PROGRAM ASSESSMENT FORM
LEARNING OUTCOMES
FALL 2012 AND SPRING 2013
Name of Program: General Education (Competency in Critical Thinking)
Name of Program Leader: Kris De Welde (Lisa Courcier)
Date: March 28, 2013
LEARNING OUTCOME(S)
This assessment focused on General Education Competency 3: Critical Thinking, within the
required General Education Humanities course HUM 2510 – Understanding Visual and
Performing Arts. Student achievement criteria for the General Education Competency in
Critical Thinking are listed below.
Competency 3: Critical Thinking
 Define an issue or problem using appropriate terminology;
 Select, organize, and evaluate information;
 Identify and analyze assumptions made by oneself and others;
 Synthesize information, and draw reasoned inferences;
 Develop and clearly state a position, taking into account all relevant points of view;
 Formulate an informed and logical conclusion, and test it for viability.
HUM 2510 is a good subject for this assessment as one of its stated Learning Goals is to
“develop critical thinking skills for analyzing individual works of visual and performing art.”
For a complete list of the FGCU General Education Competencies, please see Appendix A.
ASSESSMENT PLAN
Name and brief description of the instruments/rubrics. (Attach a copy of the instrument to this
document if appropriate).
Only direct assessment of student learning of critical thinking skills was completed for this
assessment, having completed both direct and indirect in the past.
Direct Assessment – The HUM 2510 assessment team utilized a critical thinking skills
scoring rubric, adapted from the Critical Thinking VALUE (Validated Assessment of
Undergraduate Education) rubric provided by the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (Appendix B). The rubric consisted of 4 possible levels: Lower Range (Poor),
Benchmark (Good), Milestone 2 (Strong), and Milestone 3 (Very Strong—reserved only for
highest essays). The criteria were taken directly from the essay grading rubric currently
used in HUM 2510 and noted in the course’s essay assignment directions. The rubric was
based on a 100-point scale to accommodate the ANGEL calculation system.

Lower Range (0 points): Fails to identify or evaluate key concepts and/or
underlying relationships and/or assumptions and implications; synthesizes
information poorly; draws inappropriate or no inferences.
 Benchmark 1: (33 points): Identifies and evaluates some key concepts, assumptions
and implications and underlying relationships; synthesizes some information;
occasionally draws appropriate inferences.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
1

Milestone 2 (67 points): Defines key concepts. Identifies and evaluates underlying
relationships effectively; identifies assumptions and implications; synthesizes
information well; draws reasoned inferences.

Milestone 3 (100 points): Accomplished and creative use of critical thinking skills,
including a high level of defining key concepts, organizing and synthesizing
information, identifying assumptions and implications, and drawing reasoned
inferences.
All course students received instructor feedback for their essays, which included specific
feedback for critical thinking skills (Appendix C). The first set of essays, Critical Thinking
I, were graded and the students were provided feedback. The scoring team used the rubric to
score 60 randomly selected essays. The process was then repeated with the same sample of
students for the Critical Analysis Essay II assignment, to determine if the feedback had
helped to improve student achievement in critical thinking skills. Once all the essays were
scored, the data was downloaded for collation and dissemination to the faculty for review.
Brief description of what is to be assessed/measured.
Direct Assessment – A random sampling of 60 student Critical Thinking essays in HUM
2510 Understanding Visual and Performing Arts was gathered and assessed using the HUM
2510 Critical Thinking Rubric. For these essays, students are expected to analyze a work of
visual art (essay one) and performing art (essay two) using the content knowledge that they
have learned in the course. The purpose of the essays is to have students apply the content
knowledge, demonstrating their ability to think critically about works of art.
Date(s) of administration.
The direct assessment was administered within the course during the Fall 2012 semester.
Sample (number of students, % of class, level, demographics).
Direct Assessment – After the Critical Analysis Essay I (Paper 2 in Fall 12) assignments
were graded normally, a randomly-generated sample of 60 student essays - approximately
4.02% of the 1492 students enrolled in the course during the Fall 2012semester - was culled
and uploaded to this integrated rubric. Each sample essay was scored by three different
scorers. The same process was used for Critical Analysis Essay II (Paper 4 in Fall12).
DATA ANALYSIS
Direct Assessment
The first goal of the assessment process was to determine if student scores improved
between Critical Analysis Essay I and Critical Analysis Essay II. Students received
feedback on their writing and critical thinking after they completed the first essay.
