Dr. Randy Swing
Learning Evidence Team Consultation
April 15, 2005, 9:00-11:00 a.m.
Present: Linda Anthon, Nick Bekas, Kira Bishop, Philip Bishop, Mike Bosley, Helen
Clarke, Suzette Duhaney, Emily Hooker, Will Johnson, and Patrick Nellis
In response to questions regarding faculty buy-in to the THINK plan,
Dr. Swing recommended rotating members in and out to broaden the
base of participation. When new people come in, they tend to be
confused but function as a mirror or a signal of the confusion among
the rest of the faculty not involved in the work.
In regard to a standardized critical thinking instrument, he concluded
that there was “no clear pick”. Some had good components but were
not worth the time and effort. Most were multiple choice formats
that were flawed in that they have a reading connection that skews
the results. Essay-based prompts with rubrics like the LET THINK
Rubric work best. The prompts need to be specific enough to
observe a range of behaviors. Teaching students about critical
thinking is a good strategy. It is better to do random sampling
versus large groups. Sticking to program levels is the best use of
rubrics and similar instruments. Critical thinking skills naturally
increase with age and natural maturation so it is hard to attribute
change to interventions or experiences. The CCSEE seems to ask
students the poignant questions that can inform change.
An analysis of long range studies just published by Pascarella in
“Cognitive Impacts of the First Year of College”, shows that the vast
majority of critical thinking growth (86%) occurs in the first year and
stalls after the initial jump. Looking at the THINK Rubric, Dr. Swing
commented that it was about after the first two levels that the stall
occurs: the Beginning and Developing. He conjectured that it is
realistic for students to hit the “Competent” level in the community
college if given guidance and time. Some skills, especially math,
decline with time so need to have value added as students progress
through the stages.
Predictors for success in grades and success rates are now thought
to be related to math levels accomplished in high school and foreign
language exposure. Critical thinking, problem-solving, and logic may
be skills associated with these two areas. Well-educated parents are
also indicators that socioeconomic class is a big factor. Methods of
math teaching may be working but don’t show up in results in the
first year of developmental math. One participant cited that
dispositional variables, the depth, and rigor of the curricula have a
bearing on the problems. Another commented that teaching to
discrete skills seems to be the norm compared to the practicing of
big, messy, skills’ applications that students need for life.
Dr. Swing commented that Supplemental Instruction doesn’t seem to
be working as well in math as in English and reading. In teaching
developmental math, it is more effective to focus on defining and
diagnosing specific problems. There is not a minority gap in reading
as there is in math. More men have difficulty in math than women.
Math is more compartmentalized than writing so needs lots of
repetition.
A student’s grade in developmental math influences the belief in
whether that student feels s/he is capable of graduating or not.
Adelman, in his recent monograph: “Moving into town-and moving
on: The community college in the lives of traditional-age students”,
proposes a more nurturing model with common goals and
assessment to counter the negative perceptions, self-doubt, and
anxiety associated with preparatory math. Students can pass tests
without feeling confident. If students feel confident about math,
they can translate that optimism to their other classes. Students who
exceed their expectations in the first level of math do better, GPA’s,
etc., in their first semester which is a predictor of success over their
entire college experience.
For community colleges, there are two associated challenges: they
get more minority men attending and they have more adjunct faculty
which creates difficulty in making nurturing connections. Dr. Swing
suggested that we must remove social barriers to success as
demonstrated by Community College of Denver’s social work model.
With a 40-50% pass rate in developmental math, there is definitely a
problem. Some colleges are moving away from an algebra skills base
to a statistic model which reinforces life skills. It is hoped that, as a
result of the Lumina Project, that Valencia will commit to tenured
faculty lines for preparatory classes to address the skills and
socialization factors. Dr. Swing reminded the group that the faculty
know a lot but need to be trusted to move into action.