PROGRAM ASSESSMENT FORM
LEARNING OUTCOMES
FALL 2011 AND SPRING 2012
Name of Program: General Education (Competency in Critical Thinking)
Name of Program Leader: Scott Karakas (Lisa Courcier)
Date: April 23, 2012
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).
Both direct and indirect assessment of student learning of critical thinking skills were
completed for this assessment.
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.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
1

Benchmark 1: (33 points): Identifies and evaluates some key concepts, assumptions
and implications and underlying relationships; synthesizes some information;
occasionally draws appropriate inferences.

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.
For a copy of the scoring rubric as it appeared online, please see Appendix C.
All course students received instructor feedback for their essays, which included specific
feedback for critical thinking skills (Appendix D). 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. In addition,
a trained course preceptor (grading assistant) read each essay, identified only by a CA1 or
CA2 prefix and number, online in the rubric and then clicked on the appropriate criteria
level. ANGEL assigned and recorded the score automatically. Once all the essays were
scored, the data was downloaded for collation and dissemination to the course instructors.
Indirect Assessment – The second part of the assessment plan was to create a student selfassessment survey (Appendix E), and embed it within each ANGEL section of HUM 2510.
Survey questions were based on the critical thinking skills criteria used in the assignment
directions, grading rubric, and critical thinking skills scoring rubric. The student selfassessment was administered during the Fall 2011 semester.
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.
Indirect Assessment – Student feedback regarding their perceived levels of critical thinking
skills was gathered in order to determine how well students were able to gauge their level of
learning. A correlation was then set up between the actual level of learning determined by
the direct assessment and the perceived level of learning determined by the indirect
assessment.
Date(s) of administration.
The direct and indirect assessments were both administered within the course during the
Fall 2011 semester.
Sample (number of students, % of class, level, demographics).
Direct Assessment – After the Critical Analysis Essay I assignments were graded normally,
a randomly-generated sample of 60 student essays - approximately 4.3% of the 1387
students enrolled in the course during the Fall semester - was culled and uploaded to this
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
2
integrated rubric. Each sample essay was scored by three different scorers. The same
process was used for Critical Analysis Essay II.
Indirect Assessment – Using the same essay scoring rubric, students were asked to rate their
own ability to successfully complete the Critical Analysis Essay assignments as: Level 3
(Good), Level 2 (Strong), or Level 1 (Very Strong). A randomly-generated sample of 60
student self-assessments was pulled and compared with the results of the Essay I & II direct
assessments.
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 2011) with those
from last year (Fall 2010).
Fall 2011 results:
The following table summarizes the scores for the two essays during Fall 2011:
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
12
26
16
6
N = 60 essays
Percentage
20%
43%
27%
10%
Number
11
35
10
4
Percentage
18%
58%
17%
7%
For complete assessment data from Fall 2011, please see Appendix F.
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 I to Essay II, expecting to see an improvement in overall scores.
For Essay I, 80% of students scored at Benchmark 1 or higher, with 10% scoring at the
highest level. On Essay II, 82% of students scored at Benchmark 1 or higher, with 7%
scoring at the highest level. The percentage of students scoring at level 0 decreased 2%, and
at Benchmark 1 increased 15%. Scores at Milestones 2 and 3 decreased, by 10% and 3%
respectively. While average student scores declined from 42.2 to 37.1 between Critical
Analysis Essay I and Critical Analysis Essay II, the number and percentage of students
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
3
scoring at Benchmark 1 or higher rose slightly, from 48 to 49 and from 80% to 82%,
suggesting that the overall goal was met.
Course team members suggested three possible reasons for the decline in scores between
the two essay assignments:
1. Timing. The second critical essay assignment is schedule so late in the semester that
many students who have not been working ahead find themselves pressed to be able to
complete this assignment in a meaningful way.
2. Visual arts (critical analysis 1) are easier to analyze for many students than the
performing arts (critical analysis 2). The textbook’s discussion of performing arts does not
lend itself to analysis as easily as the sections on visual arts. This concern is corroborated in
the student self-assessment of their critical thinking abilities in relation to CA1 and CA2.
3. Many students persist in using pop music for their analysis in CA2, even though they text
only discusses classical music, thus putting the students at a distinct disadvantage. Students
often fall into the trap of summarizing the lyrics of the songs rather than analyzing the
music.
Fall 2010 results:
The following table summarizes the scores for Critical Analysis Essays I & II during the
previous assessment in Fall 2010:
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 = 100 essays
Number
28
45
20
7
N = 93 essays
Percentage
28%
45%
20%
7%
Number
18
38
27
10
Percentage
19%
41%
29%
11%
Comparison between the Fall 2010 and Fall 2011 assessments indicated that that, for
Critical Analysis Essay II, the percentage of students scoring at level 0 decreased 1%, and
those scoring at Benchmark 1 increased 17%. Scores at Milestones 2 and 3 decreased from
2010 to 2011, by 12% and 4% respectively. While average student scores declined from
43.7 to 37.1 between the Fall 2010 and Fall 2011 assessments, the percentage of students
scoring at Benchmark 1 or higher rose slightly, from 81% to 82%.
For complete assessment data for Fall 2011, please see Appendix F.
In the next round of assessment (Fall 2012), we will continue to compare scores between
Critical Analysis Essays I and II and also between this round of assessment (Fall 2011) and
the next round (Fall 2012).
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
4
Indirect Assessment
The following table summarizes the responses for the student self-assessed critical thinking
skill level survey:
Critical Analysis
Essay 1
Level
No Response
3 (Good)
2 (Strong)
1 (Very Strong)
Critical Analysis
Essay 2
Level
No Response
3 (Good)
2 (Strong)
1 (Very Strong)
N = 60 responses
Number
0
11
27
22
N = 60 essays
Percentage
0%
18%
45%
37%
Number
6
7
30
17
Percentage
10%
12%
50%
28%
Note that the self-assessment scores appear to run on a 3-2-1 scale from weakest to
strongest, while the essay scores appear to run in the reverse, with a 1-2-3 scale from
weakest to strongest.
In the 2011 indirect assessment for Critical Analysis Essay 1, 82% of students responded
that their critical thinking skills were Strong or better, while in the direct assessment 80%
demonstrated critical thinking skills at Benchmark 1 or above.
In the 2011 indirect assessment for Critical Analysis Essay 2, 78% of students responded
that their critical thinking skills were Strong or better, while in the direct assessment 82%
demonstrated critical thinking skills at Benchmark 1 or above. The decline in student selfassessment of their abilities to analyze works of performing arts seems to corroborate the
decline in overall scores between CA 1 and CA 2.
Inter-rater reliability
In addition to analyzing direct and indirect 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.
The following table summarizes the matching scores for Critical Analysis Essay 2 during
the Fall 2011 assessment:
Critical Analysis
Essay 2
Matching Scores
0
2
3
N = 60 essays
Number
2
39
19
Percentage
3%
65%
32%
For the Fall 2011 assessment, the goal for inter-rater reliability was met, with 97% of essays
receiving matching scores from at least two of the three scorers and 32% receiving the same
score from all three scorers.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
5
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 two years. The new version of the course
was piloted in Spring 2012 concurrently with the old course, and the full version will be
operational in Fall 2012 and will entirely replace the old course.
The new course will continue to require Critical Analysis essays for visual art and
performing art (music.) In order to improve student learning, the following changes have
been instituted:
(1) In the new course, students are prepared more systematically for the task of analysis
with examples, exercises and readings. Students will now be submitting 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
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.
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 – HUM 2510 Critical Thinking Rubric
Scale
Focus/Thesis
Development