The second goal was to compare scores from this year’s assessment (Fall 2012) with those
from last year (Fall 2011).
Fall 2012 results:
The following table summarizes the scores for the two essays during Fall 2012:
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
2
Critical Analysis
Essay 1
Score
0
1 (33)
2 (67)
3 (100)
Critical Analysis
Essay 2
Score
0
1 (33)
2 (67)
3 (100)
N = 60 essays
Number
1
23
30
6
N = 60 essays
Percentage
1.7%
38.3%
50%
10%
Number
4
29
22
5
Percentage
6.7%
48.3%
36.7%
8.3%
For complete assessment data from Fall 2012, please see Appendix D.
Students were expected to score primarily at a Benchmark 1 with many students achieving
at Milestone 2. Milestone 3 is high performing and would generally be above the level of
student achievement for a General Education class. More importantly, we tracked student
scores from Essay 1 to Essay 2, expecting to see an improvement in overall scores.
For Essay I, 98.3% of students scored at Benchmark 1 or higher, with 10% scoring at the
highest level. On Essay II, 93.3% of students scored at Benchmark 1 or higher, with 8.3%
scoring at the highest level. Students continue to score lower overall in the second essay,
though our past experience has offered an understanding of why this is the case. Some of
the possible reasons are as noted in our report last year:



Timing: the second critical analysis paper was scheduled so late in the semester that
students were pressed to complete it in a meaningful way;
More perceived difficulty in analyzing performing arts, augmented by a textbook
whose discussion of the performing arts did not lend itself well to analysis;
Students’ decision to analyze pop music—and lyrics—rather than the Classical
music discussed in the textbook often put them at a distinct disadvantage.
Fall 12 circumstances, in which students no longer had the option of analyzing pop
music and the redesigned course used a new text, caused course team members to
suggest possible reasons for the decline in scores between the first and second essays.
1. Again it appears that visual arts (critical analysis 1) are easier to analyze for many
students than the performing arts (critical analysis 2). While both the visual arts and
performing arts sections of the new online course materials cover technical aspects of
each arts field, the performing arts lessons, discussing distinct elements of music theory
largely through aural representaion, do not lend themselves to analysis as easily as do
the visual arts lessons, in which students are to a greater extent led to consider how the
disparate elements and principles discussed work together to create a whole.
2. Critical Analysis Essay II (Paper 4 in Fall 12), had two foci: technical music analysis
and classical music concert attendance. For many students this was their first
experience with either event. The conjunction of two unfamiliar experiences appeared
to put some students at a disadvantage, as they seemed only to focus on one or the other
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
3
of the two paper components, and thus had difficulty in synthesizing the two parts into a
coherent analysis.
A comparison of student scores from Fall 2011 to Fall 2012, however, does show
improvement in the overall scores:
Critical Analysis
Essay 1
Score
0
1 (33)
2 (67)
3 (100)
Critical Analysis
Essay 2
Score
0
1 (33)
2 (67)
3 (100)
Critical Analysis
Essay Scores
Combined
Score
0
1 (33)
2 (67)
3 (100)
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Difference
Number
1
23
30
6
Number
12
26
16
6
-11
-3
+14
even
Number
4
29
22
5
Fall 2012
Number
11
35
10
4
Fall 2011
-7
-6
+12
+1
Difference
Number
5
52
52
11
Number
23
61
26
10
-18
-9
+14
+1
On the whole, the number of students achieving at the bottom end of the scale for both
essays (combined) with a score of 0 decreased from 23 to 5. The number of students with a
score of 1 also decreased from 61 to 52, redistributing scores to the higher range. The total
(combined) number of students achieving at higher ends of the scale thus increased: for a
score of 2 from 26 to 52 and for a score of 3 from 10 to 11. The changes that have been
made to the course structure, including increased support for student learning and
engagement with the material, has apparently led to an increase in student scores on these
essays.
In the next round of assessment (Fall 2013), we will continue to compare scores between
Critical Analysis Essays I and II and also between this round of assessment (Fall 2012) and
the next round (Fall 2013).
Indirect Assessment
There was no indirect assessment in Fall 2012.
