the course-embedded writing assignment should score three (3) or
above on the rubric. On these internal measures, the achievement goal is a 1% increase per year over the
five years of the QEP so that a 5% increase from 70% to 75% in achievement will be reached by 2019.
Closing the Loop: Using the Data
Process evaluation is one method of getting feedback before the end of a program, at a point
where attitudinal or behavior change may not be large enough to measure directly. This promotes
continuous quality improvement, or as we like to call it, closing the loop. Gathering teacher-perception
data is another appropriate process approach since teacher’s perceptions and actions were critical to
programmatic success. Isaac and Michael (1995, p. 11) noted that implementation evaluation “seeks out
discrepancies between the plan and reality: keeps the program true to its design or modifies it
appropriately.”
The goal of process evaluation should not only be to determine the basic impact of an
intervention, but whether the intervention was properly implemented, how widely it was implemented,
and the quality of the program. The evaluation should include implementation monitoring, quality
assurance, and assessing the reaction of students and teachers.
51
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
External and internal assessment instruments will be used to evaluate the outcomes,
demonstrating how well the program worked. Teacher process evaluations, surveys, and student
performance on teacher-designed course activities will be used as formative evaluations to locate
weaknesses and improve intervention. A student survey will be used because perceptions are critical to
programmatic success.
The QEP Assessment Coordinator and OIRP will collect data from the external quantitative and
attitudinal measures and the internal quantitative and qualitative measures. To provide continuous
improvement, the QEP Director, Assessment Coordinator, Implementation Team, faculty groups, and
individual faculty will analyze aggregate data for the University and specific data concerning the CT
courses to institute appropriate changes. Further analysis and decisions on how to improve student
learning will be determined by the Implementation Team and faculty: scheduling appropriate professional
development to deal with identified issues, modifying CT practices, suggesting improvement in CT
teaching methodology for specific courses, and making appropriate changes to CT instruction based on
SLOs and student performance results.
Assessment Summary
Realizing that the purpose of assessment is to improve student learning, this QEP will use
multiple external, internal, direct, and indirect measures as guides. Because appropriate assessment
strategies and tools are vital to meaningful measurement of SLOs, better use will be made of tools
currently in place as well as incorporating new tools. External measures from past years have pointed to
deficiencies in critical thinking, but that information has not been used systematically to improve SLOs.
In the same way, various internal measures have been used by individual instructors or departments, but
that information has not been collected and analyzed for the purpose of improvement in student learning.
The QEP is designed to collect, analyze, and use assessment information for the enhancement of students’
critical thinking skills.
52
“Dare to Think!”
IX.
Alabama A&M University
Resources: Sustaining the QEP
The Alabama A&M University budget is currently 147 million dollars. The total funding comes from
six primary sources: Tuition and Fees 34%, State Funds 27%, Restricted Grants and Contracts 26%,
Auxiliary Services 8%, Sales and Services 3%, and Federal Funds representing 2% of our total revenue.
The University’s annual budget has increased 17 million dollars over the last five years and has proven its
sustainability over these years. The QEP commitment represents approximately 1% of the University’s
total state budget. The resources are currently in place to adequately fund the QEP with state funds. In
addition, with projected increases in Student Fees, Auxiliary Services and Sales and Services for the
University over the five years, we are in an even better position for funding the QEP. The increase in the
QEP budget over its initial planning demonstrates the administration’s commitment to the program.
The QEP Budget Team was allowed to prepare a modest budget for each year that was presented
to the QEP Steering Committee and approved with flexibility prior to submission to the administration.
Using the same budgeting process required by the institution for all other programs, the budget was
developed using input from QEP teams and the Steering Committee. The budget review and approval
process starts in April of each academic year with open campus hearings before the administration (vice
presidents, budget officers and the president) and usually lasts for at least a week. Budget formulation
training is done by the Center for Excellence in Teaching & Learning (CETL) prior to the hearings.
Notification is sent out informing the University when the process will start. Vice presidents, deans, and
chairs are asked to prepare for the hearings.
The University has adequate physical resources already in place to support the QEP initiative.
The first two (2) years of the budget supports the development of the QEP. The last five (5) years of the
budget, totaling $576,606, will support planned personnel and all other activities associated with the QEP.
The average per year over the five- year period is $115,321. The University’s administration has
53
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
committed to supporting the QEP on critical thinking for the improvement of student learning at the
University.
QEP Budget Narrative
QEP Development
During the first two (2) years of the development (2011-13), expenses were incurred to set up and
equip QEP offices. Expenses were also incurred to engage two (2) consultants, to attend the 2012 QEP
Summer Institute and annual the SACS – COC conferences, to pay stipends to the QEP Design and
Writing Teams, to sponsor a two (2) day QEP Design Team retreat, to provide classroom materials,
travel, and faculty development, totaling $74,571.
QEP Expenditures 2011-2012
Secretarial Support
$20,056.51
Fringe Benefits
$5,268.84
Faculty Development
$221.93
Office Materials/Supplies/Equipment
$3,099.99
Marketing & Promotion
$230.23
Travel
$750.00
Total
$29,627.50
QEP Expenditures 2012-2013
Secretarial Support
$6,431.70
Fringe Benefits
$1,350.65
Faculty Development
$2,736.01
Travel
$3,766.97
Consultants
$3,714.02
Meetings
$393.67
Office Materials/Supplies/Equipment
$702.27
CAT & Proficiency Profile Tests
$1,421.00
Marketing & Promotion
$1,300.14
Classroom Materials
$239.68
54
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Faculty Stipends
$6,750.00
Total
$28,806.11
QEP Expenditures (Fall 2013)
Secretarial Support
Faculty Development
Marketing & Promotion
QEP Document Review
SACS-COC Annual Meeting
Total
$8,333.00
$3,873.89
$322.50
$2,500.00
$1,108.37
$16,137.76
A consultant presented a faculty professional development workshop on the QEP and worked
with faculty and staff on how to select a topic during the spring 2012 Faculty/Staff Conference. Another
consultant conducted a workshop for the QEP Design Team on how to design the QEP including an
implementation timeline for development and how to assess SLOs. Critical thinking guides were
purchased as a supplement in CT --enhanced pilot courses. Marketing expenses included costs for
printing flyers and posters and other QEP promotional items. Faculty stipends were paid to faculty in
recognition of the extra time and effort that team members devoted to designing the QEP.
During the fall of 2013, workshops were held to support faculty development, a baseline CAT
(Critical Thinking Assessment Test) was administered, and three (3) Design Team members and the
interim director attended the “Train the Trainer” CAT conference. These faculty provided training to
other faculty members in scoring the test during a “Train the Trainer” faculty workshop immediately
following the close of the semester and will oversee the administration of the CAT in the future. Pilots
were initiated in fall 2013, and faculty development will continue with invited CT speakers and
workshops throughout the academic year.
QEP Implementation Budget
The major expenses during implementation will include personnel-release time for the QEP
Director, a part-time secretary, an assessment coordinator, faculty release funds to cover course re55
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
assignments and overloads, faculty development, critical thinking assessment costs including CAT,
instructional materials, consultants, marketing and promotion, staff travel, supplies, and other activities.
A description for each line item is outlined below:

