1. Quality Enhancement Plan QEP Team and Faculty Champions
Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking Rubric Validation Process Second Workshop
Quality Enhancement Plan QEP Team and Faculty Champions

2. Authentic Assessments
Authentic assessments serve dual purposes of
encouraging students to think critically and
providing assessment data for measuring improved student learning.
These assessment techniques fall into three general categories:
criterion-referenced rubrics,
student reports (reflection or self-assessments), and
student portfolios.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

3. Quality Enhancement Plan
Rubrics
What is a rubric?
Scoring guidelines, consisting of specific pre-established performance criteria, used in evaluating student work on performance assessments
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

4. Criterion-referenced Rubrics
Complex, higher-order objectives can be measured only by having students create a unique product, whether written or oral, which may take the form of in-class essays, speeches, term papers, videos, computer programs, blueprints, or artwork (Carey, 2000).
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

5. Quality Enhancement Plan
Rubrics
SPC currently uses rubrics in such programs as…
College of Education
College of Nursing
Paralegal
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

6. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking
A global rubric template developed to provide a snapshot view of how student learning is being affected by the critical thinking initiative.
Designed to be flexible enough to address a number of student project modalities including written and oral communications.
Will evaluate the student’s use of critical thinking skills in the development of the paper as opposed to specifically evaluating the quality of student’s writing skills.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

7. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking
Development of a rubric is an iterative process and will be improved and strengthened as it is used more widely
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

8. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking
ARC was designed by the QEP staff and the Faculty Champions to…
Enhance the QEP
Align with the College’s definition of critical thinking
Be flexible for use in multi-disciplines
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

9. Rubric Development Process
Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the task 
Identify specific observable attributes students should demonstrate 
Describe characteristics of the identified attribute 
Write narrative descriptions for each level of continuum 
Collect samples of student work 
Score student work and identify samples that exemplify various levels 
Revise the rubric as needed 
Repeat as Needed
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

10. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

11. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

12. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

13. ARC Assignment Profile
ARC Assignment Profile is designed to provide consistency and accuracy in the evaluation of the ARC at the institutional level as well as provide guidelines for the use of the assessment at the course level.
For a tool to be effective it must be used in the correct situation or ‘job.’ The ARC is essentially a ‘tool’ to evaluate critical thinking, but for a tool to be effective it must be in the correct situation or ‘job.’
The purpose of the ARC Assignment Profile is to outline the most appropriate course assignment.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

14. ARC Assignment Profile
1. Participating faculty should have one assignment during the course that can be evaluated using the ARC scoring rubric. The course assignment could be a graded homework assignment or a major assessment for the course.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

15. ARC Assignment Profile
2. The course assignment for the ARC should include all of the elements of the rubric and should be aligned with the task outlined for each element. Assignments that only evaluate some of the elements or are not aligned with the specific ARC tasks will be considered incomplete and not used in the institutional analysis.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

16. ARC Assignment Profile
3. Faculty may add additional discipline specific rubric elements (such as grammar and punctuation in a composition class), but must maintain the ARC elements as listed.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

17. ARC Assignment Profile
Students should be provided a copy of the assignment rubric (ARC and any additional discipline specific elements). The specific elements and tasks include:
Communication: Define the problem in your own words.
Analysis: Compare & contrast the available solutions within the scenario.
Problem Solving: Select one of the available solutions and defend it as your final solution.
Evaluation: Identify the weaknesses of your final solution.
Synthesis: Suggest ways to improve/strengthen your final solution (may use information not contained within the scenario).
Reflection: Reflect on your own thought process after completing the assignment.
“What did you learn from this process?”
“What would you do differently next time to improve?”
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

18. ARC Assignment Profile
5. The evaluating scenario (selected or created) should be stated in such a manner to allow the student to address each of the tasks. The QEP team is willing to assist with the creation of the scenario or identify possible sources of existing scenario that could be used.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

19. ARC Assignment Profile
6. At the end of the semester, please send the completed student assignments to the Janice Thiel, QEP Director, TE (X3110). Completed student assignments should include a copy of the scenario, the assignment provided to the student (with the rubric), the students work and the final graded rubric.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

20. ARC Assignment Profile
Competency (KSA)
Problem
with Multiple Solutions
Premise
with Multiple Perspectives
Communication
Define
Analysis
Compare & Contrast Solutions
Compare & Contrast Alternative Perspectives
Problem Solving
Select & Defend
Final Solution
Final Perspective
Evaluation
Identify Weaknesses
Synthesis
Suggest Improvements
Reflection
Reflect on
Thought Process
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

21. Sample Scenario (Deer)
Three teenagers were seriously injured in a car accident when swerving to avoid a deer on a two-lane road near a small, rural town in Florida. The residents of the town have seen more and more deer enter the town’s populated areas over recent years. Local law enforcement has been called numerous times this year to remove the animals from backyards and neighborhood streets, and one deer even caused considerable damage as it entered a restaurant in town. The mayor has been charged by the city leaders to keep the town residents safe.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

22. Sample Scenario (Deer)
Local crops have even been damaged by the animals. Some long time residents have requested that the hunting season and catch limits be extended in order to reduce the deer population. One city leader even proposed that the city purchase electronic devices to deter the deer from entering populated areas. Health concerns have recently been elevated as three deer carcasses were found at the edge of town and local law enforcement suspect that the animals had been poisoned.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

23. Sample Scenario (Deer)
Possible Solutions:
Some long time residents have requested that the hunting season and catch limits be extended in order to reduce the deer population.
One city leader even proposed that the city purchase electronic devices to deter the deer from entering populated areas.
Health concerns have recently been elevated as three deer carcasses were found at the edge of town and local law enforcement suspect that the animals had been poisoned.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