Inter-rater reliability
In addition to analyzing direct assessment scores, we also analyzed inter-rater reliability in
the scoring of the essays. The goal is for 85% of essays receive the same score from at least
two of the three scorers.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
4
The following table summarizes the matching scores for Critical Analysis Essay 1 (Paper 2,
in Fall 12) during the Fall 2012 assessment:
Critical Analysis
Essay 1
Matching Scores
0
2
3
N = 60 essays
Number
0
26
34
Percentage
0%
43%
57%
For the Fall 2012 assessment, the goal for inter-rater reliability was met in Critical Analysis
Essay I, with 100% of essays receiving matching scores from at least two of the three
scorers and 57% receiving the same score from all three scorers.
The following table summarizes the matching scores for Critical Analysis Essay 2 (Paper 4,
in Fall 12) during the Fall 12 assessment:
Critical Analysis
Essay 2
Matching Scores
0
2
3
N = 60 essays
Number
0
17
43
Percentage
0%
28.3%
71.7%
For the Fall 2012 assessment, the goal for inter-rater reliability was met in Essay 2, with
100% of essays receiving matching scores from at least two of the three scorers and 71.7%
receiving the same score from all three scorers.
USE OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING
Recommended changes based on assessment findings. Include plan for sending substantive
changes to department/college/university curriculum teams.
HUM 2510 has been under revision for the past three years. The new version of the course
was piloted in Spring 2012 concurrently with the old course, and the full version became
operational in Fall 2012, entirely replacing the old course.
The new course continues to require Critical Analysis essays for visual art and performing
art (music.) In order to improve student learning, the following changes were instituted,
along with refinements for future semesters:
(1) In the new course, students are prepared more systematically for the task of analysis
with examples, exercises, and readings. Students now submit journal entries in addition to
their other written work. Journal entries are a low-stakes way to give students practice with
the different components of analysis before they have to write papers.
(2) The new course conceptualizes the steps of critical analysis more explicitly. The
hermeneutic process is broken down into five distinct steps or information-gathering stages:
Personal (affective) response; Description; Formal Analysis; Historical / cultural
contextualization; Interpretation. The last step, Interpretation, is a synthesis that takes into
account the other four steps or categories of information that are normally used to
understand or interpret a given work. This structure accords well with the way critical
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
5
thinking is normally defined since it is based on the collection of evidence, the examination
and analysis of evidence, and the formulation of an informed, critical hypothesis and the
testing of that hypothesis against the known facts.
(3) New assignments and rubrics have been written to guide students through the process
and reduce the level of contamination of evidence from mechanical problems such as failing
to understand the assignment or picking the wrong kind of work to analyze. The new
rubrics provide a fine-grained assessment of outcomes that includes assessment of critical
thinking skills. In other words, critical thinking is now integrated into the grading rubric
rather than being assessed separately as in the past. The more fine-grained and explicit
rubrics should help to improve assessment reliability across the whole course and eliminate
the need for a separate sampling and assessment process for critical thinking.
(4) Critical thinking skills are now given more explicit emphasis in assignments, rubrics
and feedback comments. Faculty will be encouraged to take all opportunities to comment
on critical thinking and point out examples where a lack of critical thinking led to unwanted
results.
These changes were continued in Spring 2013, with refinements and additional changes:
The critical analysis papers now mandate use of downloadable templates that contain
section headings for each part of the paper. The paper instructions are keyed to each section
of the template, guiding students through what is expected in each part of the paper. This
formal framework directs students into more focused writing than did the previous
semesters’ freeform essay assignment. The structure should define the papers more
effectively, concentrating the analysis. There is far less room for filler or vague generalities
(and it is more evident to graders). Along with creating more concrete areas on which to
focus, leading “questions to consider” in the instructions should help foment more critical
analysis in which information is gathered and synthesized, and inferences drawn.
Critical Analysis Essay II (Paper 4 in Fall 12) has been changed to Paper 3, moving it
earlier in the course schedule and alleviating the end-of-the-semester time constraints that
may have affected this paper’s scores in previous semesters. As well, the assignment has
been changed from the dual emphasis of music analysis and the classical music concert
experience to analysis of one of a selection of recorded music located in the course site.
This change should positively affect essay scores in several ways. Separating music analysis
from first-time concert attendance should relieve the problems attendant to combining two
new experiences—technical music analysis and classical music concert attendance—and
allow students to focus better on the single task of analyzing the music. Students’ response
to the classical music concert experience is now covered in the fourth paper of the semester.