QEP Director: The QEP Director will provide leadership by facilitating and overseeing
implementation and assessment activities, and reporting the activities of the QEP. The director
will be a full-time faculty member receiving one-half release time while teaching two courses per
semester in the area of qualification. The release time will be paid through the QEP budget.

QEP Assessment Coordinator: The QEP Assessment Coordinator will be a full-time faculty
member of the University and will receive a supplement of $10,000 per year for coordinating
assessment efforts, including maintaining instruments/tools, gathering assessment data from
faculty and providing reports on the progress of the QEP. The QEP assessment coordinator will
work closely with the University’s Assessment Director in the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness in analyzing assessment data and providing reports.

QEP Secretary (Part-time): Clerical support will be provided to maintain the QEP office, and to
assist the assessment coordinator and CT faculty with the preparation of reports.

Faculty Release/Overloads: Funds for adjunct and/or overload pay for existing faculty who will
be given a one-course release for teaching CT-enhanced courses will be provided.

Faculty Development: Faculty development will be required for all CT faculty during the
implementation of the QEP. Workshops and other training activities will be provided. Funds will
be provided to sponsor internal workshops, to attend external workshops, and to provide faculty
stipends for scoring the CAT.

CT Consultants: The budgeted funds will be used to pay for consultants who will travel to the
University for faculty development and training purposes. Consultants will be utilized to provide
training for faculty and as needed throughout the five (5) year process.
56
“Dare to Think!”

Alabama A&M University
Testing-External (CAT): The CAT will be administered during the five (5) years of
implementation to selected disciplines each semester at $6 per test plus the participation fee of
$200 per year. In addition to the CAT, the ETS Proficiency Profile test will be administered each
fall to incoming freshmen. The cost of the Proficiency Profile test is currently being absorbed by
the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

Assessment Supplies: Costs to purchase materials used in courses and in the assessment of CT
will be covered.

CT Instructional/Course Materials: Funds will be provided for print materials and software to
assist with classroom instruction as well as costs for students to attend performances and galleries
as needed to support CT instructional strategies.

Meetings (TLC and Committees): Funds will be allocated for refreshments at selected teaching
and learning discussions of the CT-TLC (Teaching and Learning Community) and QEP
committee meetings during the implementation of the plan.

QEP Marketing & Promotion: Marketing and promotion items purchased for use by the
committee in marketing the QEP will be funded. This effort will also be supported by the
University’s Office of Marketing, Communication and Advancement.

QEP Office: Funds for basic office supplies to maintain offices during the five year plan will be
allocated.

QEP Staff Travel: QEP travel funds will be available for staff attending and participating in
SACS and CT conferences and other seminars and workshops to learn about and stay abreast of
developments in critical thinking.