Upper
Range-Excellent
(A)


Original & creative thesis that is
narrowly focused
Thesis provides an entrance into
the essay that fully answers all
parts of the question




Upper
Range-Strong (B)
Middle
Range—
Good
(C)
Lower
Range—
Poor
(D/F)






Strong thesis that is focused
Thesis provides an entrance into
the essay that fully answers all
parts of the question



Thesis exists but is mechanical
or expected and not original or
creative
Essay may not answer all parts
of the question


Nonexistent or inadequate
thesis
Essay fails to address the
question adequately

Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
Unity & Coherence
Creative and highly analytical content;
excellent observations with strong
support
Uses text terminology knowledgeably
and effectively
Goes beyond description or plot
summary
Accomplished and creative use of
critical thinking skills
Strong analysis with adequate
support, demonstrated use of critical
thinking skills
Occasional reliance on description or
plot summary
Good use of text terminology
demonstrates understanding of terms
Adequate but unremarkable analysis;
some use of support and critical
thinking skills; heavy reliance on
description or plot summary
Uses text terminology in a way that
demonstrates understanding, though
may be limited
Little to no analysis: plot summary
and/or description only; little to no
support or critical thinking evident.
Uses text terminology in a way that
fails to demonstrate understanding or
does not use text terminology
11












Essay stays on topic
throughout; fully answers all
parts of the question
Smooth transitions between
topics; strong and coherent
flow
Meets length requirements
Essay stays on topic but does
not always clearly connect
the development to the thesis
Generally good flow from one
topic to another
Meets length requirements
Essay strays from topic on
occasion
Mechanical flow from one
topic to another
Meets length requirements
Essay does not stay on topic
Awkward format with poor
flow between topics
Does not meet length
requirements
Mechanics

No spelling,
mechanical, or
grammatical errors

Minor spelling,
mechanical, or
grammatical errors
exist but do not
impede reading or
comprehension