As well, the new performing arts critical analysis essay (Paper 3) instructions emphasize
practice in listening to, describing, and analyzing music. Because the paper is now due
earlier, well before the performing arts section of the course has been completed, students
are encouraged to use their own words to describe and analyze what they are hearing,
further focusing description and analysis by relieving the pressure of combining first-time
music analysis with mastery of technical terminology. Students also are warned specifically
against using any outside sources, a restriction that removes another element that tended to
diffuse analysis in previous iterations of the paper.
Describe how data and recommendations were shared with faculty. (Attach a copy of minutes to
this document if applicable).
Information from this report has been shared with course faculty and preceptors by the
HUM 2510 assessment team and course coordinator. The process for revising the course is
ongoing and has been inclusive and transparent.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
6
APPENDIX A – FGCU General Education Competencies
Competency 1: Quantitative Reasoning
 Solve mathematical problems;
 Analyze and interpret quantitative data;
 Summarize data into graphic and tabular formats;
 Make valid inferences from data;
 Distinguish between valid and invalid quantitative analysis and reasoning.

Competency 2: Written Communication
 Employ the conventions of standard written English;
 Select a topic, and develop it for a specific audience and purpose, with respect for diverse
perspectives;
 Organize and present relevant content with coherence, clarity, and unity;
 Develop research skills including the ability to collect, analyze, synthesize, and accurately
present and document information;
 Use appropriate language to convey meaning effectively;
 Apply critical reading skills.

Competency 3: Critical Thinking
 Define an issue or problem using appropriate terminology;
 Select, organize, and evaluate information;
 Identify and analyze assumptions made by oneself and others;
 Synthesize information, and draw reasoned inferences;
 Develop and clearly state a position, taking into account all relevant points of view;
 Formulate an informed and logical conclusion, and test it for viability.
History: Approved by General Education Council on 11/2/05; revised and approved on 4/12/11
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
7
APPENDIX B – AAC&U Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric
CRITICAL THINKING VALUE RUBRIC
for more information, please contact value@aacu.org
The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process
that examined many existing campus rubrics and related documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The
rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of
attainment. The rubrics are intended for institutional-level use in evaluating and discussing student learning, not for grading. The core expectations
articulated in all 15 of the VALUE rubrics can and should be translated into the language of individual campuses, disciplines, and even courses. The utility
of the VALUE rubrics is to position learning at all undergraduate levels within a basic framework of expectations such that evidence of learning can by
shared nationally through a common dialog and understanding of student success.
Definition
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or
formulating an opinion or conclusion.
Framing Language
This rubric is designed to be transdisciplinary, reflecting the recognition that success in all disciplines requires habits of inquiry and analysis that
share common attributes. Further, research suggests that successful critical thinkers from all disciplines increasingly need to be able to apply those habits
in various and changing situations encountered in all walks of life.
This rubric is designed for use with many different types of assignments and the suggestions here are not an exhaustive list of possibilities. Critical
thinking can be demonstrated in assignments that require students to complete analyses of text, data, or issues. Assignments that cut across presentation
mode might be especially useful in some fields. If insight into the process components of critical thinking (e.g., how information sources were evaluated
regardless of whether they were included in the product) is important, assignments focused on student reflection might be especially illuminating.
•
•
•
•
•
Glossary
The definitions that follow were developed to clarify terms and concepts used in this rubric only.
Ambiguity: Information that may be interpreted in more than one way.
Assumptions: Ideas, conditions, or beliefs (often implicit or unstated) that are "taken for granted or accepted as true without proof." (quoted from
www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumptions)
Context: The historical, ethical. political, cultural, environmental, or circumstantial settings or conditions that influence and complicate the
consideration of any issues, ideas, artifacts, and events.
Literal meaning: Interpretation of information exactly as stated. For example, "she was green with envy" would be interpreted to mean that her
skin was green.
Metaphor: Information that is (intended to be) interpreted in a non-literal way. For example, "she was green with envy" is intended to convey an
intensity of emotion, not a skin color.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
8
CRITICAL THINKING VALUE RUBRIC
for more information, please contact value@aacu.org
Definition
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or
conclusion.
Evaluators are encouraged to assign a zero to any work sample or collection of work that does not meet benchmark (cell one) level performance.
Capstone
Milestones
Benchmark
4
3
Explanation of issues
Issue/problem to be
considered critically is
stated clearly and described
comprehensively,
delivering all relevant
information necessary for
full understanding.