QEP Miscellaneous Expenses: All other necessary costs not shown in line items in the budget
and/or incidentals will be covered.
57
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Detailed Budget by Year
Table 1: Five (5) Year Quality Enhancement Plan Budget for AY 2014-AY 2019
Line Items
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Totals
QEP Director (1/2 Release Time)
35,000
35,700
36,414
37,142
37,885
182,141
QEP Assessment Coordinator
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
QEP Secretary (Part Time)
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
Faculty Release/Overloads
14,400
18,000
28,800
45,000
45,000
151,200
Workshops/Conferences
10,100
7,300
5,200
5,200
5,200
33,000
Consultants
4,000
4,000
4,000
0
0
12,000
Testing (CAT)
440
1,160
1,160
1,160
1,160
5,080
Supplies
100
300
300
300
300
1,300
Instructional Materials/Supplies
1,500
1,000
500
500
500
4,000
Meetings (TLC, Committees)
150
100
100
100
150
600
QEP Marketing & Promotion
0
1,000
800
500
0
2,300
QEP Office
1,000
600
500
500
1,000
3,600
QEP Staff Travel
6,250
5,735
5,400
5,000
5,000
27,385
QEP Miscellaneous
1,000
1,000
1,000
500
500
4,000
Totals
103,940
105,895
114,174
125,902
126,695
576,606
Faculty Development:
Assessment:
X.
Strategies to Publish the QEP
The Marketing and Communications Team created a comprehensive plan with the goals to
communicate information to the AAMU community and to build an awareness campaign. The plan
creates a marketing awareness of the AAMU QEP which is focused on delivering information to the
University’s constituencies: alumni and community partners, students, faculty and staff, administration,
and Board of Trustees. The QEP webpage was initially launched in the summer of 2012 and includes an
explanation of the QEP, the QEP timeline, and the QEP Steering Committee members. New information
will be added with new developments.
58
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Marketing (Communication) Plan
Date
Spring 2012
Spring 2012
Summer 2012
July 2013
July 2013
July 2013
August 2013
August 2013
August 2013
August 2013
August 2013
September 2013
Event or Activity
Audience
QEP Informational email Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees
via Public Relations Allusers and Alumni Affairs
eNewsletter
QEP online Stakeholders Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees
Survey email via Public
Relations All-users
QEP Focus Group Town Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees
Hall Discussions email
via Public Relations Allusers
Selected and ordered
Incoming Freshmen/Students/Faculty/Staff
promotional items
Advertised critical
Faculty
thinking faculty
workshop on University
Marquee and Bulldog
BottomLine
Launched advertisement Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees/ and
of the QEP on All LRC other LRC patrons
computers via
screensavers
Hosted QEP booth with Faculty/Staff/Retirees
display at Faculty/Staff
Conference to distribute
promotional items.
Coordinated a critical
Faculty/Staff
thinking activity with the
Design Team at the
Faculty & Staff
Conference
Distributed QEP flyers to Faculty/Staff
Faculty/Staff at
conference
Distributed CT
Incoming Freshmen
wristbands to incoming
freshmen students during
the annual Torch
Lighting Ceremony
Sponsored QEP Logo
Students
Student Contest
Distributed bookmarks Faculty/Staff/Students
59
“Dare to Think!”
December 2013
Fall 2013
January 2014
January 2014
January 2014
January 2014
March 2014
March 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
XI.
Alabama A&M University
Deans’ Council approved Faculty/Students
request to include QEP
topic and CT definition
on all course syllabi
Initiated classroom
Faculty/Students
discussions on the QEP
“Let’s Get Cri-ti-cal”
Faculty/Staff/Students/Community
Faculty/Staff Conference
Distributed QEP business Faculty/Staff/Retirees
cards and wristbands to
faculty and staff
Launched “QEP prize
Faculty/Staff/students
patrol” campaign
Notifications to the
Community
Chamber of Commerce
and other local
businesses
Post critical thinking yard Faculty/Staff/Students/Campus guest
signs at campus entrances
Distribute QEP t-shirts to Students
students
Radio announcements on Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees/Comm
WJAB campus station unity
(“Why is CT
important?”)
Produce television
Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees/
promos for campus
Community
media
Post flyers/posters in
Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees
classrooms, on bulletin
boards, in restrooms,
dormitories, student
center, BTS stations, and
the library
Display banners at
Faculty/Staff/Students/Alumni/Trustees/Retirees/
campus entrances and
Community
other designated
locations
Benefits to the University and Its Constituencies
The University has expressed its commitment to pursue, implement, and sustain a QEP focused
on critical thinking. Because the QEP takes a multi-disciplinary approach, involves faculty from diverse
fields, and seeks to impact a sizeable number of students in a wide-range of classes, it should produce
60
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
positive changes in the intellectual climate on campus and greater institutional effectiveness. The
continual cross-campus emphasis on the importance and benefits of critical thinking will increase at least
some student’s appreciation and active engagement in intellectual pursuits both inside and outside the
classroom. This should help the University improve the rates of retention, academic progress, and
graduation for students as the QEP progresses. Such improvements could then help the University appeal
to students—and also their parents—who seek to obtain a quality education and graduate in the traditional
four- year time period with the skills they need to succeed in the “real world.”
Improvements in Faculty Cohesion and Teaching
The creation of the QEP has been a faculty-driven process that provides an opportunity for the
University family to work together on a common goal. It has included input from faculty in all colleges
and units of the University along with students and other constituency groups. During this process, the
various QEP teams have worked on their separate tasks and frequently met to develop the overall plan.
This faculty, staff, and student involvement and collaboration have laid the basis for a stronger teachinglearning environment based on shared goals and objectives. This, in itself, must be considered one of the
most important benefits of the QEP.
The QEP also benefits the University by providing a focus for common professional
development. Faculty who teach CT-enhanced courses will share their experiences about what strategies
and exercises proved successful with their colleagues so that the latter can experiment with them, seeking
to repeat and refine them. As faculty gain experience and insight on teaching critical thinking, they will
be encouraged to examine and modify their teaching styles and techniques. Faculty workshops and
forums will provide CT and non-CT faculty with opportunities to enhance their understanding and
instruction of critical thinking, to share with each other, and build the CT-Teaching and Learning
Community (CT-TLC). This is already occurring on a small scale as evidenced by the critical thinking
61
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
webinars and workshops sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) and
the CAT scoring workshop.
Improvements in Student Learning
The University also anticipates that students will benefit from the QEP by improving their
reasoning skills and intellectual habits during their first two years, which will enable them to succeed in
higher level courses and prepare them for meaningful careers upon graduation. As a HBCU, (Historically
Black Colleges and Universities), Alabama A&M seeks to address the needs of capable students who
have experienced limited access to education, creating an environment where they are simultaneously
challenged and nourished intellectually. Enhancing critical thinking fits naturally into this charge. As
students are systematically instructed in critical thinking and improve their ability to analyze, evaluate,
and synthesize information, they will be better prepared to study, understand, and solve the more complex
tasks and problems that they will be exposed to in junior and senior level courses. Faculty in such higherlevel courses will be encouraged to collaborate with General Education CT instructors not only to design
course assignments that align with and reinforce critical thinking skills but also to compare the
performance of students who have had CT-enhanced courses with those who have not. Assuming our
efforts are successful, the students should benefit by receiving higher grades, not having to repeat courses,
and progressing toward graduation in a timely fashion. Students become aware of the academic benefits
and professional advantages of critical thinking and become more motivated to practice critical thinking.
Benefits to the Surrounding Community
Huntsville is a technologically oriented community with army, aerospace, engineering, and
biotechnology industries. The University has been successful in providing a workforce for these
industries, but students must compete with graduates from other universities. As students become more
adept at using critical thinking to solve complex scientific, technical, economic, and social problems, they
62
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
are more likely to find job opportunities in the North Alabama region and then be able to contribute to the
continued economic and cultural growth of the area.
XII.
Organizational Structure
The QEP Director will have oversight for the implementation of the QEP and will chair the QEP
Steering Committee comprised of faculty from all academic units, the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness, Academic Affairs, the Office of Business & Finance, Student Affairs, Alumni Affairs, the
Deans’ Council, and students.
63
“Dare to Think!”
XIII.
Alabama A&M University
Bibliography
American Management Association. (2010). Critical skills survey. Retrieved from
http://www.amanet.org/news/AMA-2010-critical-skills-survey.aspx
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision
of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. Abridged ed. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Angelo, T. & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arum, R, & Roksa, J. (2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives book I: - Cognitive domain, (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Addison Wesley Publishing.
Eastern Kentucky University. (2011). EKU definition of critical & creative thinking. Retrieved
from http://qep.eku.edu/eku-definition-critical-creative-thinking
Ekman, R., & Pelletier, S. (2008). Assessing student learning: A work in progress. Change: The
Magazine for Higher Learning. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org
Ennis, Robert. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32 (3). 179-186.
Ennis, Robert. (1997). Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to
some basic issues. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.net/IncorporatingCritical
ThinkingInTheCurriculum.pdf
Facione, P.A. (1990). The Delphi report. Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes
of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Facione, P.A. (2012). Questions for assessing critical thinking usefully. Measured Reasons LLC.
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/lightplayer/WascSenior/peter-facione-questions-forassessing-critical-thinking-usefully
64
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Facione, P.A. (2013). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Retrieved from
http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/
General education assessment committee at Florida A&M. (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.famu.edu/QEP/UserFiles/File?FAMU_QEP_Feb2009.
Hatcher, D., & Spencer, L.A. (2006). Reasoning to writing from critical thinking to
composition. Boston, MA: American Press.
Hess, J. (2011). Critical thinking: Domain-specific applications, A review of literature. Center of
Teaching Excellence, U.S. Military Academy. Retrieved from
http://www.usma.edu/cfe/Literature/JHess_11.pdf
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding
and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/
~refjudg/index.html
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. (2010). Critical thinking: Learning
to make informed decisions. Retrieved from http://cmsserv.ncat.edu/qep/doclib/AandTQEP-WordDoc.pdf
Partnership for 21st century skills, corporate voices for working families, & society for
human resource management. (2006, April-May). Are they really ready to
work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the
21st century U.S. workforce. Conference Board.
Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly
changing world, 276. Tomales, CA: The Center for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (1993). Critical Thinking: How to prepare students for a
65
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
rapidly changing world. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrieved from
www.criticalthinking.org
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2009). Critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Foundation
for Critical Thinking Press. Retrieved from www.criticalthinking.org