24. Rubric Development Process
Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the task 
Identify specific observable attributes students should demonstrate 
Describe characteristics of the identified attribute 
Write narrative descriptions for each level of continuum 
Collect samples of student work 
Score student work and identify samples that exemplify various levels 
Revise the rubric as needed 
Repeat as Needed
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

25. ARC Scoring Workshop Process
After the completion of this PowerPoint Presentation, the workshop will begin with introductions from the participants
Workshop participants will be provided the ARC as well as scoring worksheets. Additional instruction will be provided on the scoring process.
A sample test item will then be presented on the screen, and various responses will be discussed and scored based on the scoring rubric given for that specific item.
Each scorer will then review the response provided for the first item on his/her first assessment, and scored it based on the scoring rubric. This process will be repeated for each of the five items on the assessment.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

26. ARC Scoring Workshop Process
Scorers who encountered a response which did not clearly follow the rubric will discuss the response with the group for clarification.
Each scorer will then passed the scored assessment to their scoring partner, and the same assessments will be scored by the second scorer.
In the event that two scores differed significantly, the facilitator will provide the assessment to a third scorer, and a third score will be recorded.
When all scoring for an assessments is completed, the assessment will be provided to the facilitator.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

27. ARC Scoring Workshop Process
Finally, steps 1 through 8 will be repeated for each assessment as time allows.
Workshop participants will complete the ARC Validity and Reliability Form at the end of the workshop.
Interrater reliability will also be calculated from ARC ratings after the completion of the workshop.
Rubric results will be reevaluated after each administration, and additional refinements and modifications may be made to the instrument as the assessment development and validation is intended to be an on-going dynamic process designed to provide the very best indicator of a student’s skills.
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

28. Validity and Reliability
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

29. Quality Enhancement Plan
Validity
Does the Rubric measure what it is suppose to measure?
“Validation is the process of accumulating evidence that supports the appropriateness of inferences that are made of student responses…” (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999)
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

30. Quality Enhancement Plan
Validity
Consequences: The effects of the assessment
Content Coverage: Comprehensiveness of assessment content 
Content Quality: Consistency with current content conceptualization
Transfer and Generalizability: Whether assessment is representative of a larger domain
Cognitive Complexity: Whether level of knowledge assessed is appropriate
Meaningfulness: The relevance of the assessment in the minds of students
Fairness: Fairness to members of all groups
Cost and Efficiency: The practicality or feasibility of an assessment
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

31. Quality Enhancement Plan
Validity
Consequences
The effects of the assessment
Is the assessment likely to produce results that will be used to improve instructional programs or otherwise improve student learning?
Content Coverage
Comprehensiveness of assessment content 
Does the assessment comprehensively cover the content and processes assessed?
Is the content covered in sufficient breadth and depth?
Does the assessment represent important (not trivial) components of the content?
Together, will the assessments provide sufficient evidence about the content?
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

32. Quality Enhancement Plan
Validity
Content Quality
Consistency with current content conceptualization
Is the assessment consistent with the best available conceptualization of the knowledge or skill assessed?
Does the assessment represent current, rather than outdated, perspectives?
Transfer and Generalizability
Whether assessment is representative of a larger domain
Can the assessment results be generalized to the broader domain (knowledge, skill, or learning outcome) they are intended to represent?
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

33. Quality Enhancement Plan
Validity
Cognitive Complexity
Whether level of knowledge assessed is appropriate
Do the assessment tasks or questions represent the cognitive complexity of the knowledge or skill that it is intended to assess? (For example, if an outcome includes higher order or critical thinking skills--such as problem solving or synthesis--does the assessment measure them?)
Does the assessment actually require students to use higher-level knowledge or skills, or can students simply respond from memory without having to think?
Meaningfulness
The relevance of the assessment in the minds of students
Are assessment items or tasks meaningful to students?
Is the assessment relevant to problems students will encounter again in school, work, or daily living?
Does the assessment provide students with worthwhile or meaningful experiences?
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

34. Quality Enhancement Plan
Validity
Fairness
Fairness to members of all groups
Is the assessment biased against students who are members of various racial, ethnic, and gender groups or students with disabilities? Does it contain stereotypes of any groups?
Do students of similar ability, regardless of group membership, score the same?
Cost and Efficiency
The practicality or feasibility of an assessment
Is the assessment a reasonable burden on teachers, instructional time, and finances?
Is resulting information worth the required costs in money, time, and effort?
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

35. Quality Enhancement Plan
Reliability
Consistency of the assessment scores
Types of reliability…
Interrater Reliability – scores vary from instructor to instructor.
Intrarater Reliability – scores vary from a single instructor from paper to paper
A test can be reliable and not valid, but never valid and not reliable
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

36. Quality Enhancement Plan
Reliability Concerns
Reliability
Are the score categories well defined?
Are the differences between the score categories clear?
Would two independent raters arrive at the same score for a given student response based on the scoring rubric?
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

37. Improving Scoring Consistency
Provide rubric to students prior to assessment
Anonymous papers
Anchor papers defining levels of proficiency for reference
Use of multiple scorers
Interrater reliability statistics during training and grading
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

38. Quality Enhancement Plan
Next Steps
The new faculty champions will administer coursework using the ARC rubric within their programs during the Spring semester
Faculty Champions will use the ARC assignment profile to ensure consistency
Process will be repeated (Steps 5 - 7)
December 12, 2008
Quality Enhancement Plan

39. Quality Enhancement Plan QEP Team and Faculty Champions
Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking Rubric Validation Process Second Workshop
Quality Enhancement Plan QEP Team and Faculty Champions