Issue/problem to be
considered critically is stated,
described, and clarified so that
understanding is not seriously
impeded by omissions.
Issue/problem to be
considered critically is stated
but description leaves some
terms undefined, ambiguities
unexplored, boundaries
undetermined, and/or
backgrounds unknown.
Issue/problem to be considered
critically is stated without clarification
or description.
Evidence
Selecting and using information to
investigate a point of view or
conclusion
Information is taken from
source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation
to develop a
comprehensive analysis or
synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are
questioned thoroughly.
Information is taken from
source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to
develop a coherent analysis or
synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are
subject to questioning.
Information is taken from
source(s) with some
interpretation/evaluation, but
not enough to develop a
coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are
taken as mostly fact, with little
questioning.
Information is taken from source(s)
without any interpretation/evaluation.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as
fact, without question.
Influence of context and
assumptions
Thoroughly (systematically
and methodically) analyzes
own and others'
assumptions and carefully
evaluates the relevance of
contexts when presenting a
position.
Identifies own and others'
assumptions and several
relevant contexts when
presenting a position.
Questions some assumptions.
Identifies several relevant
contexts when presenting a
position. May be more aware
of others' assumptions than
one's own (or vice versa).
Shows an emerging awareness of
present assumptions (sometimes labels
assertions as assumptions). Begins to
identify some contexts when
presenting a position.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
2
9
1
Student's position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis)
Specific position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) is
imaginative, taking into
account the complexities
of an issue.
Limits of position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) are
acknowledged.
Others' points of view are
synthesized within position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis).
Specific position (perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) takes into
account the complexities of an
issue.
Others' points of view are
acknowledged within position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis).
Specific position (perspective, Specific position (perspective,
thesis/hypothesis)
thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but is
acknowledges different sides of simplistic and obvious.
an issue.
Conclusions and related
outcomes (implications and
consequences)
Conclusions and related
outcomes (consequences
and implications) are
logical and reflect student’s
informed evaluation and
ability to place evidence
and perspectives discussed
in priority order.
Conclusion is logically tied to a
range of information, including
opposing viewpoints; related
outcomes (consequences and
implications) are identified
clearly.
Conclusion is logically tied to
information (because
information is chosen to fit the
desired conclusion); some
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are identified
clearly.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
10
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to
some of the information discussed;
related outcomes (consequences and
implications) are oversimplified.
APPENDIX C – Critical Thinking Skills Comments for Critical Analysis Essays

Very strong use of critical thinking skills! Accomplished and creative use of critical thinking skills, including a high level of defining key concepts,
organizing and synthesizing information, identifying assumptions and implications, and drawing reasoned inferences. Great work!

Strong use of critical thinking skills! You define key concepts and identify and evaluate underlying relationships effectively. You identify assumptions
and implications, synthesize information well, and draw reasoned inferences. Nice job!

Good use of critical thinking skills. You identify and evaluate some key concepts, assumptions and implications and underlying relationships. You
synthesize some information and occasionally draw appropriate inferences, all of which is a good start. Build on it to strengthen your writing even more.