Paul, R. & Scriven, M. (1987). Statement. Address at the 8th Annual international conference on critical
thinking and educational reform, Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City, Utah. Retrieved
from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Perry, W. G. (1998). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College
Years: A Scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Sanchez, F. (2012). Asking good questions and fostering student questions: Levels of
thinking in Bloom’s taxonomy and Webb’s depth of knowledge. Mountain Lakes
Curriculum. Retrieved from http://blogs.mtlakes.org/curriculum/2012/10/21/askinggood-questions-fostering-student-questioning
Surrey Community College. (2013). Critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.surry.edu/
About/CriticalThinking.aspx
Tennessee Technological University. (n.d.). Overview. Critical Thinking Assessment Test.
Retrieved from http://www.CriticalThinkingTest.org
University of Texas of the Permian Basin. (2010). C4: Clarify, collect, consider, conclude:
Enhancing critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.utpb.edu/media/pdf/
sacs/QEP.pdf
Wyatt, I.D., & Hecker, D.E. (2006, March). Occupational changes during the 20th century. US
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, 35-57. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/03/art3full.pdf
66
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
XIV. Appendices
Appendix A: QEP Committees
Assessment Team
Dr. Thomas Coaxum
Division of Academic Affairs
Dr. Lynne Edmondson
College of Education, Humanities
and Behavioral Sciences
College of Business & PA
Budget Team
College of Business & Public
Affairs
College of Business & Public
Affairs
Testing Services
Design Team
Division of Academic Affairs
Dr. Craig Patton
Ms. Bonnie M. Banks
Dr. Barbara Jones
Mr. Alfonso Smith
Dr. Thomas Coaxum
Mrs. Johnnie Hargrove
Dr. Sampson Hopkinson
Dr. Barbara Jones
Ms. Tina Jones
Ms. Diane Leisher
Mr. Peter Lott
Dr. Rhonda Moore-Jackson
Mr. Ezban Morrissette
Dr. Craig Patton
Dr. Juarine Stewart
QEP Director
QEP Assessment Coordinator
Dr. Lynne Edmondson
Mrs. Johnnie Hargrove
Dr. Craig Patton
Dr. Juarine Stewart
Director, Institutional Research, Planning &
Assessment
Professor
Associate Professor, History
Interim Chair, Accounting & Logistics
Interim Dean and Professor, Economics &
Finance, Coordinator of General Education
Director
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Agriculture, Life and Natural
Sciences
College of Business & Public Affairs
College of Business & Public Affairs
College of Engineering, Technology &
Physical Sciences
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Engineering, Technology &
Physical Sciences
College of Business & Public Affairs
Division of Academic Affairs
Implementation Team
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Business & Public Affairs
Division of Academic Affairs
Editing & Writing Team
67
Director, Institutional Research,
Planning and Assessment
Assistant Professor, English
Assistant Professor, Biology
Professor, Economics
Student
Assistant Professor, Math
Assistant Professor, Music
Associate Professor, Reading
Student
Associate Professor, History
Associate Provost
Professor
Assistant Professor, English
Associate Professor, History
Associate Provost
“Dare to Think!”
Ms. Jody Jones
Mrs. Judith Hayes
Mr. Donald Morgan
Mrs. Kiietti Walker-Parker
Dr. Barbara Jones
Mr. Daniel Kasambira
Alabama A&M University
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Education, Humanities and
Behavioral Sciences
College of Business & Public Affairs
Writing Center
Focus Group Team
College of Business & Public Affairs
Dr. Constance Adams
Division of Student Affairs
Marketing Team
Division of Academic Affairs
Mr. Ricardo Harvey
Mr. Daniel Kasambira
Mrs. Anice Love
Ms. Maya Shelton
Mr. Alfonso Smith
Mrs. Sandra Stubbs
Mr. Darrius Snow
Physical Plant
Wellness Center
Comptroller’s Office
College of Business & Public Affairs
Testing Services
Alumni Affairs
College of Business & Public Affairs
Instructor, English
Assistant Professor, English
Student
Director
Interim Dean and Professor of
Economics & Finance, Coordinator
of General Education
Director, Wellness Center
Interim Executive Director, Office
of Retention and Persistence
Shipping, Receiving, Delivery Clerk
Director
Accounting Manager
Student
Director
Director
Student, MBA
Appendix B: AAMU List of Definitions
Analysis/Analyze – to take apart/separate pieces of a problem, text, information to examine
individual sections; some terms used for analyze: to differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine,
question, test. When students begin to analyze, they understand the underlying structure of knowledge
and also are able to distinguish between fact and opinion.
Assessment – a systematic and ongoing effort to collect, analyze, and interpret evidence that
describes institutional, departmental, divisional, and/or program effectiveness, ultimately to improve
student learning and development.
Bloom’s Taxonomy – Harold Bloom’s hierarchy of thinking skills, ranging from lower to higher
order.
CAT – Critical thinking Assessment Test – an instrument developed at Tennessee Technological
University in coordination with the NSF (National Science Foundation) to assess college students’
critical thinking ability; short essays, graded by trained faculty.
Closing the Loop – the completion of a cycle of measuring student learning: collecting data,
analyzing data, and using the results; using assessment data/results to improve teaching and learning;
failure to use the results of assessment means failure to close the loop.
Critical Thinking –analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information into logical conclusions.
68
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Design Team – a group of campus-wide representatives tasked with the design of the QEP including
implementation and assessment.
ETS – Educational Testing Service
Evaluate - to judge or interpret components; to determine credibility, relevance, and reliability; some
terms used for evaluate: to appraise, to defend, justify, select, support.
Logic Model – a visual representation of the components of an organizational intervention, who
contributes, and the proposed impacts.
Higher Order Thinking Skills – following Bloom’s Taxonomy of Knowledge, Comprehension,
Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.
MAPP – Now known as the Proficiency Profile, standardized instrument used nationwide to assess
student learning in reading, mathematics, writing, and critical thinking; multiple choice, graded by
machine.
NSSE – National Survey of Student Engagement, standardized instrument used nationwide to address
student engagement in academic life.
QEP – Quality Enhancement Plan
Rubrics – an assessment tool created to categorize specific qualities and quantifiably measure these
qualities; explicitly identifies criteria of performance or behavior, shows a range of performance
levels, and the degree to which performance has been met; can provide formative, summative, and
direct assessment.
Student Learning – knowledge, skills, behaviors, and values students attain as a result of their
involvement in a particular set of educational experiences.
Student Learning Outcomes— achieved results or consequences of what was learned, evidence that
learning took place; behaviors and products generated by students after instruction; specific,
measureable statements of expected changes in student knowledge, skills, or behavior.
Synthesize – to formulate a position and support it; to put together elements to form a whole; to
design, develop, and complete an original work; some terms used for synthesize: to assemble,
construct, create, write.
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge -- Depth of Knowledge from Norman L. Webb. Used to analyze the
cognitive expectations demanded by standards, curricular activities, and assessment tasks based upon
the assumption that curricular elements may all be categorized according to the cognitive demands
required to produce an acceptable response. Each grouping of tasks reflects a different level of
cognitive expectation, or depth of knowledge, required to complete the task.
69
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix C: University Critical Thinking Rubric
The following rubric presents the competencies and degree of mastery we associate with the
stages of Novice, Developing, Competent, and Accomplished Thinker. This rubric will inform
and guide faculty in each discipline as they develop more specialized rubrics attuned to the needs
of their own subject matter.
Quality\Level
1—Novice
2--Developing
3--Competent
4--Accomplished
Comprehension Does not recognize
basic issue or
problem; does not
make connections
between issues and
concepts
Analysis
Vague, if any,
analysis; inaccurate
or incomplete
analysis; simply
repeats data
Recognizes basic
issue/problem;
makes limited
connections
between issues and
concepts
Limited analysis;
analysis of issue
with omissions and
errors; does not
explain, simply
reports; does not
identify explicit and
implicit issues
Explains issue or
problem; makes
connections
between issues and
concepts
Explains issue or
problem clearly and
thoroughly; makes
thoughtful
connections
Logical analysis;
can identify explicit
and implicit issues;
some evidence for
conclusions; some
recognition of
different
perspectives
Insightful in-depth
analysis of issues;
clearly identifies
explicit and implicit
issues; logical
evidence for
conclusions based
on analysis of
different
perspectives
Evaluation
Confusing or
unclear evaluation;
incorrect or
irrelevant evidence
Vague and weakly Logical but not fully Rational and fully
supported
supported
supported
evaluation;
evaluation;
evaluation; explains
oversimplified; does incorporates
conclusions
not explain or
information without thoroughly;
interpret;
fully explaining or carefully assesses
uses some evidence interpreting;
value of
sufficient evidence information;
compelling evidence
Synthesis
Lacks clarity;
supporting
information is
incorrect or
irrelevant;
intellectual
dishonesty
(plagiarism)
Limited
Uses sources to
Assesses and intercombination of
support, extend and prets information in
source material;
inform own ideas; meaningful way;
overly relies on long identifies key
systematically
summaries, quotes, concepts from
combines material
and paraphrases
sources;
from sources with
instead of own
incorporates
own ideas;
ideas; does not
material without
appropriate quantity
clearly distinguish fully synthesizing and quality of
between source
into coherent whole; information to
material and own sufficient evidence support conclusions
ideas
for conclusions
70
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix D: Rubrics Consulted
 Facione and Facione, Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric
 Eastern Kentucky University, Scoring Guide for Critical & Creative Thinking
 Allen, Developing and Using Rubrics for Assessing and Improving Student Learning
 Gary, Problem Solving Rubric
 Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, Penn State, Problem Solving Rubric
 University of North Texas Health Science Center, Higher Order Thinking (HOT) Rubric
 Mission College, Math Rubric
 Aiken Technical College, Critical Thinking Rubric
Appendix E: Job Descriptions
QEP Director
Reports to: Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
The QEP Director receives release time (50% for the coordination of QEP activities until the end
of spring 2019). This position will be held by a permanent faculty member at the University.
Summary: Provide leadership and facilitate the development, implementation, and assessment of
the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan.
Responsibilities:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Serves as ex-officio member to all QEP teams
Organizes meetings with QEP Steering Committee to keep them informed
Reports to the SACS Leadership Team on the progress of the QEP
Recommends and secures trainers for faculty workshops
Coordinates training workshops for faculty each semester
Works with the Learning Resources Center to maintain current resources regarding the
development, teaching, and assessment of critical thinking skills
Works with chairs and faculty in scheduling courses and designing course assessment
instruments
Maintains records of course assessment instruments
Collaborates with CETL (Center for Teaching and Learning) to host faculty training
workshops
Works with identified sources to ensure proper advertising regarding QEP activities
Manages QEP implementation activities as scheduled
Coordinates the collection of QEP assessment data and statistical analysis with
Assessment Coordinator and Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Sponsored
Programs
Manages evaluation of assessment data each semester for QEP assessment activities
Provides regular QEP updates and accomplishments to the University community
Manages the QEP budget and coordinates fiscal resources during development and
implementation
Provides data for SACS through the SACS Liaison
Other duties as necessary
71
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix F: Job Descriptions
QEP Assessment Coordinator
Reports to: QEP Director
The QEP Assessment Coordinator position will be held by a permanent faculty member at the
University that has an interest in the CT focus.
Summary: Coordinates the compilation of assessment data and works along with the University’s
assessment coordinator in conducting the statistical analysis of data.
Responsibilities:





