| North-Central Section–40th Annual Meeting (20–21 April 2006) | |
| Paper No. 7-6 | |
| Presentation Time: 9:40 AM-10:00 AM | ||
ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING AND CIVIC THINKING IN INTRODUCTORY SCIENCE CLASSES USING A COMMON APPROACH AT MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS | ||
|
MCCONNELL, David A., Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4101, dam6@uakron.edu, STEER, David N., Department of Geology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4101, and PARK, Lisa E., Department of Geology, The University of Akron, 252 Buchtel Commons, Crouse Hall, Akron, OH 44325-4101 The development of critical thinking and civic thinking skills in undergraduate students are often cited as educational goals of colleges and universities. However, instructors struggle with the challenge of assessing these skills in their classes. We have used a common suite of exercises, termed (CT)2 exercises to assess these complimentary skills with two similar assessment tools that can be readily used to assess almost any written response. A dozen instructors incorporated a series of assignments that foster the development of critical thinking and civic thinking skills in their classes. These (CT)2 exercises were embedded in ten introductory science courses (geology, biology, environmental science) serving primarily first-year students, typically non-majors. Each exercise presented a scenario of a realistic community situation, followed by one question that required critical thinking and one that required civic thinking. For example, after reading a scenario describing the potential contamination of a town's drinking water source, students were asked: 1. As a scientifically literate citizen, what conclusion(s) can you draw from the information provided, and why? 2. As a responsible citizen, what would you do or not do with the information provided, and why? The scenarios are purposely ambiguous and aim to present moral dilemmas that cannot be considered to have a particular ideological perspective. Participating faculty used the same assessment tools: two five-part rubrics based on the SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy to assess student responses. Student improvement was greatest in classes that included a thorough deconstruction of student answers following each exercise. | ||
|
North-Central Section–40th Annual Meeting (20–21 April 2006)
General Information for this Meeting | ||
| Session No. 7 Evaluating Student Learning in Geoscience Courses Student Center, University of Akron: Ballroom D 8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Thursday, 20 April 2006 Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 38, No. 4, p. 11 | ||
© Copyright 2006 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions. | ||