Your critical thinking skills need strengthening. Critical thinking requires that you consider all available evidence; identify and evaluate underlying
assumptions, implications and relationships, synthesize information well, and draw appropriate inferences. Some or all of these steps were missing in
your paper. Often, just applying simple logic and common sense will help you evaluate evidence and synthesize more critically. Working on these skills
should enable you to produce a stronger essay.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
11
APPENDIX D – Assessment Data for HUM 2510, Fall 2012
Paper
4
FINAL
Paper 2 Fall 12 score
33
33
3
33
3
33
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
67
67
67
3
33
3
33
33
67
33
33
4
67
4
67
B-5
33
33
33
33
5
100
4
67
67
B-6
100
100
100
100
5
100
5
100
67
B-7
67
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
100
100
B-8
100
100
100
100
5
100
5
100
67
67
67
B-9
33
67
33
33
4
67
4
67
0
33
33
33
B-10
33
33
33
33
3
33
4
67
100
67
67
67
B-11
100
100
100
100
5
100
5
100
33
100
100
100
B-12
100
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-13
33
33
33
33
B-13
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-14
33
100
100
100
B-14
67
67
67
67
5
100
4
67
A-15
33
33
33
33
B-15
67
67
67
67
4
67
5
100
A-16
33
100
33
33
B-16
33
67
33
33
3
33
3
33
A-17
33
100
33
33
B-17
33
33
33
33
5
100
4
67
A-18
33
67
33
33
B-18
67
33
33
33
3
33
4
67
A-19
67
100
67
67
B-19
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-20
100
100
100
100
B-20
67
67
67
67
5
100
5
100
A-21
33
33
33
33
B-21
33
67
33
33
5
100
5
100
A-22
67
67
67
67
B-22
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-23
67
67
67
67
B-23
0
0
0
0
4
67
3
33
A-24
0
0
0
0
B-24
100
100
100
100
4
67
4
67
A-25
67
67
67
67
B-25
67
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-26
67
33
67
67
B-26
0
33
0
0
3
33
3
33
A-27
100
67
67
67
B-27
67
67
67
67
4
67
5
100
Scorer
1
Scorer
2
Scorer
1
Scorer
2
A-1
67
67
67
67
B-1
33
33
A-2
67
33
33
A-3
33
33
33
33
B-2
67
33
B-3
67
A-4
67
67
67
67
B-4
A-5
33
33
33
33
A-6
A-7
100
67
67
100
67
67
A-8
100
100
A-9
67
A-10
A-11
A-12
Paper 2
Paper 2
FINAL
Scorer 3
Paper
4
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
Scorer 3
12
CT Skills
Rubric
Equivalent
CT Skills
Rubric
Equivalent
Paper 4 Fall 12
score
A-28
33
33
33
33
B-28
33
33
33
33
3
33
3
33
A-29
67
33
33
33
B-29
67
67
67
67
5
100
4
67
A-30
67
67
67
67
B-30
67
67
67
67
4
67
5
100
A-31
67
67
67
67
B-31
67
67
67
67
5
100
5
100
A-32
33
33
33
33
B-32
0
0
0
0
4
67
3
33
A-33
67
33
33
33
B-33
33
67
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-34
67
67
67
67
B-34
67
67
67
67
3
33
5
100
A-35
67
100
67
67
B-35
67
67
67
67
3
33
5
100
A-36
67
100
67
67
B-36
67
100
67
67
4
67
5
100
A-37
33
100
33
33
B-37
67
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-38
67
33
33
33
B-38
33
67
67
67
5
100
4
67
A-39
67
33
33
33
B-39
33
33
33
33
3
33
3
33
A-40
33
33
33
33
B-40
33
67
33
33
3
33
3
33
A-41
33
33
33
33
B-41
67
100
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-42
33
33
33
33
B-42
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-43
67
100
67
67
B-43
100
100
100
100
3
33
5
100
A-44
67
67
67
67
B-44
33
33
33
33
5
100
4
67
A-45
100
100
100
100
B-45
100
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-46
33
33
33
33
B-46
0
0
0
0
3
33
3
33
A-47
67
67
67
67
B-47
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-48
100
33
33
33
B-48
33
67
33
33
5
100
5
100
A-49
67
67
67
67
B-49
33
33
33
33
5
100
5
100
A-50
33
67
33
33
B-50
33
67
33
33
3
33
4
67
A-51
67
33
67
67
B-51
33
67
33
33
4
67
5
100
A-52
100
67
67
67
B-52
67
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-53
100
100
100
100
B-53
33
33
33
33
5
100
4
67
A-54
67
67
67
67
B-54
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-55
67
67
67
67
B-55
67
67
67
67
5
100
4
67
A-56
67
67
67
67
B-56
33
33
33
33
4
67
3
33
A-57
67
67
67
67
B-57
67
67
67
67
5
100
5
100
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
13
A-58
67
67
67
67
B-58
33
33
33
33
4
67
4
67
A-59
67
67
67
67
B-59
67
67
67
67
4
67
4
67
A-60
100
67
67
67
Paper 2
Average:
56.15
Paper 2
Consensus:
57%
*Consensus in terms of all three
scorers
B-60
33
33
33
Paper 4
Average:
Paper 4
Consensus:
33
4
67
5
100
48.85
Paper 2 Average
68.42
Paper 4 Average
71.7%
Paper 2 Assessment & Fall 12 Consensus: 50%
Paper 4 Assessment & Fall 12 Consensus: 36.7%
*Consensus based on Final Score and Fall 12 scores.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
14
70.67