Collection of QEP assessment data from CT faculty
Performance of statistical analysis in establishing facts
Works in collaboration with the University’s Assessment Coordinator in the Office of
Institutional Research, Planning and Sponsored Programs (OIRPS) in reporting data and
conclusions
Works directly with faculty in modifying course instruction and coordinating QEP
discipline specific logistics
Other duties as necessary
72
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix G: Stakeholder Survey & Results
73
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
74
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix H: QEPs Consulted
Aiken State Technical College, THINK! Achieve More with Critical Thinking
Athens State University, Building Success through Writing! at Athens State University
East Georgia College, Forming the Critical Thinking Habit
Eastern Kentucky University, Explore-Evaluate-Expand-Express
Florida A&M University, Enhancing Performance in Critical Thinking
Fort Valley State University, Enhancing Critical Thinking in the General Education Curriculum
Georgia State University, Critical Thinking through Writing
North Carolina A&T State University, Critical Thinking: Learning to Make Informed Decisions
Oakwood University, The Right to Write: Critical Thinking Development through Writing
Parker University, Advancing Critical Thinking
Pfeiffer University, Engaging Students to Think Critically
Piedmont College, Quantitative Reasoning for You (QR4U)
Stephen F. Austin State University, Make an Impact at SFU, Incorporating High-Impact
Practices to Enhance Student Learning at Stephen F. Austin State University
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, ThinkAchieve: Creating Connections
University of Texas at Permian Basin, C4: Clarify, Collect, Consider Conclude Enhancing
Critical Thinking
Appendix I: Instructor CT Course Evaluation
Faculty Survey
Scale
1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disgree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree
1. I had sufficient professional development support in CT pedagogy before I started teaching this
course.
2. I had sufficient professional development support in CT pedagogy as I taught this course.
3. I taught the course differently because of my emphasis on CT.
4. I had sufficient support in learning how to assess my students.
5. Students entered the course with adequate CT skills.
6. What I did in this course worked well to enhance my students’ CT skills.
7. Most of my students enhanced their CT skills as a result of being in this class.
8. I now know how to enhance students’ CT skills.
9. I consider myself a more effective teacher because of the emphasis on CT in my course.
75
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
10. Other teachers should incorporate more emphasis on CT skills into their classes.
Appendix J: Student CT Course Evaluation
Student Survey
This survey will be administered by OPIRE and the evaluation is designed on a scale of 1-5 as
follows:
Scale
1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree.
In addition to the common evaluation, students in the CT-enhanced courses will be asked to
respond to the following:
· The instructor explained the title of the AAMU QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan).
· The instructor explained the purpose of the AAMU QEP.
· The instructor required that students do more than memorize content.
· The instructor taught students to identify the significant issue, concept, problem, or
argument in information.
· The instructor taught students to differentiate between implicit and explicit assumptions.
· The instructor taught students to distinguish whether information reaches a logical
conclusion.
· The instructor taught students how to formulate a position and support it with evidence.
· The instructor used assessments (quizzes, exams, papers, projects, etc.) that required
students to think critically.
· This course’s emphasis on critical thinking was personally satisfying to me.
Appendix K: General Education SLOs
General Education Competencies and Student Learning Outcomes
The University has identified six college-level competencies consisting of twenty-six student learning outcomes to
be attained within the general education core. Each competency must be attained using multiple assessment methods
at the course and institutional levels.
Communication (4 SLOs)
Students will be able to demonstrate the following:




