University-Level
Assessment of Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Workshop, May 2010
Standardized Tests
California Critical Thinking Skills
Test (CCTST)
Measure of Academic
Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)
• Summer 2008 Freshmen
• Non- College of Business,
Management and Economics
• 961
• “Process of purposeful, selfregulatory judgment”
• Analysis, Evaluation and
Inference = Total
• Deductive and Inductive =
Total
• Summer 2009 Freshmen
• Random Sample – 60%
• 848 with 824 completing at
least 75%
• Voluntary System of
Accountability
Requirement
• Reading I, Reading II,
Critical Thinking (Reading
III)
California Critical Thinking Skills Test
Number of
Questions
ESU
4-Year College
Total
34
14.57
16.80
Analysis
7
4.09
4.44
Inference
16
6.76
7.85
Evaluation
11
3.72
4.52
Induction
17
8.36
9.53
Deduction
17
6.21
7.27
ESU’s 2009 Freshmen Cohort
Critical Thinking
MAPP
Mean Subscore
126 to 130
125 to 125.99
124 to 124.99
123 to 123.99
122 to 122.99
121 to 121.99
120 to 120.99
119 to 119.99
118 to 118.99
117 to 117.99
116 to 116.99
Skills Subscores
Reading
Writing
No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent
Instns. Below Instns. Below Instns. Below Instns. Below
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
1
98
0
100
0
100
0
100
2
95
0
100
0
100
0
100
3
89
0
100
0
100
0
100
8
75
0
100
0
100
0
100
4
67
0
100
0
100
0
100
17
36
3
95
0
100
115 to 115.99
114 to 114.99
0
0
100
100
4
29
4
22
113 to 113.99
112 to 112.99
111 to 111.99
110 to 110.99
109 to 109.99
1
4
4
8
12
98
91
84
69
47
7
2
1
0
2
108 to 108.99
107 to 107.99
106 to 106.99
100 to 105.99
14
22
0
0
0
0
Number of
Institutions
Mean
Mathematics
7
3
2
9
4
0
5
8
85
71
2
6
96
85
9
5
4
4
0
16
42
14
60
10
7
3
3
24
11
5
0
13
9
5
3
36
20
11
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
5
2
0
0
55
55
55
55
109.30 (108.94)
116.12 (115.27)
113.18 (113.16)
112.29 (113.15)
Reading Level III (Critical Thinking)
Students who are proficient can:
• evaluate competing causal explanations
• evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts
• determine the relevance of information for evaluating an
argument or conclusion
• determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported
by evidence contained in a work
• recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art
• evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for
investigating a question of causation
• evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses
or methods
• recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument
Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress
Next Steps
Reading
• University Assessment
Committee Reading Task
Group
Assessments
• Senior MAPP Results
• Summer Freshmen 2010
and Senior Fall 2010