Satish Nargundkar Based on Instructional Innovation Grant, Summer 2014. Robinson College of Business...
-
Upload
logan-knight -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Satish Nargundkar Based on Instructional Innovation Grant, Summer 2014. Robinson College of Business...
Satish Nargundkar
Based on Instructional Innovation Grant, Summer 2014.
Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State University
January 22, 2015
Critical Thinking in Decision Analysis
Critical Thinking
Definitions Philosophical
“disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought” (Paul, 1992, p. 9).
Psychological pragmatic approach to
defining CT in terms of how humans actually behave (Lai, 2011).
Critical Thinking
Pedagogical Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy and revision by Krathwohl
(2002)
Teaching to think Critically
Van Gelder (2005) - CT is not natural for humans. Shermer (2002) - humans are pattern-seeking, story-
telling animals that prefer simple, familiar patterns over the harder cognitive task of CT.
(Nickerson, 2012) – CT can be achieved by creating a conditions that promote divergence of ideas followed by a convergence towards a solution.
Grading Exercise
Class asked to grade 4 fictitious answers without any guidelines.
Divergence of grades noted and displayed.Rubrics are created in a group exercise.Class reevaluates answers using rubric.Is there less variability in grades?
Results
Max Grade
Min Grade
Difference
Fictitious Student 1 9 0 90%
Fictitious Student 2 8 0 80%
Fictitious Student 3 10 4 60%
Fictitious Student 4 10 1 90%
Table 1: Divergence of student grading decisions
Grading Rubric
Correct Answer 0 1 2 3 4Incorrect Correct
Mathematical Steps
0 1 2 3 4 5None Shown All steps correct
General Logic 0 0.5 1None Demonstrated
Table 2: Rubric developed by a group of students in class
Grading Redone with Rubric
Max Grade
Min Grade
Difference
Fictitious Student1 8 3 50%
Fictitious Student2 9 0 90%
Fictitious Student3 10 5 50%
Fictitious Student4 5 3 20%
Table 3: Divergence of student grading decision with rubric
n=27 No Rubric With Rubric
Stdnt1 Stdnt2 Stdnt3 Stdnt4 Stdnt1 Stdnt2 Stdnt3 Stdnt4
Mean 6.39 4.15 9.02 6.85 5.75 3.79 6.58 4.04
Stdev 2.12 2.42 1.57 2.79 1.43 2.27 1.79 0.34
Grade Distributions
10
5
010
5
010
5
010
5
0
Grades Without Rubric Grades With Rubric
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Effectiveness Survey
Question Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree
1.Think critically about Decision Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.Improve my ability to evaluate an answer.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.Understand the diversity of evaluation criteria used by people.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.Understand the role of rubrics to make more consistent valuations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5.Evaluate better in other domains (eg. performace evaluation in a workplace).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Survey Results
n=27 CT in Decision Analysis
Improved Evaluation
Ability
Understand Diversity
of Criteria
Using Rubric for
Consistency
Apply to Other
DomainsMean 6.04 5.96 6.59 6.41 5.93
Std. Dev. 0.71 0.85 0.57 0.69 0.83
Conclusion
Effective in helping students think critically about decision makingSide effect of improving perceptions of instructor’s grading fairnessExercise (modified appropriately) applicable to any area
Thank You!