Read for comprehension in order to restate, paraphrase, deduce, and summarize written information.
Write clearly, concisely, and accurately, and revise with logical organization utilizing technological
resources.
Speak clearly, concisely, accurately, logically, persuasively, and enthusiastically.
Listen for comprehension so they can restate, explain, infer, and interpret information.
76
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Critical Thinking (all courses) (5 SLOs)
Students will be able to determine the following:





Identify or define the problem or task.
Research a subject by identifying and evaluating information utilizing traditional and technological
resources.
Select appropriate methodology including technology to gather data appropriate to the problem or task.
Appraise, critique, judge, validate, and verify information.
Solve problems by recommending, generalizing, modifying, reconstructing, and summarizing.
Mathematical Concepts and Application (3 SLOs)
Students will be able to demonstrate the following:



Read, interpret, quantify, model, and graph data using traditional and technological formats.
Write, explain, and interpret the underlying mathematics of a given mathematical situation. Solve a variety
of mathematical problems using both traditional and technological techniques, formulas, and methods.
Use fundamental processes in new and varied situations.
Scientific Inquiry and Methodology (5 SLOs)
Students will be able to demonstrate the following:





Understand and use scientific methodologies to draw appropriate conclusions.
Interpret and evaluate scientific data presented in various formats.
Analyze and compare alternative hypotheses or viewpoints.
Apply scientific reasoning and processes in new and varied contexts, utilizing technology and including
real-world situations.
Demonstrate knowledge of scientific concepts as related to measurement, systems, organizations, and
models.
Globalization and Diversity (6 SLOs)
Students will be able to demonstrate the following:






