Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities...

42
Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005

Transcript of Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities...

Page 1: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Critical Thinking Rubrics

David Hunter, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Chair

Philosophy and HumanitiesBuffalo State College, SUNY

November 4, 2005

Page 2: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Today’s Plan

1. What is Critical Thinking?Fleshing out the SUNY Critical Thinking Learning outcomes.

2. Designing a Rubric.3. The Rubric in Action.4. Q&A

Page 3: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

What is Critical Thinking?

Students will1 Identify, analyze and evaluate

arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work; and

2 Develop well-reasoned arguments.

Page 4: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

First Task

Flesh out the key elements: Identifying arguments Analyzing arguments Evaluating arguments Developing well-reasoned arguments

Page 5: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Identify Arguments

What is an argument?

Page 6: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Identify Arguments

What is an argument?

A connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Monty Python’s Flying Circus

Page 7: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Identify ArgumentsThe Logic 101 Model:

All men are mortal. Premises Are they true?

Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Conclusion Does it

follow?

All As are Bs.X is an A. Logical Form Is it X is a B. valid?

Page 8: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Identify Arguments

Can this model apply across the curriculum?

What about reasoning in biology, sociology, history or fine arts?

Page 9: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Identify Arguments

These should count as arguments:

Designing an experiment to test an hypothesis.

Predicting the outcome of some process. Deciding on the best measurement

technique. Explaining the causes of some historical

event. Evaluating a work of art or performance.

Page 10: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Identify Arguments

A better conception of argument:

Any reasoning aimed at deciding what to believe or to do.

Students should be able to identify the characteristic features of such

reasoning. evaluate instances of it.

Page 11: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Analyze Arguments

1. Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and assumptions

What evidence is put forward?

What results are reported?

Page 12: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Analyze Arguments

1. Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and assumptions

What do the key words and terms mean?

How might we define them?What methods can we use to define?

Page 13: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Analyze Arguments

1. Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and assumptions

What is being left unsaid?

Can we make it explicit?What methods can we use to make

themexplicit?

Page 14: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Analyze Arguments

2. Identify the argument’s conclusion

What is the take home message?What is the report’s recommendation?What is the experiment designed to show?

Isolate it from the premises.

Page 15: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Evaluate Arguments

1. Judge whether an argument’s premises support the conclusion, independently of whether they are true.

Page 16: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Evaluate Arguments

1. Judge whether an argument’s premises support the conclusion, independently of whether they are true.

If the premises were true, would that be sufficient reason to believe the conclusion?

Page 17: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Evaluate Arguments

2. Judge whether an argument’s premises are reasonable to believe, independently of whether they support the conclusion

Page 18: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Evaluate Arguments

2. Judge whether an argument’s premises are reasonable to believe, independently of whether they support the conclusion

Even if they support the conclusion, they might be unacceptable.

Page 19: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Evaluate Arguments

What is the source of the premises and is it credible?

When is an experiment well-designed? When is measurement accurate and

precise? When is testimony trustworthy?

When can we trust observation?

Page 20: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments

Develop an argument for some conclusion.

e.g.,

Proposing an experiment to test some hypothesis

Evaluating a work of art Predicting the impact of some public policy Explaining the decline of rust-belt cities Arguing that we have no free will

Page 21: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments

Students should identify

Relevant qualifications and distinctions

Questions about source credibility Objections and respond to them Alternative conclusions and address

them

Page 22: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments

Describe the broader context

Why does it matter whether the conclusion is true?

What follows from it? What would its truth show?

Page 23: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments

Apply similar reasoning in another case

Where else can we use this Experimental design Measuring instrument

How can we generalize the lessons of this case?

Page 24: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Designing a Rubric

We established levels of competence for each outcome.

Page 25: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work:

Exceeding: The student’s work

1. Identifies the target argument and clearly distinguishes it from any extraneous elements such as expressions of mere opinion and descriptions of events.

Page 26: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work:

Exceeding: The student’s work

2. Carefully articulates the argument’s conclusion, clearly distinguishes it from its premises and identifies most relevant definitions and/or hidden assumptions.

Page 27: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work:

Exceeding: The student’s work

3. Clearly and correctly assesses whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of whether the premises are true.

Page 28: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work:

Exceeding: The student’s work

4. Clearly and correctly assesses the reasonableness of the premises, including the credibility of their sources, independently of whether the premises support the conclusion.

Page 29: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will develop well-reasoned arguments:

Exceeding: The student’s work

1. Develops a clearly articulated argument, using evidence and/or systematic logical reasoning in support of a conclusion or point of view.

Page 30: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will develop well-reasoned arguments:

Exceeding: The student’s work

2. Identifies relevant qualifications or objections or alternative points of view and prioritizes evidence and/or reasons in support of the conclusion.

Page 31: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Students will develop well-reasoned arguments:

Exceeding: The student’s work

3. Describes the broader relevance, significance or context of the issue and/or applies it to a novel problem.

Page 32: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

No history of designing student assignments to assess CT competency.

unlike writing and math

Page 33: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Some questions:

1. Have we captured Critical Thinking across the curriculum?

Skills or kinds of arguments left out?

Page 34: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Some questions:

2. Have we correctly identified the standards of competence?

Are we expecting too much/little?

Page 35: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Some questions:

3. How can we use the rubric to design assessment instruments?

Does it require student essay(s)?Embedded in course content?

What about the “in-betweens”?

Page 36: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Some questions:

1.Have we captured Critical Thinking across the curriculum?

2.Have we correctly identified the standards of competence?

3.How can we use the rubric to design assessment instruments?

Only time and trial will tell.

Page 37: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

An Important Distinction

CT Competencies.Do students know how to think critically?

CT Dispositions.Are the students inclined to think

critically?

Page 38: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Lots of guidance.

In his essay “The Ethics of Belief”, William Clifford claims that the ship owner he describes had no right to believe on the basis of the evidence he had before him that his ship was safe. What does Clifford mean by that? What reasons does he offer in support of it? Are these reasons good? Why/ why not? What, in your view, is the strongest reason against his view? How do you think he might reply to it?

Good for assessing competence, but not dispositions.

Page 39: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

No guidance at all.

Should Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights be added as amendments to the US Constitution?

Lack of disposition might mask strong competence.

Page 40: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Middle Ground.

incorporate the rubric into course content.

distribute the rubric with the assignment.

Q: isn’t this teaching to the rubric?

Page 41: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

The Rubric in Action

Anchor Essays

www.cortland.edu/gear/CTAnchors.final.pdf

Page 42: Critical Thinking Rubrics David Hunter, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Chair Philosophy and Humanities Buffalo State College, SUNY November 4, 2005.

Q&A

David Hunter, Ph.D.Associate Professor, ChairPhilosophy and HumanitiesBuffalo State College, SUNY [email protected]