Minor spelling,
mechanical, or
grammatical errors
that somewhat
impede reading or
comprehension

Spelling,
mechanical, or
grammatical errors
proliferate
APPENDIX D – 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)
12
APPENDIX E – Critical Thinking Self-Assessment Online Survey
Insert online survey text.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
13
APPENDIX F – Assessment Data for HUM 2510, Fall 2011
CA 1
ID
CA
1-1
CA
1-2
CA
1-3
CA
1-4
CA
1-5
CA
1-6
CA
1-7
CA
1-8
CA
1-9
CA
1-10
CA
1-11
CA
1-12
CA
1-13
CA
1-14
CA
1-15
CA
1-16
CA
1-17
CA
1-18
CA
1-19
CA
1-20
CA
1-21
CA
1-22
CA
1-23
Self-Assessed CT Skill Level
Poi
Level
nts
Level 3
(Good)
33
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
67
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 2
(Strong)
0
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 2
(Strong)
0
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
100
Level 2
(Strong)
67
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
0
Level 2
(Strong)
33
Level 3
(Good)
33
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
100
Level 2
(Strong)
100
Level 2
(Strong)
0
Level 2
(Strong)
67
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
0
Level 2
(Strong)
0
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
67
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
100
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
100
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 2
(Strong)
33
Preceptor 1
Score
Preceptor 2
Score
Rubric
Poi
nts
Rubric
Scor
er 3
Point
s
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
33
Milestone 2
67
Milestone 2
67
Benchmark
Lower
Range
33
Benchmark
33
67
67
Benchmark
Lower
Range
0
Milestone 2
Lower
Range
33
Benchmark
33
Milestone 3
100
Milestone 2
100
Milestone 2
100
Milestone 3
67
Benchmark
Lower
Range
33
Benchmark
33
67
Milestone 2
0
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
33
Benchmark
33
Benchmark
33
Milestone 3
100
Milestone 3
100
Milestone 3
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
100
33
Benchmark
0
Milestone 2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
67
100
Milestone 3
0
67
Milestone 2
67
Milestone 2
67
Milestone 2
67
Milestone 3
100
Milestone 3
100
Milestone 3
100
100
Benchmark
0
Milestone 3
Lower
Range
Benchmark
33
Benchmark
33
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
33
33
Rubric
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 3
Milesto
ne 3
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Milesto
ne 2
Milesto
ne 3
Milesto
ne 3
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
CA 1 Final Score
Poi
nts
Rubric
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
100
e2
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Lower
0
Range
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
100
e3
Mileston
100
e3
Lower
0
Range
Mileston
67
e2
Lower
0
Range
Mileston
67
e2
Mileston
67
e2
Mileston
100
e3
Mileston
100
e3
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
CA 2
ID
CA21
CA22
CA23
CA24
CA25
CA26
CA27
CA28
CA29
CA210
CA211
CA212
CA213
CA214
CA215
CA216
CA217
CA218
CA219
CA220
CA221
CA222
CA223
Self-Assessed CT
Skill Level
Level
Precept 1
Score
Poi
nts
Level 2 (Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
No response
33
Level 3 (Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 3 (Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
0
67
33
33
67
100
100
0
0
67
Level 3 (Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
100
Level 2 (Strong)
67
Level 3 (Good)
33
No response
0
14
33
33
Rubric
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Milestone
3
Milestone
3
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
3
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Precept 2
Score
Poi
nts
0
67
33
100
67
33
67
100
100
67
33
33
67
33
33
33
67
0
67
100
33
0
100
Rubric
Lower
Range
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Milestone
3
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Milestone
3
Milestone
3
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Lower
Range
Milestone
2
Milestone
3
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Milestone
3
Scor
er 3
Point
s
0
33
33
33
33
33
67
33
33
67
33
0
100
100
33
33
33
33
33
100
67
33
33
Rubric
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 3
Milesto
ne 3
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 3
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
CA 2 Final Score
Poi
nts
Rubric
Lower
0
Range
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Lower
0
Range
Mileston
100
e3
Mileston
100
e3
Benchma
33
rk
Lower
33
Range
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
Mileston
100
e3
Mileston
67
e2
Benchma
33
rk
Benchma
33
rk
CA
1-24
CA
1-25
CA
1-26
CA
1-27
CA
1-28
CA
1-29
CA
1-30
CA
1-31
CA
1-32
CA
1-33
CA
1-34
CA
1-35
CA
1-36
CA
1-37
CA
1-38
CA
1-39
CA
1-40
CA
1-41
CA
1-42
CA
1-43
CA
1-44
CA
1-45
CA
1-46
CA
1-47
CA
1-48
CA
1-49
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
CA
Level 2
0
Lower
Range
100
Milestone 3
0
33
Benchmark
33
33
33
Benchmark
0
67
Milestone 2
0
67
Milestone 2
0
Benchmark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
33
Benchmark
100
Milestone 3
33
33
Benchmark
33
Benchmark
33
100
Milestone 3
33
Benchmark
100
33
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
67
33
Benchmark
33
33
67
Milestone 2
0
Benchmark
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
67
67
Milestone 2
0
33
Benchmark
0