Demonstrate an awareness and appreciation for cultural diversity.
Analyze and contrast letters, arts, philosophies and politics of historical periods.
Demonstrate knowledge of peoples and places throughout the globe.
Demonstrate knowledge of self in the context of society.
Demonstrate knowledge of the personal needs for health, fitness, and safety.
Exemplify integrity, ethical behavior, and social responsibility in academic, vocational, and personal
pursuits.
Computer Literacy (3 SLOs)
Students will be able to demonstrate the following:



Explain basic computer concepts for consumer and organizational use.
Produce basic documents using widely available consumer software.
Identify and explain the importance of computer ethics which relates to privacy, crime, and intellectual
property.
77
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix L: Faculty Discussions (Initial)
Faculty Concerns for New QEP
2014-2019
During the fall 2011 semester, the QEP Director held open sessions with the faculty and staff in each of
the four colleges to discuss potential focal points for the 2014-2019 QEP. The concerns were very similar
from each of the colleges; thus, the issues are listed in topic clusters rather than colleges. Asterisks have
been placed at the end of items that were mentioned most often. Many of the items listed, particularly
those mentioned most often, could be addressed in the Freshman Academy concept.
IMPROVING CLASSROOM EFFECTIVENESS












Getting textbooks into students’ hands at the beginning of the term*
Stopping registration at the scheduled time*
Technology: wireless connectivity in all classrooms, increased availability of equipment*
Comfortable temperature in all classrooms year-round
Using students’ evaluations of instruction to improve instruction
Scheduling courses at the times most convenient to students
Peer review of teaching
Increasing students’ commitment to learning as opposed to being satisfied with receiving grades
and degrees
Providing timely and meaningful feedback on assignments
Teaching students how to listen, study, and take notes*
Grading that better reflects and encourages learning
Increasing professional behavior in classrooms by faculty and students – dress, speech, decorum,
absence of cheating and plagiarism, punctuality, and attendance
PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES





Greater emphasis on teaching critical thinking: writing critical book reviews, case study analysis,
problem solving, responding to analytical and evaluative questions*
Improving basic skills – reading, writing, speaking, quantitative reasoning—beyond general
education courses*
Enriching students’ general knowledge base (The more students know, the easier it is for them to
learn more.)*
Increasing student reading: required and optional; print and virtual; academic and recreational
Using more real-life experiences in teaching: current events, business and organizational case
studies, field trips, experiments, etc.
OTHER




Better assistance to students who are transitioning from high school to college
More faculty/staff participation in non-mandatory University activities
Teaching the social graces and other professional behavior
Increasing community service activities
78
“Dare to Think!”











Alabama A&M University
Improved customer service in campus offices, classrooms, etc.
Maintaining the campus grounds and buildings
Eliminating plagiarism
Promoting ethical relationships between and among students, faculty, and staff
Increasing participation in tutoring opportunities
More intrusive and effective advising beginning with selection of majors*
Promoting financial literacy
Promoting a life-long love of Alabama A&M University
Enhanced counseling services
Increasing time and effort spent studying*
Increasing time spent on extracurricular activities that further the mission and goals of the
University
Appendix M: Focus Group Discussions
Summary of Comments
Faculty
1. “Since critical thinking is thoughts to articulate or communicate orally and in a written form, the
three areas are hard to separate.”
2. “Can we use all three? How can one determine whether students can think critically?”
3. “Critical thinking is hardest to assess. The other two (2) are more obvious, more easily
identifiable than critical thinking; therefore, critical thinking may be harder to address.”
4. “Written communication is most important as a focus since it is a major problem. Overall
communications is important.”
5. “Oral and written communication will have the greatest impact.”
6. “Written communication-students do not have writing skills. We can measure success by critical
thinking.”
7. “Students do not read enough. Students who read well are adept to communicate well.”
8. “There is a difference between reading and listening.”
9. “Students are not purchasing textbooks. Critical thinking sounds like more fun using topic areas,
projects, etc. Written communications will probably be harder because some faculty do not write
themselves.”
10. “As far as professional success, the resume is written, but the interview requires oral
communication.”
11. “We should be concerned with basic writing skills.”
12. “Critical thinking need to be worded in the written communication statement because written
requires one to organize thought prior to writing.”
Question: In which area do we have the greatest need?
13. “Oral communication”
“Written communication”
“Oral communication”
79
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
“Critical thinking”
“Critical thinking”
“Written communication”
“All are equally important”
“Written communication”
Staff/Administrators
1. ORAL COMMUNICATION
STRENGTHS- Confidence, voice complaints
WEAKNESSES- Improper grammar, presentation skills, addressing the correct office or
issue
OPPORTUNITIES- Potential jobs, real-world issues
THREATS- Will not represent the University well, not prepared for interviews
2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
STRENGTHS- None
WEAKNESSES- Proper grammar, speaking effectively, texting input skills, not willing to
write, lost scholarships, no initiatives, résumé writing, proper pronunciation,
OPPORTUNITIES- Reading and writing lab, freshman orientation
THREATS- Representing the University, Lost scholarships
3. CRITICAL THINKING
STRENGTHS- Analyze when instructed
WEAKNESSES- If you can read, write or communicate you will be unable to execute your
thoughts, lack of being challenged
OPPORTUNITIES- Expansion of opportunities, Holistic approach to things, taking
ownership
THREATS- Offering courses that are challenging
Students
a. “Oral communication and written communication. Students can Google to write. Participated in
mock interview with a company and we were told to work on our oral communication.”
b. “Critical thinking. We need to use thought process prior to speaking and writing.”
c. “Oral communication. Write what you speak.”
d. “Speech? No one critiques speech. There is not enough exposure or practice. There is only one
speech class in curriculum.”
e. “Need more critical thinking embedded in courses. There is a lack of a thought process before
writing. Teachers do not give enough thought-provoking projects, cases, etc.”
f. “Written communication. Some teachers cannot write properly. Some write recommendation
letters with misspelled words.”
g. “Lacking in oral communication.”
h. “Hope the University will address whatever committee selects.”
i. “Teachers have replaced traditional exams which sometimes had open-ended questions or written
answers with multiple choice. Students look for “words” to answer those questions.”
80
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix N: Pilot Results
AAMU Fall Pilot Results
Overview
During fall 2013, a pilot was conducted in two of the discipline areas included in the QEP. This was done
primarily to explore the feasibility of critical thinking (CT) teaching practices and efficacies as well as
testing of rubrics and other assessment tools. One section of MTH 112 and one section of HIS 101 were
selected to allow faculty to incorporate critical thinking activities into the curriculum and to make
changes to classroom teaching styles while using assessment measures that were different than those used
in other sections of the course. Faculty taught at least one other section of the same course that was not
CT enhanced.
QEP Design
MTH 112: Pre-Calculus Algebra
Students will not only solve problems, but they will use metacognition as they explain their solutions in
writing. Faculty believe that expanding the course work into this non-traditional method will enable
students to see their work in a broader context and move them to higher order thinking via analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis.
Faculty teaching mathematics will assess the SLOs using student writing scored with an established and
normed rubric. Even though a general rubric for use throughout the University was developed by the
Design Team, faculty will develop rubrics that assess SLOs. Therefore, mathematics will use written
artifacts as the primary assessment tool.
HIS 101: World History I
Students will not only learn about history, but they will also have the opportunity to understand and use
information around them. Keeping an emphasis on content but expanding teaching to include higher order
thinking skills, faculty believe this will give a broader outlook and appreciation for the purpose and
connection to the course.
The primary mode of assessment in history will be accomplished through common examinations as
described in internal assessment measures. Machine scoring and computer applications will enable quick
analysis of selected questions. The primary mode of assessment in CT-enhanced sections of history will
be multiple-choice examinations that include questions designed to assess specific SLOs. The questions
on these examinations will be faculty-created questions and textbook publisher-supplied questions that are
nationally normed. The emphasis on specific questions and specific SLOs is to ensure that the
examination questions address higher order critical thinking.
81
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Pilot Sections
The math pilot began with a focus on asking students more questions about how (the process used) to
answer problems. These students were given numerous CT-enhanced activities, and a total of four (4) CT
activities were assessed during the semester. Each activity correlated with the lessons followed within the
curriculum from absolute value to quadratic functions and corresponding graph interpretation. Two of
them assessed analysis and evaluation, and the other two assessed synthesis. All CT questions were
graded using the CT rubric for problem solving. The first and second exams contained a bonus question
identified as a CT activity that most students did not even attempt to answer. For subsequent exams, CT
activities were integrated within the overall exam and were not identified as bonus questions.
The history pilot began with an overview of the elements of thought and how they would be used during
the semester while teaching content. The faculty distributed the Guide to Critical Thinking by Paul and
Elder. Throughout the semester, the faculty discussed the various elements of thought. Five (5) critical
thinking assignments were given and each dealt with one or more aspects of CT, such as identifying
relevant information, distinguishing between assumptions and inferences, etc. Some of the assignments
dealt with historical issues in the textbook while others dealt with contemporary issues. In addition,
during lectures and discussion, students were repeatedly required to answer what were the key concepts,
assumptions and/or inferences, and the relevant information in the materials read from class. They were
also required to analyze change over time, cause and effect relationships, and different types of motives.
In addition, the class was required to synthesize information from different time periods.The faculty
member was a member of the Design Team and was exposed to quite a bit of information on what to
teach and how to teach many elements of critical thinking. The faculty member set aside more class time
to specifically talk about the elements of critical thinking, why they were important, and how students
could apply the techniques both to the study of history and real life.
Summary of Outcomes
There were twenty (20) students enrolled in MTH 112 and HIS 101. Sixteen students completed the MTH
112 section, and fifteen students completed the HIS 101 section.
Observations from MTH 112:
The faculty noticed that students seemed intimidated at first with the format of the questions and
wondered if they were intimidated because the CT exercise was a word problem. Some students did not
attempt to answer the identified CT question because it was listed as a bonus even though the instructor
expected students to attempt it to add points to their score. The faculty member concluded that there may
have been several reasons why students did not attempt to answer the question: (1) it was a bonus and
they may have felt that the additional points were not needed, or (2) they truly did not know the material
needed to answer the question.
Most students did attempt the problem given as part of the second exam, which was identified as a critical
thinking exercise. This CT question was listed as a word problem requiring a detailed explanation. The
instructor’s expectation was that students would bypass this exercise. Surprisingly, most students did
attempt this exercise, and even though most made solid attempts and the answers were not as detailed as
82
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
expected, the instructor determined that more work with the students was needed to provide more
thorough responses.
Observations from HIS 101:
Most students demonstrated little inclination or ability to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information at
the start of the semester, preferring instead to just memorize and repeat what was in the textbook.
Students who attended regularly and did the exercises received instruction in critical thinking concepts
and received higher grades in the course as a whole. Moreover, they became more aware of critical
thinking and how to practice it. Those students who did not attend class on a regular basis made few, if
any, gains. Most students were not motivated to do the assignments, seeing them mainly as extra work
that was “harder” than what they were familiar with and not something they really needed. Students were
not expected or required to do this in other courses. Therefore, many of them tended to put minimal effort
into the exercises. Based on the results of the assignments and subjective impressions from class
discussions, those students who actually read the materials provided on critical thinking and completed
the assigned exercises did become somewhat more capable of analyzing and synthesizing information.
However, for most of them, it was only a slight improvement. In summary, a few students made clear
gains; several others improved slightly, while about half of the class made few, if any, gains.
Other observations:
The initial plan was to administer student evaluations on the effectiveness of the CT-enhanced sections
through the OIRPA (Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment). Due to changes in
personnel, the evaluations were not developed and administered to the classes at the end of the semester.
Therefore, no formal feedback was collected.
Lessons Learned and Planned Improvements for Second Pilots and during Implementation






Faculty plan to give more authentic or day-to-day examples and assignments to improve students’
motivation.
More time will be spent on integrating critical thinking activities into teaching course content.
Critical thinking problems/activities will not be identified as such for students.
Student evaluations will be administered as planned by the OIRPA.
Timelines will be set for collecting artifacts, administering evaluations, and gathering other
assessment data.
The assessment coordinator and/or his designee will be responsible for the collection and
administration of all materials.
83
“Dare to Think!”
Alabama A&M University
Appendix O: Marketing Flyer
84