Benchmark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
67
100
Milestone 3
0
67
Milestone 2
67
33
Benchmark
33
67
Milestone 2
0
33
Benchmark
33
67
Milestone 2
0
0
Benchmark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
0
33
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
33
67
Milestone 2
33
Benchmark
67
33
Benchmark
33
33
67
Milestone 2
0
Benchmark
Lower
Range
67
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 3
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Milesto
ne 2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
33
Benchmark
33
Benchmark
33
Benchm
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
33
0
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
33
67
67
67
CA224
CA225
CA226
CA227
CA228
CA229
CA230
CA231
CA232
CA233
CA234
CA235
CA236
CA237
CA238
CA239
CA240
CA241
CA242
CA243
CA244
CA245
CA246
CA247
CA248
CA249
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
67
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong
0
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 3 (Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
No response
33
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
100
67
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e2
Mileston
e2
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e3
Mileston
e2
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e2
Mileston
e2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Mileston
e2
Lower
Range
Mileston
e2
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e2
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e2
33
Benchma
CA2-
0
33
33
67
67
33
33
100
67
33
67
67
0
0
67
0
67
33
0
33
0
0
33
67
33
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
0
No response
0
Level 2 (Strong)
33
No response
33
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong.
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Milestone
3
Lower
Range
Milestone
3
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Level 3 (Good)
67
Milestone
No response
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
15
0
0
100
0
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Milestone
3
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
3
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
67
Milestone
33
33
67
33
0
33
100
0
33
33
0
0
33
33
100
67
33
33
33
67
67
33
67
33
0
33
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 3
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
67
Milesto
67
33
33
0
0
33
33
33
33
33
0
33
33
33
100
0
0
33
33
33
33
0
33
33
33
33
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e3
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
67
Mileston
67
33
33
0
0
33
33
33
33
33
0
33
33
33
100
0
0
33
33
33
33
0
33
33
33
1-50
(Strong)
CA
1-51
CA
1-52
CA
1-53
CA
1-54
CA
1-55
CA
1-56
CA
1-57
CA
1-58
CA
1-59
CA
1-60
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 2
(Strong
Level 2
(Strong)
Level 3
(Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
Level 2
(Strong)
ark
33
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
33
33
Benchmark
33
Benchmark
33
33
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
33
33
Benchmark
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
33
100
Milestone 3
0
33
Benchmark
33
33
Benchmark
33
67
Milestone 2
67
0
Benchmark
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
67
Milestone 2
0
33
Benchmark
67
Milestone 2
33
0
33
0
0
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Lower
Range
Benchm
ark
33
33
33
33
0
33
33
67
0
33
42.
2
rk
50
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Lower
Range
Mileston
e2
Lower
Range
Benchma
rk
Average
Score
CA251
CA252
CA253
CA254
CA255
CA256
CA257
CA258
CA259
CA260
2
Level 2 (Strong)
Level 1 (Very
Strong
67
Level 2 (Strong)
67
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 2 (Strong)
67
Level 2 (Strong)
0
Level 3 (Good)
Level 1 (Very
Strong)
33
Level 2 (Strong)
33
33
33
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Milestone
2
Lower
Range
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
2
100
67
33
67
67
67
0
67
33
33
Milestone
3
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Milestone
2
Milestone
2
Milestone
2
Lower
Range
Milestone
2
Benchmar
k
Benchmar
k
ne 2
67
33
67
0
0
67
0
67
33
33
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Milesto
ne 2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Lower
Range
Milesto
ne 2
Benchm
ark
Benchm
ark
Self-Assessment Answer
Choices:
Level 1 (Very Strong): I demonstrated 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.
Level 2 (Strong): I defined key concepts. I also identified and evaluated underlying relationships effectively; I identified assumptions and implications; I synthesized information well; I drew
reasoned inferences.
Level 3 (Good): I identified and evaluated some key concepts assumptions and implications and underlying relationships; I synthesized some information and I occasionally drew
appropriate inferences.
Level 4 (Not so strong): I didn't really identify or evaluate key concepts and/or underlying relationships and/or assumptions and implications; I didn't synthesize information very well; my inferences were usually either
inappropriate or I didn't make any.
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment (General Education)
16
e2
67
33
67
0
0
67
0
67
33
33
37.
1
Mileston
e2
Benchma
rk
Mileston
e2
Lower
Range
Lower
Range
Mileston
e2
Lower
Range
Mileston
e2
Benchma
rk
Benchma
rk
Average
Score